ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
113
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
Q&A X SMSG Advice X Opinion X Technical Advice X Innovation and Products X Securities Financing Transactions X Risk Analysis & Economics - Markets Infrastructure Investors X Joint Committee X Credit Rating Agencies X Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
09/06/2010 10-333 Technical Advice- The Equivalence between the Japanese Regulatory and Supervisory Framework and the EU Regulatory Regime for Credit Rating Agencies , Technical Advice PDF
4.59 MB
17/05/2011 2011/144 Final advice- ESMA´s Technical Advice to the Commission on Fees for CRAs Technical Advice PDF
1.72 MB
28/10/2011 2011/SMSG/11 Response to ESMA's Consultation paper on guidelines on systems and controlsin a highly automated trading environment for trading platforms, investmentfirms and competent authorities SMSG Advice PDF
48.99 KB
28/10/2011 2011/SMSG/12 Position paper- ESMA's Consultation on systems and controls in a highly automated trading environment for trading platforms, investment firms and competent authorities SMSG Advice PDF
59.19 KB
28/10/2011 2011/SMSG/13 Advice on ESMA's draft technical advice to the European Commission on possible implementing measures of the Alternative Investment Fund Man-agers Directive in relation to supervision and third countries SMSG Advice PDF
88.23 KB
01/12/2011 2011/SMSG/18 Advice on ESMA's public consultation on UCITS Exchange traded funds in the European Union SMSG Advice PDF
149.17 KB
18/04/2012 2012/259 Technical advice on CRA regulatory equivalence- US, Canada and Australia Technical Advice PDF
697.78 KB
On 12 June 2009 the European Commission requested CESR, now ESMA, to provide its technical advice on the equivalence between the legal and supervisory framework of Japan, The United States, and Canada with the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies. (Regulation (EC) No. 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on credit rating agencies ). On 17 November 2009, the Commission also requested CESR to provide its technical advice on Australia. On 28 September 2010, the European Commission published an equivalence decision on Japan. With regard to the compliance with the EU requirements on endorsement, ESMA had already indicated that it considers the legal and regulatory regime for CRAs supervision of the following countries as “as stringent as” the EU requirements:        - On 22 December 2011, Japan and Australia;        - On 15 March 2012, US, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. This report sets out ESMA’s advice to the European Commission in respect of the equivalence between the US (Part I), Canada (Part II) and Australia (Part III) respective legal and supervisory frameworks and the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies.
28/02/2012 2012/SMSG/11 Advice on Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements SMSG Advice PDF
138.1 KB
28/02/2012 2012/SMSG/12 Advice on Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID compliance function requirements SMSG Advice PDF
83.35 KB
12/10/2012 2012/SMSG/59 Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group – Report on Helping Small and Medium Sized Companies Access Funding SMSG Advice PDF
497.32 KB
02/02/2012 2012/SMSG/6 Letter regarding deadlines for the submission of ESMA’s technical standards SMSG Advice PDF
82.35 KB
A letter from the ESMA Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group to Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Sharon Bowles, Chair of ECON, and Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Chair of JURI, regarding deadlines for the submission of ESMA's technical standards.
27/09/2012 2012/SMSG/60 SMSG advice on Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under the AIFMD SMSG Advice PDF
81.39 KB
21/11/2013 2013/1703 Technical Advice on the feasibility of a network of small and medium-sized CRAs Technical Advice PDF
601.05 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has finalised its Technical Advice to the European Commission on the feasibility of a network of small and medium sized credit rating agencies in order to increase competition in the market. The technical advice provides quantitative and qualitative information on small and medium-sized CRAs in the EU, based on the analysis of the periodic reporting obligations of CRAs to ESMA via the central repository CEREP. It also covers some information regarding possible barriers to entry for companies that wish to conduct rating activity in the EU. Contents The main findings of the advice are: • The 22 registered CRAs are established in 11 EU Member States; • None of the small and medium-sized CRAs cover the whole range of the five rating classes considered (corporates (non-financial), financials, insurance, sovereign and public finance, and structured finance). Whilst DBRS and BCRA cover four and three classes respectively, all the remaining small and medium-sized CRAs cover one or two rating classes only. This contrasts with Fitch, Moody’s and S&P that issue ratings for all five possible rating classes; • Small and medium-sized CRAs are mainly active in issuing corporate ratings. Within this rating type, four small and medium-sized CRAs issue a relatively high number of corporate ratings (CERVED and ICAP) or financial and insurance ratings (GBB and AM Best); • Only 6 of the small and medium-sized CRAs provide sovereign ratings (BCRA, Capital Intelligence, DBRS, European Rating, Feri Euro Rating (Feri) and Japan Credit Rating Agency (JCR)), whilst only one (DBRS) issues structured finance ratings; • As of end 2012 the majority of small and medium-sized CRAs issued solicited ratings only, whilst eight issued unsolicited ratings only. Three small and medium-sized CRAs (DBRS, JCR, and Scope) issued both solicited and unsolicited ratings, as was the case also for Fitch, Moody’s and S&P; • As regards geographical coverage of the small and medium-sized CRAs 6 out of 19 (AM Best, Capital Intelligence, Creditreform, DBRS, JCR and Scope) have a coverage that goes beyond one Member State when referring to corporate ratings. As regards the sovereign ratings type, three of the small and medium-sized CRAs cover more than one Member State (Capital Intelligence, Feri and JCR). In both of these ratings types, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P’s rating activities cover all Member States of the EU; • In 2013, 96% of the supervisory fees were paid by S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, while their turnover from rating and ancillary services was equal to 88% of the total turnover of the 20 registered and certified CRAs in 2012: and • As of July 2013, 14 out of 19 small and medium-sized CRAs have been granted at least one of the regulatory exemptions provided for in the CRA Regulation. Finally, and with reference to the current situation in the segment of small and medium-sized CRAs, ESMA is not aware of any private networks of small and medium-sized CRAs currently in place.
19/12/2013 2013/1953 Technical Advice to the European Commission on the equivalence between the Argentinean regulatory and supervisory framework and the EU regulatory regime for CRAs Technical Advice PDF
143.15 KB
31/05/2013 2013/626 Technical advice on CRA regulatory equivalence on Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong and Singapore Technical Advice PDF
840.48 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has provided advice to the European Commission in respect of the equivalence between the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies and the respective legal and supervisory frameworks of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong and Singapore. This is in response to the European Commission’s request for technical advice from ESMA on the equivalence of these jurisdictions legal and supervisory frameworks with the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on credit rating agencies.  The European Commission has already published equivalence decisions on US, Canada and Australia, on 9 October 2012, and on Japan, 28 October 2010. Regarding compliance with the EU requirements on endorsement, ESMA has already indicated that it considers the legal and regulatory regime for CRAs supervision of the following countries as “as stringent as” the EU requirements: 15 March 2012, Hong Kong and Singapore; 18 April 2012, Argentina and Mexico; 27 April 2012, Brazil.
20/12/2013 2013/SMSG/017 Advice on Consultation Paper – Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on contracts having a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Un-ion and non-evasion of provisions of EMIR SMSG Advice PDF
27.43 KB
20/12/2013 2013/SMSG/018 Advice on Discussion Paper – The Clearing Obligation under EMIR SMSG Advice PDF
46.94 KB
20/12/2013 2013/SMSG/020 Response to the Consultation Paper ESMA Guidelines on enforcement of financial information SMSG Advice PDF
67.09 KB
18/12/2014 2014/1378 Opinion- Investment-based crowdfunding Opinion PDF
460.92 KB
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 , 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.

Pages