ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
152
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
Q&A X SMSG Advice X Speech X Opinion X European Single Electronic Format X Risk Analysis & Economics - Markets Infrastructure Investors X Benchmarks X MiFID - Investor Protection X Corporate Information X Crowdfunding X Brexit X Fund Management X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
06/07/2011 2011/203 The European Fund Industry Paradigm Fund Management, Speeches Speech PDF
35.65 KB

The European Fund Industry Paradigm: Combining Long Term Investment Horizons and Risk Profiles Opening speech by Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA, at the Paris EUROPLACE Financial Forum - 6 July 2011
13/10/2011 2011/342 Opinion- Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the UCITS IV Directive Fund Management Opinion PDF
41.33 KB
21/02/2012 2012/113 Questions and Answers- A Common Definition of European Money Market Funds- updated February 2012 Fund Management Q&A PDF
83.79 KB		 The purpose of this document is to promote common supervisory approaches and practices in the application of the guidelines on a Common Definition of European Money Market Funds developed by CESR by providing responses to questions posed by the general public and competent authorities. The content of this document is aimed at competent authorities to ensure that in their supervisory activities their actions are converging along the lines of the responses adopted by ESMA. However, the answers are also intended to help management companies by providing clarity as to the content of CESR’s guidelines on a Common Definition of European Money Market Funds, rather than creating an extra layer of requirements.
22/06/2012 2012/382 MiFID Q&A in the area of investor protection and intermediaries MiFID - Investor Protection Q&A PDF
319.78 KB
19/09/2012 2012/579 Statement by Steven Maijoor at the ECON hearing on 19/09/2012 Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
190.14 KB		 Statement given by Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA, at the ECON hearing in the European Parliament on 19 September 2012
20/11/2012 2012/721 Opinion on Article 50(2)(a) of the UCITS Directive Fund Management Opinion PDF
81.31 KB
04/12/2012 2012/803 Rebuilding investors trust in EU capital markets- Steven Maijoor, ESMA Chair Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
150.43 KB		 Steven Maijoor, Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), delivered the keynote address at the DSW Finuse Conference in Wiesbaden on 4 December 2012.
04/12/2012 2012/800 ESMA’s role in markets reform- Verena Ross, ESMA Executive Director Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
147.98 KB		 Verena Ross, ESMA Executive Director, delivered the keynote address at the ICI Global Trading and Market Structure Conference in London.
11/03/2013 2013/279 "Regulation of systemically important financial institutions and of the shadow banking system"- speech by Steven Maijoor, Chair, at the CDU/CSU congress in Berlin Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
102.94 KB
24/05/2013 2013/603 ESAs—Achievement and Challenges, by Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
87.87 KB

  ESAs – Achievement and Challenges Public Hearing on Financial Supervision in the EU 24 May 2013, Brussels Speech by Steven Maijoor, Chair  
01/08/2013 2013/1072 Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the AIFMD Fund Management Opinion PDF
93.1 KB		 The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published an Opinion on arrangements for the late imposition of the AIFMD. The scope of the opinion is confined to the provision of collective portfolio management services. Arrangements before implementation of the Directive in all Member States Notification of marketing of EU AIFs when the host MS of the AIFM has not transposed the Directive (Articles 31 and 32 of the Directive) ESMA believes that, if the Directive has been transposed in the home MS of the AIFM, the competent authority of the host MS of the AIFM (Article 32) or home MS of the AIFM (Article 31) may not refuse a valid notification under the Directive on the ground that the Directive has not yet been transposed in the host MS. This applies irrespective of whether the marketing is done using the freedom to provide services or by means of a branch. Management passport (Article 33 of the Directive) ESMA believes that AIFMs established in a MS that has transposed the Directive should be able to manage an EU AIF via the management passport, both using the freedom to provide services or by means of a branch, in a MS where the Directive has not been transposed, irrespective of the provisions currently in place in such jurisdiction since the relevant provisions of the Directive are of a self-executing nature, and provided the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF in accordance with Article 33(1) of the AIFMD. Any local restrictions on AIFMs that are not in accordance with the AIFMD will need to be disapplied.
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products MiFID - Investor Protection, Warnings and publications for investors Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
27/03/2014 2014/332 Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements MiFID - Investor Protection, Innovation and Products Opinion PDF
203.1 KB		 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.
06/11/2014 2014/1339 Capital Markets Union: building competitive, efficient capital markets trusted by investors Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
124.34 KB		 Steven Maijoor, ESMA Chair, spoke at the joint EU Commission/Italian Presidency Growth for Finance Conference in Brussels - " Excerpts "Following its launch by President Juncker in July 2014, the Capital Markets Union (CMU) is now a concept under construction and I am very happy to have been invited to contribute today to its development. When doing so, we should remember the clear objective from President Juncker who stated that the CMU should maximise the benefits of capital markets and non-bank financial institutions for the real economy. "Despite the many efforts of the past four decades, and the good results achieved, the EU capital market is still fragmented which limits its potential. For example, an institutional investor wanting to invest in a mid-sized company will still have a strong bias towards companies in its own Member-State. There are transactions not happening that otherwise would be beneficial both for the investor and the company because of this home bias. The reason for this stems from a complex set of barriers relating to such issues as transparency of Small and Medium-sized Entities (SMEs), differences in their governance and cross-border differences in the ownership of shares. In sum, we are only halfway there. While the EU capital market has integrated steadily in the past four decades it is not yet comparable with, for example, the US capital market. With a five year time-horizon in mind, what is needed to achieve a strong and integrated capital market to increase capital availability and to support economic growth in all 28 Member States? In my view, there are four main building blocks: (1) greater diversity in funding; (2) increasing the efficiency of capital markets; (3) strengthening and harmonisation of supervision; and (4) increasing the attractiveness of capital markets both for EU investors and for investors from outside the Union. "The CMU should be based on an accelerated integration of the capital markets of the 28 Member States. The end goal should be a CMU that is competitive, efficient and that provides a wide range of funding channels. Above all, it should be trusted by investors."
19/11/2014 2014/1382 Regulatory measures to prevent another crisis- speech by Steven Maijoor Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
226.16 KB		 Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA, gave the keynote speech at the "Regulatory measures to prevent another crisis?" event organised by the CFA Institute in Brussels, Belgium.
22/05/2015 2015/880 ESMA Opinion to the EU institutions on the impact of EMIR on UCITS Fund Management Opinion PDF
208.55 KB
01/06/2015 2015/904 The Capital Markets Union, Asset Management and Stability Fund Management, Speeches Speech PDF
78.68 KB		 Steven Maijoor delivered a speech at the 26th Annual Conference of the International Bar Association on the Globalisation of Investment Funds.
30/07/2015 2015/1235 ESMA's opinion to the European Parliament, Council and Commission and responses to the call for evidence on the functioning of the AIFMD EU passport and of the National Private Placement Regimes Fund Management Opinion PDF
886.86 KB		 AIFMD and the request to ESMA for an Opinion In accordance with Articles 36 and 42 of the AIFMD, non-EU AIFMs and non-EU AIFs managed by EU AIFMs are subject to the NPPR of each of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed or managed. However, the AIFMD makes provision for the passport, which is currently reserved to EU AIFMs and AIFs, to be potentially extended in future. Article 67(1) of the AIFMD establishes that, by 22 July 2015, ESMA shall issue to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission the following: An opinion on the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs pursuant to Articles 32 and 33 of the AIFMD and on the functioning of the national private placement regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 of the AIFMD. Advice on the application of the passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 of the AIFMD. Within three months of receipt of positive advice and an opinion from ESMA, and taking into account the criteria of Article 67(2) and the objectives of the AIFMD, the Commission should adopt a delegated act specifying the date when the rules set out in Article 35 and 37 to 41 of the AIFMD become applicable in all Member States. As a consequence, the EU passport would be extended to non-EU AIFs and non-EU AIFMs. In order to produce this opinion and advice, ESMA must look into the elements listed in Article 67(2) and (4) of the AIFMD , notably on the basis of the information provided by the national competent authorities (NCAs) about the EU and non-EU AIFMs under their supervision. Indeed, Article 67(3) of the AIFMD requires NCAs to provide information to ESMA quarterly as from 22 July 2013. ESMA has received input from NCAs for the periods covering 22 July 2013 to 31 March 2014, 1 April to 30 June 2014, 1 July to 30 September 2014, 1 October to 31 December 2014, and 1 January to 31 March 2015. In order to supplement the input provided by NCAs via the quarterly surveys, ESMA launched a call for evidence in November 2014 aimed at gathering information from EU and non-EU stakeholders on the functioning of the EU passport, the NPPRs and the potential extension of the AIFMD passport to non-EU countries. ESMA received 67 responses (including 15 confidential responses), from 13 non-EU Authorities, 21 EU and non-EU trade associations of asset managers, 17 EU and non-EU asset managers, and 16 other trade associations and private firms (e.g. providers of services for funds, law firms etc). Summary of the opinion In relation to the timing of the assessment of the functioning of the EU passport, ESMA considers that the delay in the implementation of the AIFMD together with the delay in the transposition in some Member States make a definitive assessment difficult. ESMA would see merit in the preparation of another opinion on the functioning of the passport after a longer period of implementation in all Member States. However, even at this early stage, ESMA has identified several issues in relation to the use of the EU passport. These issues include: i) divergent approaches with respect to marketing rules, including heterogeneity of fees charged by the NCAs where the AIFs are marketed and the definition of what constitutes a “professional investor”; ii) varying interpretations of what activities constitute “marketing” and “material changes” under the AIFMD passport in the different Member States. With that in mind, ESMA sees merit in greater convergence in the definition of these terms. Nevertheless, ESMA is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the AIFMD EU passport has raised major issues in terms of the functioning and implementation of the AIFMD framework. In relation to the timing of the assessment of the functioning of the NPPRs, ESMA considers that the delay in the implementation of the AIFMD together with the delay in transposition in some Member states make a definitive assessment difficult. ESMA would see merit in the preparation of another opinion on the functioning of the NPPR Regime after a longer period of implementation has passed in all Member States (although this is linked to the decision to be taken by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on whether to extend the passport to one or more non-EU countries in the meantime). ESMA is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the NPPRs have raised major issues in terms of the functioning and implementation of the AIFMD framework.
14/09/2015 2015/1349 Statement by Steven Maijoor ESMA Chair- ECON Hearing 14 September 2015 Corporate Information, Speeches Speech PDF
108.95 KB
14/09/2015 JC 2015 056 Statement by Steven Maijoor Chair ESAs Joint Committee- ECON Scrutiny session on PRIIPs 14 September 2015 Speeches, Fund Management Speech PDF
105.88 KB

Pages