Schlagwort: Guidelines

Jahresbeginn erläutert die BaFin stets, auf welche Themen sie im neune Jahr besonderes Gewicht legt

Gegen Greenwashing: Neue Regulierung von Fondsnamen

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

ESG, green, sustainable, impact investing…der Name eines Fondsprodukt ist oft das, was ein potentieller Investor als Erstes sieht. Auch wenn für die Rendite letztlich maßgeblich ist, welche Assets im Fonds enthalten sind, ist der Name des Fonds doch häufig das, was das Interesse weckt. Hier ist die Gefahr von Greenwashing, sprich der Verwendung von ESG-Begriffen, ohne dass aber entsprechendes Commitment besteht, also besonders groß.

Die gesamte Nachhaltigkeitsregulierung im Finanzmarkt dient deshalb dem übergeordneten Ziel, Transparenz zu schaffen, Anlegervertrauen zu fördern und damit Kapital hin zu einer nachhaltigeren Wirtschaft bereitzustellen. Dazu legt z.B. die Taxonomie-Verordnung als Grundlage eine einheitliche Definition nachhaltiger Wirtschaftstätigkeit fest. Die EU-Offenlegungsverordnung (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation – „SFDR“) regelt z.B. nachhaltigkeitsbezogene vorvertragliche Informationspflichten. Ein weiterer Baustein gegen Greenwashing ist nun die Schaffung von EU-Vorgaben zu Fondsnamen.

Die BaFin-Richtlinie für nachhaltige Investmentvermögen

Bereits im August 2021 hat die BaFin den Entwurf einer Richtlinie für nachhaltige Investmentvermögen zur Konsultation gestellt, die in ihrem Anwendungsbereich allerdings auf Publikumsfonds beschränkt ist. Sie zielt auf solche Publikumsfonds ab, die in ihrem Namen einen Nachhaltigkeitsbezug aufweisen. Drei Möglichkeiten sind vorgesehen, unter denen ein Fonds als nachhaltig aufgelegt werden kann: (i) aufgrund der Investition in nachhaltige Vermögensgegenstände, (ii) aufgrund einer nachhaltigen Anlagestrategie und (iii) durch die Nachbildung eines nachhaltigen Index. Eine Investition in nachhaltige Vermögensgegenstände kann durch die Aufnahme einer Regelung in die Anlagegrenzen erfolgen, wonach der Fonds zu mind. 75% in Taxonomie-konforme Vermögensgegenstände investiert sein muss. Ausführlich haben wir bereits hier darüber berichtet. Vor dem Hintergrund der dynamischen regulatorischen Lage hat die BaFin sich allerdings dazu entschlossen, die Richtlinie zurückzustellen, gleichzeitig ihre Verwaltungspraxis aber an den dort genannten Grundsätzen auszurichten.

Der Vorschlag der ESMA

Mitte November 2022 hat die ESMA ihren Entwurf für Guidelines für Fondsnamen mit ESG-Bezug veröffentlicht. Diese sind bereits deutlich konkreter als das vorangegangene Supervisory Briefing vom Mai 2022.

…gilt für…

Die Guidelines sollen für sämtliche Fondsverwaltungsgesellschaften gelten, erfassen also v.a. OGAW und AIF und sind insbesondere nicht auf Publikumsfonds beschränkt. Durch die Guidelines werden die in der OGAW-Richtlinie, der AIFMD und der Verordnung zum grenzüberschreitenden Fondsvertrieb enthaltenen Grundsätze des redlichen Verhaltens von Fondsverwaltungsgesellschaften sowie die Verpflichtung zu fairer, klarer und nicht irreführender Werbung konkretisiert.

Relevant werden die Guidelines für sämtliche Fondsdokumentation wie den Prospekt, die vorvertraglichen Informationen, die Halbjahres- und Jahresberichte und die Gründungsdokumente sowie für sämtliche Marketingkommunikation, geäußert z.B. durch Pressemitteilungen, auf Webseiten, mittels Präsentationen, auf Social Media oder im Rahmen von Diskussionsforen. Sie sollen nicht nur die Fondsverwaltungsgesellschaften selbst, sondern auch für ihre Vertriebspartner gelten.

…und regelt

Unter der SFDR sind Fonds bereits jetzt verpflichtet, z.B. in vorvertraglichen Informationen offenzulegen, wie die geförderten sozialen oder ökologischen Merkmale (Art. 8 SFDR) bzw. die nachhaltigen Anlageziele (Art. 9 SFDR) erreicht werden. Ab 2023 sind dazu verbindliche Vorlagen des EU-Gesetzgebers zu verwenden. Dabei ist auch offenzulegen, welcher Anteil der dem Fonds zugrunde liegenden Vermögensgegenstände verwendet wird, um die geförderten Merkmale bzw. die nachhaltige Anlagestrategie zu erreichen.

Hier setzt der Vorschlag der ESMA an:

  • Bei Fonds, die einen ESG- oder impact-Bezug im Namen aufweisen, müssen mindestens 80% der Vermögenswerte dazu verwendet werden, die geförderten ökologischen oder sozialen Merkmale bzw. die nachhaltigen Anlageziele zu erreichen.
  • Bei Fonds, die einen Nachhaltigkeitsbezug im Namen aufweisen, müssen von diesen 80% mindestens 50% die Voraussetzungen von Art. 2 Nr. 17 SFDR erfüllen, also letztlich Taxonomie-konform sein.
  • Für die verbleibenden Vermögenswerte sowie als grundsätzliche Mindestanforderung an alle Vermögenswerte schlägt die ESMA die Anwendung der Mindestanforderungen vor, die bereits im Zusammenhang mit Klimabenchmarks geregelt sind. Ausgeschlossen wären danach z.B. Investments in Unternehmen, die an umstrittenen Waffen beteiligt sind.
  • Die Wörter „Impact“ oder „Impact Investing“ dürfen von Fonds nur verwendet werden, wenn die o.g. Schwellenwerte eingehalten werden und Investitionen unter diesen Mindestanteilen zudem mit der Absicht getätigt werden, neben einer finanziellen Rendite positive, messbare soziale oder ökologische Auswirkungen zu erzielen.

Durch die Guidelines will die ESMA EU-weit einheitliche Regelungen erreichen, was insbesondere den grenzüberschreitenden Fondsvertrieb erleichtert. Die von ihr vorgeschlagene Quote für Investitionen in Taxonomie-konforme Investments ist deutlich niedriger als die 75% der BaFin. Wie immer bei EU-Guidelines müssen die nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden erklären, ob sie diese anwenden und falls nein, begründen, warum nicht. Es bleibt daher abzuwarten, wie die BaFin mit ihrer Richtlinie umgehen wird. Eine Möglichkeit wäre, die ESMA Guidelines als Mindeststandard anzuwenden, für Publikumsfonds aber an der Richtlinie festzuhalten.

Ab wann gilts?

Die ESMA will finale Guidelines in Q2/Q3 2023 veröffentlichen. Für Fonds, die vor den finalen Guidelines aufgelegt wurden, ist eine Übergansphase von 6 Monaten vorgesehen. Diese haben somit ein halbes Jahr Zeit, entweder die Vorgaben der Guidelines zu erfüllen oder den Fondsnamen zu ändern. Erfahrungsgemäß halten sich Änderungen zur Entwurfsfassung in der Regel in Grenzen, sodass Marktteilnehmer ihre Produkte bereits einer entsprechenden Prüfung unterziehen sollten.

Final ESMA Guidelines on cloud outsourcing

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

At the end of December 2020, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final report on its guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers (CSP). The purpose of the guidelines is to help firms identify, address and monitor the risks that may arise from their cloud outsourcing arrangements. Since the main risks associated with cloud outsourcing are similar across financial sectors, ESMA has considered the European Banking Authority (EBA) Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements, which have incorporated the EBA Recommendations on outsourcing to cloud services providers and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers. This ensures consistency between the three sets of guidelines. The ESMA Guidelines on cloud outscoring apply to MiFID II firms such as investment firms and other financial services providers indirectly but they describe the market standard and set the supervisory framework for the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in Europe such as the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin).

For the German jurisdiction, BaFin published guidance on outsourcing to cloud providers back in 2018. Please note that the amended MaRisk include outsourcing requirements for investment firms and other financial services providers and already reflect the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing, including cloud outsourcing. For more information on the MaRisk amendment, please see our previous Blogpost.

The guidelines in more detail

The following gives a brief overview of the main content of the ESMA cloud outsourcing guidelines.

  • Guideline 1: Governance, oversight and documentation

Firms should have a defined and up-to date cloud outsourcing strategy which should include, inter alia, a clear assignment of the responsibility for the documentation, management and control of cloud outsourcing arrangements, sufficient resources to ensure compliance with all legal requirements applicable to the firm’s outsourcing arrangements, a cloud outsourcing oversight function directly accountable to the management body and responsible for managing and overseeing the risk of cloud outsourcing arrangements, a (re)assessment of whether the cloud outsourcing arrangements concern critical or important functions as well as an updated register of information on all cloud outsourcing arrangements. For the outsourcing of critical or important functions, the ESMA guidelines include a detailed list of information which should be included in the register.

  • Guideline 2: Pre-outsourcing analysis and due diligence

ESMA provides information on what is required for the pre-outsourcing analysis (e.g. an assessment if the cloud outsourcing concerns a critical or important function). In the case of outsourcing of critical or important function, firms should conduct a comprehensive risk analysis and take into account benefits and costs of the cloud outsourcing and perform an evaluation of the suitability of the CSP.

  • Guideline 3: Key contractual elements

The guidelines provide a detailed list of what a written cloud outsourcing agreement should include in case of outsourcing of critical or important functions. Such agreements should include, inter alia, provisions regarding data protection, agreed service levels incident management, business continuity plans, termination rights and access and audit rights for the firm and its competent supervisory authority.

  • Guideline 4: Information security

Firms should set information security requirements in its internal policies and procedures and within the cloud outsourcing written agreement and monitor compliance with these requirements on an ongoing basis. In case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, additional requirements apply regarding information security organization, identity and access management, encryption and key management, operations and network security, application programming interfaces, business continuity and data location.

  • Guideline 5: Exit strategies

In case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, firms should develop and maintain exit strategies that ensure that the firm is able to exit the cloud outsourcing arrangement without undue disruption to its business activities and services to its client. Exit strategies should include comprehensive and documented exit plans, the identification of alternative solutions and provisions in the written outsourcing agreements that oblige the CSP to support orderly transfer of the outsourced function from the CSP to another CSP.

  • Guideline 6: Access and audit rights

Firms should ensure that the cloud outsourcing written agreement does not limit the firm´s and competent authority´s effective exercise of the access and audit rights on the CSP (see also Guideline 3). However, the Guideline also includes provisions aimed at reducing the organizational burden on the CSP and its clients when exercising access and audit rights: firm may use e.g. third-party certifications and external or internal audit reports made available by the CSP. However, in case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, the guidelines stipulate additional requirements that must be met in order to be able to rely on third party certifications or assessments.

  • Guideline 7: Sub-outsourcing

In case of sub-outsourcing, the firm should ensure that the CSP appropriately oversees the sub-outsourcer. In addition, ESMA provides information on the provisions that should be included in the written outsourcing agreement between the firm and the CSP in the case of sub-outsourcing critical or important function. This includes the remaining accountability of the CSP, a notification requirement for the CSP in case of any intended sub-outsourcing allowing the firm sufficient time to carry out a risk assessment of the proposed sub-outsourcer, the firm´s right to object to the intended sub-outsourcing and termination rights in case of such objection.

  • Guideline 8: Written notification to competent authorities

Firms should notify in writing its competent authority in a timely manner of planned cloud outsourcing arrangement that concern critical or important functions. The notification should include, inter alia, a description of the outsourced functions, a brief summary of the reasons why the outsourced function is considered critical or important and the individual or decision-making body in the firm that approved the cloud outsourcing arrangement.

What´s next?

In a next step, the guidelines will be translated in the official EU languages and published on the ESMA´s website. The publication of the translation will trigger a two-month period during which the national competent authorities must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines (comply or explain mechanism). For the German jurisdiction, it is to be expected that BaFin will comply with the ESMA guidelines.

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

Veröffentlicht am von 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

Veröffentlicht am von 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.