Skip to main content

ESMA LIBRARY

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

9

DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Date	Ref.	Title	Section	Type	Download	Info	Summary	Related Documents	Translated versions
27/09/2017	ESMA70-145-171	Opinion on the intended accepted market practice on liquidity contracts notified by the CMVM	Market Integrity	Opinion	PDF 364.69 KB		Link to the revised template describing the Portuguese AMP as established by a decision of the Portuguese CMVM of 9 November 2017 and published in accordance with Article 2 (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/908: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/cmvm_annex_-_amp_on_liquidity_contracts.pdf
16/12/2016	2016/1663	Opinion on intended accepted market practice on liquidity contracts by the CNMV	Market Integrity	Opinion	PDF 6.43 MB		Link to the revised template describing the Spanish AMP as established through a Circular and published by the CNMV in accordance with Article 2 (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/908: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/cnmv_amp_-_revised_template_post_circular.pdf.
05/02/2016	2016/234	ESMA’s supervision of credit rating agencies and trade repositories- 2015 annual report and 2016 work plan.	Credit Rating Agencies, Trade Repositories	Report	PDF 2.08 MB		The European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) annual report and work programme has been prepared according to Article 21 of Regulation 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies as amended (the CRA Regulation) and Article 85 of Regulation 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR). It highlights the direct supervisory activities carried out by ESMA during 2015 regarding credit rating agencies (CRAs) and trade repositories (TRs) and outlines ESMA’s main priorities in these areas for 2016. ESMA adopts a risk-based approach to the supervision of CRAs and TRs in accordance with its overall objectives of promoting financial stability and orderly markets and enhancing investor protection. This risk-based approach requires the analysis of information from a variety of sources and the application of multiple supervisory tools including day-to-day supervision, cycle of engagement meetings with supervised entities, on-site inspections and dedicated investigations. In order to build on the expertise that ESMA has developed through its supervision of CRAs and TRs, ESMA created a single Supervision Department in November 2015. ESMA intends to draw on the best practices identified from the supervision of both types of entity to further enhance its supervisory effectiveness in future.
25/02/2015	2015/495	ESMA publishes review on best execution supervisory practices under MiFID	MiFID - Investor Protection, Press Releases, Supervisory convergence	Press Release	PDF 112.68 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.
25/02/2015	2015/494	Best Execution under MiFID	MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence	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.	ipisc_complex_products_-_opinion_20140105.pdf 2014-332_esma_opinion_u_structured_retail_products_-_good_practices_for_product_governance_arrangements.pdf
11/12/2014	2014/1478	ESMA reviews supervisory practices on MiFID investor information	Press Releases, Supervisory convergence	Press Release	PDF 136.83 KB		The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review of how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise MiFID conduct of business rules on providing fair, clear and not misleading information to clients. The peer review focused on NCAs’ organisation, supervisory approaches, monitoring and complaints handling in relation to information and marketing communications under MiFID. The Report found that there was overall a high degree of compliance amongst NCAs with the good practices identified in these key areas. However, a variety of approaches were observed, leading to different intensity of supervision. A number of areas for improvement were identified. They include: enhanced use of on-site inspections and thematic reviews; a specific focus on conduct of business issues in firms’ risk assessments; and greater efforts to detect failings by firms in a timely manner. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by NCAs in a self-assessment questionnaire and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Steven Maijoor, ESMA Chair, said: “Providing fair, clear and not misleading information to clients is essential for investor protection and should be applied consistently throughout the EU. This review is a major step forward in ensuring that progress is being made towards convergence in this area by national regulators. “The report provides a thorough insight and analysis of national supervisory practices, facilitated by ESMA’s first on-site visits, and includes a number of recommendations which I urge national regulators to consider when reviewing their practices in this area”. Key Findings The review’s key findings covered the following areas: Ex-ante and ex-post supervision – supervisory systems are divided between ex-ante and ex-post reviews of marketing material. Within the ex-post approach there is also divergence in terms of the timeliness with which NCAs review the material following its dissemination and consider complaints made by clients of firms; Direct and indirect supervision – while some NCAs directly supervise firms’ compliance with their obligations relating to the provision of information and marketing material to clients, others rely on annual checks performed by external auditors. The latter approach may make it difficult to detect failings by firms in a timely manner due to the successive sampling process employed by auditors and then the NCA?s concerned; Complaints and Sanctions – a low level of complaints and equally low level of sanctions are reported by NCAs in the area of information and marketing to clients; and Definition of information and marketing communication - There is no precise definition of the term marketing communication in EU law: this would need to be further defined in order to build effective convergence of supervisory practices. Recommendations for future work The Report identifies a number of areas for future work by NCAs and ESMA which could promote a more coherent cross-EU application of the requirements. These include: establishing more robust structures and efficient coordination and cooperation arrangements between different supervisory units within NCAs; defining a clear set of information and marketing material to be supervised; assessing the frequency of NCAs’ monitoring of investor information and marketing; assessing the adequacy of monitoring the distribution channels used by firms including in the cross border provision of services; requiring investment firms to submit to their NCAs details of all information and marketing material to be provided including material used for cross-border business; considering the use of integrated databases to assist in supervision of information and marketing to clients; assessing the frequency and consistency of the use of sanctions by NCAs; and assessing the implementation and effectiveness of the guidelines for complaints-handling for the securities (ESMA) and banking (EBA) sectors. In addition, ESMA should continue its efforts, including the use of Opinions, in promoting the development of a level-playing field regarding the provision of information in an understandable format to clients and the quality of service to clients.
11/12/2014	2014/1485	MiFID – Conduct of Business, fair, clear and not misleading information	Supervisory convergence	Final Report	PDF 614.16 KB		The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review of how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise MiFID conduct of business rules on providing fair, clear and not misleading information to clients. The peer review focused on NCAs’ organisation, supervisory approaches, monitoring and complaints handling in relation to information and marketing communications under MiFID. The Report found that there was overall a high degree of compliance amongst NCAs with the good practices identified in these key areas. However, a variety of approaches were observed, leading to different intensity of supervision. A number of areas for improvement were identified. They include: • enhanced use of on-site inspections and thematic reviews; • a specific focus on conduct of business issues in firms’ risk assessments; and • greater efforts to detect failings by firms in a timely manner. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by NCAs in a self-assessment questionnaire and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.
23/09/2014	2014/1164	Statement by Steven Maijoor, Chair, European Securities and Markets Authority at the ECON Committee, European Parliament 23 September 2014	Corporate Information	Statement	PDF 109.53 KB		Dear Members of the European Parliament, Ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election or re-election as a Member of the European Parliament and as a member of this important committee. Call it a “Single Capital Market” or “Capital Market Union”, the financial regulatory reform in the European Union (EU) in the last five years has made solid progress and is a decisive step towards the aim of completing the single market in financial services. This is not only a necessity to tackle failures exposed by the financial crisis, it is also a crucial part of realising the overriding objective of securing economic recovery in the EU. However, it will only reach its full potential if the single rule book is applied consistently and supervised adequately so that all stakeholders can benefit from it in daily practice. ESMA plays a key role in achieving this objective, by enhancing investor protection and by promoting stable and orderly financial markets in the EU. Since its inception three and a half years ago, ESMA has contributed to the creation of an EU single rulebook by developing technical standards and guidelines, and by assisting the European Institutions, and the European Commission in particular, in providing technical advice on such areas as: over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, hedge funds and private equity, short selling, high frequency trading, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), investment advice and financial information. In the last 12 months, ESMA finalised 22 technical standards and pieces of technical advice to the European Commission, as well as seven sets of guidelines, in order to complete the legal framework in areas such as Credit Rating Agencies, prospectuses, market infrastructures, European Social Entrepreneurship Funds and European Venture Capital Funds. We are currently translating the recently agreed MiFID II/MiFIR requirements into practically applicable rules. I will not run through all the work we have done on the single rulebook in that time as you can find an overview and some statistics in the Annex to my Statement which was distributed to you. I would like to stress that throughout the entire policy process we engage as much as possible with all relevant stakeholders – through hearings, direct meetings and consultations. We have – and will continue – to interact with many stakeholder associations representing consumers, investors and market participants - and solicit the views of ESMA’s Securities and Markets Stakeholders Group (SMSG). To mention two examples, right now we are assessing the almost 800 responses we have received to our MiFID II discussion and consultation papers and ESMA has received more than 1500 questions on the implementation of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR). ESMA has successfully developed a regime of direct supervision at EU level. We supervise 23 credit rating agencies by conducting thematic investigations, on-site visits, analysing the information CRAs provide to the public and by monitoring the implementation of remedial action plans. In June this year, ESMA concluded its first enforcement action and issued a public notice censuring Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services France SAS and Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited (S&P) for failing to meet certain organisational requirements. EMIR brings more transparency to derivatives markets by introducing mandatory reporting to trade repositories (TRs). Since November 2013, six repositories have been registered and are now supervised by ESMA. Since reporting under EMIR went live, derivatives trade data has flowed into the repositories: as of 30 June 2014, more than 1 billion new trades have been reported to the TRs. Regulators now have access, or are in the process of establishing access, to derivatives data which should help in providing a clearer picture on the risks associated with those markets. On identifying risks to investor protection and stability, ESMA has substantially improved its data and intelligence gathering capabilities. Risks in securities markets are, for example regularly, identified and reported on in ESMA’s Trend, Risk and Vulnerabilities Report. Concerning the convergence of supervisory practices we have employed a range of instruments, including Q&As, opinions and peer reviews. Regarding peer reviews, we have strengthened our methodology, including the more frequent use of on-site visits. More generally, with the reform of financial markets moving from legislation to implementation, supervisory convergence will become a higher priority in ESMA’s activities and we will increase our resources allocated to this area. That brings me to the last topic I would like to raise, which I also brought to this Committee’s attention last year, the need for a stable budget. Today, our funding comes from a combination of the EU budget, levies on the financial market entities that we supervise directly, and the Member States’ national competent authorities. We are concerned that an increasing budget contribution from national competent authorities might pose undue difficulties to their functioning. This would run counter to the reinforcement of securities markets regulation and supervision at both EU and national level as envisaged in the regulatory reform programme. ESMA’s funding should guarantee its independence and not create potential undue influence. Therefore, we believe that the co-legislators should consider increasing the funding ESMA receives from financial market entities which require ESMA’s intervention and to increase the Union’s share in ESMA’s budget through an independent budget line directly adopted by the co-legislators. Thank you for your attention.
18/07/2013	2013/998	Guidelines on the model MoU concerning consultation, cooperation and the exchange of information related to the supervision of AIFMD entities	International cooperation, Fund Management	Guidelines & Recommendations	PDF 245.15 KB		ESMA finalises supervisory co-operation agreements for alternative investment funds The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has approved seven co-operation arrangements between EU securities regulators and their global counterparts with responsibility for the supervision of alternative investment funds, including hedge funds, private equity and real estate funds. ESMA’s Board of Supervisors, at its July meeting, approved Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with authorities from the Bahamas, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and the United States, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). ESMA has now negotiated 38 agreements on behalf of the 31 EU/EEA national competent authorities for securities markets supervision. The co-operation agreements allow for the exchange of information, cross-border on-site visits and mutual assistance in the enforcement of respective supervisory laws. ESMA had approved 31 MoUs with other non-EU regulators in May. The agreements cover third-country alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) that market alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the EU and EU AIFMs that manage or market AIFs outside the EU. The agreements also cover co-operation in the cross-border supervision of depositaries and AIFMs’ delegates. National securities regulators in the EU, as the supervisors of AIFMs, are in the process of signing MoUs with those jurisdictions relevant to their market. The existence of co-operation arrangements between the EU and non-EU authorities is a precondition of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) for allowing managers from third countries access to EU markets or to perform fund management by delegation from EU managers by 22 July 2013. The co-operation arrangements are applicable from 22 July, and will enable cross-border marketing of AIFs to professional investors between jurisdictions. This is subject to the non-EU jurisdiction not being listed as a non-cooperative jurisdiction by the Financial Action Task Force and, as from the entry into force of the passport for non-EU managers, having co-operation agreements in place with EU Member States regarding the exchange of information on tax matters. The content of the ESMA MoUs follow the IOSCO Principles on Cross-Border Supervisory Co-operation of 2010, and complements the terms and conditions of the IOSCO Multilateral MoU Concerning Consultation and Co-operation and the Exchange of Information of 2002 (MMoU). ESMA had originally contacted all the authorities that have signed the IOSCO MMoU of 2002. ESMA has now approved MoUs with those 42 authorities that responded to ESMA’s call. ESMA continues to negotiate the MoU with the Chinese authority. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) MoU with AFSA (Albania) MoU with ASIC (Australia) MoU with BMA (Bermuda) MoU with Canadian authorities Accompanying letter MoU with CDVM (Morocco) MoU with CFTC (US) Accompanying letter MoU with CIMA (Cayman Islands) MoU with CMA (Kenya) MoU with CMSA (Tanzania) MoU with CNBV (Mexico) MoU with CVM (Brazil) MoU with DFSA (Dubai) MoU with FCSM (Mauritius) MoU with FINMA (Switzerland) MoU with FSA (Labuan) MoU with FSC (BVI) MoU with FSC (Guernsey) MoU with FSC (Isle of Man) MoU with FSC (Jersey) MoU with HKMA (Hong Kong) MoU with ISA (Israel) MoU with JFSA (Japan) MoU with MAFF (Japan) MoU with MAS (Singapore) MoU with METI (Japan) MoU with OCC and FED (US) MoU with OSFI (Canada) MoU with SC (Malaysia) MoU with SC (Republic of Srpska) MoU with SC (The Bahamas) MoU with SCA (UAE) MoU with SEBI (India) MoU with SEC (Montenegro) MoU with SEC (Pakistan) MoU with SEC (Thailand) MoU with SEC Macedonia (FYROM) MoU with SFC (Hong Kong) MoU with US SEC Accompanying letter MoU with EFSA (Egypt) MoU with FMA (New Zealand) MoU with FSB (South Africa) MoU with SSC (Vietnam) MoU with FSC and FSS (South Korea)