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?

In calculating the second AAR condition under Article 7a(1) of EMIR, should only cleared interest rate derivatives be included, or both cleared and uncleared?

In accordance with Article 7a(4) of EMIR, the AAR requirements set out under points (a), (b), and (c) of Article 7a(3) shall be “regularly stress-tested at least once a year”. In relation to the stress-testing referred to under Article 7a(4) of EMIR:
- Should the stress testing apply to three times the trade count or to the gross notional value cleared?
- Should the stress testing apply for each type of products under Article 6 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/305, or at subcategories or account level ?
- What is the timeline for the first annual stress test?