REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|22/06/2012||2012/382||MiFID Q&A in the area of investor protection and intermediaries||MiFID - Investor Protection||Q&A||PDF
|06/07/2012||2012/387||Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|07/02/2014||2014/146||MiFID practices for firms selling complex products||MiFID - Investor Protection, Warnings and publications for investors||Opinion||PDF
|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.|
|30/11/2015||2015/1783||Final Report on complex debt instruments and structured deposits||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|22/12/2015||2015/1861||Final report- Guidelines on cross-selling practices||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|17/12/2015||2015/1886||Final report on guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
Reasons for publication
1. Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) states that Member States shall require investment firms to ensure and demonstrate to competent authorities on request that natural persons giving investment advice or providing information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm possess the necessary knowledge and competence to fulfil their obligations under Article 24 and Article 25 .
2. The European Securities and Markets Authority is required by Article 25(9) of MiFID II to develop – by 3 January 2016 - guidelines specifying criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence of investment firms’ personnel. The guidelines will come into effect on 3 January 2017.
3. In accordance with Article 16(2) of the ESMA Regulation, a consultation was launched on 23 April 2015. The Consultation Paper (CP) set out draft ESMA guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence of individuals in investment firms providing investment advice or information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm. The consultation period closed on 10 July 2015.
4. ESMA received 80 responses. The answers received on the CP are available on ESMA’s website unless respondents requested otherwise.
5. As provided by Article 16 of the ESMA Regulation, ESMA also sought the advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group’s (SMSG).
6. This paper contains summaries of responses received and feedback statements provided by ESMA. ESMA recommends that this report should be read together with the CP published on 23 April 2015 to have a complete understanding of the rationale for the guidelines. The final guidelines presented in Annex VI take into account the comments and suggestions raised by respondents.
7. Section II briefly summarises the feedback to the CP and the main responses from ESMA.
8. Section III contains the Annexes: Annex I provides the Summary of questions, Annex II contains the legislative mandate, Annex III reports the cost-benefit analysis, Annex IV reports the Opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group, Annex V details the feedback on the CP, Annex VI sets out the final text of the guidelines and Annex VII describes some illustrative examples of the application of certain aspects of the guidelines.
9. The final guidelines in Annex VI will be translated into the official EU languages and published on the ESMA website. The publication of the translations will trigger a two-month period during which National Competent Authorities (NCAs) must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines.
|25/02/2015||2015/494||Best Execution under MiFID||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review on how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise and enforce the MiFID provisions relating to investment firms’ obligation to provide best execution, or obtain the best possible result, for their clients when executing their orders. ESMA found that the level of implementation of best execution provisions, as well as the level of convergence of supervisory practices by NCAs, is relatively low. In order to address this situation a number of improvements were identified, including: • prioritisation of best execution as a key conduct of business supervisory issue; • the allocation of sufficient resources to best execution supervision; and • a more proactive supervisory approach to monitoring compliance with best execution requirements, both desk-based and onsite inspections. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by 29 NCAs and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Spain.|
|07/04/2016||2016/584||Suitability Peer Review- Final Report||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|07/04/2016||2016/585||Suitability Peer Review- Annex||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|19/12/2016||2016/JCESA QA||Questions and Answers on Big Data||Joint Committee||Q&A||PDF
|24/07/2019||2019-ESMA-35-43-1980-||ESMA opinion under Article 43(2) MiFIR (BG_CFD)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Opinion||PDF
|24/07/2019||2019-ESMA-35-43-1985-||ESMA opinion under Article 43(2) MiFIR (DK_CFD)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Opinion||PDF
|24/07/2019||2019-ESMA-35-43-2042-||ESMA opinion under Article 43(2) MiFIR (HR_CFD)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Opinion||PDF
|24/07/2019||2019-ESMA-35-43-2043-||ESMA opinion under Article 43(2) MiFIR (HR_BO)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Opinion||PDF
|14/12/2015||EBA/Op/2015/20||Report on investment firms||Joint Committee||Final Report||PDF
|18/12/2013||ESA/2013/035||Joint Opinion-Review on the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)||Joint Committee||Opinion||PDF
|Joint Opinion-Review on the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)|
|12/05/2016||ESA/2016/41||Opinion of the ESAs- ECAI credit assessments||Credit Rating Agencies, Joint Committee||Opinion||PDF
|09/03/2016||ESAs/2016/21||RTS on Risk Mitigation LegisWrite||Joint Committee||Final Report||PDF
|09/03/2016||ESAs/2016/22||Annexes to RTS on Risk Mitigation LegisWrite||Joint Committee||Final Report||PDF