REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|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||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|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: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|28/03/2011||2011/22||Report- ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- July 2010 to December 2010||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|06/07/2012||2012/387||Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|25/09/2012||2012/602||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- January 2011 to December 2011||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|25/09/2012||2012/603||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- January 2012 to June 2012||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|NOTE: This Report is an amended version of the Report published on 25 September 2012. The previously published Report was amended on 15 May 2013 following the discovery of factual errors in the statis-tical information in Section III.2. Title ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported - January 2012 to June 2012|
|18/12/2013||2013/1943||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported—January 2013 to June 2013||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|10/06/2013||2013/619||Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published a report on the Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive. This is the first report of its kind and provides a comparison of liability regimes covering the EEA – comprising the 27 EU Member States along with Iceland and Norway and is aimed at providing clarity for market participants about the different regimes in place. The report contains an overview of the different arrangements and frameworks in place in EEA States to address administrative, criminal, civil and governmental liability, and provides clarity to market participants about the different regimes in place. The report was compiled in response to a European Commission request of January 2011 for assistance in identifying and monitoring the different regimes in EEA states. The report does not cover how the regimes, or sanctions, are applied. Report Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive Annex II Comparative table of responses from EEA States Annex III Individual responses from EEA States|
|14/06/2013||2013/741||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported—January 2012 to December 2012||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2012 to December 2012 (with a quarterly disclosure).|
|23/10/2014||2014/1276||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported – January 2013 to December 2013||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2013 to December 2013 (with a quarterly disclosure).|
|23/10/2014||2014/1277||ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported – January 2014 to June 2014||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2014 to June 2014 (with a quarterly disclosure).|
|01/04/2014||2014/342||Languages accepted for the purpose of the scrutiny of the Prospectus and requirements of translation of the Summary- March 2014||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|The document provides an overview of the languages that each national competent authority accepts when acting as home or host competent authority, as the case may be, for the purpose of the scrutiny of the prospectus. In addition the document outlines national requirements in relation to translation of summaries.|
|28/09/2015||2015-ESMA-1464 Annex II||Annex II- CBA- draft RTS and ITS on MiFID II and MiFIR||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|23/07/2015||2015/1136||EEA prospectus activity in 2014||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Final Report||PDF
|30/11/2015||2015/1783||Final Report on complex debt instruments and structured deposits||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|11/12/2015||2015/1858||Final Report- Draft ITS under MiFID II||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|22/12/2015||2015/1861||Final report- Guidelines on cross-selling practices||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|17/12/2015||2015/1886||Final report on guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
Reasons for publication
1. Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) states that Member States shall require investment firms to ensure and demonstrate to competent authorities on request that natural persons giving investment advice or providing information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm possess the necessary knowledge and competence to fulfil their obligations under Article 24 and Article 25 .
2. The European Securities and Markets Authority is required by Article 25(9) of MiFID II to develop – by 3 January 2016 - guidelines specifying criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence of investment firms’ personnel. The guidelines will come into effect on 3 January 2017.
3. In accordance with Article 16(2) of the ESMA Regulation, a consultation was launched on 23 April 2015. The Consultation Paper (CP) set out draft ESMA guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence of individuals in investment firms providing investment advice or information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm. The consultation period closed on 10 July 2015.
4. ESMA received 80 responses. The answers received on the CP are available on ESMA’s website unless respondents requested otherwise.
5. As provided by Article 16 of the ESMA Regulation, ESMA also sought the advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group’s (SMSG).
6. This paper contains summaries of responses received and feedback statements provided by ESMA. ESMA recommends that this report should be read together with the CP published on 23 April 2015 to have a complete understanding of the rationale for the guidelines. The final guidelines presented in Annex VI take into account the comments and suggestions raised by respondents.
7. Section II briefly summarises the feedback to the CP and the main responses from ESMA.
8. Section III contains the Annexes: Annex I provides the Summary of questions, Annex II contains the legislative mandate, Annex III reports the cost-benefit analysis, Annex IV reports the Opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group, Annex V details the feedback on the CP, Annex VI sets out the final text of the guidelines and Annex VII describes some illustrative examples of the application of certain aspects of the guidelines.
9. The final guidelines in Annex VI will be translated into the official EU languages and published on the ESMA website. The publication of the translations will trigger a two-month period during which National Competent Authorities (NCAs) must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines.
|25/02/2015||2015/494||Best Execution under MiFID||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|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.|
|30/06/2016||2016/1055||Peer Review Report on Prospectus Approval Process||Prospectus, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|10/10/2016||2016/1451||Final Report- Guidelines on transaction reporting, order record keeping and clock synchronisation under MiFID II||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF