ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
159
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X MiFID - Secondary Markets X Speeches X Prospectus X Trade Repositories X Risk Analysis & Economics - Markets Infrastructure Investors X Credit Rating Agencies X COVID-19 X Technical Advice X Opinion X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
09/06/2010 10-333 Technical Advice- The Equivalence between the Japanese Regulatory and Supervisory Framework and the EU Regulatory Regime for Credit Rating Agencies , Technical Advice PDF
4.59 MB
17/05/2011 2011/144 Final advice- ESMA´s Technical Advice to the Commission on Fees for CRAs Technical Advice PDF
1.72 MB
04/10/2011 2011/323 Final report- ESMA's technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Prospectus Directive as amended by the Directive 2010/73/EU , Technical Advice PDF
797.56 KB
01/03/2012 2012/137 ESMA’s technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Prospectus Directive as amended by the Directive 2010/73/EU , Technical Advice PDF
1.32 MB
ESMA publishes today the second part of its final advice (ESMA/2012/137) on possible delegated acts for the Prospectus Directive (PD).  The advice was submitted to the Commission on 29 February 2012.  In its advice, ESMA proposes how to use a prospectus in a retail cascade and provides input on how to review the provisions of the Prospectus Regulation concerning tax information, indices, auditor’s report on profit forecasts and estimates and audited historical financial information. Today’s advice follows a public consultation started on 13 December 2011. Overall, the technical advice aims to achieve a high level of investor protection and to increase across Europe the legal clarity and efficiency of the prospectus regime. Investment prospectuses as such are aimed to provide investors with easily accessible information on financial products so as to foster in-formed decision-making.
18/04/2012 2012/259 Technical advice on CRA regulatory equivalence- US, Canada and Australia Technical Advice PDF
697.78 KB
On 12 June 2009 the European Commission requested CESR, now ESMA, to provide its technical advice on the equivalence between the legal and supervisory framework of Japan, The United States, and Canada with the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies. (Regulation (EC) No. 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on credit rating agencies ). On 17 November 2009, the Commission also requested CESR to provide its technical advice on Australia. On 28 September 2010, the European Commission published an equivalence decision on Japan. With regard to the compliance with the EU requirements on endorsement, ESMA had already indicated that it considers the legal and regulatory regime for CRAs supervision of the following countries as “as stringent as” the EU requirements:        - On 22 December 2011, Japan and Australia;        - On 15 March 2012, US, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. This report sets out ESMA’s advice to the European Commission in respect of the equivalence between the US (Part I), Canada (Part II) and Australia (Part III) respective legal and supervisory frameworks and the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies.
09/01/2013 2012/864 ESMA’s technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Prospectus Directive as amended by the Directive 2010/73/EU , Technical Advice PDF
1.23 MB
21/11/2013 2013/1703 Technical Advice on the feasibility of a network of small and medium-sized CRAs Technical Advice PDF
601.05 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has finalised its Technical Advice to the European Commission on the feasibility of a network of small and medium sized credit rating agencies in order to increase competition in the market. The technical advice provides quantitative and qualitative information on small and medium-sized CRAs in the EU, based on the analysis of the periodic reporting obligations of CRAs to ESMA via the central repository CEREP. It also covers some information regarding possible barriers to entry for companies that wish to conduct rating activity in the EU. Contents The main findings of the advice are: • The 22 registered CRAs are established in 11 EU Member States; • None of the small and medium-sized CRAs cover the whole range of the five rating classes considered (corporates (non-financial), financials, insurance, sovereign and public finance, and structured finance). Whilst DBRS and BCRA cover four and three classes respectively, all the remaining small and medium-sized CRAs cover one or two rating classes only. This contrasts with Fitch, Moody’s and S&P that issue ratings for all five possible rating classes; • Small and medium-sized CRAs are mainly active in issuing corporate ratings. Within this rating type, four small and medium-sized CRAs issue a relatively high number of corporate ratings (CERVED and ICAP) or financial and insurance ratings (GBB and AM Best); • Only 6 of the small and medium-sized CRAs provide sovereign ratings (BCRA, Capital Intelligence, DBRS, European Rating, Feri Euro Rating (Feri) and Japan Credit Rating Agency (JCR)), whilst only one (DBRS) issues structured finance ratings; • As of end 2012 the majority of small and medium-sized CRAs issued solicited ratings only, whilst eight issued unsolicited ratings only. Three small and medium-sized CRAs (DBRS, JCR, and Scope) issued both solicited and unsolicited ratings, as was the case also for Fitch, Moody’s and S&P; • As regards geographical coverage of the small and medium-sized CRAs 6 out of 19 (AM Best, Capital Intelligence, Creditreform, DBRS, JCR and Scope) have a coverage that goes beyond one Member State when referring to corporate ratings. As regards the sovereign ratings type, three of the small and medium-sized CRAs cover more than one Member State (Capital Intelligence, Feri and JCR). In both of these ratings types, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P’s rating activities cover all Member States of the EU; • In 2013, 96% of the supervisory fees were paid by S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, while their turnover from rating and ancillary services was equal to 88% of the total turnover of the 20 registered and certified CRAs in 2012: and • As of July 2013, 14 out of 19 small and medium-sized CRAs have been granted at least one of the regulatory exemptions provided for in the CRA Regulation. Finally, and with reference to the current situation in the segment of small and medium-sized CRAs, ESMA is not aware of any private networks of small and medium-sized CRAs currently in place.
18/12/2013 2013/1944 Format of the base prospectus and consistent application of Article 26(4) of the Prospectus Regulation , Opinion PDF
75.6 KB
19/12/2013 2013/1953 Technical Advice to the European Commission on the equivalence between the Argentinean regulatory and supervisory framework and the EU regulatory regime for CRAs Technical Advice PDF
143.15 KB
20/03/2013 2013/317 Framework for the assessment of third country prospectuses under Article 20 of the Prospectus Directive , Opinion PDF
725.59 KB
31/05/2013 2013/626 Technical advice on CRA regulatory equivalence on Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong and Singapore Technical Advice PDF
840.48 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has provided advice to the European Commission in respect of the equivalence between the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies and the respective legal and supervisory frameworks of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong and Singapore. This is in response to the European Commission’s request for technical advice from ESMA on the equivalence of these jurisdictions legal and supervisory frameworks with the EU regulatory regime for credit rating agencies as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on credit rating agencies.  The European Commission has already published equivalence decisions on US, Canada and Australia, on 9 October 2012, and on Japan, 28 October 2010. Regarding compliance with the EU requirements on endorsement, ESMA has already indicated that it considers the legal and regulatory regime for CRAs supervision of the following countries as “as stringent as” the EU requirements: 15 March 2012, Hong Kong and Singapore; 18 April 2012, Argentina and Mexico; 27 April 2012, Brazil.
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products , Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
19/12/2014 2014/1569 Technical Advice to the Commission on MiFID II and MiFIR , Technical Advice PDF
2.8 MB
Reasons for publication The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) received a formal request (mandate) from the European Commission (Commission) on 23 April 2014 to provide technical advice to assist the Commission on the possible content of the delegated acts required by several provisions of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR). The mandate focuses on technical issues which follow from MiFID II and MiFIR and is available on the European Commission website (here). ESMA was required to provide technical advice by no later than six months after the entry into force of MiFID II and MiFIR (2 July 2014). Contents This final report follows the same structure as the Consultation Paper  (CP) published by ESMA on 22 May 2014 which is: (1) Introduction, (2) Investor protection, (3) Transparency, (4) Data publication, (5) Micro-structural issues, (6) Requirements applying on and to trading venues, (7) Commodity derivatives and (8) Portfolio compression. This paper also contains summaries of responses to the CP received by ESMA. The rationale of those items covered already in the CP for which no relevant changes have been introduced, is not developed again in this Final Report. ESMA recommends, therefore, to read this report together with the CP published on 22 May 2014 to have a complete vision of the rationale for ESMA’s technical advice. Next steps Delegated acts should be adopted by the Commission so that they enter into application by 30 months following the entry into force of the Directive and Regulation, taking into account the right of the European Parliament and Council to object to a delegated act within 3 months (which can be extended by a further 3 months).
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.
17/09/2014 2014/850rev Technical Advice in accordance with Article 39(b) 2 of the CRA Regulation Technical Advice PDF
370.42 KB
This document has been revised to reflect an amended figure in Table 1 and two re-classifications of solicitation status in Table 2. Article 39b(2) of the CRA Regulation states that the European Commission shall adopt a report by end 2014 – after receiving ESMA’s technical advice – on the appropriateness of the development of a European creditworthiness assessment for sovereign debt. In its request for advice, the Commission asked ESMA to provide input on the issue of sovereign ratings and rating processes including an overview of the market for sovereign ratings, information on operational issues regarding sovereign ratings, information on sovereign rating processes as well as lessons drawn from ESMA’s supervisory experience. Contents For the purposes of this advice, ESMA provides its views based on the quantitative information contained in the CEREP public database and on information publicly disclosed by credit rating agencies registered with ESMA. Additionally, ESMA’s advice has been informed by its first supervisory activities regarding the rating process for sovereign ratings of CRAs which are active in the EU sovereign rating market. In accordance with the CRA Regulation, these supervisory activities did not address the content of the sovereign methodologies themselves but rather were concerned with the independence, transparency and governance of the sovereign rating process. Sovereign credit ratings play a crucial role from a credit market and financial stability perspective, not least because sovereign governments account for the largest group of borrowers in capital markets in terms of volume. In addition the crucial importance of these sovereign ratings can be amplified by the “cascade” effect sovereign ratings have on other asset classes via their presence as factors in other asset methodologies. In the EU the sovereign rating market is composed of nine CRAs established in nine different EU member states. These nine CRAs exhibit a high level of variation with respect to the type and number of sovereign ratings they assign. Sovereign credit ratings themselves can also be differentiated in various ways depending on such factors as local/foreign currency, duration of issuance, whether the rating applies to a specific issuer or issuance and if it is solicited or unsolicited. In addition ESMA would like to emphasise the following points which it believes to be important when considering the appropriateness of the development of a European creditworthiness assessment of sovereign debt.
02/10/2015 2015/1471 Technical Advice on Reducing Sole and Mechanistic Reliance on Credit Ratings Technical Advice PDF
1.1 MB
02/10/2015 2015/1472 Technical Advice on Competition, Choice and Conflicts of Interest in the CRA industry Technical Advice PDF
2.48 MB
08/02/2016 2016/268 Opinion on equivalence of Turkish prospectus regime Opinion PDF
98.76 KB
02/05/2016 2016/666 Opinion on draft RTS 2 non-equity transparency Opinion PDF
193.79 KB
02/05/2016 2016/666 ANNEX Annex- Opinion on draft RTS 2 non-equity transparency Opinion PDF
633.28 KB

Pages