ESMA Proposes to Change Supervisory Fees for CRAs

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s securities markets regulator, has posted its final report providing technical advice to the European Commission on the supervisory fees charged to credit rating agencies (CRAs).

The technical advice has been sent to the European Commission and will feed into the upcoming review of the Delegated Regulation.

According to the regulator, the report is based on feedback from the recent public consultation and proposes changes to the calculation and the collection of supervisory fees set out in the current Delegated Regulation.

BrokerShow Virtual Expo·Malaysia Special Coverage — Know the dynamics of expo and view the leadership insights

ESMA proposes to charge:

• a fixed registration fee of €40,000; and

• ​an annual supervisory fee of 0.5% of turnover to CRAs with annual revenues of between €4,000,000-15,000,000.

The proposed changes will ensure that ESMA meets the regulatory obligation to charge fees that cover its costs whilst remaining proportionate to the revenues of the firms supervised. ESMA has not recommended changes to the calculation of annual supervisory fees paid by CRAs with annual revenues of over €15 million, as these fees are already calculated proportionately to cover the regulator’s costs.

ESMA also recommends a number of changes to streamline the fee collection process and to align ESMA’s approach across its supervisory mandates. These include the requirement for supervisory fees to be paid in a single instalment in the first quarter of the financial year to ensure that ESMA has funds available for its ongoing supervision.

​As Fazzaco reported earlier, ESMA has expressed its support to the proposed measures of The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) to restrict the marketing, distribution or sale of turbos​, saying the AFM's proposed measures are justified and proportionate. With ESMA's opinion, all National Competent Authorities (NCAs) may consider monitoring turbos in their respective markets to assess whether similar risks for retail investors as those identified by the AFM could arise there.