REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|24/09/2019||ESMA70-155-2929||Position limit on EEX Italian Power Base contracts||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Opinion||PDF
|24/09/2019||ESMA70-155-5827||Position limit on EEX Italian Power Peak contracts||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Opinion||PDF
|20/06/2019||ESMA70-155-2941||Position limit on French Power Base contracts||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Opinion||PDF
|20/06/2019||ESMA70-155-2925||Position limit on French Power Peak contracts||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Opinion||PDF
|31/07/2014||2014/944||Potential Risks Associated with Investing in Contingent Convertible Instruments||Warnings and publications for investors, Innovation and Products||Statement||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is issuing this statement to clarify to institutional investors risks from a newly emerging asset class referred to by most market participants as contingent convertibles instruments (CoCos). If they work as intended in a crisis CoCos will play an important role to inhibit risk transfer from debt holders to taxpayers. They along with standards to improve the quality and quantity of bank capital reflect a considerate response to the former regulatory capital framework. However, it is unclear as to whether investors fully consider the risks of CoCos and correctly factor those risks into their valuation. ESMA believes there are specific risks to CoCos and that investors should take those risks into consideration prior to investing in these instruments.|
|28/06/2017||ESMA35-36-885||Product Intervention- General Statement||Innovation and Products, MiFID - Investor Protection||Statement||PDF
This statement provides an update on the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) work in relation to the sale of contracts for differences (CFDs), binary options and other speculative products to retail investors.
ESMA has been concerned about the provision of speculative products such as CFDs, rolling spot forex and binary options to retail investors for a considerable period of time and has conducted ongoing monitoring and supervisory convergence work in this area. In this context, ESMA has previously published a number of Q&As on CFDs and other speculative products to foster supervisory convergence, having established a CFD Task Force in July 2015, and also issued a further investor warning on the sale of CFDs, binary options and other speculative products in July 2016.
However, ESMA remains concerned that these supervisory convergence tools may not be sufficiently effective to ensure that the risks to consumer protection are sufficiently controlled or reduced. ESMA is therefore discussing the possible use of its product intervention powers under Article 40 of MiFIR to address investor protection risks in relation to CFDs, rolling spot forex and binary options.
ESMA is in the process of discussing the possible use of its product intervention powers under Article 40 of MiFIR, the possible content of any such measures, and how they could be applied. However, ESMA can confirm that the measures being discussed for (i) CFDs and rolling spot forex and (ii) binary options include proposals that take into account a number of measures that have been adopted or publicly consulted on by EU National Competent Authorities. These measures include leverage limits, guaranteed limits on client losses, and / or restrictions on the marketing and distribution of these products.
In accordance with Article 40 of MiFIR, any intervention measures must be approved by the ESMA Board of Supervisors and can only come into effect from 3 January 2018 at the earliest.
 ESMA/2016/1166 Warning about CFDs, binary options and other speculative products published 25 July 2016
|07/03/2019||ESMA70-155-7253||Public Statement MiFIDII BMR provisions under a no deal Brexit||Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|12/07/2019||ESMA70-156-1436||Public Statement MiFIR DTO||MiFID - Secondary Markets, Post Trading||Statement||PDF
|20/06/2018||ESMA70-145-872||Public statement on LEI||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|20/03/2020||ESMA70-1556-2485||Public Statement Tick Sizes||COVID-19, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|19/03/2019||ESMA70-155-7329||Public Statement Trading Obligation Shares||Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|28/09/2017||ESMA70-154-356||Public statement- Joint work plan of ESMA and NCAs for opinions on MiFID II pre-trade transparency waivers and position limits||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|29/05/2019||ESMA70-154-1204||Revised Public_ Statement_Trading_Obligation_Shares||Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|20/06/2016||2016/940||Statement by Steven Maijoor at ECON MiFID II/MiFIR Scrutiny Session, 21 June 2016||Speeches, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Statement||PDF
|27/03/2014||2014/332||Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements||MiFID - Investor Protection, Innovation and Products||Opinion||PDF
|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.|
|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|
|07/10/2019||ESMA90-1-167||Benchmarks, Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets, MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC||Statement||PDF
|07/10/2019||ESMA70-155-7658||Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets, MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC||Statement||PDF
|05/02/2019||ESMA 70-155-7026||Use of UK data in ESMA databases in case of a no-deal Brexit||Brexit, MiFID - Secondary Markets, MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC||Statement||PDF