REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|26/04/2012||2012/270||Actual use of sanctioning powers under MAD||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The report provides a comparison of the use of administrative sanctioning powers across 29 EEA Member States for 2008-2010. The results of the report will provide input to the legislative process on the new market abuse regime.|
|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.|
|18/03/2015||2015/592||Automated Trading Guidelines- ESMA peer review among National Competent Authorities||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|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.|
|15/04/2021||ESMA80-193-1713||EMIR and SFTR data quality report 2020||Market data, Press Releases, Securities Financing Transactions, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|06/04/2021||ESMA74-362-1853||Final report Draft Guidelines On periodic information to be submitted to ESMA by Trade Repositories||Market data, Supervisory convergence, Trade Repositories||Final Report||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
|30/03/2020||ESMA70-151-2919||Final Report EMIR RTS on Colleges for CCPs||CCP Directorate, Post Trading, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|23/09/2020||ESMA70-155-10272||Final Report on Cum Ex and other multiple withholding tax reclaim schemes||Market Abuse, Market Integrity, Trading||Final Report||PDF
|06/02/2018||ESMA70-145-398||Final report on draft ITS on forms and procedures for cooperation under Article 24 and 25 MAR||Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|18/12/2020||ESMA50-157-2403||Final report on Guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers||Innovation and Products||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.
|01/06/2017||ESMA7--145-100||Final report on MAR ITS on cooperation between competent authorities||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|29/10/2020||ESMA70-156-3581||Final Report on SME GMs RTS-ITS under MAR||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|24/09/2020||ESMA70-156-2391||Final Report- MAR Review||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF
|21/05/2015||2015/856 Ann1||Investment-based crowdfunding- Insights from regulators in the EU||Innovation and Products||Final Report||PDF
|15/03/2018||JC-2018-04||Joint Committee Final Report on Big Data||Innovation and Products||Final Report||PDF
|22/12/2015||2015/1905||MAD Supervisory Practices peer review follow-up||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|01/04/2020||ESMA70-156-2311||MiFID II Review Report on position limits and position management||MiFID - Secondary Markets, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|11/12/2014||2014/1485||MiFID – Conduct of Business, fair, clear and not misleading information||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review of how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise MiFID conduct of business rules on providing fair, clear and not misleading information to clients. The peer review focused on NCAs’ organisation, supervisory approaches, monitoring and complaints handling in relation to information and marketing communications under MiFID. The Report found that there was overall a high degree of compliance amongst NCAs with the good practices identified in these key areas. However, a variety of approaches were observed, leading to different intensity of supervision. A number of areas for improvement were identified. They include: • enhanced use of on-site inspections and thematic reviews; • a specific focus on conduct of business issues in firms’ risk assessments; and • greater efforts to detect failings by firms in a timely manner. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by NCAs in a self-assessment questionnaire and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.|