The updated LEI statement maintains ESMA position as described on 6 January 2020 and provides an extended timeline for the reporting of LEIs of third-country issuers of securities used in Securities Financing Transactions (SFTs) until 10 October 2022. The updated statement also sets out the expectations towards Trade Repositories and counterparties, as well as the relevant supervisory actions to be carried out by authorities.
Today’s updates include DVC data and calculations for the period 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 as well as updates to already published DVC periods. The number of new breaches is 45: 38 equities for the 8% cap, applicable to all trading venues, and 7 equities for the 4% cap, that applies to individual trading venues. Trading under the waivers for all new instruments in breach of the DVC thresholds should be suspended from 15 April 2021 to 14 October 2021. The instruments for which caps already existed from previous periods will continue to be suspended.
This consultation is a response to EIOPA’s repeatedly highlighted concerns that, while unit-linked products can and often do offer important benefits for policyholders, costs for some unit-linked products continue to remain too high. Existing concerns have been heightened by the COVID-19 crisis.
Towards that goal, in its paper EIOPA presents the framework setting out how to assess whether unit-linked (and hybrid) products offer value for money, taking into account the needs, objectives and characteristics of a target market.
This report provides an analysis of costs for 2019 and past performance for the period 2015-2019. The report also presents some considerations on the impact of COVID-19 on these products.
On the Official Journey of the European Union has been published the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/598 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures.
The BEPS Action 6 minimum standard on preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, is one of the four BEPS minimum standards that all members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (Inclusive Framework) have committed to implement.
This report reflects the outcome of the third peer review of the implementation of the Action 6 minimum standard on treaty shopping as approved by the Inclusive Framework. It includes the aggregate results of the review and data on tax treaties concluded by each of the 137 members of the Inclusive Framework on 30 June 2020 and it contains the jurisdictional section for each member. The data compiled for this peer review demonstrate that the MLI has been the tool used by the vast majority of jurisdictions that have begun to implement the minimum standard and that the MLI has started to impact tax treaties of jurisdictions that have ratified it.
Consob statement on cases of exeptional volatility in the trading of stocks and the use of social forums and web trading platforms.
Consob is taking part to the international debate, with other securities regulators, following the recent cases of extreme volatility of certain stocks trading prices in other jurisdictions’ markets (eg. GameStop in the US stock market), which have linked to a significant accumulation of net short positions and concerted action by some retail investors, based on information shared on social media.
More specifically, the potential classification of some information spread by social media as investment recommendations could raise issues in relation to the enforcement of possible violations of the rules set to tackle market abuses in Europe (the so called “Market Abuse Regulation”), with regards to modalities of fair presentation of these recommendations and the indication of potential conflicts of interest. Retail investors should be aware of the risk of taking trading decisions based on this kind of information, if not adequately presented.
The phenomenon is to be regarded also in connection with the flowering of trading platforms operating as systems for gathering multiple client’s orders with low minimum entering amounts required by investors (sometimes also allowing for leveraged investment) and no or reduced fees, mainly targeting clients with limited experience on capital markets.
According to Consob’s preliminary analysis, it appears that the main firms operating in Italy and offering services which trace the outlined business model (i.e. lower or no fees for retail investors; complementary use of social media, trading signals, etc.) are generally authorised in few Member States and provide services across EU under the MiFID II passporting regime.
Besides, non-authorised online trading platforms are constantly growing in number and this is of huge concern to supervisors. In most cases, this abusive provision of investment services is offered through web platforms, which easily permit customers to open a trading account and to issue purchase and/or sale orders relating to financial instruments (usually contracts for difference having as underlying currencies, stock indices, commodities and, increasingly, crypto-currencies). Another typical feature of these illegal activities is to make use of marketing tools like e-mail, chat, social networks and telephone solicitations (so-called cold calling).
To name a few, the compatibility between the so called “payment for order flow” – which is the compensation that financial intermediaries receive for routing trades for trade execution – and the EU discipline of best execution/inducements needs to be assessed, in particular whether PFOF might be enhancing the quality of the service provided to customers.
(only in Italian)
Stefano De Polis, Segretario Generale dell’IVASS, è intervenuto sul tema dell’Arbitro delle Controversie Assicurative.
L’Arbitro Assicurativo (l’AAS – sarà questo l’acronimo) andrà ad affiancarsi all’ABF della Banca d’Italia e all’ACF della Consob così da ampliare il sistema delle tutele della clientela.
Con la messa in consultazione, con le principali associazioni del mercato e dei consumatori, del Decreto interministeriale, è stato fatto un ulteriore passo avanti verso l’avvio del nuovo Arbitro. La sua definizione consentirà all’IVASS di mettere in pubblica consultazione il proprio regolamento attuativo.
(only in Italian)
Con Risposta n. 238 del 13 aprile 2021 l’Agenzia delle Entrate ha fornito chiarimenti su regime del c.d. “realizzo controllato” di cui all’articolo 177 comma 2-bis del TUIR con particolare riguardo al conferimento della nuda proprietà delle partecipazioni detenute in una holding ed all’applicazione del meccanismo demoltiplicativo. A tal proposito si evidenzia come il suddetto comma 2-bis estende il regime del realizzo controllato ai casi in cui la società conferitaria non acquisisce il controllo di diritto ai sensi dell’articolo 2359 del codice civile, non incrementa la percentuale di tale controllo (in virtù di un obbligo legale o di un vincolo statutario), ma a quelli in cui oggetto del conferimento siano partecipazioni che rispettino le percentuali di diritti di voto o di partecipazione al capitale o al patrimonio fissate dalla lettera a) delle medesima norma. Ovvero, alle ipotesi in cui le partecipazioni conferite rappresentano, complessivamente, una percentuale di diritti di voto esercitabili nell’assemblea ordinaria superiore al 2 o al 20 per cento ovvero una partecipazione al capitale o al patrimonio superiore al 5 o al 25 per cento, secondo che si tratti di titoli negoziati in mercati regolamentati o di altre partecipazioni. Secondo l’Agenzia, alla luce della formulazione della lettera a) del citato comma 2-bis (che richiama, oltre che i diritti di voto, anche la partecipazione al capitale), il conferimento della nuda proprietà priva di diritto di voto è astrattamente idoneo ad integrare i presupposti della norma in esame. Tuttavia, considerata la previsione contenuta nel secondo periodo del comma 2-bis dell’articolo 177 del TUIR (secondo cui, per i conferimenti di partecipazioni detenute in holding, «le percentuali di cui alla lettera a) del precedente periodo si riferiscono a tutte le società indirettamente partecipate che esercitano un’impresa commerciale, secondo la definizione di cui all’articolo 55, e si determinano, relativamente al conferente, tenendo conto della eventuale demoltiplicazione prodotta dalla catena partecipativa») si ritiene che in caso di conferimento di partecipazioni in una holding, ai fini del rispetto delle percentuali della lettera a), occorre considerare le partecipazioni detenute indirettamente in tutte le società partecipate, ferma restando la rilevanza della partecipazione diretta detenuta nella holding esclusivamente per il calcolo del demoltiplicatore.
