REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|07/07/2011||2011/194||Report- Mapping of the Transparency Directive||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|Report - Mapping of the Transparency Directive|
|18/01/2011||2011/26||Summary Report on the mapping of contingency measures||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|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.|
|24/05/2012||2012/300||Prospectus Directive – Good Practices in the approval process||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published today “Prospectus Directive – Good Practices in the approval process“, a peer review report on the application of regulatory good practices by national supervisory authorities - competent authorities (CA) when approving investment prospectuses.The review was conducted using good practice criteria that ESMA developed on selected areas of the Prospectus Directive dealing with the approval process for investment prospectuses. The prospectuses provide investors with easy to understand and relevant information on investment products. Peer review reports on national regulators’ procedures contribute to ESMA’s objective of fostering supervisory convergence and achieving a level playing field between jurisdictions.|
|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
|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.|
|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.|
|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.
|22/12/2015||2015/1905||MAD Supervisory Practices peer review follow-up||Market Abuse, 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.|
|18/03/2015||2015/592||Automated Trading Guidelines- ESMA peer review among National Competent Authorities||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|30/06/2016||2016/1055||Peer Review Report on Prospectus Approval Process||Prospectus, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|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
|15/04/2013||ESMA/2013/476||Peer Review–Money Market Fund Guidelines||Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|11/04/2019||ESMA31-62-780||Q&A on Prospectus Related Topics||Brexit, Corporate Disclosure, Corporate Finance, Corporate Governance, Corporate Information, Prospectus, Supervisory convergence||Q&A||PDF