REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|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).|
|24/04/2014||2013/922||Compliance table- suitability guidelines||MiFID - Investor Protection, Guidelines and Technical standards||Compliance table||PDF
|24/04/2014||2013/923||Compliance table- compliance guidelines||MiFID - Investor Protection, Guidelines and Technical standards||Compliance table||PDF
|07/10/2014||2014-1213||Guidelines compliance table for Guidelines on remuneration policies and practices (MiFID)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Compliance table||PDF
|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).|
|18/12/2014||2014/1560||Advice- Investment-based crowdfunding||Innovation and Products||Final Report||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 sections 1 to 6 of this document.|
|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.|
|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
|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.|
|21/05/2015||2015/856 Ann1||Investment-based crowdfunding- Insights from regulators in the EU||Innovation and Products||Final Report||PDF