MAR briefing call for European investors: Market practices for pre-sounding bond issuance Ruari Ewing, ICMA 13 December 2016

Similar documents
EU Market Abuse Regulation and asset managers six months to go

Market Abuse Regulation: Have you completed your Checklist for 3 July 2016?

The new prospectus regime: impact on debt capital markets

Questions and Answers. On the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR)

Market Abuse Regulation Extends the Scope and Application of the Market Abuse Regime

FRG Breakfast Briefing 219. Thursday 15 October 2015

Practice Pointers on EU Market Abuse Regulation: Requirements for U.S. Issuers

ALERT. Market Abuse Regulation. London Asset Management. June 15, 2016

Opinion. 17 June 2016 ESMA/2016/982

MiFID II/MiFIR and Fixed Income. August 2017

This article considers the changes that the new Regulation will make to the current prospectus regime for equity issuers.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE PROSPECTUS DIRECTIVE

MiFID 2/MiFIR Articles relevant to article The top 10 things every investment banker should know about MiFID 2. EU Council MiFID 2 general approach

Q1. What is a systematic internaliser?

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN SECURITIES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY (ESMA) Of 27 September 2017

MiFID II Trading suspensions An ICMA Position Paper August 2018

MiFID II pre and post trade transparency. Damian Carolan and Sidika Ulker 12 October 2017

Law Society and City of London Law Society Company Law Committees Joint Market Abuse Working Party Response

ESMA s policy orientations on possible implementing measures under the Market Abuse Regulation

ICMA response to ESMA Consultation Paper on draft technical standards on the Market Abuse Regulation

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID): Frequently Asked Questions

Nasdaq Nordics Introduction to the main MiFID II requirements.

EXECUTING BLOCK TRADES

Market Abuse Regulation. NEVIR & AFM Webinar 13 October 2016

MFSA MALTA FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY. Unit Tel: (+356) To: The Company Secretary Unit Fax: (+356)

ABI response to ESMA s discussion paper on possible implementing measures under the Market Abuse Regulation

The Market Abuse Regulation in Belgium

The Prospectus Directive

LEI requirements under MiFID II

MiFID II Academy: Spotlight on markets and third country provisions Financial Services Team Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.

Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on transparency requirements in respect of bonds

Key Implications of the EU s new PRIIPs and MiFID II Regimes for Offerings of Debt Securities

1. Euronext. 2. General Comments

(Legislative acts) REGULATIONS

THE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER ON INTERNAL CROSSING BY ASSET MANAGERS

Questions and Answers Relating to the provision of CFDs and other speculative products to retail investors under MiFID

MiFID 2/MiFIR Articles relevant to article The top 10 things every commodities firm needs to know about MiFID 2

The MARKETS in FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DIRECTIVE (MiFID): MULTIPLE TRADING VENUES and BEST EXECUTION

The new EU regulatory framework for commodity derivatives & MiFiD II/MiFIR implementation Brussels, 20 September 2017

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of XXX

Countdown to MiFID II: Final rules for trading venues, participants and investment firms

The Market Abuse Regulation - Impact on AIM Companies

decision to firm-up to trade

On behalf of the Public Affairs Executive (PAE) of the EUROPEAN PRIVATE EQUITY AND VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY

Summary of the Best Execution Policy

Global Depositary Receipts and the new EU regime

Deutsche Börse Group Response. European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) Consultation Paper

EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 4 April 2014 (OR. en) 2011/0295 (COD) PE-CONS 78/13 EF 155 ECOFIN 726 DROIPEN 95 CODEC 1841

BME SPANISH EXCHANGES COMMENTS ON THE CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE IMPACT OF MIFID ON SECONDARY MARKETS FUNCTIONING (CESR/08-872)

Market Abuse A New Regime for Debt Issuers

Alert Memo BRUSSELS AND LONDON, DECEMBER 28, Reform of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive: European Commission Consultation

MARKET ABUSE REGULATION

Market Abuse Regulation (MAD II)

MiFID II for Non-EU Investment Banks, Brokers and Fund Managers

Public disclosure of inside information. Publication date: June 2016

CAPITAL MARKETS. Listing of bonds on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange

Accepted market practice (AMP) on Liquidity Contracts

EU Benchmark Regulation: Is your transaction up to the mark?

BREXIT Q&As - PAINTING BY NUMBERS

MOST IMPORTANT REGULATORY OBSTACLES TO CROSS BORDER CROWDFUNDING

RE: Consultation on integrating sustainability risks and factors in MiFID II

BlackRock is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Call for Evidence AIFMD passport and third country AIFMs.

MiFID II/MiFIR Frequently Asked Questions

European Regulatory Update

14 February 2014 Conference Centre Albert Borshette, Brussels. DG Agri Expert Group. Catherine Sutcliffe, Senior Officer Secondary Markets

Joint Consultation Paper

Speech for the AIMA Global Policy and Regulatory Forum 18 May 2016, London. The Capital Markets Union, supervisory convergence and asset management

Response Commission Consultation Paper a Revision of the Market Abuse Directive (MAD)

Regulation of ICOs in Ireland: An Overview of the Legal, Tax and Regulatory Position

Summary of EC Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/39/EC) ("MiFID") for Commodity Firms

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

ASSOSIM. RE: Discussion Paper ESMA s policy orientations on possible implementing measures under the Market Abuse Regulation

Financial markets today are a global game between a variety of highly interconnected players. Financial regulation sets out the rules of this game.

Consultation Paper Draft implementing technical standards under MiFID II

DGG 1B EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 26 April 2017 (OR. en) 2015/0268 (COD) PE-CONS 63/16 EF 393 ECOFIN 1199 CODEC 1928

Reply to the Discussion Paper concerning ESMA s policy orientations on possible implementing measures under the Market Abuse Regulation

London Stock Exchange. International Securities Market Rulebook

Part II. Criteria for determining the relative importance of the differing factors to be taken into account for best execution. (Art. 21.

REGULATION (EU) 2017/1129 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. of 14 June 2017

BRITISH BANKERS ASSOCIATION

MiFID II/MIFIR Readiness

Response of Börse Stuttgart to the Questionnaire on MiFID/MiFIR 2 by Markus Ferber MEP

Regulatory reform of EU commodity derivatives markets

The impact of MiFID II/MiFIR on Secondary Markets David Lawton Managing Director Alvarez & Marsal

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of

EU legislative proposals affecting the cross-border distribution of investment funds

AMAFI 13, rue Auber Paris France Phone: Fax:

Canada Life Investments

Impact of MiFID II for Non-European Based Firms

Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive

ECB-PUBLIC OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK. of 28 June on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property

Response to FCA Consultation Paper 17/5: Reforming the availability of information in the UK equity IPO process. June 2017

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ( MiFID II ): Implications for U.S. Asset Managers

Market conduct. Chapter 5. Multilateral trading facilities (MTFs)

Obligation to notify market abuse

Athens Exchange S.A. Response to European Commission s Public Consultation on A Revision of the Market Abuse Directive (MAD)

Response form for the Consultation Paper on format and content of the prospectus

Keynote address International Investors Conference European Capital Markets Union Update and Future

EBF POSITION ON THE REVIEW OF THE MARKET ABUSE DIRECTIVE

COMMITTEE OF EUROPEAN SECURITIES REGULATORS

Transcription:

MAR briefing call for European investors: Market practices for pre-sounding bond issuance Ruari Ewing, ICMA 13 December 2016

ICMA International Capital Market Association (ICMA) formed in 1969 Representing a broad range of capital market interests including banks, asset managers, exchanges, central banks, law firms and other professional advisers, ICMA s market conventions and standards have been the pillars of the international debt market for almost 50 years 385 full members and 131 associate members across 58 countries About 40 staff across Zurich (seat), London, Paris and Hong Kong Operations Development / maintenance of high standards of market practice (inc. documentation) Fostering appropriate levels of regulation and assisting market understanding Educating market participants and others through formal training and research ICMA Centre, University of Reading Facilitating communication (inc. between functions: business, legal, compliance) and establishing information forums and other events ICMA Market Practice & Regulatory Policy department: a dozen or so staff in London; three each in Hong Kong and Paris Current focuses: post-crisis initiatives; post trade transparency; secondary illiquidity; FSAP Directive reviews (PR, MAR, MiFID II); CMU; Brexit; FEMR / FICC Market Standards Board; green bonds; private placements; automation...

MAR background Market Abuse Regulation Replaced MAD from 3 July (indirect Directive direct Regulation) Level 1 main regulation + Level 2 technical standards (substantive and templates) + Level 3 ESMA investor guidelines Evolving topic law firm interpretations, national/industry initiatives No ESMA Q&A (yet) Also scope extension from regulated markets (RMs) to multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) and (from 2018) to organised trading facilities (OTFs) ICMA focus Not auctions: Cross-border syndicated bond issuance (commoditised segment) Not legal interpretation: Industry representations / commercial consensus approach Key points Heavier inside information process + New process for non-inside information Investors declining sounding Potential exemption for supra/sovereign/agency (SSA) issuers Other alternatives (early announcement )

MAR / inside information recap MAR scope: RM/MTF instruments Other instruments whose price/value depends, or has an effect on, RM/MTF instruments price/value MTF aspect new (also OTF instruments from 2018) Broadly unchanged from pre-july MAD: Prohibited unlawful disclosure of inside information except in the normal exercise of an employment, a profession or duties Inside information: precise (enables conclusion on possible effect inc. intermediate steps in a process) not public likely significant effect on price

Sounding inside information New sounding concept: communication of information, prior to the announcement of a transaction, in order to gauge [investor] interest [ ] in a possible transaction and the conditions relating to it such as its potential size or pricing, to one or more investors by an issuer [...] or a third party acting on [its] behalf Disclosing inside information following sounding procedures now deemed in the normal exercise and so not unlawful (so safer) Inside information procedures broadly/conceptually consistent with pre-july good practices but more procedurally onerous, inc. required information exchange + detailed records Notify investor if information ceasing to be inside In the bank s assessment (and investor cannot rely) Timing trigger need to release sales, investor request, issuer notice? If communicating rationale, check not constituting further inside information Soundings after deal announcement rely (as pre-july) on in the normal exercise only (but follow process anyway?) Investors continuing to be wary (impact price guidance? private side investors?)

Sounding non-inside information New sounding concept: communication of information, prior to the announcement of a transaction, in order to gauge [investor] interest [ ] in a possible transaction and the conditions relating to it such as its potential size or pricing, to one or more investors by an issuer [...] or a third party acting on [its] behalf New procedure where no inside information Odd in prohibition-driven regime (and not envisaged at Level 1) Purpose seemingly to mitigate risk of inside information being mischaracterised as not inside (rationale recordings, warnings) i.e. presumably due to subjective judgment Disproportionate logistical burden? Especially for extended / face-to-face deliberations and frequent / short exchanges? Investors wary (currently) of being sounded on this basis (or on private info generally?) Investor logistics? (recording non-inside rationale etc. / internal procedure updating) Investor perception? (emphasising historic individual responsibility for assessing information) Again impact price guidance, unless outside scope of MAR sounding or MAR altogether?

Sounding procedures generally 1. Bank reasoned record of whether sounded information is inside or not 2. Standard set of information between bank and investor a) Sounding purpose b) Investor consent to audio/video recording (or minutes for signing within 5 days) c) Investor confirmation it is correct person to receive sounding d) Sounded information considered [not] inside by bank e) Each person responsible for own assessment f) if possible, estimation when cease to be inside, factors that may alter this and how investor informed of any such change [and notification in due course] g) Investor consent to [non-]inside sounding h) The sounded information, flagging inside element 3. Investor notifies bank of any further internal soundees 4. Investor reasoned record of whether sounded information is inside or not And policies/training, 5 year records, and record of investors generally refusing soundings

Falling out of scope New sounding concept: communication of information, prior to the announcement of a transaction, in order to gauge [investor] interest [ ] in a possible transaction and the conditions relating to it such as its potential size or pricing, to one or more investors by an issuer [...] or a third party acting on [its] behalf Falling out of overall MAR scope Not RM/MTF instruments or others depending/affecting price/value EEA-linked supra/sovereign/agency (SSA) transactions if for public debt management policy Falling-out of sounding definition scope (issuer practice change?) Interpret in light of procedure purpose (no subjective judgment) not acting on issuer behalf : limited/no prior interaction (reverse enquiry and independent fishing ), so publication or general communication to whole street (direct or via platforms) not gauging interest: hitting levels / concluding deal not prior to announcement : no residual non-public information

EEA-linked SSAs Member State ESCB members (ECB and the national central banks of all EU Member States) ministry, agency or special purpose vehicle of one or several Member States, or person acting on its behalf member making up the federation (in the case of federal Member State) European Commission or any other officially designated body or by any person acting on its behalf The EU European Investment Bank European Financial Stability Facility European Stability Mechanism international financial institution established by two or more Member States to mobilise funding and provide financial assistance for members experiencing or threatened by severe financing problems (Commission empowered to add some non-eea public bodies / central banks, subject to reporting by January 2016 on international treatment of non-eea central banks and public debt management bodies)

Soundings Practical simplified consensus approach by banks to each investor interaction DRAFT RJDE 2016-09-08 START Is your deal on EU-listed securities? (RM/MTF admission, request or trading) Yes (Unlikely in soundings context) Apply appropriate other (non-mar) procedures (beware MNPI) (Unauthorised MTF- No Yes admission is Yes No Would your deal influence or depend on other EU-listed securities? Yes Are both: (i) the other securities only No (Causal link not just mere correlation. Could someone misuse information on your securities to make money on the other securities?) Apply MAR 'technically' EU listed and; (ii) your deal with no other EU nexus? sole EU nexus) (Proportionality) Is the issuer an SSA clearly exempt under Article 6? No (inc. recordkeeping) (Issuer identity & deal purpose) Is UPSI involved? Yes Sound per MAR W/C process No Act independently of issuer (No implied requests / implicit expectations e.g. In MTN context, beware small group communication and on demand levels) Complete deal only (no gauging ) (More in PP/MTN context) Only discuss with investors what has been publicly announced Sound per MAR non-w/c process Apply appropriate other (non-mar) procedures (inc. record-keeping) (No minimum announcement line items; Strict script enforcement & poker face; Iterative additional announcements; Education of investors not to expect off-scope answers and perhaps to pre-ask questions in case additional announcement possible; Publishing red herrings / roadshow materials OK subject to click-throughs); Bloomberg-style dissemination OK (institutional space); Issuer/DCM education)

Red, Yellow, Green Judgment to treat as inside MAR wallcrossed procedure Judgment not inside (even if conservative) MAR non-wallcrossed procedure Outside MAR or outside sounding definition (no judgment ) Other appropriate procedure

Thank you Any (further) questions?