|
|
ESMA has assessed the equivalence of the regulatory regimes of Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland and the US. The third-country rules were compared with EMIR requirements for central clearing, reporting, CCPs, TRs and non-financial counterparties as well as risk mitigation techniques for uncleared trades.
ESMA proposes conditional equivalence
ESMA considers third-country regimes equivalent where the legal provisions and the level of supervision and enforcement is similar to that of EMIR. ESMA finds the regulatory regimes of Australia and Switzerland for CCPs equivalent to EU rules. Conditional equivalence is proposed to the following regimes:
The European Commission is expected to use ESMA’s technical advice to prepare possible equivalence decisions. Where it adopts such a decision, certain provisions of EMIR may be disapplied in favour of equivalent third-country rules and, depending on the specific area determined to be equivalent, ESMA may:
ESMA’s advice is based on a factual assessment of the rules of each jurisdiction but has also taken into account possible consequences for the stability and protection of EU entities and investors that an equivalence decision would have. ESMA’s advice has also considered upcoming regulations in several jurisdictions that may impact the equivalence assessment.
Next steps
For Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland, ESMA will be delivering its advice on areas not yet covered by 1 October, 2013. CCPs from third-countries that want to continue to be offering clearing services directly to EU clearing members will have to apply for ESMA recognition by 15 September, 2013.
Letter ESMA/Maijoor to DG MARKT/Faull