ESMA has launched a consultation on potential reforms to the EU Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR). The Authority aims to review the stress experienced by MMFs during the March 2020 crisis and assess the role played by markets, investors and regulation, and proposes potential reforms.

ESMA defines four types of potential reforms for MMFs:

  • Reforms targeted at the liability side of MMFs, such as decoupling regulatory thresholds from suspensions/gates to limit liquidity stress and requiring MMF managers to use liquidity management tools such as swing pricing;
  • Reforms targeting the asset side of MMFs, e.g. reviewing requirements on liquidity buffers and their use;
  • Reforms targeting both the liability and asset sides of MMFs by reviewing the status of certain types of MMFs such as MMFs with stable net asset value (NAV) and low volatility net asset value (LVNAV); and
  • External reforms to MMFs themselves by assessing whether the role of sponsor support should be changed.In addition, ESMA is also gathering feedback from stakeholders on other potential changes, particularly related to ratings, disclosure and stress testing.

 

The European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) have published a joint opinion on the jurisdictional scope of the obligations of non-EU parties to securitisations under the Securitisation Regulation (SECR).

The purpose of the opinion is to facilitate the understanding of certain SECR provisions in cases where third country entities become parties to a securitisation. The joint opinion aims to clarify the potential obligations of such third country parties, as well as the related compliance aspects of a transaction under the SECR, and is intended to help improve the functioning of EU securitisation markets.

The ESAs expressed their common views on the practical difficulties encountered by market participants in relation to the jurisdictional scope of various SECR provisions in the following four scenarios

  1. securitisations where some, but not all, of the selling parties, i.e. originator, originating lender, sponsor and issuer of special purpose vehicles etc., are located in a third country;
  2. securitisations where all sell-side parties are located in a third country and EU investors invest in them;
  3. investments in securitisations by subsidiaries of EU regulated groups, where those subsidiaries are located in a third country; and
  4. securitisations where one of the parties is a third country investment fund manager.

The Joint Opinion recommends that these difficulties should be addressed, where possible, through the European Commission’s interpretative guidance.

 

ESAs publish Q&A on cross-sectoral aspects of the Securitisation Regulation. The Q&A clarify topics in relation to the application of the Securitisation Regulation to help market participants comply with their obligations and to promote cross-sectoral consistency in the implementation of securitisation requirements in the EU.

In particular, the Q&A clarifies:

  1. the content and format of the information of a securitisation transaction that should be disclosed by the originator, the sponsor and the SSPE;
  2. the documentation of a simple, transparent and standardised securitisation (STS) transaction that should be made publicly available to facilitate investor compliance with its due diligence requirements; and
  3. the type of STS certification services that can be provided by third party verifiers to securitisation parties.

The purpose of the Q&A is to promote common supervisory approaches and practices in the application of the Securitisation Regulation and to promote cross-sectoral consistency at EU level, as well as to help market participants comply with their obligations.

 

ESMA has published its technical advice to the European Commission on the procedural rules for the imposition of fines and penalties on benchmark administrators under its direct supervision.

ESMA has assessed and addressed the comments received during the consultation period and has decided to maintain the original proposals made in its consultation paper. It has included advice on some specific procedural aspects, including:

  • the right to be heard by the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO);
  • the content of the file to be submitted by the IIO;
  • access to the file;
  • the procedure for the imposition of fines;
  • the adoption of interim decisions;
  • limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of fines;
  • the collection of fines and penalties; and
  • the relevant calculation periods.

(Only in Italian)

Con delibera n. 21773  la Consob ha abrogato parzialmente la propria delibera n. 17297 del 28 aprile 2010 nella parte che prevede gli obblighi di comunicazione nei confronti dell’Istituto in capo alle imprese di assicurazione e, in particolare, le previsioni riguardanti:

  • gli “obblighi informativi delle imprese di assicurazione”;
  • i “dati sull’operatività svolta dalle imprese di assicurazione nell’ambito della distribuzione diretta di prodotti finanziari assicurativi”;
  • lo “schema di relazione sulle modalità di distribuzione di prodotti finanziari assicurativi”;
  • lo “schema di relazione sui controlli di conformità alle norme nell’ambito della distribuzione di prodotti finanziari assicurativi”.

Sul punto si evidenzia che il passaggio all’Ivass della competenza di vigilanza sull’attività di distribuzione diretta di prodotti di investimento assicurativo ha reso privo di base giuridica il mantenimento degli obblighi informativi fissati dalla delibera n. 17297 in capo alle imprese di assicurazione, ed ha reso pertanto necessario procedere all’abrogazione parziale della delibera, espungendo gli obblighi informativi nei confronti della Consob in capo alle imprese di assicurazione.