ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
106
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
ONGOING Procedure X Opinion X Letter X Q&A X Fund Management X MiFID - Investor Protection X Corporate Information X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
08/03/2011 EC 21-02-11 Letter from Jonathan Faull regarding the extension of the deadline for delivery of ESMA’s advice on the AIFMD Letter PDF
149.8 KB
13/10/2011 2011/342 Opinion- Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the UCITS IV Directive Opinion PDF
41.33 KB
16/11/2011 2011/382 Letter to Michel Barnier- ESMA's response to the European Commission's provisional request to CESR/ESMA for technical advice on possible Level 2 measures concerningthe Directive for Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Letter PDF
41.73 KB
16/11/2011 2011/383 Letter to Jonathan Faull- ESMA's response to the European Commission's provisional request to CESR/ESMA for technical advice on possible Level 2 measures concerningthe Directive for Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Letter PDF
41.73 KB
16/11/2011 2011/384 Letter to Sharon Bowles- ESMA's response to the European Commission's provisional request to CESR/ESMA for technical advice on possible Level 2 measures concerningthe Directive for Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Letter PDF
200.77 KB
21/02/2012 2012/113 Questions and Answers- A Common Definition of European Money Market Funds- updated February 2012 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 Q&A PDF
319.78 KB
27/07/2012 2012/476 Reply of ESMA to the European Commission’s Green Paper on Shadow Banking Letter PDF
175.94 KB
20/11/2012 2012/721 Opinion on Article 50(2)(a) of the UCITS Directive Opinion PDF
81.31 KB
18/07/2013 Ares(2013)2569526 European Commission letter to ESMA re draft Regulatory Technical Standards on types of AIFMD, Article 4(4) of AIFMD Directive Letter PDF
125.25 KB
On 8 July 2013 ESMA received a letter from the European Commission (EC) in response to its draft regulatory technical standards in its Final report - Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on types of AIFMs (ESMA/2013/413) submitted to the EC on 2 April 2013 for endorsement. According to Article 10(1) sixth subparagraph of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA has 6 weeks starting from 8 July to respond to the EC’s letter.
01/08/2013 2013/1072 Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the AIFMD 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.
01/10/2013 2013/1340 Collection of information for the effective monitoring of systemic risk under Article 24(5), first sub-paragraph, of the AIFMD Opinion PDF
70.75 KB
28/01/2014 2013/1941 Letter to Jonathan Faull (EC) regarding draft technical standards , Letter PDF
44.25 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.
23/02/2015 2015/168 Letter to EU Institutions re ESMA’s 2015 Work Programme , , Letter PDF
37.31 KB
Dear Mr Gualtieri, Ms Ribkina and Commissioner Hill, On 30 September 2014 we sent you ESMA’s Work Programme for 2015, which was based on the budget request that had been approved by ESMA’s Board of Supervisors: a budget of €38,639,000 and 147 Establishment Plan posts. The EU budget had not been voted at the time. Following the adoption of the EU budget, ESMA’s 2015 expenditure budget is €33,601,402 (plus an additional €3,100,000 from assigned revenues for tasks delegated from National Competent Authorities) with an Establishment Plan of 137 posts. ESMA’s Board of Supervisors has approved a revised work programme to account for the difference of €5m and 10 Establishment Plan posts; representing a 15% reduction compared to the planned ESMA budget and 7% of its Establishment Plan. ESMA will therefore lack sufficient resources to execute all the tasks that were initially planned for 2015. The Work Programme explains the areas where reprioritisation had to take place, including the risk that ESMA will not fully meet its legal obligations, for instance due to the delay of delivery compared to legally set timetables. A summary of the deprioritised tasks is annexed to the Work Programme and reproduced in the table below. 2014/1200rev ESMA Work Programme
06/03/2015 2015/422 ESMA's response to the consultation on IOSCO Letter PDF
27.24 KB
13/05/2015 2015/841 Letter to the European Commission- Early legal review Letter PDF
241.49 KB
13/05/2015 22392237 Letter from the European Commission- Early legal review Letter PDF
61.81 KB
21/05/2015 2015/855 ESMA letter to the Commissioner Hill- ESMA Response to EC Green Paper on CMU Letter PDF
52.37 KB

Pages