Search a question

For securities lending and borrowing transactions, should Field 2.49 – ‘Security or Commodity Price’ and Field 2.56 – ‘Loan Value’ be updated and reported whenever mark-to-market adjustments are agreed between counterparties?

I would like to request a general clarification on the interpretation of the ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) regarding record-keeping requirements for “under supervision” (in particular paragraphs 19, 20(c) and 20(g)).

In practice, client communication, suitability documentation and system completion are often performed in a segregated and digital manner (e.g. different staff members involved in the client interaction, documentation and approval). This raises, in particular, the following questions:

1. Minimum requirements for records / traceability
What minimum requirements arise from the Guidelines regarding records to enable the competent authority to verify that supervision actually takes place and is carried out to an appropriate extent?

2. Objective evidence of assumption of responsibility
Is the mere formal naming of a qualified person in the documentation (e.g. in the suitability statement) sufficient, or do the Guidelines expect objectively verifiable review/approval/sign-off evidence?

3. Digital processes / segregated documentation
What requirements apply in digital systems and segregated documentation workflows where client communication, suitability documentation and system completion are not carried out by the same person?

4. Use of user credentials / role awareness
How should “under supervision” be assessed under the Guidelines if user credentials of a qualified person are used for system documentation/system completion, but that person does not provide a conscious assumption of responsibility (review/approval/sign-off) or is not aware that they are intended to act as the supervisor?

I would like to request a general clarification on the interpretation of the ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) regarding “under supervision” in the context of investment advice, in particular paragraphs 4(j), 19 and 20(d)–(g).

In practice, investment firms use supervision/tandem models in which a supervised staff member communicates the personal recommendation to the client, while a qualified/experienced person performs supervision and carries out documentation/approval steps.

Against this background, I kindly request clarification on the following points:

1. Real-time supervision vs. ex post review
Do the Guidelines typically require that, for “under supervision”, the supervisor is able to intervene in real time (e.g. by attending, listening-in/reading along, and having an immediate stop-go capability), or can an exclusively ex post review/approval be sufficient?

2. “Under the responsibility of” / “same responsibility”
How should the requirement be understood that the activity is performed “under the responsibility of” a qualified/experienced person (para. 4(j)) and that the supervisor assumes “the same responsibility” (para. 20(g))?
Which organisational minimum features are typically expected where the supervised staff member communicates the personal recommendation to the client?

3. Explicit assignment and awareness of the supervisory role
Does “under supervision” require that the supervisory role is explicitly assigned and that both the supervised staff member and the supervisor are aware of their respective role, responsibilities and limits?

4. Conscious assumption of responsibility / sign-off
Is the signing of the suitability statement by the supervisor mentioned in para. 20(g) to be understood as a standard expectation (or, in digital processes, a functional equivalent such as a documented review/approval/sign-off)?
Is the mere presence of a qualified person without a conscious assumption of responsibility sufficient?

Does MiFID II permit investment firms to earn interest on client funds deposited in a savings account at a credit institution?

1. Does a tied agent have to be remunerated with both a variable component of remuneration (based on the actual activities performed by the tied agent, i.e., dependent on performance) and a fixed component of remuneration, as stipulated in Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/565?

2. Would the answer to the first question change if the tied agent is engaged by a person falling under Article 3 of the MiFID II Directive, i.e., assuming that a Member State adopts this optional exemption under Article 3 of the MiFID II Directive and incorporates it into its national legislation?