REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|27/05/2021||ESMA22-105-1363||ESMA OPINION ON 2019 DISCHARGE REPORT OF EP||Board of Supervisors, Corporate Information||Opinion||PDF
|25/05/2021||ESMA-50-164-4518||Call for evidence- Digital Finance||Innovation and Products||Consultation Paper||PDF
|24/09/2020||ESMA74-362-773||CP on MiFID II MiFIR review report||Benchmarks, MiFID - Secondary Markets, MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC, Post Trading||Consultation Paper||PDF
|28/07/2020||ESMA22-105-1208||ESMA Opinion on 2018 Discharge Report of EP||Corporate Information||Opinion||PDF
|03/06/2020||ESMA50-164-3342||Draft Guidelines on Outsourcing to Cloud Service Providers||Innovation and Products||Consultation Paper||PDF
|29/09/2017||70-145-105||Draft Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks||Benchmarks, Guidelines and Technical standards||Consultation Paper||PDF
|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
|28/10/2016||2016/1529||Joint ESMA and EBA Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Consultation Paper||PDF
|02/06/2016||2016/773||Discussion Paper on the Distributed Ledger Technology Applied to Securities Markets||Innovation and Products, Risk Analysis & Economics - Markets Infrastructure Investors||Consultation Paper||PDF
|31/05/2016||2016/732||Guidelines on participant default rules and procedures under CSDR||Guidelines and Technical standards, Post Trading||Consultation Paper||PDF
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) under Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories and amending Directives 98/26/EC and 2014/65/EU and Regulation No 236/2012 (CSDR) may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 in order to ensure consistent application of Article 41 of CSDR relating to participant default rules and procedures.
Section 2 contains information on the background and mandate, Section 3 contains an analysis of the scope and content of the proposed guidelines, while Section 4 contains the proposed guidelines.
Annex I sets out a summary of the questions contained in this paper and Annex II includes a high level cost-benefit analysis for the guidelines.
ESMA will consider the feedback it will receive to this consultation with a view to finalising the guidelines by Q4 2016.
|08/06/2015||2015/920||Impact of the Best Practice Principles for Providers of Shareholder Voting Research and Analysis||Corporate Disclosure, Corporate Governance||Consultation Paper||PDF
|Responding to this Call for Evidence ESMA invites comments on all matters in this paper and in particular on the specific questions presented throughout the paper. Comments are most helpful, if they:a. respond to the question stated;b. indicate the specific question to which they relate; andc. contain a clear rationale. ESMA will consider all comments received by 27 July 2015. All contributions should be submitted online at www.esma.europa.eu under the heading ‘Your input - Consultations’. Publication of responses All contributions received will be published following the close of the Call for Evidence, unless you request otherwise. Please clearly and prominently indicate in your submission any part you do not wish to be publically disclosed. A standard confidentiality statement in an email message will not be treated as a request for non-disclosure. A confidential response may be requested from us in accordance with ESMA’s rules on access to documents. We may consult you, if we receive such a request. Any decision we make not to disclose the response is reviewable by ESMA’s Board of Appeal and the European Ombudsman.Data protection Information on data protection can be found at www.esma.europa.eu under the heading Legal Notice.Who should read this Call for Evidence This Call for Evidence will be of relevance to persons and entities participating in the voting chain, particularly proxy advisors, investors, companies listed in Europe, proxy solicitors and consultants.|
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|
|22/03/2012||2012/212||Discussion Paper- An Overview of the Proxy Advisory Industry. Considerations on Possible Policy Options||Corporate Disclosure, Corporate Governance||Consultation Paper||PDF
|This Discussion Paper focuses on the development of the proxy advisory industry in Europe, which mainly serves institutional investors such as asset managers, mutual funds and pension funds. Following its fact-finding work in 2011, ESMA recognises the proxy advisory industry within Europe is, or is expected to be, growing in prominence and investors are, or are expected to be, increasingly using proxy advisor services. In this paper ESMA identifies several key issues related to the proxy advisory market which may have an impact on the proper functioning of the voting process. The range of policy options that ESMA will consider, and on which it seeks further input from market participants, consists of four broad areas, including: 1. No EU-level action at this stage 2. Encouraging Member States and/or industry to develop standards 3. Quasi-binding EU-level regulatory instruments 4. Binding EU-level legislative instruments ESMA will consider these options based on the feedback it receives from market participants, and, if appropriate, will undertake further policy action, either directly or by providing an opinion to the European Commission. The reason to bring up some policy options is due to the fact that proxy advisors are currently not regulated at a pan-European level. Nevertheless, there are relevant European rules that apply to investors (e.g. for UCITS management companies when exercising voting rights). In addition, there are also well-recognised corporate governance standards that apply to issuers at a national level (based on the “comply or explain approach”) and some complements to improve standards of stewardship among investors. All feedback received from this Discussion Paper will be duly considered. ESMA expects to publish a feedback statement in Q4 of 2012 which will summarise the responses received and will state ESMA’s view on whether there is a need for policy action in this area.|
|14/09/2011||2011/288||Call for evidence- Empty voting||Corporate Disclosure, Corporate Governance, Transparency||Consultation Paper||PDF