Schlagwort: MiFIR

Building a Capital Markets Union for Europe: The Commission unveils new legislative proposals

Veröffentlicht am von Miroslav Ðuric, LL.M.

Introduction

Back in 2015, the Commission has adopted its first Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union (CMU), whose main aim was to start the process of creation of a single capital market in the EU that would reduce existing market fragmentation and mobilise more funds for capital markets based financing of European businesses. Almost 5 years after publication of its first Action Plan, in September 2020 the Commission has unveiled its revised Action Plan on CMU, which was tailored in accordance with new economic priorities of the EU, recovery from the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic and transition to a digital and sustainable economy.

By a way of delivering on its commitments from the revised Action Plan, the Commission has published on 25 November 2021 a package of four legislative proposals that aim to contribute to achieving the CMU objectives and boost European capital markets.

The package contains the following legislative proposals:

  1. Regulation establishing a European Single Access point (ESAP)
  2. Regulation amending Regulation on European long-term investment funds (ELTIF)
  3. Directive amending the Alternative Investment Funds Managers Directive (AIFMD) and UCITS Directive
  4. Regulation amending the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR)

The main proposals contained in these proposed legislative acts can be summarised as follows:

The European Single Access Point

With the idea of creating a common source of public information about EU companies and investment products, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall establish the European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024. The information that will be publicly accessible on the ESAP will be collected by designated collection bodies and will be accessible through a single application-programming interface (API). By providing data in digital format (data extractable or machine-readable format), the ESAP is intended to be a cornerstone of the EU Digital Finance Strategy that would enable planned transition to data-driven finance.

Further, when it comes to existing EU policy on sustainable growth (anchored in the EU Green Deal and the Sustainable Finance Strategy) companies in the EU are currently faced with significant challenge of how to obtain relevant ESG information based on which they can ensure their compliance with relevant rules on corporate sustainability reporting or financial sustainability disclosure requirements. To that end, the ESAP shall also serve as a centralised access point for all ESG data of EU companies and information on ESG related financial products with a great potential to boost the green transition.

Review of the ELTIF Regulation

Back in 2015, the first Regulation on European-long-term investment funds (ELTIFs) was published with the aim to enable channelling of long-term financing to listed and non-listed small and medium enterprises as well as long-term infrastructure projects in the EU.  Despite the ambitious plan behind it, the Regulation did not seem to have achieved much so far: the number of ELTIFs in the EU remains relatively small with only 57 funds authorised by October 2021 in only four EU Member States.

The proposed amendments aim to make the ELTIF framework more attractive for the fund management industry by expanding the range of eligible investment assets and making necessary amendments to authorisation, operational and marketing requirements. Further, specific regime for ELTIFs that are to be marketed to professional investors, featured by new rules on portfolio diversification and composition, minimum threshold for eligible assets and concentration limits, will be introduced. The existing minimum investment threshold of EUR 10 000 shall also be removed to enable easier access to ELTIFs for retail investors.

Review of the AIFMD and UCITS framework

More than a year after the ESMA has sent its letter to the EU Commission with 19 key areas of improvement for AIFMD framework, the EU lawmaker has published a long-awaited proposal for the revision of the AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU).  Focused on establishing similar rules in certain areas for both AIFs and UCITS, the proposal makes some amendments to UCITS Directive (Directive 2009/65/ec) as well that largely follow amendments to AIFMD framework.

The proposal makes changes to AIFMD and UCITS framework in several areas that include, among other, the following:

  • Loan originating funds

Rules on loan originating AIFs will be harmonised to ensure a uniform level of investor protection and create a level playing field for loan originating AIFs in the EU. To that end, AIFMs that manage AIFs engaging in lending activities will need to comply with additional requirements on risk management and conflict of interest as well as risk-retention requirements when it comes to sale of granted loans in the secondary market. In the future, loan originating AIFs whose notional value of their originated loans exceeds 60 % of their net asset value, will need to be structured as closed-ended funds.

  • Delegation arrangements

The proposal clarifies that all activities listed in Annex I of the AIFMD (Annex II of the UCITS Directive) can be subject to delegation and the revised language is now referring to services and not only functions (like portfolio management or risk management). The new framework will continue allowing sourcing of expertise from third countries based on delegation arrangements, which certainly comes as a relief for the fund management industry after years of discussion on how the future of delegation arrangements will look like in the post-Brexit world. Further, NCAs will be required to notify ESMA about delegation arrangements where more risk or portfolio management function is delegated to third country entities than retained by an EU-AIFM.

  • Substance requirements

Fund managers applying for authorisation under AIFMD or UCITS framework will need to have appropriate technical and human resources and will need to describe in detail in their license applications how these resources will be used to carry out their functions and supervise the delegates. Further, in order to meet minimum substance requirements, all AIFMs and UCITS management companies will have to employ at least two persons (or engage two persons on a contractual basis) who are residents in the EU on a full-time basis.

Due to their significance and comprehensiveness, we will elaborate the changes introduced to AIFMD and UCITS framework in a separate publication in which we will also analyse their practical impact on the fund management industry in the EU.

Consolidated Tape

Through targeted amendments of the backbone of the EU market infrastructure regulation, MiFIR, the Commission intends to introduce a long-awaited consolidated tape that would provide access to data on prices and volume of traded securities in the EU. Currently, only a handful of large professional investors have access to near real-time market data across trading venues.

The introduction of a consolidated tape shall enable all investors, both large and small, the access to consolidated data on prices and volume for several asset-classes, such as shares, exchange-traded funds and bonds. The relevant market data will need to be submitted by market operators to consolidated tape provider (entity authorised under MiFID II) and Member States are required to provide for sanctions for entities not operating in compliance with this rule.

Ban of the Payment for order flow (PFOF) practice

The package also includes a Regulation that introduces a ban of the widely discussed and criticized market practice used by many new online brokers nowadays, payment for order flow (PFOF). Namely, for several years now, many new online brokers that promote the “zero-commission policy” (also referred to as “neo-brokers”) have been building their business models on the PFOF practice. When relying on the PFOF, an online broker routes his clients’ orders to a market maker for execution and receives a fee in exchange for this.

The PFOF was an area of concern of the EU regulators for quite some time now, and the Commission has expressed its concerns that brokers’ reliance on PFOF may lead to retail orders not being executed on terms most favourable to the client but instead on the terms most profitable to brokers. The published proposal is now prohibiting all investment firms operating in the EU, who act on behalf of clients, from receiving any fee, commission or non-monetary benefit from any third party in exchange for forwarding them client orders for execution.

We will analyse this important topic, which promises to have a significant impact on businesses of many neo-brokers in the EU, in a separate article in more detail.

Outlook

The published proposals represent important milestones on the way towards creating a Capital Markets Union for Europe and will definitely have an impact on existing business of many firms in the financial services sector. The Commission is planning to deliver on all of its commitments from the Action Plan until the end of its term, and is planning to present further legislative proposals in 2022 on open finance and listing rules as well as proposals creating frameworks on corporate insolvency and financial literacy.

ESMA update: Impact of Brexit on MiFID II/MiFIR and Benchmark Regulation

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

At the beginning of October 2020, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has updated its previous statements from March and October 2019 on its approach to the application of key provisions of MiFID II/MiFIR and the Benchmark Regulation (BMR) in case of Brexit. As the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement entered into force on February 2020 and the UK entered a transition period (during which EU law still applies in and to the UK) that will end on 31 December 2020, these statements needed to be revised.

This Blogpost highlights the updated ESMA approach on third-country trading venues regarding the post-trade transparency requirements (MIFID II/MiFIR) and the inclusion of third country UK benchmarks and administrators in the ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks (BMR).

MiFID II/MIFIR: Third-country trading venues and post-trade transparency The regulations of MiFID II/MiFIR provide for post-trade transparency requirements. EU investment firms which, for their own account or on behalf of clients, carry out transactions in certain financial instruments traded on a trading venue, are obliged to publish the volume, price and time of conclusion of the transaction. Such publication requirements serve the general transparency of the financial market. As ESMA has already stated in 2017, post-trade transparency obligations also apply where EU investment firms conduct transactions on a third country trading venue.

By the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, UK trading venues will qualify as third country trading venues. Therefore, if an EU investment firm carries out transactions via a UK trading venue, it is, in general, subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency obligations.

However, EU-investment firms would not be subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency requirements if the relevant UK trading venue would already be subject to EU-comparable regulatory requirements itself. This would be the case if the trading venue would be subject to a licensing requirement and continuous monitoring and if a post-trade transparency regime would be provided for.

In June 2020, ESMA published a list of trading venues that meet these requirements. While the UK was a member of the EU and during the transition period, ESMA did not asses UK trading against those criteria. However, ESMA intends to perform such assessment of UK trading venues before the end of the transition period. Transactions executed by an EU investment firm on a UK trading venue that, after the ESMA assessment, would be included in the list, will not be subject to MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency. In this case, sufficient transparency requirements would already be ensured by the comparable UK regime. However, any transactions conducted on UK trading venues not included in the ESMA list on EU-comparable trading venues will by the end of the transition period be subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency rules.

BMR: ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks

Supervised EU-entities can only use a benchmark in the EU if it is provided by an EU administrator included in the ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks (ESMA Register) or by a third country administrator included in the ESMA Register. This is to ensure that all benchmarks used within the EU are subject to either the BMR Regulation or a comparable regulation.

So far, UK administrators qualified as EU administrators and have been included in the ESMA Register. After the Brexit transition period, UK administrators included in the ESMA register will be deleted as the BMR will by then no longer be applicable to UK administrators. UK administrators that were originally included in the ESMA Register as EU administrators, will after the Brexit transition period qualify as third country administrators. The BMR foresees different regimes for third country administrators to be included in the ESMA Register, being equivalence, recognition or endorsement.

“Equivalence” must be decided on by the European Commission. Such decision requires that the third country administrator is subject to a supervisory regime comparable to that of the BMR. So far, the European Commission has not yet issued any decision on the UK in this respect.  Until an equivalence decision is made by the European Commission, UK administrators therefore have (only) two options if they want their benchmarks eligible for being used in the EU: They/their benchmarks need to be recognized or need to be endorsed under the BMR.

Recognition of a third country administrator requires its compliance with essential provisions of the BMR. The endorsement of a third country benchmark by an administrator located in the EU is possible if the endorsing administrator has verified and is able to demonstrate on an on-going basis to its competent authority that the provision of the benchmark to be endorsed fulfils, on a mandatory or on a voluntary basis, requirements which are at least as stringent as the BMR requirements.

However, the BMR provides for a transitional period itself until 31 December 2021. A change of the ESMA Register would not have an effect on the ability of EU supervised entities to use the benchmarks provided by UK administrators. During the BMR transitional period, third country benchmarks can still be used by supervised entities in the EU if the benchmark is already used in the EU as a reference for e.g. financial instruments. Therefore, EU supervised entities can until 31 December 2021 use third country UK benchmarks even if they are not included in the ESMA Register. In the absence of an equivalence decision by the European Commission, UK administrators will have until the end of the BMR transitional period to apply for a recognition or endorsement in the EU, in order for the benchmarks provided by these UK administrators to be included in the ESMA Register again.

Brexit, still great uncertainty

Currently, the whole Brexit situation is fraught with great uncertainty due to the faltering political negotiations. The updated ESMA Statement contributes to legal certainty in that it clearly sets out the legal consequences that will arise at the end of the transition period. This is valuable information and guidelines for all affected market participants, who must prepare themselves in time for the end of the transition period and take appropriate internal precautions.

Why equivalence is not the easy solution for Brexit

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

When reading the news, one cannot deny that a hard Brexit may well be looming. While we all hope that a political solution will be agreed upon in the end, it still makes sense to discuss legal possibilities that might soften the impact if no agreement can be reached.

When it comes to the UK’s loss of access to the European single market, the „equivalence solution“ is almost automatically mentioned as a solution for the financial market. But what exactly does equivalence entail? And does it really represent a viable way for the UK and the EU in case of a hard Brexit? In this post we will provide an overview of the current equivalence regime within the European regulation.

In the event of a hard Brexit, the UK will lose access to the European single market overnight and will become a third country under European law. The solution for maintaining access to the European single market could be the so-called equivalence solution. This would allow companies established in third countries to gain access to the European single market, even if no bilateral agreement is concluded in time between the UK and the EU, which seems likely at the moment. The prerequisite is that the third country’s legal and supervisory standards would need to be recognised by the EU as equivalent to the European regulations. UK banking and financial services providers and fund managers would thus continue to have access to the European single market if the EU recognises the British legal and supervisory standard in the financial sector as equivalent to that of the EU. Since the UK currently applies EU regulations, this should at a first glance be a no-brainer.

However, the European legislator does not provide market access for third countries in all areas of banking and financial services easily through regulation. Specific third country rules are contained, for example, in:

  • the European Financial Markets Regulation (MiFIR);
  • the Second Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II);
  • the Regulation on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR); and
  • the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD).

In the Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV), the Second Payment Services Directive (PSD II) and the UCITS Directive, the European legislator has not stipulated third country rules. In these contexts, access to the European single market through recognition of the equivalence of the supervisory regime is not currently possible. In the areas of the concerned financial services sectors (i.e. credit institutions, payment institutions and the management of UCITS), the UK would therefore be dependent on a bilateral agreement with the EU in any case in order to keep (or regain) access to the European single market.

In those areas where third country rules are provided for, the recognition procedure and the number of third countries recognised as equivalent differ.

For example, under EMIR, the following applies: If a Central Counterparty (CCP) established in a third country wishes to provide clearing services to clearing members or trading venues established in the EU, it may do so only if it has previously been recognised by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). For this purpose, the CCP must submit an application to ESMA. The latter may only recognise a CCP from a third country if the EU Commission has recognised the legal and supervisory mechanism of the third country as equivalent to that of the EU, and provided that the CCP is authorised in its home country and is subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that country. Moreover, it is required that ESMA has concluded a cooperation agreement with the local supervisory authorities which, for example, simplifies the exchange of information and the home country of the CCP must have an equivalent system for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. If these conditions are no longer met, ESMA may withdraw recognition from the CCP.

CCPs currently recognised by ESMA are located in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, South Korea, USA, UAE, India, Dubai International Financial Centre, Brazil and New Zealand.

The recognition procedure for trading venues under MiFIR is slightly different. It is not the trading venue for derivatives itself that can apply for equivalence. Rather, the EU may, at its own discretion and in cooperation with ESMA and the member states, issue a resolution recognising the legal and supervisory framework of a third country as equivalent to that of the EU. Before issuing a resolution, the member states must approve equivalence. The recognition of the equivalence of a third country in the area of MiFIR requires that: (i) the trading venues are admitted in their home country and are subject to effective and continuous supervision and enforcement; (ii) the trading venue has transparent admission rules; (iii) the issuers are subject to regular information obligations which guarantee a high level of investor protection and (iv) rules against market abuse in the form of insider dealing and market manipulation are in place.

So far, the EU has only recognised the USA as an equivalent third country under MiFIR. Under MiFID II, however, the EU has recognised four countries providing trading venues for other financial products (such as listed shares) as equivalent to EU venues: USA, Australia, Hong Kong and Switzerland (the recognition of Switzerland is limited to one year until 31 December 2018 but may be extended if there is sufficient progress on a common institutional framework).

This shows that even if the UK is recognised by the EU as a third country with equivalent regulatory standards, this is far from resolving all the difficulties.

On the one hand, the UK would actually have to maintain its current regulatory and supervisory standards and adapt to those of the EU in the future; a substantial deregulation is thus ruled out. A comparatively minor problem, on the other hand, is that the recognition of equivalence by the EU may well take some time. The UK’s supervisory standard currently corresponds to that of the EU, so if it were to be maintained after Brexit, there would at least be no legal grounds against swift recognition. However, much more serious for the UK, would be that as a third country they would no longer be able to influence the European legal and supervisory standards for lack of voting rights; they would be referred to the role of a „rule-taker“.

Therefore, it remains questionable whether recognition as an equivalent third country is really a good solution for the UK. The alternative would be one or more bilateral agreement(s) with a dispute settlement mechanism. In any event, the advantage of such an agreement would be that it would be negotiated by both sides and would not refer the UK to the passive role of an equivalent third country.