REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|23/09/2021||ESMA41-356-233||Decision- UnaVista Limited||Trade Repositories||Decision||PDF
|12/07/2021||ESMA41-356-187||Decision- DTCC Derivatives Repository||Board of Supervisors, Trade Repositories||Decision||PDF
|31/05/2021||ESMA70-155-11961||Opinion on AMF AMP||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|31/01/2020||ESMA70-155-7850||Opinion- Relating to the intended Accepted Market Practice on liquidity contracts notified by the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)||Market Abuse||Opinion||PDF
|19/09/2019||ESMA70-155-8524||ESMA Opinion CNMV revised Accepted Market Practice||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|13/04/2018||ESMA70-145-442||ESMA Opinion on AMF Accepted Market Practice on liquidity contracts||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|30/05/2017||ESMA70-145-103||Communication on launch of reference data submission under MAR||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|25/04/2017||ESMA70-145-76||Points for convergence in relation to MAR accepted market practices on liquidity contracts||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Opinion||PDF
|12/01/2017||ESMA50-1215332076-23||Opinion on the impact of the exclusion of fund management companies from the scope of the MiFIR intervention powers||Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|17/06/2016||2016/982||Opinion on inside information disclosure under the Market Abuse Regulation||Market Abuse||Opinion||PDF
|31/03/2016||2016/408||Decision to adopt a supervisory measure taking the form of a public notice and to impose a fine in accordance with Statement of Findings in accordance with Articles 64(5), 65, 67 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2012 EMIR||Trade Repositories||Decision||PDF
Decision to adopt a supervisory measure taking the form of a public notice and to impose a fine in accordance with Statement of Findings in accordance with Articles 64(5), 65, 67 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories
Public notice regarding negligent breach by DTCC Derivatives Repository Ltd of its legal obligation to ensure immediate access for regulators to data reported under EMIR
DTCC Derivatives Repository Ltd (‘DDRL’) is a trade repository registered in the European Union and is part of the DTCC group which includes a number of companies providing post-trading services to the global financial services industry. DDRL was registered by ESMA as a trade repository under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (‘EMIR’) on 7 November 2013. ESMA has responsibilities for the supervision and enforcement of provisions under EMIR concerning DDRL and other trade repositories registered in the EU.
In May 2014, ESMA’s supervisory team became aware of delays in providing regulators with access to data reported to DDRL under EMIR. Following further examination, the supervisory team formed the view that there were serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute one or more of the infringements listed in EMIR. The matter was accordingly referred to an independent investigation officer (the ‘IIO’). The IIO considered the evidence referred to him and conducted further investigations, before submitting his findings to ESMA’s Board of Supervisors (the ‘ESMA Board’).
Based on the findings of the IIO and the evidence put before it, the ESMA Board found on 23 March 2016 that an examination of the facts showed that DDRL had committed the following infringement under EMIR and had done so negligently. DDRL committed an infringement of EMIR by not allowing regulators and supervisors direct and immediate access to the details of derivatives contracts they need to fulfil their responsibilities and mandates.
|25/09/2015||2015/1462||ESMA opinion on accounting for Deposit Guarantee Scheme||Corporate Disclosure, IFRS Supervisory Convergence||Opinion||PDF
|18/12/2014||2014/1378||Opinion- Investment-based crowdfunding||Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|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||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.|