14 October 2020 | 14.30 – 16.10
To be discussed
- Critical benchmarks and IBOR reform: Do competent authorities have the right amount of power in terms of methodology change, cessation and contingency plans? Is the current regulatory framework accurately calibrated?
- Authorisation, suspension and withdrawal: Are the current rules clear enough? Do competent authorities have the right amount of power?
- Scope of the BMR: Is the regulatory framework for non-significant benchmarks appropriately calibrated? What is the ideal methodology for classification of benchmarks (i.e. non-significant, significant, critical)?
- The ESMA register for benchmarks and administrators: What’s the experience?
- Benchmark statement: How can it be further improved?
- Climate-related benchmarks: Should competent authorities have the power to verify that a climate-related benchmark complies with the rules? Should they have the power to take measure if that is not the case?
- Commodity benchmarks: Are the current conditions under which commodity benchmarks are subject to Title II of the BMR appropriate? Is the threshold for commodity benchmarks accurately set?
- Equivalence, recognition and endorsement for third country benchmarks and administrators: How could the procedure be improved?
- ESMA’s Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS): next steps?
Rik Hansen Policy Officer DG FISMA, European Commission
Chantal Sourlas Policy Officer, ESMA
Piotr Giemza-Popowski Counsel, Investment Management Group at Arendt & Medernach S.A., Member of the EFAMA Benchmarks Task Force
Sam Duncan-Jones Associate General Counsel, S&P Dow Jones Indices
Stephen Farrell Partner, Deloitte UK