ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
64
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
CESR Archive X Trade Repositories X Warnings and publications for investors X Fund Management X Credit Rating Agencies X Prospectus X Guidelines and Technical standards X Opinion X Technical Advice X Q&A X Technical Standards X
Reset all filters
Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
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
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
02/04/2013 2013/413 Final Report- Draft regulatory technical standards on types of AIFMs Technical Standards PDF
116.08 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) to determine types of alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs), where relevant in the application of the AIFMD.  The draft RTS distinguish AIFMs managing alternative investment funds (AIF) of the open-ended type and AIFMs managing AIFs of the closed-ended type, in order to apply the rules on liquidity management, the valuation procedures and the transitional provisions of the AIFMD.  ESMA was required to develop these RTS by Article 4(4) of the AIFMD and they are aimed at ensuring uniform conditions of application of the AIFMD across the European Union.
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.
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.
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
20/12/2013 2013/1970 Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on specific situations that require the publication of a supplement to the prospectus , Technical Standards PDF
713.74 KB
The Final Report contains the draft Regulatory Technical Standard (RTS) on situations which require the publication of a supplement to the prospectus which ESMA is required to submit to the European Commission by 1 January 2014 in accordance with Article 16(3) of the Prospectus Directive. The Report furthermore includes a summary of the main responses received to ESMA’s Consultation Paper which was published in March 2013. The draft RTS sets out nine situations which are always considered to be significant in the context of securities issuance and where a supplement to the prospectus will always be required. Other situations would require a case-by-case assessment.
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products , Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
20/02/2014 2014/160 Draft implementing technical standards on notification- EuVECA Technical Standards PDF
175.99 KB
20/02/2014 2014/161 Draft implementing technical standards on notification- EuSEF Technical Standards PDF
29.18 KB
27/03/2014 2014/312 Technical advice to the European Commission on the information that competent authorities should provide to ESMA pursuant to Article 67(3) of the AIFMD Technical Advice PDF
330.79 KB
Reasons for publication ESMA is issuing this technical advice in response to the mandate received from the European Commission on 20 December 2013 for advice on the possible content of the delegated act required by Article 67(5) of the AIFMD, concerning the information that EU competent authorities have to provide quarterly to ESMA pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Directive. This information is needed in order to allow ESMA to produce the opinion and the advice required in Article 67(1) of the AIFMD, in relation to the possible extension of the AIFMD passport to non-EU AIFs and non-EU AIFMs. Contents Section II describes the background of the proposal. Section III specifies the timing for the provision of the information to ESMA and lists the information that the competent authorities should provide quarterly to ESMA. The list of information is divided into three parts: the first refers to the information about the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs; the second deals with the functioning of the national private placement regime for non-EU AIFs and non-EU AIFMs; and the third refers to the issues arising from the functioning of both systems. Finally, Section IV reproduces the mandate for advice issued by the European Commission. Next steps ESMA will cooperate closely with the European Commission in order to facilitate an expeditious adoption of the delegated act required by Article 67(5) of the AIFMD.
24/06/2014 2014/685 Draft Regulatory Technical Standards under the CRA3 Regulation Technical Standards PDF
2.39 MB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its Final Report on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) required under the Credit Rating Agencies (CRA3) Regulation regarding information on transparency of structured finance instruments, the European Rating Platform and periodic reporting of fees charged by credit rating agencies. The draft RTS, which complement the existing regulatory framework for credit rating agencies (CRAs), cover: • disclosure requirements on structured finance instruments (SFIs); • the European Rating Platform (ERP); and • the periodic reporting on fees charged by CRAs.
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.
28/11/2014 2014/1417 ESMA's technical advice to the European Commission on delegated acts required by the UCITS V Directive Technical Advice PDF
469.49 KB
16/02/2015 2015/227 Final Report- ESMA’s technical advice to the European Commission on the delegated acts of the Regulations on European Social Entrepreneurship Funds and European Venture Capital Funds Technical Advice PDF
609.09 KB
22/05/2015 2015/880 ESMA Opinion to the EU institutions on the impact of EMIR on UCITS Opinion PDF
208.55 KB
30/07/2015 2015/1236 ESMA's advice to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the application of the AIFMD passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs Technical Advice PDF
1.36 MB
Executive summary Reasons for publication In accordance with Articles 36 and 42 of the Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD), non-EU alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) and non-EU alternative investment funds (AIFs) managed by EU AIFMs are subject to the national private placement regime (NPPR) of each of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed or managed. However, the AIFMD makes provision for the passport, which is currently reserved to EU AIFMs and AIFs, to be potentially extended in future. Article 67(1) of the AIFMD establishes that, by 22 July 2015, ESMA shall issue to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission advice on the application of the passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and 37 to 41 of the AIFMD. This document sets out ESMA’s advice on the application of the passport to six non-EU countries: Guernsey, Hong Kong, Jersey, Switzerland, Singapore and the United States. Contents Section 1 of the advice sets out the background to ESMA’s work, while the detailed assessment of each of the aforementioned non-EU countries is contained in section 2. Annexes 1 to 7 contain a summary of the feedback to the call for evidence that ESMA launched in November 2014. Annex 8 gives a detailed breakdown by non-EU country of the number of non-EU AIFs and non-EU AIFMs active in Member States in accordance with Articles 36 and 42 of the AIFMD. Next Steps ESMA will continue to work on its assessment of other non-EU countries not covered in this advice with a view to delivering further submissions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in the coming months. For those non-EU jurisdictions with which there are currently no supervisory cooperation arrangements in place for the purposes of the AIFMD, ESMA will continue its efforts to agree a MoU with the authorities concerned.
30/07/2015 2015/1235 ESMA's opinion to the European Parliament, Council and Commission and responses to the call for evidence on the functioning of the AIFMD EU passport and of the National Private Placement Regimes Opinion PDF
886.86 KB
AIFMD and the request to ESMA for an Opinion In accordance with Articles 36 and 42 of the AIFMD, non-EU AIFMs and non-EU AIFs managed by EU AIFMs are subject to the NPPR of each of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed or managed. However, the AIFMD makes provision for the passport, which is currently reserved to EU AIFMs and AIFs, to be potentially extended in future. Article 67(1) of the AIFMD establishes that, by 22 July 2015, ESMA shall issue to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission the following: An opinion on the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs pursuant to Articles 32 and 33 of the AIFMD and on the functioning of the national private placement regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 of the AIFMD. Advice on the application of the passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 of the AIFMD. Within three months of receipt of positive advice and an opinion from ESMA, and taking into account the criteria of Article 67(2) and the objectives of the AIFMD, the Commission should adopt a delegated act specifying the date when the rules set out in Article 35 and 37 to 41 of the AIFMD become applicable in all Member States. As a consequence, the EU passport would be extended to non-EU AIFs and non-EU AIFMs. In order to produce this opinion and advice, ESMA must look into the elements listed in Article 67(2) and (4) of the AIFMD , notably on the basis of the information provided by the national competent authorities (NCAs) about the EU and non-EU AIFMs under their supervision. Indeed, Article 67(3) of the AIFMD requires NCAs to provide information to ESMA quarterly as from 22 July 2013. ESMA has received input from NCAs for the periods covering 22 July 2013 to 31 March 2014, 1 April to 30 June 2014, 1 July to 30 September 2014, 1 October to 31 December 2014, and 1 January to 31 March 2015. In order to supplement the input provided by NCAs via the quarterly surveys, ESMA launched a call for evidence in November 2014 aimed at gathering information from EU and non-EU stakeholders on the functioning of the EU passport, the NPPRs and the potential extension of the AIFMD passport to non-EU countries. ESMA received 67 responses (including 15 confidential responses), from 13 non-EU Authorities, 21 EU and non-EU trade associations of asset managers, 17 EU and non-EU asset managers, and 16 other trade associations and private firms (e.g. providers of services for funds, law firms etc). Summary of the opinion In relation to the timing of the assessment of the functioning of the EU passport, ESMA considers that the delay in the implementation of the AIFMD together with the delay in the transposition in some Member States make a definitive assessment difficult. ESMA would see merit in the preparation of another opinion on the functioning of the passport after a longer period of implementation in all Member States. However, even at this early stage, ESMA has identified several issues in relation to the use of the EU passport. These issues include: i) divergent approaches with respect to marketing rules, including heterogeneity of fees charged by the NCAs where the AIFs are marketed and the definition of what constitutes a “professional investor”; ii) varying interpretations of what activities constitute “marketing” and “material changes” under the AIFMD passport in the different Member States. With that in mind, ESMA sees merit in greater convergence in the definition of these terms. Nevertheless, ESMA is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the AIFMD EU passport has raised major issues in terms of the functioning and implementation of the AIFMD framework. In relation to the timing of the assessment of the functioning of the NPPRs, ESMA considers that the delay in the implementation of the AIFMD together with the delay in transposition in some Member states make a definitive assessment difficult. ESMA would see merit in the preparation of another opinion on the functioning of the NPPR Regime after a longer period of implementation has passed in all Member States (although this is linked to the decision to be taken by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on whether to extend the passport to one or more non-EU countries in the meantime). ESMA is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the NPPRs have raised major issues in terms of the functioning and implementation of the AIFMD framework.