REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|28/05/2014||2014/576||Voting Procedures for CCP colleges under EMIR||Post Trading||Opinion||PDF
|17/11/2017||ESMA34-49-103||Technical advice, draft implementing technical standards and guidelines under the MMF Regulation||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
|03/04/2018||ESMA31-62-800||Technical advice under the Prospectus Regulation||Prospectus||Final Report||PDF
|02/10/2013||2013/1374||Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – Switzerland (Supplement)||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|02/10/2013||2013/1370||Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – India||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|02/10/2013||2013/1375||Technical advice on third country regulatory equivalence under EMIR – Canada||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|27/03/2014||2014/332||Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements||MiFID - Investor Protection, Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|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.|
|09/03/2015||2015/511||Revised opinion on draft RTS on the clearing obligation on interest rate swaps||Post Trading||Opinion||PDF
|05/04/2016||2016/429||Review of Article 26 of RTS No 153/2013 with respect to MPOR for client accounts||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
Reasons for publication
In relation to the draft amended technical standards, ESMA consulted stakeholders on two occasions: the first consultation on a Discussion Paper (DP) was conducted from 27 August to 30 September 2015; the second, on the consultation paper (CP) including the proposed draft RTS was carried out from 14 December 2015 to 1st February 2016.
ESMA received a strong support from the respondents to the CP on the proposed amendment introducing the possibility for EU CCPs to margin on a one day gross basis for clients’ accounts. The responses to the consultation confirm that a one day gross account structure provides a sufficient level of protection to the CCPs and to the clients.
On the proposed conditions linked to this type of account, the majority of the respondents are of the view that they are needed to ensure the safety of the CCPs. Some clarifications or slight amendments have been introduced following the comments received, in particular on intraday margins calls and on entities belonging to the same group as clearing members.
|28/03/2011||2011/22||Report- ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- July 2010 to December 2010||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|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)||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|31/03/2014||2014/03/ODRG||Report of the OTC Derivatives Regulators Group (ODRG) on Cross-Border Implementation Issues||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|25/07/2012||2012/474||Report and consultation paper on guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
|This paper sets out ESMA’s guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues. The guidelines are adapted to the type of UCITS, management technique or financial instrument in question and are detailed in Annex III of the documentThis document also sets out in Annex IV a public consultation on the treatment of repo and reverse repo arrangements on which ESMA is seeking feedback from stakeholders. The feedback to this further consultation will be used by ESMA to finalise its position on this specific issue, which will be incorporated into the rest of the guidelines already adopted by the Authority (cf. Annex III of this document).|
|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||Post Trading||Opinion||PDF
|01/08/2013||2013/1072||Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the AIFMD||Fund Management||Opinion||PDF
|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.|
|01/03/2016||2016/328||Possible systemic risk and cost implications of interoperability arrangements||Post Trading||Final Report||PDF
|30/06/2016||2016/1055||Peer Review Report on Prospectus Approval Process||Prospectus, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|13/04/2016||2016/592-594||Opinions on Pension Schemes Exemptions||Post Trading||Opinion||PDF
|02/02/2016||2016/184-199||Opinions on Exemptions from the clearing obligation for pension schemes||Post Trading||Opinion||PDF
Today’s document published by ESMA contains opinions on 16 UK-based pension schemes where the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is the competent authority for securities markets. After the exemptions are granted by the FCA, ESMA will publish the list of the types of entities/ arrangements that have been exempted.
|13/10/2011||2011/342||Opinion- Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the UCITS IV Directive||Fund Management||Opinion||PDF