Category: Regulatory Body

EBA´s New Role in Anti-money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

At the turn of the year, there have been some new developments in anti-money laundering (AML) law at both German and EU level. Part 1 of our series dealt with the changes at German law resulting from the implementation of the Fifth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Part 2 sheds some light on the European Banking Authority’s (EBA) new leading role in anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT).

What is changing in the approach to AML/CFT?

In 2019, the EU legislator gave EBA a legal mandate to preventing the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing and to leading, coordinating and monitoring the AML/CFT efforts of all EU financial service providers and competent authorities. The law implementing EBA´s new powers came into effect on 1 January 2020.

However, assigning EBA a leading role in AML/CFT will not change the EU´s general approach to AML/CFT, which remains based on a minimum harmonisation directive and an associated strong focus on national law and direct supervision of financial institutions by national competent authorities. This reduces the influence and the degree of convergence and consistency EBA´s work can achieve from the outset.

To the extent legally possible, EBA will use its new role to

  • lead the establishment of AML/CTF policy and support its effective implementation by competent authorities and financial institutions;
  • coordinate AML/CFT measures by fostering effective cooperation and information exchange between all relevant authorities;
  • monitor the implementation of EU AML/CFT standards to identify vulnerabilities in competent authorities´ approaches to AML/CFT supervision and to mitigate them before money laundering and financing of terrorism risks materialise.

How will EBA lead on AML/CFT?

To fulfill its new leading role, EBA will focus on two key point: developing an EU-wide AML/CFT policy and ensuring a consistent supervision by national competent authorities. EBA intends to develop such EU-wide AML/CFT policy through standards, guidelines or opinions where this is provided for in EU law as well as on its own initiative where it identifies, for example, gaps in competent authorities´ supervision. In 2020, EBA will be setting clear expectations on the components of an effective risk-based approach with targeted revisions to the core AML/CFT guidelines: the Risk Factors Guidelines and the Risk-Based Supervision Guidelines.

EBA intends to foster a consistent supervision by national competent authorities by assisting them through training, bilateral support and detailed bilateral feedback on their approach to the AML/CFT supervision of banks.

What will EBA do to coordinate?

To coordinate the European work against money laundering and terrorism financing, EBA will focus to coordinate national competent authorities´ AML/CFT supervision by fostering effective cooperation and information exchange. To achieve its goal, the EBA will set up a permanent internal AML/CFT standing committee (AMLSC). The AMLSC will bring together, inter alia, representatives of all AML/CFT competent authorities from Member States, along with representatives from ESMA and EIOPA, the Commission and the European Central Bank. Its main task will be to provide subject matter expertise. It will also serve as a forum to facilitate information exchange and ensure effective coordination and cooperation to achieve consistent outcomes in the EU’s work against money laundering and terrorism financing. The AMLSC has met for the first time in February 2020.

In addition to the AMLSC, EBA will create a new AML/CFT database. This database will not only contain information on AML/CFT weaknesses in individual financial institutions and measures taken by competent authorities to correct those shortcomings, but EBA will use it to meet wider AML/CFT information and data need to supports its objectives on AML/CFT work. EBA will draft two regulatory technical standards  that will specify the core information that competent authorities must submit to the date base and how EBA will analyse the obtained information and make it available to competent authorities.

What will EBA do to monitor?

One main tool for EBA to monitor the implementation of EU AML/CFT standards will be using information from the new database and to ask national competent authorities to take action if EBA has the indication that a financial institution´s approach to AML/CFT materially breaches EU law. EBA envisages to use this new tool proactively to ensure that AML/CFT risks are addressed by competent authorities and financial institutions in a timely and effective manner. This approach aims to rectify shortcomings at the level of financial institutions; they do not, however, serve to establish whether or not a competent authority may be in breach of Union law.

The difference EBA´s new role will make

As the national implementation of the Fifth European AML Directive and the EBA´s new leading role show, effective AML/CFT measures remain in the focus of the EU legislator, not least due to political developments (terrorist attacks in France, “Panama Papers” etc.). Market participants should prepare themselves for stricter audits by their competent national authorities on AML/CFT compliance. For example, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin) has announced AML/CFT as one of its focuses of its supervisory practice for 2020. By assigning a leadership role to EBA, European efforts to prevent money laundering will in future be better coordinated, bundled and consistently implemented throughout the European financial market and therefore, hopefully, be more effective. However, we need to keep in mind that BaFin and subsequently also EBA are only part of the European and national AML regime. In Germany, for example, the FIU has a leading role in AML activities. An overview of the authorities involved can be found here.

EBA’s Action Plan on Sustainable Finance

Published on by Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

Climate change and the response to it by the public sector and society in general have led to an increasing relevance of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors for financial markets. It is, therefore, essential that financial institutions are able to measure and monitor the ESG risks in order to deal with risks stemming from climate change (learn more about climate change related risks in our previous Blogpost.

To support this, on 6 December 2019, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published its Action Plan on Sustainable Finance outlining its approach and timeline for delivering mandates related to ESG factors. The Action Plan explains the legal bases of the EBA mandates and EBA´s sequenced approach to fulfil these mandates.

Why is EBA in charge ? EBA mandates on sustainable finance

The EBA´s remit and mandates on ESG factors and ESG risks are set out in the following legislative acts:

  • the amended EBA Regulation;
  • the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR II) and Capital Requirements Directive (CRD V);
  • the new Investment Firms Regulation (IFR) and Investment Firms Directive (IFD) and
  • the EU the Commission´s Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth and related legislative packages.

These legislatives acts reflect a sequenced approach, starting with the mandates providing for the EBA to oblige institutions to incorporate ESG factors into their risk management as well as delivering key metrics in order to ensure market discipline. The national supervisory authorities are invited to gain an overview of existing ESG-related market risks. In a second step, the EBA will develop a dedicated climate change stress test that institutions should use to test the impact of climate change related risks on their risk-bearing capacity and to take appropriate precautions. The third step of the work will look into the evidence around the prudential treatment of “green” exposures.

The rationale for this sequencing is the need firstly to understand institutions´ current business mix from a sustainability perspective in order to measure and manage it in relation to their chosen strategy, which can then be used for scenario analysis and alter for the assessment of an appropriate prudential treatment.

Strategy and risk management

With regard to ESG strategy and risk management, the EBA already included references to green lending and ESG factors in its Consultation paper on draft guidelines on loan origination and monitoring which will apply to internal governance and procedures in relation to credit granting processes and risk management. Based on the guidelines the institutions will be required to include the ESG factors in their risk management policies, including credit risk policies and procedures. The guidelines also set out the expectation that institutions that provide green lending should develop specific green lending policies and procedures covering granting and monitoring of such credit facilities.

In addition, based on the mandate included in the CRD V, the EBA will asses the development of a uniform definition of ESG risks and the development of criteria and methods for understanding the impact of ESG risks on institutions to evaluate and manage the ESG risks.

It is envisaged that the EBA will first publish a discussion paper in Q2-Q3/2020 seeking stakeholder feedback before completing a final report. As provided for in the CRD V, based on the outcome of this report, the EBA may issue guidelines regarding the uniform inclusion of ESG risks in the supervisory review and evaluation process performed by competent authorities, and potentially also amend or extend other policies products including provisions for internal governance, loan origination and outsourcing agreements.

Until EBA has delivered its mandates on strategy and risk management, it encourages institutions to act proactively in incorporating ESG considerations into their business strategy and risk management as well as integrate ESG risks into their business plans, risk management, internal control framework and decision-making process.

Key metrics and disclosures

Institutions disclosures constitute an important tool to promote market discipline. The provision of meaningful information on common key metrics also distributes to making market participants aware of market risks. The disclosure of common and consistent information also facilitates comparability of risks and risks management between institutions, and helps market participants to make informed decisions.

To support this, CRR II requires large institutions with publicly listed issuances to disclose information on ESG risks and climate change related risks. In this context, CRR II includes a mandate to the EBA according to which it shall develop a technical standard implementing the disclosure requirements. Following this mandate, EBA will specify ESG risks´ disclosures as part of the comprehensive technical standard on Basel´s framework Pillar 3.

Similar mandates are contained in the IFR and IFD package. The IFD mandate for example requires EBA to report on the introduction of technical criteria related to exposures to activities associated substantially with ESG objectives for the supervisory review and evaluation process of risks, with a view to assessing the possible sources and effects of such risks on investment firms.

Until EBA has delivered its mandates, it encourages institutions to continue their work on existing disclosure requirements such as provided for in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) as well as participation in other initiatives. EBA also encourages institutions to prioritise the identification of some simple metrics (such as green asset ratio) that provide transparency on how climate change-related risks are embedded into their business strategies, decision-making process, and risk management.

Stress testing and scenario analysis

The EBA Regulation includes a specific reference to the potential environmental-related systemic risk to be reflected in the stress-testing regime. Therefore, the EBA should develop common methodologies assessing the effect of economic scenarios on an institutions´ financial position, taking into account, inter alia, risks stemming from adverse environmental developments and the impact of transition risk stemming from environmental political changes.

Also the CRD V mandate requires EBA to develop appropriate qualitative and quantitative criteria, such as stress testing processes and scenario analysis, to asses the impact of ESG risks under scenarios with different severities. Hence, EBA will develop a dedicated climate stress test with the main objective of identifying banks´ vulnerabilities to climate-related risks and quantifying the relevance of the exposures that could potentially hit by climate change related risks.

Until delivering its mandates, EBA encourages institutions to adopt climate change related scenarios and use scenario analysis as an explorative tool to understand the relevance of the exposures affected by and the potential magnitude of climate change related risks.

Prudential treatment

The mandate in the CRR II asks EBA to assess if a dedicated prudential treatment of exposures to assets or activities associated with environmental or social objectives would be justified. The findings should be summarised in a report based on the input of a first to be published discussion paper.

Upshot

Between 2019 and 2025, the EBA will deliver a significant amount of work on ESG and climate change related risks. The obligations for institutions with regard to a sustainable financial economy and a more conscious handling of climate change related risks are becoming increasingly concrete. Institutions should take the EBA’s encouragement seriously and consider applying the measures recommended by the EBA prior to the publication of any guidelines, reports or technical standards.

ESMA updated AIFMD and UCITS Q&As

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring

On June 4, 2019 ESMA published updates questions and answers on the application of the AIFM Directive (available here) and the UCITs Directive (available here). ESMA’s intention of publishing und regularly updating the Q&A documents ensures common supervisory approaches and practices in relation to both the AIFM Directive and the UCITS Directive and their implementing measures.

The latest update refers to the depositories and the possibilities to delegate the safekeeping of assets of the funds. ESMA clarifies that supporting tasks that are linked to depositary tasks such as administrative or technical functions performed as part of the depositary tasks could be entrusted to third parties where all of the following conditions are met:

  1. the execution of the tasks does not involve any discretionary judgement or interpretation by the third party in relation to the depositary functions;
  2. the execution of the tasks does not require specific expertise in regard to the depositary function; and
  3. the tasks are standardised and pre-defined.

Where depositaries entrust tasks to third parties and give them the ability to transfer assets belonging to AIFs or UCITS without requiring the intervention of the depositary, these arrangements are subject to the delegation requirements, in Germany subject to Para. 36 KAGB.

Another question relates to the supervision of branches of depositories. The AIFM Directive, the UCITS Directive, the CRD and the MiFID II do not grant any passporting rights for depositary activities in relation to safekeeping assets for AIFs or UCITS. Branches of depositories located in the home Member State of the AIF or UCITS that is not the home Member State of the depositary’s head office may also be subject to local authorisation in order to perform depositaries activities in relation to AIFs or UCITS. In this case, the competent authority for supervising the activities in relation to AIFs or UCITS is the one located in the Member State of the depository’s branch.

The guidance provided by ESMA in the Q&A documents for AIFs and UCITS regarding the depository function do not contain any surprising elements but further strengthen the harmonized interpretation and application of the AIFM and UCITS Directives in Europe.

ESAs publish joint report on regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs – Part 2

Published on by Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

On January 7th 2019 the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) (consisting of ESMA, EBA and EIOPA) published as part of the European Commission’s FinTech Action Plan a joint report on innovation facilitators (i.e. regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs). The report sets out a comparative analysis of the innovation facilitators established to date within the EU including the presentation of best practices for the design and operation of innovation facilitators.

We take the report as an occasion to present both innovation hubs and regulatory sandboxes in a two-part article. After we highlighted innovation hubs in Part 1, Part 2 will shed some light on regulatory sandboxes.

Regulatory sandboxes – What they are and what their goals are

The EU Commission´s FinTech Action plan provides for regulatory sandboxes to create an environment in which supervision is specifically tailored to innovative firms or services. ESMA’s joint report follows on from the FinTech Action plan and investigates the previous equipment and experience with regulatory sandboxes.

In detail, a regulatory sandbox provides a scheme to enable regulated and unregulated entities to test, pursuant to a specific testing plan agreed and monitored by the competent authority, innovative financial products, financial services or business models under real regulatory conditions before they bring the products to market.

The aim of a regulatory sandbox is to provide a monitored space in which competent authorities and firms can better understand the opportunities and risks presented by innovations and their regulatory treatment through a testing phase. Also, firms can assess the viability of innovative positions, in particular in terms of their application of and their compliance with regulatory and supervisory requirements. However, regulatory sandboxes do not entail the disapplication of regulatory requirements that must be applied as a result of EU law. On the contrary, the baseline assumption for regulatory sandboxes is that firms are required to comply with all relevant regulatory requirements applicable on the activity they are undertaking. The main goal of the regulatory sandboxes, as with the innovation hubs, is therefore to enhance the firms’ understanding of the relevant regulatory issues and, on the other hand, to enhance the competent authorities’ understanding of innovative financial products.

Where they exist and who can participate

At the date of the ESA report, five competent authorities reported operational regulatory sandboxes: Denmark, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland and UK. The sandboxes are open to incumbent institutions, new entrants and other firms. Moreover, the sandboxes are not limited to a certain part of the financial sector, rather they are cross-sectored (e.g. banking, investment services, payment services and insurances).

How does a regulatory sandbox work exactly?

Typically, regulatory sandboxes involve several phases which can be described as (i) an application phase, (ii) a preparation phase, (iii) a testing phase and (iv) an exit or evaluation phase.

Regulatory Sandbox

In the following, we briefly describe the steps taken in each phases either by the firm or by the competent authority.

Application phase

Firms interested in participating on a regulatory sandbox must submit an application by the competent authority. The applications received are judged by the competent authority against set, transparent, publicly available criteria. These criteria are, e.g. (i) the scope of the propositions, i.e. does the firm’s business model to be tested in the regulatory sandbox involve regulated financial services, (ii) the innovativeness of the firm’s proposition and (iii) the readiness of the firm to test its proposition. Whether the company is ready for a regulatory test phase in the sandbox is judged on the basis whether or not the firm has, e.g., developed a business plan or has obtained the appropriate software license.

Preparation phase

During the preparation phase, the competent authorities work with the firms deemed to be eligible to participate in the regulatory sandboxes to determine:

  • whether or not the proposition to be tested involves a regulated activity. If this is the case and the firm does not already hold the appropriate license, the firm will be required to seek the appropriate license in order to progress to the testing phase,
  • if any operational requirements need to be put in place to support the test (e.g. systems and controls, reporting),
  • the parameters for the test (such as number of clients, restrictions on serving specific clients, restrictions on disclosure),
  • the plan for the engagement between the firm and the competent authority during the testing phase.

Testing phase

The testing phase allows sufficient opportunity for the proposition to be fully tested and for the opportunities and risks to be explored. Throughout the testing phase, the firm is expected to communicate with the competent authority through a direct on-site presence, meetings, regulator calls or pre-agreed written reports. According the ESAs report, the supervision during the testing phase in a regulatory sandbox is experienced as a more intense supervision by the competent authority than the usual supervisory engagement outside the sandbox.

From the perspective of the competent authority, the value of the testing phase in the regulatory sandbox can be found in the opportunity to understand the application of the regulatory framework with regard to the innovative proposition and in the opportunity to built in appropriate safeguards for innovative propositions, for example with regard to consumer protection considerations. On the other hand, the value for the firms can be found in gaining better appreciation of the application of the regulatory scheme and supervisory expectations regarding the innovative propositions.

Evaluation phase

In the evaluation phase, the firm either submits to the authority a final report so that an assessment of the test can be carried out, or the competent authority will evaluate the success of the test by drawing on input provided by the firm. It should be noted that the test can be considered a success in many ways. Thus, not only the result that the product can be successfully established on the market under the tested regulatory conditions can be regarded as a success, but also the recognition that it is not possible for a proposition to be viably applied at the markets in the light of the existing regulatory and supervisory obligations.

Why is there no regulatory sandbox in Germany?

Unlike in Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin) has not set up a regulatory sandbox in Germany. In the past, BaFin promoted the view that each market participant needs to observe all regulatory requirements. One of the reasons behind that was and is the customer protection and equal treatment of companies. BaFin cites the fact that the sandbox model promotes conflicts of interest as the main reason for this:[1] after all, how would a supervisor behave if a FinTech, which BaFin had previously taken care of in its sandbox, did not treat his customers the way it should?[2]

Upshot

Regulatory sandboxes offer interested companies a good opportunity to test the products they develop under real regulatory conditions and in a supervisory environment specially tailored to innovative companies and therefore to better understand all (regulatory) possibilities and risks on the innovative product. It should be emphasized though that regulatory sandboxes do not apply a supervision light; rather all regulatory requirements must be fulfilled, especially with regard to a required authorisation. However, precise testing under real regulatory conditions and close monitoring by the supervisory authority can provide companies with important insights into their innovative products.

[1] New Year’s press reception of BaFin 2016, Speech by Felix Hufeld, President of BaFin, in Frankfurt am Main on 12 January 2016, available at https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Reden/re_160112_neujahrspresseempfang_p.html (accessed on 22 January 2019).

[2] New Year’s press reception of BaFin 2016, Speech by Felix Hufeld, President of BaFin, in Frankfurt am Main on 12 January 2016, available at https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Reden/re_160112_neujahrspresseempfang_p.html (accessed on 22 January 2019).

ESAs publish joint report on regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs – Part 1: Innovation hubs available for enquiries

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

On January 7th 2019, the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) (consisting of the European Securities and Markets Authority, the European Banking Authority and the European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority) published as part of the European´s Commission FinTech Action Plan e a joint report on innovation facilitators (i.e. regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs) available here . The report sets out a comparative analysis of the innovation facilitators established to date within the EU including the presentation of best practices for the design and operation of innovation facilitators.

We take the report as an occasion to present both innovation hubs and regulatory sandboxes in a two-part article. In Part 1 we will discuss what exactly innovation hubs are, what goals they pursue and how they are structured in Germany. Part 2 will then deal with the regulatory sandboxes.

Innovation hubs – What they are and what their goals are

It is often difficult for companies to obtain binding statements on regulatory requirements when a business model is still developing. Innovation hubs create a formal framework that considerably simplifies the exchange between innovators and supervisors, thereby promoting market access.

Innovation hubs provide a dedicated point of contact for firms to raise enquiries with competent authorities on Fin Tech-related issues to seek non-binding guidance on the conformity of innovative financial products, financial services, business models or delivery mechanisms with licensing or registration requirements and regulatory and supervisory expectations. In general, the innovation hubs are available to companies as a user interface at the relevant national authority. In Germany, the innovation hub is located at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin) and is available here. A total of twenty-one EU Member States have established innovation hubs.[1]

Innovation hubs have been set up to enhance firms´ understanding of the regulatory and supervisory expectations regarding innovative business models, products and services. To achieve this goal, firms are provided with a contact point for asking questions of, and initiate dialogue with, competent authorities regarding the application of regulatory and supervisory requirements to innovative business models, financial products, services and delivery mechanisms. For example, the innovation hubs provide firms with non-binding guidance on the conformity of their proposed business model with regulatory requirements; specifically, whether or not the proposition would include regulated activities for which authorisation is required.

Who can participate and how does an innovation hub work exactly?

In the following, we explain which companies can participate in the innovation hubs and describe how exactly the communication between the companies and the innovation hub takes place.

Scope

The innovation hubs are open to all firms, whether incumbents or new entrants, regulated or unregulated which adopt or consider to adopt innovative products, services, business models or delivery mechanisms.

Communication process between firms and competent authorities

The following ESA graph illustrates the communication process between the firms and the competent authority using the innovation hub. The individual phases of the communication process are explained below. [2]

Submission of enquiries via interface

In order to submit enquiries, all innovation hubs set up in the EU Member States offer interested companies user interfaces through which contact can be established with the respective supervisory authority. This can be done e.g. by telephone or electronically, but also via online meetings or websites. Some innovation hubs also offer the possibility of organising physical meetings. In Germany, BaFin provides an electronic contact form in which both the company data and the planned business model can be presented and transmitted to BaFin. The contact form is available here.

Assigning the request to the relevant point of contact within the competent authority

As soon as the contact has been established and the request has been submitted, typically the authority conducts a screening process to determine how best to deal with the queries raised. In this process, the authority considers factors such as the nature of the query, its urgency and its complexity, including the need to refer the query to other authorities, such as data protection authorities.

Providing responses to the firms

Depending on the nature of the enquiries raised, several information exchanges between the firm and the competent authority may take place. Responses to firms may be routed to different channels such as meetings, telephone calls or email. Typically, the responses provided via the innovation hub are to be understood as preliminary guidance based solely on the facts established in the course of the communications between the firms and the competent authority. The companies can use the information gained to better understand the regulatory requirements for their planned business model and develop it further on this basis.

Follow-up actions

Some authorities offer follow-up actions within their innovation hubs. Especially if the communication process between the company and the authority shows that the business model of the company includes a regulated activity. In this case, some competent authorities may provide support within the authorisation process (e.g. dedicated point of contact, guidance on the completion of the application form).

Previous experiences on the use of innovation hubs

Although innovation hubs are available to all market participants, according to the ESA report, three categories of companies in particular use the innovation hubs: (i) start-ups, (ii) regulated entities that are already supervised by competent authorities and are considering innovation products or services and (iii) technology providers offering technical solutions to institutions active in the financial markets.

Typically, the firms use the innovation hub to seek information about the following: (i) whether or not a certain activity needs authorisation and, if so, information about the licensing process and the regulatory and supervisory obligations, (ii) whether or not anti-money laundering issues arise, and (iii) the applicability of consumer protection regulation and (iv) the application of regulatory and supervisory requirements (e.g. systems and controls).

Upshot

Innovation hubs provide companies with a good opportunity to interact with regulators via a user-friendly platform. They can therefore clarify the regulatory requirements for the products they plan to develop at an early stage and incorporate them into their business planning. By setting up innovation hubs, especially for young and dynamic (FinTech-) start-ups, the inhibition threshold to contact the supervisory authority is significantly lowered, especially because predefined user interfaces can be used.

[1] Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, UK.

[2] Source: ESA Report FinTech: Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs.

ESMA publishes Final Report on Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks – Part 2

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

On December 20, 2018 ESMA published its Final Report on the Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks. These represent ESMA´s administrative practice and fill the broad regulations of the Benchmark Regulation (BMR) with more details, which makes their implementation considerably easier for the obligated parties. The guidelines have no direct effect in the EU member states but are generally to be adopted one-by-one by the national supervisory authorities, so that they will be applied as the administrative practice of the respective national authority.

In Part 1 we looked at the definition of a non-significant benchmark (NSB) and the Guidelines on the oversight function and on input data. Part 2 will highlight the new requirements on the transparency of methodology and governance set out in the Guidelines.

Guidelines on transparency of methodology (Article 13 BMR)

Article 13 BMR states transparency requirements regarding the development, use and management of the benchmark by the administrator. To this end, Article 13 sets out standards with regard to the methodology for determining the benchmark. The Guidelines contain three sections: (i) on the key elements of the methodology; (ii) the elements of the internal review of the methodology; and (iii) on the information to be provided in case of a proposed material change to an administrator´s methodology.

The key elements of the methodology used to determine the benchmark should include, inter alia, a definition and description of the NSB and the market it is intended to measure, the types of input data used to determine the NSB, minimum requirements of the quality of the input data, the compositions of any panel of contributors and the criteria to determine eligibility for panel membership.

The information to be provided by an administrator of a NSB in compliance with the requirements regarding the internal review of the methodology should include at least a description of the policies and procedures relating to the internal review and approval of the methodology. In case of material changes of the methodology the information to be provided by an administrator should include at least the disclosure of the key elements of the methodology that would, in its view, be affected by the proposed material change.

Guidelines on governance and control requirements for supervised contributors (Article 16 BMR)

Article 16 BMR provides requirements for the governance and control of a supervised contributor. To this end, Article 16 sets out specific but broad requirements for the management of a contributor’s company and its systems, which serve to preserve the integrity and reliability of its input data. In addition, the Guidelines set out, inter alia, provisions on the control framework, control of submitters, the management of conflicts of interest and record-keeping requirements. All these elements are mentioned in Art. 16 BMR to ensure proper governance and control by the contributor but outlined in more detail in the Guidelines.

According to the Guidelines, the contributor´s control framework for example should include at least an effective oversight mechanism for overseeing the process for contributing input data, a policy on whistle-blowing and a procedure for detecting breaches of BMR. The measures for the management of conflicts of interest should include, inter alia, a register of material conflicts of interests. Additionally, the records to be kept with regard to the provision of input data should include, e.g., the names of the submitters.

Applicability of the Guidelines

As already mentioned in Part 1, NSB have less impact on markets than critical or significant benchmarks. Therefore, the BMR provides options for administrators of non-significant benchmarks not to apply some BMR provisions (Article 4 to 7, 11 and 13 to 15 BMR). However, an incentive to apply the provisions nonetheless may exist, for instance, the administrator does not have to maintain different internal structures and processes for its benchmarks if he administers mainly significant benchmarks.

Since some of the Guidelines concern regulations whose applicability the administrator can exclude, the Guidelines do not apply if the administrator has decided in a permissible manner not to apply the corresponding regulations. However, if the Guidelines concern regulations from which the administrator may not deviate or if he has decided not to make use of the simplifications, the Guidelines shall apply.

ESMA publishes Final Report on Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks – Part 1

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

What does the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) regulate in the newest Guidelines on benchmarks? When is a benchmark not significant? The following article will answer these questions and more.

The regulation of benchmarks

Since January 2018, the administration, provision and use of benchmarks has been regulated by the Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 on indices used as benchmark in financial instruments and financial contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds (BMR). The BMR introduces a regime for benchmark administrators, contributors and users that ensures the accuracy and integrity of benchmarks so that they are robust, reliable, representative and suitable for the intended use by establishing rules for administrators, contributors and users of critical, significant and non-significant benchmarks. We already shared this blog post on November 22, 2018 on emergency plans, which are also part of the BMR´s regulatory regime.

ESMA Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks

On December 20, 2018, ESMA published its Final Report on the Guidelines for non-significant benchmarks (NSB) (available here), which refers to the provisions in Article 5, 11, 13 and 16 BMR. This was preceded by the consultation of the Guidelines in September 2017. The Guidelines serve to concretise the provisions of Article 5, 11, 13 and 16 BMR and provide more detailed input on how the BMR’s provisions are to be implemented, thus ultimately present ESMA’s supervisory practice.

Non-significant benchmarks

NSB are benchmarks that are neither critical nor significant. A benchmark is considered critical if it serves as a reference basis for financial instruments or contracts with a total value of at least €500 billion. A benchmark is also critical if its sudden disappearance could have considerable negative effects on the stability of the markets. Significant benchmarks are those that are used as a reference basis for financial instruments or contracts with a total value of at least €50 billion. For critical and significant benchmarks, ESMA published Draft technical standards (RTS) under the Benchmark Regulation on March 30, 2017. They were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on November 5, 2018 . Since the RTS are issued as a regulation, they apply directly in the EU member states. However, for non-significant benchmarks, ESMA is mandated to prepare Guidelines which are not directly binding in the EU member states, but are generally adopted one-to-one by the respective national supervisory authority, thus they become part of its administrative practice. If the guidelines were not to be adopted, the national supervisory authorities must announce this publicly.

The Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks set out details for four areas of the BMR: the oversight function (article 5 BMR); input data (Article 11 BMR); the transparency of methodology (Article 13 BMR); and the requirements for the governance of supervised contributors (Article 16 BMR). As a result, the broad rules of the BMR are filled in with more details that make their implementation considerably easier for the obligated parties.

In Part 1, we will look at the Guidelines on the oversight function and on input data. Part 2 will highlight the Guidelines on the transparency of methodology and the governance requirements.

Guidelines on procedures and characteristics of the oversight function (Article 5 BMR)

Article 5 BMR sets out the oversight requirements that each administrator must maintain to ensure that all aspects of the provision of its benchmarks are monitored. The Guidelines on Article 5 BMR contain different sections on the composition of the oversight function, on its internal positioning and on procedures that should govern the oversight function, as well as a non-exhaustive list of governance arrangements.

For example, the Guidelines require that the oversight function should be composed of one or more members who together have the skills and expertise appropriate to the oversight of the provision of a particular benchmark and to the responsibilities the oversight function is required to fulfill. Administrators should also consider including, as members of the oversight function, representatives from trading venues. To ensure that no conflicts of interests intervene, persons directly involved in the provision of the NSB that may be members of the oversight function should have no voting-rights. Representatives of the management body should not be members or observers of the oversight function but may be invited to attend meetings by the oversight function in a non-voting capacity.

The oversight function should constitute a part of the organisational structure of the administrator, but needs to be established separately from the management body and other governance functions. Additionally, the oversight function should have its own procedures, for example, in relation to the criteria for member selection, the election, nomination and replacement of its members and access to the documentation necessary to carry out its duties.

Guidelines on input data (Article 11 BMR)

Article 11 BMR regulates the requirements for input data provided for the determination of the benchmark. Input data is the data used to determine the benchmark and relates to the value of an underlying asset. This may include, for example, real time transaction data of the respective underlying asset.

The Guidelines contain two sections on ensuring appropriate and verifiable input data and the internal oversight and verifications procedures of a contributor to a NSB.

In order to ensure that the input data used for a benchmark is appropriate and verifiable, the administrator should have available all information necessary to check whether the submitter is authorised to contribute the input data on behalf of the contributor in accordance with Article 25 of BMR, whether the input data is provided by the contributor within the time-period prescribed by the administrator and whether the input data meets the requirements set out in the methodology of the benchmark.

The internal oversight and verification procedures of a contributor that the administrator of a NSB ensures should include procedures governing, inter alia, requested communication of information to the administrator and three levels of control functions. The first level of control should be responsible for, inter alia, the effective checking of input data prior to its contribution and the submitter´s authorisations to submit input data on behalf of the contributor. The second level of control should be responsible for establishing and maintaining whistle-blowing procedures and internal reporting of any attempt or actual manipulation of input data. The third level of control should be responsible for performing checks on the controls exercised by the other two control functions. Therefore it must be independent from the first and second control level.

Applicability of the Guidelines

As NSB have less impact on markets than critical or significant benchmarks, Article 26 BMR provides for numerous simplifications for administrators with regard to NSB. Administrators may decide not to apply some of the provisions of Article 4 to 7, 11, and 13 to 15 BMR. However, an incentive to apply the regulations may be, for example, that the administrator does not have to maintain different internal structures and processes for its benchmarks. It is not necessary to constantly check whether the NSB exceeds the threshold that makes it a significant benchmark if the requirements of a significant benchmark are consistently met.

Since some of the Guidelines concern regulations whose applicability the administrator can exclude according to Article 26 BMR, the Guidelines do not apply if the administrator has decided in a permissible manner not to apply the corresponding regulations. However, if the Guidelines concern regulations from which the administrator may not deviate or if he has decided not to make use of the simplifications in Article 26 BMR, the Guidelines shall apply.

 

How to Handle Brexit as a Fund Manager

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring

By Dr. Verena Ritter-Doering of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP and Uwe Lill of GFD FINANZKOMMUNIKATION

The good old days seem to be over. Once Brexit gets real, the current passporting rules will no longer be available and new rules will apply for UK fund managers with EU clients. With or without equivalence, the UK will become a third country from an EU perspective, which raises three key questions that you will need to answer in order to chart the path forward: 1. Where is your fund located? 2. Where is your fund manager located? And 3. Where are you undertaking sales activities to address your EU clients?

To put it simply, there are seven different ways to serve your existing EU clients after Brexit, or to build new relationships with EU clients. We will show you in this Brexit map which route you will need to take to remain successful. In addition to considering the legal setup , it will be equally important to evaluate the way you communicate if you want to grow your EU customer base. For example, you must consider what should be taken into account when informing media in the unique German-speaking market.

For background information and details on this ongoing process (which may change on a daily basis!), please do not hesitate to contact us. We are very happy to share our expert knowledge with you.

Please click on this link to view the Brexit Tube Map for Fund Managers

Who is Who? European Supervisory Authorities – How they Cooperate and Interact

Published on by Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring

If you are looking for guidance from national and European supervisory authorities, it is not easy to see at first glance how they work together and whose guidance is most relevant. We want to shed some light on the ‘Who is Who?’ of German and European regulators.

Financial market supervision in Germany

The first go-to regulator in Germany is the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), which is entrusted with the tasks of banking, insurance and securities supervision and acts as a universal financial supervisory authority. BaFin is also responsible for ensuring that financial services, banking and insurance transactions are not conducted without a license and can also sanction any violations against the regulatory regime – and does so regularly. One of the newest additions to the list of tasks of BaFin is supervising compliance with consumer protection rules within the financial market. This primarily concerns cases in which regulated institutions violate regulatory provisions that protect consumers. If these infringements go beyond individual cases, they are pursued in the public interest by BaFin. BaFin, together with criminal enforcement authorities, is also responsible for pursuing money laundering and terrorist financing and supervising compliance with AML requirements. BaFin’s banking and insurance supervisory office is based in Bonn, the office responsible for securities supervision, asset management and bank resolution is based in Frankfurt am Main.

In Germany, the task of banking supervision is shared by BaFin and the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank). BaFin and Deutsche Bundesbank, e.g., oversee whether the banks have sufficient financial resources and whether business operations are properly organised. BaFin and Bundesbank receive the necessary information from the banks themselves or obtain it through on-site audits. The Bundesbank is responsible for the majority of operational banking supervision, namely the reporting and evaluation of audit reports submitted by the institutions and the performance of special audits. Guidelines for ongoing supervision and interpretation of legal requirements are mainly issued by BaFin.

The supervision of insurance policies by BaFin is intended to ensure that the insurance companies are capable of providing the benefits to which they are obliged. To this end, BaFin checks, for e.g., whether the insurance companies have sufficient financial resources and assess risks correctly.

BaFin’s supervision of securities serves the purpose of ensuring the availability of sufficient information and transparency for all market participants by monitoring the proper publication of relevant information. BaFin also monitors insider trading and price manipulation.

European financial market supervisory regime

BaFin and Deutsche Bundesbank are not the only regulators you have to keep up with when you are a regulated institution. At the European level, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have their say and the European Central Bank (ECB) is also responsible for financial market supervision within the Eurozone.

The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) has entrusted the ECB with the direct supervision of significant financial institutions in the Eurozone. These are about 120 banks and banking groups. To fall within the ECB’s responsibility, a bank must either have a balance sheet total of more than €30 billion or more than 20% of its home country’s GDP. If these thresholds are not met, the ECB monitors the 3 largest banks in each of the countries participating in the SSM (which are 19 countries in the Eurozone). All other banks will continue to be supervised by the national supervisory authorities.

If the ECB is in charge, the ECB cooperates with the national supervisory authorities of the banks’ home countries. Joint Supervisory Teams (JSTs) are set up by the ECB for coordination. These are composed of staff from the ECB and the national supervisory authorities. In Germany JSTs consist of members of the ECB, BaFin and Deutsche Bundesbank. A consistent supervisory practice can be established through the JSTs, taking into account national standards and a uniform standard within the Eurozone.

In contrast to the day-to-day supervision of the national regulators and the ECB, the European supervisory authorities EBA, ESMA and EIOPA (together ESAs) generally do not act directly vis-à-vis individual financial institutions, but ensure uniform standards within the EU. They also monitor the application of EU law by national supervisory authorities and the market. For this purpose, they use convergence instruments such as guidelines and Q&As (Questions and Answers), which aim at a consistent application of EU law by the national supervisory authorities. In practice, however, European directives are not always implemented equally in each Member State since the directives also leave a scope of interpretation for the national legislator on certain aspects of regulatory law.

The guidelines issued by EBA, ESMA and EIOPA are binding for the national regulators in Europe. They are not directly binding for the institutions but become directly binding when adopted by the national regulators. BaFin publishes on its homepage whenever it adopts guidelines, and also when guidelines are specifically not integrated within the German administrative practice. The advantage of the ESA’s approach of having a single rulebook and consistent rules throughout the EU for the market is that the provision of cross-border services becomes easier if just one set of rules apply.

EBA, ESMA and EIOPA are also actively involved in the European legislative process by supporting the European Commission in drafting legislative proposals based on their knowledge of the European financial market and its supervisory mechanisms.

Although the ESAs do not act directly vis-à-vis the majority of the regulated institutions, it is worth monitoring their publications to get an early grip on regulatory developments. The European administrative practice is essentially formed through the ESAs. It is also worth noting that the ESAs usually publish drafts of their envisaged guidelines for consultation purposes. For lobbying purposes it is essential to participate in such consultations.