ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
227
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
Vacancy X Final Report X Opinion X Post Trading X MiFID - Secondary Markets X MiFID - Investor Protection X Market Integrity X Press Releases X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
25/09/2000 00-064c The regulation of Alternative Trading Systems in Europe. A paper for the EU Commission Final Report PDF
84.28 KB
Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) offer electronic securities trading facilities outside the traditional trading channels. An expert group chaired by Howard Davies, Chairman of the UK FSA, has studied the impact of such systems in depth. The group has prepared a comprehensive report identifying and assessing the benefits and risks associated with the emergence of ATS and analysing the current regulatory treatment of such systems, within Europe and elsewhere. The report proposes both a short term and a long term option for a harmonised regulatory treatment of such systems in Europe.The paper was submitted to the European Commission as FESCO"s contribution to the preparation of the forthcoming Green Paper on possible amendments to the Investment Services Directive. The Green Paper will shortly be published as a basis for consultation with Member States, the financial services industry and other interested parties. However, the FESCO paper noted that, while the Green Paper on the ISD might be the catalyst for a far-reaching review of the regulatory approach to ATS, it would not provide a short-term solution. Accordingly, FESCO proposed that the short-term solution should take the form of a set of additional regulatory requirements for ATS operating as investment firms.FESCO will be working on proposals for what those additional regulatory requirements might be over the next six months, with a view to producing a consultation paper in the first half of 2001. This consultation paper will provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment in detail on the FESCO proposals. If, however, in the meantime interested parties have any specific comments on the possible additional regulatory requirements identified in paragraph 71 of the September paper, they should make these known to the Secretariat of FESCO via the following e-mail address: fdankers@europefesco.org
06/07/2012 2012/387 Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements , Final Report PDF
444.15 KB
27/09/2012 2012/600 Annex VIII Impact assessment- Annex VIII of the Final report on draft Regulatory and Implementing Technical Standards on Regulation (EU) 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories Final Report PDF
2.32 MB
03/01/2013 2012/874 Report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the budgetary implications of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR) Final Report PDF
526.73 KB
15/03/2013 2013/312 Regulatory technical standards on colleges for central counterparties supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 Opinion PDF
151.67 KB
30/04/2013 2013/542 Emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps , Opinion PDF
96.41 KB
12/09/2013 2013/08/ODRG Agreed Understandings to Resolving Cross-border Conflicts, Inconsistencies, Gaps and Duplicative Requirements Final Report PDF
442.48 KB
02/10/2013 2013/1373 ESMA Technical advice on equivalence of Australia- OTC and TR (Supplement) Final Report PDF
736.17 KB
02/10/2013 2013/1370 Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – India Final Report PDF
2.44 MB
02/10/2013 2013/1375 Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – Canada Final Report PDF
1.39 MB
02/10/2013 2013/1374 Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – Switzerland (Supplement) Final Report PDF
117.72 KB
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products , Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
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.
31/03/2014 2014/03/ODRG Report of the OTC Derivatives Regulators Group (ODRG) on Cross-Border Implementation Issues Final Report PDF
159.11 KB
28/05/2014 2014/576 Voting Procedures for CCP colleges under EMIR Opinion PDF
94.15 KB
08/01/2015 2015/20 ESMA review of CCP colleges under EMIR Final Report PDF
542.87 KB
29/01/2015 2015/223 Opinion on draft RTS on the Clearing Obligation Opinion PDF
601.97 KB

Legal Basis According to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the class of OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation, the date or dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phase in and the categories of counterparties to which the obligation applies, and the minimum remaining maturity of the OTC derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of EMIR. Background and Procedure On 1 October 2014, ESMA submitted a draft regulatory technical standard (RTS) on the clearing obligation to the European Commission pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation No (EU) 1095/2010 (the ESMA Regulation) and Article 5(2) of EMIR. This draft RTS covered Interest Rate Swaps. On 18 December 2014, the Commission informed ESMA of its intention to endorse with amendments this draft RTS and submitted to ESMA a modified version of the RTS (the “modified RTS”) introducing, among others, (1) amendments to the date on which the frontloading obligation starts to apply and (2) a new provision on the treatment of non-EU intragroup transactions. Pursuant to Article 10(1) of the ESMA Regulation, this notification from the Commission opens a period of six weeks during which ESMA may amend its draft RTS on the clearing obligation on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it to the Commission in the form of a formal opinion. ESMA has to send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. In accordance with Article 44(1) of the ESMA Regulation the Board of Supervisors has to adopt a formal opinion. Executive Summary ESMA agrees with the ultimate objectives of the modifications that the European Commission intends to introduce. However, ESMA considers that the tool proposed by the Commission for the matter related to the non-EU intra group transactions is not appropriate from a legal perspective and, in the case that the Commission intention is to define a later application date for those transactions, ESMA stands ready to explore, in coordination with the Commission, a different manner to incorporate that provision. ESMA backs the modifications on the frontloading section, though has a few observations and improvements with respect to several recitals. ESMA proposes to incorporate the suggestion of the Commission to deal with the application of the 8 billion threshold to investment funds for the definitions of types of counterparties as a specific provision in the text of the RTS.

04/02/2015 ESMA/2015/234 Feedback Statement on the Consultation on the Clearing Obligation for Non-Deliverable Forwards Final Report PDF
259.08 KB
25/02/2015 2015/494 Best Execution under MiFID , Final Report PDF
761.62 KB
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.
09/03/2015 2015/511 Revised opinion on draft RTS on the clearing obligation on interest rate swaps Opinion PDF
336.52 KB

Pages