REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|11/05/2005||05-274||Feedback Statement- Market Abuse Directive, Level 3 – first set of guidance and information on the common operation of the Directive||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|22/11/2007||07-693||Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD)||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|28/02/2008||08-099||CESR Executive summary to the report on administrative measures and sanctions as well as the criminal sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|01/07/2013||2013/805||Supervisory Practices under MAD- Peer review report and Good Practices||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|ESMA's peer review of the supervisory practices EEA national competent authorities (NCAs) covers how national authorities enforce the requirements of the Market Abuse Directive (MAD). The Directive deals with the prevention of the dissemination of misleading information, the breach of reporting obligations and market abuse.|
|01/07/2013||2013/806||Supervisory Practices under MAD- Mapping Report||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|ESMA's Mapping Report on Supervisory Practices under MAD sets out the situation in each Member State as regards their implementation of the various requirements of the Market Abuse Directive.|
|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.|
|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.|
|18/12/2014||2014/1560||Advice- Investment-based crowdfunding||Innovation and Products||Final Report||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 sections 1 to 6 of this document.|
|21/05/2015||2015/856 Ann1||Investment-based crowdfunding- Insights from regulators in the EU||Innovation and Products||Final Report||PDF
|28/09/2015||2015/1455 CBA||Cost analysis for Final Report on MAR technical standards||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|22/12/2015||2015/1905||MAD Supervisory Practices peer review follow-up||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|17/06/2016||2016/982||Opinion on inside information disclosure under the Market Abuse Regulation||Market Abuse||Opinion||PDF
|26/07/2016||2016/1171||Final Report Draft Implementing Technical Standards on sanctions and measures under MAR||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|30/09/2016||2016/1412||Final Report on MAR Guidelines on commodity derivatives||Guidelines and Technical standards, Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
Article 7(5) of MAR provides that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall issue guidelines to establish a non-exhaustive indicative list of information which is reasonably expected or is required to be disclosed in accordance with legal or regulatory provisions in Union or national law, market rules, contract, practice or custom, on the relevant commodity derivatives markets or spot markets as referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of MAR. This final report follows the Consultation Paper (CP) issued on March 2016.
Section 2 contains information on the background and mandate, while Section 3 sets out ESMA’s feedback to the CP responses in relation to the scope of the guidelines, the financial instruments and products covered by the examples of information relating directly and indirectly to commodity derivatives and information directly relating to a spot market contract. It also indicates whether and where ESMA has changed the guidelines following the consultation.
Annex I lists questions raised in the CP. Annex 2 provides the legislative mandate on the basis of which ESMA is issuing these guidelines. Annex 3 sets out ESMA’s view on the costs and benefits associated with these guidelines. Annex 4 contains the text of the guidelines.
The guidelines in Annex 4 will be translated into the official languages of the European Union and published on the ESMA’s website. Within 2 months of the issuance of the translations, each national competent authority will have to confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with those guidelines. In the event that a national competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it will have to inform ESMA, stating its reasons. ESMA will publish the fact that a national competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with those guidelines.
|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
|25/04/2017||ESMA70-145-76||Points for convergence in relation to MAR accepted market practices on liquidity contracts||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|30/05/2017||ESMA70-145-103||Communication on launch of reference data submission under MAR||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|01/06/2017||ESMA7--145-100||Final report on MAR ITS on cooperation between competent authorities||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|15/03/2018||JC-2018-04||Joint Committee Final Report on Big Data||Innovation and Products||Final Report||PDF
|13/04/2018||ESMA70-145-442||ESMA Opinion on AMF Accepted Market Practice on liquidity contracts||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF