REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|20/03/2013||2013/319||The consistent implementation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 implementing the Prospectus Directive||Corporate Disclosure, Prospectus||Guidelines & Recommendations||PDF
This document contains an update of the CESR recommendations.
|27/03/2014||2014/332||Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements||MiFID - Investor Protection, Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|Legal basis 1. Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA Regulation) sets out the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) scope of action, tasks and powers which include “enhancing customer protection”, and “foster[ing] investor protection”. 2. In order to continue delivering on this investor protection statutory objective, ESMA is issuing this opinion on certain aspects linked to the manufacturing and distribution of structured retail products (SRP). This opinion takes into account relevant work done in this field both at European and interna-tional level. 3. This opinion is without prejudice to the requirements for the provision of investment services and activities established in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and its implementing measures (notably, Directive 2006/73/EC), the regulatory developments arising from the MiFID review or existing product rules that may apply to SRPs. 4. ESMA’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 29(1) (a) of the ESMA Regulation. In accordance with Article 44(1) of the ESMA Regulation, the Board of Supervisors has adopted this opinion. Background 5. In its July 2013 report on ‘Retailisation in the EU’ , ESMA highlighted that, from a consumer protec-tion perspective, retail investors may face difficulties in understanding the drivers of risks and returns of structured products. If retail investors do not properly understand the risk and reward profile of structured products, and if the products are not properly assessed against the risk appetite of retail investors, retail investors might be exposed to unexpected losses and this might lead to complaints, reputational risks for manufacturers and distributors, and a loss of confidence in the regulatory framework and, more broadly, in financial markets. 6. In 2013, ESMA mapped the measures adopted in the EU Member States in relation to complex products in order to identify issues and to better understand the rationale behind national initiatives (by looking at similarities and differences in the various approaches, and reviewing how complexity has been treated in the different EU Members States). 7. As a result, ESMA has developed a broad set of non-exhaustive examples of good practices, attached as Annex 1 hereto, illustrating arrangements that firms - taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of their business - could put in place to improve their ability to deliver on investor protection regarding, in particular, (i) the complexity of the SRPs they manufacture or distribute, (ii) the nature and range of the investment services and activities undertaken in the course of that business, and (iii) the type of investors they target. These good practices should also be a helpful tool for competent authorities in carrying out their supervisory action. Opinion 8. ESMA considers that sound product governance arrangements are fundamental for investor protec-tion purposes, and can reduce the need for product intervention actions by competent authorities. 9. ESMA considers that, when supervising firms manufacturing or distributing an SRP, competent authorities should promote, in their supervisory approaches, the examples of good practices for firms set out in Annex 1 hereto. 10. Although the good practices set out in Annex 1 hereto focus on structured products sold to retail investors, ESMA considers that they may also be a relevant reference for other types of financial in-struments (such as asset-backed securities, or contingent convertible bonds), as well as when financial instruments are being sold to professional clients. 11. The exposure to risk is an intrinsic feature of investment products. The good practices set out in Annex 1 refer to product governance arrangements and do not (and cannot) aim at removing investment risk from products.|
|29/10/2015||2015/1615||Steven Maijoor speech at ECN||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|19/09/2018||ESMA71-99-1036||Steven Maijoor Keynote New technologies within and beyond capital markets||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|23/01/2017||ESMA71-844457584-330||Speech by Patrick Armstrong- FinTech, Oslo Børs ASA Conference, 18 January 2017||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|18/05/2017||pkaspeech||Speech by Patrick Armstrong on The Adoption of RegTech within the Financial Services Industry||Innovation and Products||Speech||PDF
|19/07/2017||ESMA50-164-820||Regulatory Technology: Reshaping the Supervisor-Market Participant Relationship||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|24/11/2016||2016/1613||Regulation and DLT: Working to Strike the Right Balance||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|23/03/2011||2011/81||Recommendations- ESMA update of the CESR recommendations on the consistent implementation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 implementing the Prospectus Directive||Guidelines and Technical standards, Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Guidelines & Recommendations||PDF
|18/12/2014||2014/1378||Opinion- Investment-based crowdfunding||Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|Crowdfunding is a means of raising finance for projects from ‘the crowd’ often by means of an internet-based platform through which project owners ‘pitch’ their idea to potential backers, who are typically not professional investors. It takes many forms, not all of which involve the potential for a financial return. ESMA’s focus is on crowdfunding which involves investment, as distinct from donation, non-monetary reward or loan agreement. Crowdfunding is relatively young and business models are evolving. EU financial services rules were not designed with the industry in mind. Within investment-based crowdfunding a range of different operational structures are used so it is not straightforward to map crowdfunding platforms’ activities to those regulated under EU legislation. Member States and NCAs have been working out how to treat crowdfunding, with some dealing with issues case-by-case, some seeking to clarify how crowdfunding fits into existing rules and others introducing specific requirements.To assist NCAs and market participants, and to promote regulatory and supervisory convergence, ESMA has assessed typical investment-based crowdfunding business models and how they could evolve, risks typically involved for project owners, investors and the platforms themselves and the likely components of an appropriate regulatory regime. ESMA then prepared a detailed analysis of how the typical business models map across to the existing EU legislation, set out in this document.|
|12/01/2017||ESMA50-1215332076-23||Opinion on the impact of the exclusion of fund management companies from the scope of the MiFIR intervention powers||Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|08/02/2016||2016/268||Opinion on equivalence of Turkish prospectus regime||Prospectus||Opinion||PDF
|07/01/2016||2015/1912||Opening Speech by J Servais, President of FSMA||Innovation and Products||Speech||PDF
|22/04/2015||2015/532||Investment using virtual currency or distributed ledger technology||Innovation and Products||Consultation Paper||PDF
|ESMA has been monitoring and analysing virtual currency investment over the last 6 months, to understand developments in the market, potential benefits or risks for investors, market integrity or financial stability, and to support the functioning of the EU single market. ESMA’s analysis is set out in this paper. ESMA is seeking to share its analysis in order to promote wider understanding of innovative market developments, and invites market participants and other stakeholders to submit feedback and any additional information on the following topics: Virtual currency investment products, i.e. collective investment schemes or derivatives such as options and CFDs that have virtual currencies (VCs) as an underlying or invest in VC related businesses and infrastructure; Virtual currency based assets/securities and asset transfers, i.e. financial assets such as shares, funds, etc. that are exclusively traded using virtual currency distributed ledgers (also known as block chains);and The application of the distributed ledger technology to securities/investments, whether inside or outside a virtual currency environment.|
|03/03/2020||ESMA50-164-3187||Innovation on a Grand Scale- speech by Steven Maijoor, Afore Consulting 4th Annual FinTech and Regulation Conference,Brussels||Innovation and Products, Speeches||Speech||PDF
|18/07/2013||2013/998||Guidelines on the model MoU concerning consultation, cooperation and the exchange of information related to the supervision of AIFMD entities||International cooperation, Fund Management||Guidelines & Recommendations||PDF
ESMA finalises supervisory co-operation agreements for alternative investment funds The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has approved seven co-operation arrangements between EU securities regulators and their global counterparts with responsibility for the supervision of alternative investment funds, including hedge funds, private equity and real estate funds. ESMA’s Board of Supervisors, at its July meeting, approved Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with authorities from the Bahamas, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and the United States, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). ESMA has now negotiated 38 agreements on behalf of the 31 EU/EEA national competent authorities for securities markets supervision. The co-operation agreements allow for the exchange of information, cross-border on-site visits and mutual assistance in the enforcement of respective supervisory laws. ESMA had approved 31 MoUs with other non-EU regulators in May. The agreements cover third-country alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) that market alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the EU and EU AIFMs that manage or market AIFs outside the EU. The agreements also cover co-operation in the cross-border supervision of depositaries and AIFMs’ delegates. National securities regulators in the EU, as the supervisors of AIFMs, are in the process of signing MoUs with those jurisdictions relevant to their market. The existence of co-operation arrangements between the EU and non-EU authorities is a precondition of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) for allowing managers from third countries access to EU markets or to perform fund management by delegation from EU managers by 22 July 2013. The co-operation arrangements are applicable from 22 July, and will enable cross-border marketing of AIFs to professional investors between jurisdictions. This is subject to the non-EU jurisdiction not being listed as a non-cooperative jurisdiction by the Financial Action Task Force and, as from the entry into force of the passport for non-EU managers, having co-operation agreements in place with EU Member States regarding the exchange of information on tax matters. The content of the ESMA MoUs follow the IOSCO Principles on Cross-Border Supervisory Co-operation of 2010, and complements the terms and conditions of the IOSCO Multilateral MoU Concerning Consultation and Co-operation and the Exchange of Information of 2002 (MMoU). ESMA had originally contacted all the authorities that have signed the IOSCO MMoU of 2002. ESMA has now approved MoUs with those 42 authorities that responded to ESMA’s call. ESMA continues to negotiate the MoU with the Chinese authority. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) MoU with AFSA (Albania) MoU with ASIC (Australia) MoU with BMA (Bermuda) MoU with Canadian authorities Accompanying letter MoU with CDVM (Morocco) MoU with CFTC (US) Accompanying letter MoU with CIMA (Cayman Islands) MoU with CMA (Kenya) MoU with CMSA (Tanzania) MoU with CNBV (Mexico) MoU with CVM (Brazil) MoU with DFSA (Dubai) MoU with FCSM (Mauritius) MoU with FINMA (Switzerland) MoU with FSA (Labuan) MoU with FSC (BVI) MoU with FSC (Guernsey) MoU with FSC (Isle of Man) MoU with FSC (Jersey) MoU with HKMA (Hong Kong) MoU with ISA (Israel) MoU with JFSA (Japan) MoU with MAFF (Japan) MoU with MAS (Singapore) MoU with METI (Japan) MoU with OCC and FED (US) MoU with OSFI (Canada) MoU with SC (Malaysia) MoU with SC (Republic of Srpska) MoU with SC (The Bahamas) MoU with SCA (UAE) MoU with SEBI (India) MoU with SEC (Montenegro) MoU with SEC (Pakistan) MoU with SEC (Thailand) MoU with SEC Macedonia (FYROM) MoU with SFC (Hong Kong) MoU with US SEC Accompanying letter MoU with EFSA (Egypt) MoU with FMA (New Zealand) MoU with FSB (South Africa) MoU with SSC (Vietnam) MoU with FSC and FSS (South Korea)
|01/10/2019||ESMA31-62-1293||Guidelines on risk factors under the Prospectus Regulation||Guidelines and Technical standards, Prospectus||Guidelines & Recommendations||PDF
BG - Преводът е предоставен от Центъра за преводи за органите на Европейския съюз.
CS - Tento překlad vypracovalo Překladatelské středisko pro instituce Evropské unie.
DA - Denne oversættelse er udarbejdet af Oversættelsescentret for Den Europæiske Unions Organer.
DE - Die Übersetzung erfolgte durch das Übersetzungszentrum für die Einrichtungen der Europäischen Union.
EL - Η παρούσα μετάφραση έγινε από το Μεταφραστικό Κέντρο των Οργάνων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
ES - Texto traducido por el Centro de Traducción de los Órganos de la Unión Europea.
ET - Selle tõlke tegi Euroopa Liidu Asutuste Tõlkekeskus.
FI - Euroopan unionin elinten käännöskeskus on tehnyt tämän käännöksen.
FR - La présente traduction a été fournie par le Centre de traduction des organes de l’Union européenne.
HR - Za prijevod se pobrinuo Prevoditeljski centar za tijela Europske unije.
HU - Ezt a fordítást az Európai Unió.
IT - La presente traduzione è stata fornita dal Centro di traduzione degli organismi dell’Unione europea.
LT - Šį tekstą išvertė Europos Sąjungos įstaigų vertimo centras.
LV - Šo tulkojumu ir nodrošinājis Eiropas Savienības iestāžu Tulkošanas centrs.
MT - Din it-traduzzjoni ġiet ipprovduta miċ-Ċentru tat-Traduzzjoni għall-Korpi tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
NL - Deze vertaling is verzorgd door het Vertaalbureau voor de organen van de Europese Unie.
PL - Tłumaczenie wykonane przez Centrum Tłumaczeń dla Organów Unii Europejskiej.
PT - Esta tradução foi fornecida pelo Centro de Tradução dos Organismos da União Europeia.
RO - Această traducere a fost asigurată de Centrul de Traduceri pentru Organismele Uniunii Europene.
SK - Preklad vyhotovilo Prekladateľské stredisko pre orgány Európskej únie.
SL - Prevod je zagotovil Prevajalski center za organe Evropske unije.
SV - Den här översättningen har utförts av Översättningscentrum för Europeiska unionens organ.
|01/10/2012||2012/607||Further amendments to ESMA’s Recommendations for the consistent implementation of the Prospectus Regulation regarding mineral companies||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|20/03/2013||2013/317||Framework for the assessment of third country prospectuses under Article 20 of the Prospectus Directive||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Opinion||PDF
|18/12/2013||2013/1944||Format of the base prospectus and consistent application of Article 26(4) of the Prospectus Regulation||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Opinion||PDF