OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Swaps and Derivatives Association

ISDA

ISDA is a global trade association that works to make derivatives markets safer and more efficient, representing over 1,000 institutions across 77 countries.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Jennifer Robertson (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Dec 2025 · Third-country CCPs

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and

5 Dec 2025 · Reporting under Article 7d of EMIR (Regulation (EU) No 648/2012)

Meeting with Sebastien Paquot (Head of Unit Climate Action)

30 Oct 2025 · Exchange on (international) carbon pricing and markets.

Meeting with Almoro Rubin De Cervin (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Oct 2025 · FRTB

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Commissioner)

18 Sept 2025 · Simplification and financial services

Meeting with Alexandra Jour-Schroeder (Deputy Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

18 Sept 2025 · Basel III, SFDR review and simplification of financial trans-action reporting

Meeting with Jennifer Robertson (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

8 Sept 2025 · FCD and SFD

Meeting with Sebastien Paquot (Head of Unit Climate Action)

28 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on Green Claim Directive and on how carbon credits should be considered as part of financial markets.

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

25 Mar 2025 · FRTB, SIU

Meeting with Emiliano Tornese (Acting Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

24 Mar 2025 · Discussion focused on financial interconnectedness, liquidity risk, margin transparency, collateral eligibility and the potential EU-wide system-wide stress test,which was part of the consultation assessing adequacy of macroprudential tools for NBFI

Meeting with Almoro Rubin De Cervin (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

24 Mar 2025 · Market Risk Regulation

Meeting with Jennifer Robertson (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and ING Group

11 Mar 2025 · Implementation of EMIR 3

ISDA urges permanent EU rules for reverse repo transactions

7 Mar 2025
Topic — Amending EU rules on the treatment of securities financing transactions for liquidity ratios.
Message — ISDA requests that the EU permanently maintain current lower funding requirements for short-term lending. They argue this is necessary to protect market liquidity and ensure a global level playing field. They urge the Commission to propose legislation before the transition period expires in June 2025.12
Why — This change would reduce operational costs and help maintain the association's members' market positions.3
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

4 Mar 2025 · EU financial services industry associations debrief on EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Global Financial Markets Association

27 Jan 2025 · Benchmark Regulation

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

9 Jan 2025 · EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

2 Oct 2024 · CMU, policy on NBFIs, EU/UK relations in the area of FS

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

1 Oct 2024 · Benchmarks Regulation

Response to Applying a unique identifier for public transparency of OTC derivatives

10 Jul 2024

The signatory associations (ABBL, AIMA, EBF, EVIA, Finance Denmark, GBIC, GFXD, ISDA, SSMA) welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft Delegated Act (DA) on the OTC derivatives identifier for transparency. While we maintain that the UPI, augmented by additional transaction related fields (UPI+), is optimal for identifying OTC derivatives for transparency purposes, we appreciate the ECs concern to ensure an outcome that solves the ISIN proliferation issue and creates identifiers which are useful for transparency purposes. We also appreciate that the EC has deliberated on the approach to be pursued to limit ISIN proliferation while also ensuring data integrity. While we recognize the ECs efforts, it is not clear why several (at least) of the fields included in the reference data in annex to the DA have to be included when the scope of transparency is limited to standardized instruments. Furthermore, although in a large majority of cases, fields 19-31 of Table 1 (on Interest Rate Derivatives) would be filled according to the market standard (because such a high proportion of this business is of a standardized nature), with instruments that are actually of relevance (within scope) of MiFIR post trade transparency and therefore not generating any additional OTC ISINs, retaining these fields in the structure of the OTC ISIN and requiring them to be filled in by market participants for each trade has potential to drive significant OTC ISIN proliferation, with an enormously long tail of illiquid OTC ISINs generated. Furthermore, these granular fields are challenging for investment firms to implement. We provide technical comments on the fields in tables 1 and 2 (covering crediting Credit Derivatives) in the annex accompanying the Draft DA, in the detailed paper attached with this response. We therefore propose alternatives to the approach taken in Table 1 in the annex. Considering the scope of the MiFIR OTC derivatives trade transparency regime addressing Interest Rate Derivatives, fields 19-30 may be unnecessary. These trade details can be provided in trade and transaction reports instead. Field 31 would become a Boolean to distinguish IMM rolls from standard rolls. An amended field 32 could, under this approach, indicate (through a Boolean) that at least one value in fields 19-30, (or any term outside of fields 19-30 as currently specified) makes the instrument non-standard. Firms have utilized a non-standard flag in CFTC Part 43 Public Price Dissemination since 2012. If the fields 19-30 are required to be preserved in table 1, these fields should be non-amendable. The Boolean in amended field 32 would indicate deviation from standardized instruments. Again, all trades that have additional non-standard trade attributes (in 19-30 or beyond) would get a collective non-standard term OTC ISIN. These approaches would avoid unnecessary burdens for market participants, limit ISIN proliferation and support effective transparency. Regarding Table 2, addressing Credit Derivatives, we believe that field number 14 Roll month would add complexity and increase ISIN proliferation without adding useful information. We emphasize that the draft DA cannot be assessed in isolation from other aspects of the MiFIR data landscape. While we welcome the inclusion of the UPI in the fields included in the draft DA, the UPI should also be included in RTS 2 (transparency reporting), 22 (transaction reporting) and 23 (reference data). The recent ESMA consultation on RTS 23 did not propose inclusion therein. Furthermore, we ask that the EC initiate consultation under its Article 27.5, 2nd paragraph empowerment to specify identifying reference data for OTC derivatives for the for the purposes of Article 26 (transaction reporting). We support co-existence of UPI with ISIN for a period of time to facilitate eventual transition to UPI, but if ISIN is retained alongside UPI during such a period, ISIN proliferation should be limited.
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Apr 2024 · Basel end game. MiFIR and BMR: ISDA initiatives.

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Director-General Climate Action)

9 Apr 2024 · To touch on a number of climate-related issues of mutual interest, including carbon markets in the EU.

Response to Review of the scope and third-country regime of the Benchmark Regulation

23 Jan 2024

ISDA very much welcomes the European Commission's recognition of the problems caused by the current drafting of the Benchmarks Regulation (BMR), and the careful thought and consideration that has been given to addressing them. We strongly support the aim of establishing a third-country regime that is sustainable in the long term once the current transitional regime expires, and overall we consider that the proposal will result in a more proportionate regime for users and administrators of benchmarks, that still provides vital protections.
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and BNP PARIBAS and Osttra Group

22 Sept 2023 · MIFIR OTC derivatives identifiers, EU capital markets and their regulatory framework

ISDA seeks clearer scope and longer timelines for ESG rules

1 Sept 2023
Topic — EU initiative to improve transparency and reliability of environmental, social, and governance ratings.
Message — ISDA requests excluding products already under existing supervision to prevent regulatory overlap. They also propose extending the implementation period to 18 months for operational feasibility.12
Why — These changes would prevent banks and investment firms from facing redundant regulatory burdens and costs.34
Impact — ESG rating users may lose access to diverse services if strict separation requirements reduce market competition.56
Read full response

Meeting with Danuta Maria Hübner (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Bank of America Corporation

27 Apr 2023 · EMIR review

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Apr 2023 · US current market stress and EMIR III

ISDA urges positive designation for EU benchmark regulation

29 Mar 2023
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing rules for financial benchmarks and non-EU provider access.
Message — Only systemically important benchmarks should face mandatory compliance requirements to ensure market certainty. The associations support a voluntary regime for other EU and third-country benchmarks. They also request provisions to protect existing contracts when a benchmark becomes prohibited.123
Why — Firms would face lower compliance burdens and avoid disruption to legacy contract payments.45
Impact — Regulators would lose oversight of many benchmarks, potentially reducing transparency for individual investors.6
Read full response

Meeting with Dorien Rookmaker (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

29 Mar 2023 · Stakeholder meeting on EMIR revision

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness), Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

9 Feb 2023 · EMIR, Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive , Benchmark Regulation, sustainable finance

Derivatives industry warns EU clearing requirements would hurt competitiveness

2 Feb 2023
Topic — EU proposal to require clearing at EU central counterparties for certain derivatives.
Message — The organization requests exempting market making and client clearing activities from minimum clearing requirements at EU CCPs. They argue the active account requirement with quantitative targets is unnecessary and would disadvantage EU firms compared to third-country competitors.123
Why — This would allow them to maintain global competitiveness and avoid costly restrictions on serving non-EU clients.45
Impact — European pension savers and investors face higher costs from reduced competitiveness of EU firms.67
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

21 Jun 2022 · Basel Package, CRR/CRD and MiFIR

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

21 Jun 2022 · 1.Pre and post-trade transparency in MIFIR review. Importance of level playing field. 2.EMIR review: pension schemes, public entities, supervision, active accounts, role of ESMA. 3.Basel proposal: market risk and level playing field.

Response to Central securities depositories – review of EU rules

26 May 2022

The Futures Industry Association (FIA) and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) (together the Associations) welcome the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s (EC) proposal to review the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR), in particular with respect to reforms of the mandatory buy-in regime (MBI) under Article 7 CSDR. The primary concern of the Associations’ members remains the application of the MBI regime to margin transfers and the physical settlement of derivatives transactions which would lead to significant uncertainties and unintended adverse consequences, as well as the disruption of existing contractual default provisions in ways parties did not contemplate when they entered into the agreement, all as described in previous publications, consultation responses and case-studies of the Associations. Executive Summary • The EC’s suggested two step approach allows for a more targeted application of MBI. Technical changes to the SDR are also welcomed by the Associations. • The application of MBI provisions to margin transfers would have a negative effect on the settlement practices of margin transfers and undermine the objectives of CSDR and EMIR. • With respect to physically settled derivatives, MBI provisions would be disproportionate and implementation efforts outweigh any potential benefits. • The review of CSDR should provide legal clarity that derivatives transactions and collateral relating to derivatives transaction are not in scope of the MBI provisions.
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

28 Mar 2022

ISDA and GFXD (‘The Associations’) welcome the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposal to establish a European Single Access Point (ESAP) for financial and non-financial company information. In line with our previous commentary, the Associations and its members strongly support the creation of ESAP, which we consider a flagship project under the CMU agenda, as an important step to bridge the gap between information financial market participants must disclose (due to clients’ demand or regulatory requirements) and information provided by companies, in particular with respect to ESG commitments. In view of ISDA’s broad membership, we are providing various comments that reflect the views of ISDA’s different member institutions, comprised of a broad range of derivatives market participants, including corporations, investment managers, government and supranational entities, insurance companies, energy and commodities firms, international and regional banks, and infrastructure providers such as exchanges, clearing houses and repositories. CFXD members comprise 23 global foreign exchange (FX) market participants, collectively representing the majority of the FX inter-dealer market. In addition, the Associations’ members also support the response of the Association of Financial Markets in Europe (AFME). Executive Summary • The Associations strongly support the establishment of ESAP and believes that with appropriate calibration and a considered approach to implementation timelines and scope, should add to the attractiveness of EU capital markets as a place for companies to IPO. • A focus of ESAP should be company data already required by the Transparency and annual financial statements Directives, the Prospectus and Taxonomy Regulations and the upcoming CSRD. • The extension of the ESAP scope beyond these core company disclosure requriements should be based on an assessment of concrete use-cases for end investors. • ESAP should be machine-readable and made accessible to individuals. • The Associations are concerned about the EC’s suggested time-line and would prefer a more flexible approach. Scope The Associations’ members, depending on their business models, size and field of activities, are subject to several EU legislations the European Commission intends to include in the scope of ESAP. In principle, the Associations believe that the ESAP should only contain data points which enable cross-border and SMEs financing, assist with the implementation of regulatory requirements and most importantly constitute a concrete use-case for end-investors. In this context, the Associations support the prioritisation of data resulting from the following files: 1. Transparency Directive 2. Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports 3. Prospectus Regulation 4. Taxonomy Regulation 5. The upcoming Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) as soon as practicable due to members’ challenges with respect to the implementation of sustainable finance related requirements. Whilst the Associations support the principle of a phased-in approach with respect to data points and the prioritisation of ‘raw’ company information, we believe that certain data points stemming from the 37 proposed legislations in scope will likely never be suitable for ESAP. However, based on appropriate calibration of required data points and sensible implementation timelines (see below), ESAP should add to the attractiveness of EU capital markets as a place for companies to IPO. Please find attached the full response to the consultation.
Read full response

Response to Designation of a statutory replacement rate for EONIA (Benchmark)

31 Aug 2021

1. Introduction ISDA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s consultation with respect to the Draft Implementing Regulation designating the replacement rate for EONIA. ISDA has consistently supported efforts to make markets safer and more efficient through the incorporation of robust fallbacks. On August 18, 2021 ISDA launched the ISDA 2021 EONIA Collateral Agreement Fallbacks Protocol which market participants can use to incorporate a fallback to €STR+8.5 basis points into their ISDA published collateral agreements. In addition, ISDA has published two bilateral amendment templates parties to derivatives contracts can use to incorporate the same fallback into their derivatives-related documentation. These industry-led documentation initiatives are designed to promote contractual certainty upon the cessation of EONIA on January 3rd, 2022. It is against this background that the comments below are made. Please note that we have provided drafting comments on the Draft Implementing Regulation in the annex to this submission. 2. Limited scope of the power to designate a statutory replacement It is very important that market participants are aware that Article 23a of BMR limits the effect of designation of a statutory replacement to: (a) any contract, or any financial instrument as defined in Directive 2014/65/EU, that references a benchmark and is subject to the law of one of the Member States; and (b) any contract, the parties to which are all established in the Union, that references a benchmark and that is subject to the law of a third country and where that law does not provide for the orderly wind-down of a benchmark. The statutory designation will not, therefore, provide a universal solution to the issues which the power is designed to address. This importance of this point was made clear in the recently published minutes of the Working Group on Euro Risk-free Rates from a meeting held July 1, 2021, when Tilman Lueder of the European Commission stated that: “the statutory replacement rate of the EU will not cover contracts under English (and New York) law, so this must be considered before taking any decision” On this basis and in terms of derivatives contracts, the amount of exposure to EONIA within contracts which would therefore fall out of scope of the statutory designation is therefore very significant and is likely to greatly exceed the amount of exposure contained in contracts which would fall into scope. Even for contracts, the parties to which are all established in the Union, that reference a benchmark and that is subject to the law of a third country where that law does not provide for the orderly wind-down of a benchmark, the question of whether or not the statutory designation will be effective under that third country law may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, party to party and contract to contract. In order to avoid a situation in which parties to contracts do not take advantage of initiatives such as ISDA’s EONIA protocol or bilateral amendment templates in the mistaken belief that their out-of-scope contracts will benefit from the European Commission’s designation, this limitation on scope should be clearly flagged in the Implementing Act. This concern is behind a number of the drafting suggestions made in the Appendix and should also be clearly messaged in the European Commission’s outreach. Please find the complete response attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

24 Jun 2021 · MIFID Basel Post Brexit relationships between UK and EU.

Derivatives Industry Urges Extension of Third-Country CCP Capital Relief

26 May 2021
Topic — Extension of transitional capital treatment for exposures to unrecognised third-country central counterparties.
Message — ISDA and AFME request a 12-month extension of transitional provisions allowing European banks to avoid higher capital requirements when using third-country CCPs not yet recognised by EU authorities. They argue the extension is needed while the Commission completes equivalence assessments.12
Why — This would allow their members to maintain access to third-country CCPs without facing significantly increased capital costs.34
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

11 May 2021 · Keynote address at the ISDA 35th Annual General Meeting.

Derivatives Industry Backs Pension Fund Clearing Exemption Extension

12 Apr 2021
Topic — Extension of temporary exemption for pension schemes from central clearing obligations.
Message — The associations request extending the exemption until June 2022, arguing pension schemes need more time to develop solutions for cash margin requirements. They believe workable solutions are not yet available.12
Why — This gives their member institutions more time before pension clients face clearing requirements.3
Impact — Financial stability loses as uncleared derivatives remain outside centralized risk management systems.4
Read full response

ISDA Urges EU to Limit Scope of Clearing Service Rules

7 Apr 2021
Topic — New rules specifying fair and transparent commercial terms for clearing OTC derivative contracts.
Message — The associations advocate for the scope to be limited to EU clearing houses and apply only to new clients. They suggest a six to twelve month implementation period to prepare documentation.123
Why — Clearing members would avoid duplicative regulatory burdens and conflicting jurisdictional requirements.4
Impact — Clients lose the right to receive written justifications when their clearing requests are rejected.56
Read full response

Response to Central securities depositories – review of EU rules

4 Apr 2021

ISDA and FIA (the ‘Associations’) welcome the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission’s (EC) consultation on the CSDR inception impact assessment (Roadmap). The Associations welcome the opportunity to provide their views to the EC on revising the CSDR framework, especially regarding the scope of the mandatory buy-in requirements as part of the Settlement Discipline Regime (SDR). In line with our response to the EC’s targeted consultation on the review of CSDR, we would like to reiterate the Associations members’ primary concern with the SDR, which is the application of the mandatory buy-in requirements to derivatives transactions. In this context, we appreciate the EC’s reference to stakeholders’ concerns that ‘the scope of that framework cast doubts on the clarity of the current rules as well as their potential impact outside the sphere of securities trading and settlement.’. However, the Associations’ members believe that reforming the SDR regime, in particular the buy-in rules, should be the main priority in the upcoming review process. Furthermore, we remain concerned about the application date of the SDR in February 2022 given that the legislative proposal is expected to be published in Q4 2021, hence revised CSDR will not be in place prior to the current implementation date. In this respect, the Associations’ members request that the EC indicates its intention with respect to amendments and clarifications to the SDR buy-in rules as soon as possible and well in advance of unveiling the legislative proposal, giving market participants the opportunity to plan for SDR implementation. It is critical that the SDR mandatory buy-in regime is amended, clarified, and improved before any further implementation efforts are made by market participants on the basis of the current regime. Although the Associations support the EC’s objective “to ensure that the objectives of CSDR - to promote safe, efficient and smooth settlement by laying down uniform requirements for the settlement of financial instruments in the Union and rules on the organisation and conduct of CSDs – are met in a more proportionate, effective and efficient manner”, we are of the view that the SDR mandatory buy-in regime, as it applies to margin transfers and physically settled derivatives, does not contribute to the objective above and that market participants have already put in place other measures that prevent and remedy settlement fails. A summary of our position is set out in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Financial market regulation - EU recognition of US Prudential Regulators’ rules on OTC derivatives

17 Feb 2021

This attached comprehensive response covers EC's draft equivalence decisions on US PRU, Singapore, Brazil, Australia, Hong Kong and Canada.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

Dear All, please find attached ISDA's response to the European Commission consultation on the draft technical screening criteria for the Taxonomy objectives of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Kind regards
Read full response

Response to Review of the Benchmark Regulation

6 Oct 2020

Dear European Commission, Please find attached ISDA’s response to the consultation on your proposal to amend the European Benchmarks Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Minimum standards for benchmarks labelled as EU Climate Transition and EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks

6 May 2020

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (‘ISDA’) and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (‘AFME’), hereafter referred to as ‘The Associations’, would like to take the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s three draft delegated acts for the purpose of specifying requirements resulting from the introduction of Carbon Benchmark requirements under the EU Benchmarks Regulation (BMR): • Draft Delegated Act (DA) on establishing minimum standards for EU Climate Transition Benchmarks (CTBs) and Paris-aligned Benchmarks (PABs) (DA on EU Climate Transition Benchmarks). • Draft Delegated Act (DA) on minimum content of the explanation on how environmental, social and governance factors are reflected in the benchmark methodology (DA on Benchmark Methodology). • Draft Delegated Act (DA) on the explanation in the benchmark statement of how environmental, social and governance factors are reflected in each benchmark provided and published (DA on Benchmark Statement). From a standard-setting perspective, the Associations welcome the proposed Carbon Benchmark requirements as they include vital elements necessary for creating standard templates while allowing some degree of flexibility for benchmark administrators. An EU standardised climate benchmarks framework would undoubtedly result in a less fragmented landscape on the data provision front for all market participants. For the purpose of specifying Carbon Benchmark requirements, ISDA and AFME have previously commented on the TEG’s interim report (see here). Many concerns raised in our response to the TEG’s interim report remain valid. In particular, ISDA and AFME would like to stress that the requirements suggested in the draft DA in relation to ESG disclosures in the benchmark statement and the related Annexes do not fully take into account market practices in relation to maintenance of benchmark statements. In the event that benchmark administrators would not have flexibility to deviate from the suggested template for the benchmark statement, they will have to endure disproportionate costs to apply the suggested template for all benchmarks and families of benchmarks. ISDA and AFME are of the view that the suggested approach would strongly discourage benchmark administrators from providing ESG benchmarks and would therefore run contrary to the objective of the Regulation, which is to mainstream the provisions of ESG benchmarks. In this context, it is important to note that significant channelling of financial resources into sustainable economic activities will only occur if a wide variety of benchmark administrators are incentivised to market EU Climate Transition and EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks.
Read full response

Response to Equivalence decision for a third country (Japan) under the Benchmarks regulation (BMR)

4 May 2020

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (‘ISDA’) and the Futures Industry Association (‘FIA’), hereinafter ‘The Associations’, welcome the European Commission (EC)’s draft equivalence decisions to declare the regulatory and supervisory of framework of Japan, in accordance with the ‘Financial Instrument and Exchange Act’ (FIEA), as “equivalent” under Article 30 of the European Benchmarks Regulation (BMR). An extract of the Associations' response can be found below. Please find the full response attached. Dynamic alignment The Associations welcome that the legal approach taken for the equivalence decision for financial benchmarks in Singapore and Australia is also used for the equivalence decision with respect to Japan. We encourage the EC to follow the same approach for upcoming equivalence decisions, as it would provide market participants and regulators with the ability to continue to respond to market developments in a timely fashion, i.e. any change to the Japanese framework would be automatically reflected in the EU’s equivalence framework for financial benchmarks. Low scalability The Associations agree with the EC’s assessment that Japanese Yen TIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR, administered in Japan, are frequently referenced by EU users, as outlined in Recital 4 of the draft equivalence decisions. However, Japanese and EU market participants are engaging in several financial market activities which also require the use of many other Japanese financial benchmarks. For instance, neither the Nikkei benchmarks nor the JPX Benchmarks are covered by the draft decisions despite being widely referenced by EU benchmarks users and independently assessed to be compliant with respect to the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks. Unfortunately, the equivalence decisions under BMR only cover benchmarks which are registered and supervised in third country jurisdictions. This means EU supervised entities will not be able to use currently widely referenced Japanese benchmarks after the third-country BMR transition expiry of end-2021, and would be disadvantaged vis-à-vis firms operating in other jurisdictions. The Associations sincerely hope that the ongoing BMR review process will rectify this acknowledged shortcoming of the EU BMR’s equivalence framework with a view to reinforcing the EU’s competitiveness at global level.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Benchmark Regulation

15 Apr 2020

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Inception Impact Assessment (“Roadmap”) relating to the Review of the Benchmark Regulation (“BMR”). Since 1985, ISDA has worked to make the global derivatives markets safer and more efficient. Today, ISDA has more than 900 member institutions from 73 countries. These members comprise a broad range of derivatives market participants, including corporations, investment managers, government and supranational entities, insurance companies, energy and commodities firms, and international and regional banks. In addition to market participants, members also include key components of the derivatives market infrastructure, such as exchanges, intermediaries, clearing houses and repositories, as well as law firms, accounting firms and other service providers. ISDA’s membership includes firms who use benchmarks but do not administer or contribute to them; firms who administer benchmarks but do not contribute to or use them; and firms who administer, use and contribute to benchmarks. The feedback set out in this response was supported by a significant majority of ISDA’s members who provided feedback as part of its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the Benchmark Regulation Review (the EC Consultation) ahead of the 31 December 2019 deadline. However, divergent minority views were also put forward in respect of the below proposals. They are reflected in the feedback that ISDA submitted as its response to the EC’s consultation but have not been reflected in this document.
Read full response

Response to Equivalence decision for a third country under the Benchmarks regulation (BMR) [Australia]

16 Apr 2019

ISDA and FIA (the ‘Associations’) welcome the European Commission’s draft decisions to declare the regulatory and supervisory frameworks for Designated Benchmarks in Singapore and Significant Financial Benchmarks in Australia as “equivalent” under Article 30 of the European Benchmarks Regulation (BMR). The Associations would also like to reiterate our support for the extension of the BMR transition deadline, which has been granted for critical and third-country benchmarks, and call for its publication in the Official Journal at the earliest possible date. Article 30(2) of the BMR permits the European Commission to adopt an implementing decision in relation to the legal framework and supervisory practice of a third country more generally (rather than in relation to specific administrators or specific benchmarks under Article 30(3)). The Commission's draft equivalence decisions stipulate that the regimes for Significant Financial Benchmarks in Australia and Designated Benchmarks in Singapore are equivalent. Therefore, the Associations suggest that the Commission prepare equivalence decisions that would cover all current and prospective significant or designated benchmarks in a third country jurisdiction as appropriate. Otherwise, in the event that further benchmarks are determined to be significant or are designated (or if benchmarks are removed from the list), the Commission will need to review and amend its equivalence decisions on a continuous basis. The Associations very much welcome the opportunity to comment on these draft equivalence decisions, particularly given their importance for all market participants. As a general point, we would like to recommend that the Commission continue to follow an inclusive approach when developing benchmark equivalence decisions in order to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to provide input regarding the potential impact of the decisions before being finalised.
Read full response

Response to Equivalence decision for a third country under the Benchmarks regulation (BMR) [Singapore]

16 Apr 2019

ISDA and FIA (the ‘Associations’) welcome the European Commission’s draft decisions to declare the regulatory and supervisory frameworks for Designated Benchmarks in Singapore and Significant Financial Benchmarks in Australia as “equivalent” under Article 30 of the European Benchmarks Regulation (BMR). The Associations would also like to reiterate our support for the extension of the BMR transition deadline, which has been granted for critical and third-country benchmarks, and call for its publication in the Official Journal at the earliest possible date. Article 30(2) of the BMR permits the European Commission to adopt an implementing decision in relation to the legal framework and supervisory practice of a third country more generally (rather than in relation to specific administrators or specific benchmarks under Article 30(3)). The Commission's draft equivalence decisions stipulate that the regimes for Significant Financial Benchmarks in Australia and Designated Benchmarks in Singapore are equivalent. Therefore, the Associations suggest that the Commission prepare equivalence decisions that would cover all current and prospective significant or designated benchmarks in a third country jurisdiction as appropriate. Otherwise, in the event that further benchmarks are determined to be significant or are designated (or if benchmarks are removed from the list), the Commission will need to review and amend its equivalence decisions on a continuous basis. The Associations very much welcome the opportunity to comment on these draft equivalence decisions, particularly given their importance for all market participants. As a general point, we would like to recommend that the Commission continue to follow an inclusive approach when developing benchmark equivalence decisions in order to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to provide input regarding the potential impact of the decisions before being finalised.
Read full response

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

15 Mar 2019 · EMIR

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Jun 2018 · CCPs, Brexit, EU Capital Requirements proposals, Cross-border regulation of derivatives business

Response to Assignment of claims

22 May 2018

As Chairman of the ISDA Financial Law Reform Committee, I am posting this feedback on behalf of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA). A full copy of the ISDA comments on the assignment of claims proposal and the related Commission Communication on third party effects of a transfer of intermediated securities, including relevant footnotes, is attached to this response, which has been authorised by Dr Peter M Werner, Senior Counsel, ISDA.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

26 Feb 2018 · Capital Markets Union; Supervision of Central Counterparties; Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive; Risk-free rates

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

7 Nov 2017 · Trading Obligation RTS under MiFID

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

26 Oct 2017 · BRRD

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

26 Oct 2017 · BRRD II

Response to Further amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)

5 Oct 2017

ISDA’s response to the Commission’s proposed regulation as regards the procedures and authorities involved for the authorisation of CCPs and requirements for the recognition of third-country CCPs (the “EC Proposal”) ISDA and its members welcome the European Union’s review of CCP supervision arrangements. We agree with the proposal’s objective of ensuring that EU supervisors are able to exercise appropriate and proportionate oversight of CCPs that provide clearing services in the EU. We also support the review of the supervision arrangements for third country CCPs which are systematically important for the European Union. ISDA members note the inclusion of a location policy within the proposed regulation and Vice President Dombrovskis’s statement on 13 June 2017 that it is meant to be a “last resort” to be used “only when a CCP is of substantial systemic importance and enhanced supervision by ESMA is not sufficient to safeguard financial stability”. Our membership has serious concerns about the risks presented by a location policy such as the geographical fragmentation of markets and distortions in competition, as well as material adverse impacts on the reduction of systemic risk, added costs, and reduced market liquidity and efficiency. Further, a location policy could have a significant impact on the structure and functioning of capital markets in the EU and consequently the financing of the EU economy and on EU end users. It could also have negative repercussions among policymakers in other jurisdictions because of its extraterritorial implications. While we recognize and share the proposal’s objective of ensuring that EU supervisors are able to exercise appropriate and proportionate oversight of CCPs that provide clearing services in the EU, ISDA is unable to support an approach that gives rise to the serious risks referred to above. As such, our members welcome the EC’s proposal to make enhanced supervisory cooperation the preferred option and we encourage the EC to continue to build on regimes that rely on regulatory coordination, cooperation and deference, such as those already practised today between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Bank of England (BoE) in their supervision of SwapClear, which have served the derivatives markets well since the financial crisis. ISDA’s membership includes CCP clearing members, financial and non-financial clients of clearing members and CCPs. We have consulted and received input from all its membership in developing this response. In line with ISDA’s mission, and notwithstanding the impact location policy could have on other globally systemic important CCPs, our response covers the impact of the proposed regulation on CCPs clearing derivatives. Many but not all of the points made will equally apply to CCPs clearing other types of products. This response continues the points made in the letter to Vice-President Dombrovskis, dated 8th June 2017 . ISDA believes the clear aim should be to develop a consistent and global ‘shared supervision’ model which allows efficient functioning of the markets and is consistent with the deferential and international comity-based approach the European Union has taken to implementing G20 derivatives reforms. ISDA strongly recommends coordinated management of systemic risk through supervisory cooperation For the full response please see the attached document. For queries pleas e contact Ulrich Karl, Head of Clearing Services, ukarl@isda.org or +44 2038089720
Read full response

ISDA Urges EMIR Revisions to Enhance Market Efficiency

18 Jul 2017
Topic — The consultation concerns amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation for financial services.
Message — ISDA recommends exempting certain central bank transactions and currency products. They also advocate for entity-based reporting to reduce unnecessary financial burdens.12
Why — Proposed changes would lower operational costs and restore competitiveness for EU banks.34
Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation amending the MiFID 2 Delegated Regulation with respect to systematic internaliser defint

17 Jul 2017

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this proposal by the European Commission. Since 1985, ISDA has worked to make the global derivatives markets safer and more efficient. Today, ISDA has over 850 member institutions from 68 countries. These members comprise a broad range of derivatives market participants, including corporations, investment managers, government and supranational entities, insurance companies, energy and commodities firms, and international and regional banks. In addition to market participants, members also include key components of the derivatives market infrastructure, such as exchanges, intermediaries, clearing houses and repositories, as well as law firms, accounting firms and other service providers. Information about ISDA and its activities is available on the Association's website: www.isda.org. We note the European Commission’s concern regarding interconnected systematic internalisers replicating broker crossing networks (BCNs), particularly in shares, without being regulated as a systematic internaliser or trading venue. As drafted, however, we have concerns that the proposed wording could be interpreted to restrict the ability of investment firms to act as brokers, for example where a trade may be passed to another execution venue. Such a restriction would significantly impair the ability of an investment firm to access liquidity on behalf of their clients, and manage its risk. Further, it is unclear what the effect of the amendment would be on intra-group risk transfers. We urge the European Commission to consider the status of intra-group risk transfers, which are essential business practices which allow financial groups to provide liquidity, particularly in derivatives. The ability to transfer risk is also integral to investment firms’ ability to manage and comply with prudential requirements. Should any proposal restrict this, both for intra-group risk transfers between group entities in the EU as well as between EU entities and third-country group entities, this could prohibit the ability of investment firms to maintain derivatives books, and hedge their positions. It is imperative that this amendment does not prevent investment firms from transfering risk between group entities, and we would be grateful for the European Commission to clarify this. We are aware that similar concerns have been raised by the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (“AFME”), and we support their response. ISDA would be eager to discuss the implication of this proposal on derivatives further, should the European Commission wish to do so.
Read full response

Response to Extension of transitional period for exposure to CCPs

28 Apr 2017

ISDA welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on the EC proposal to extend the transitional periods (to 15 December 2017) related to own funds requirements for exposures to central counterparties set out in Regulations (EU) No 575/2013 ("CRR") and (EU) No 648/2012 ("EMIR") of the European Parliament and of the Council. We continue to support the overarching goal of reducing systemic risk in the OTC derivatives market and the central clearing of certain classes of OTC derivatives in central counterparties ("CCPs") that have been authorised or recognised in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 ("EMIR"), and are fully supportive of the proposed implementing regulation to extend the transitional provisions related to own funds for exposures to CCPs in CRR. Our members regularly trade on a cross-border basis and clear trades through non-EU CCPs, and believe that the expiry of the transitional provisions would result in European firms incurring onerous capital requirements if they continue to access non-EU CCPs that have not yet been recognised, or have simply failed to apply for recognition. This could negatively impact EU firms by restricting cross-border trading resulting in practical consequences e.g. a loss of risk management flexibility, reduction in market liquidity, and the breaking up of established netting sets. Resulting increases in capital requirements for clearing members could also ultimately limit and disrupt access to clearing services for EU clients. We believe it is important that banks are not penalized by the imposition of higher capital requirements due to a lack of completion of the recognition process for CCPs, and welcome the EC’s recognition of this concern in the draft implementing regulation. We therefore believe that in order to avoid a negative impact on the availability and price of hedging instruments, and subsequent knock on effects for the real economy, it is crucial that the transitional provisions are extended so as to allow extra time for the European Commission to continue its equivalence assessment efforts of the legal and supervisory framework of third-country CCPs, which would allow for the recognition of such CCPs by the European Securities and Markets Authority. We encourage the EC to continue its work with other jurisdictions to ensure that positive equivalence assessments are complete as soon as possible. We welcome the progress most recently made by the European Commission and its counterparts in other jurisdictions, which resulted in adoption of Commission Implementing Decisions, enabling the recognition of CCPs in India, New Zealand, Japan, Brazil, Dubai IFC and the United Arab Emirates. Lastly, we suggest that consideration be given to decoupling CRR Qualifying CCP (‘QCCP’) status from EMIR, perhaps in the proposals for revision of CRR which the European Parliament and Council are discussing. Some other mechanism through which non-EU CCPs can obtain QCCP status for the purpose of EU rules should be developed and discussed. Non-EU CCPs may be applying for recognition under Article 25 solely to achieve QCCP status even though they do not intend either to have EU Clearing Members or provide services to EU trading venues (as contemplated by EMIR Article 25), nor to offer clearing in products mandated for clearing under EMIR. This is especially likely where EU banks have local subsidiaries included in consolidated supervision that are Clearing Members of such CCPs, or are indirectly clearing on the CCP. We also note that the current transitional regime – which is of benefit only to CCPs already in existence in 2013 – discourages establishment of non-EU CCPs, and, arguably more importantly from a European perspective, the willingness of EU banks’ subsidiaries to become Clearing Members at such CCPs (as they cannot obtain QCCP status). The importance of this concern will grow over time. We thank the EC for considering our comments.
Read full response

ISDA supports extending pension fund central clearing exemption

28 Nov 2016
Topic — Extension of the transitional periods for central clearing related to pension schemes.
Message — ISDA fully supports extending the transitional periods for pension schemes until August 2018. This extension provides extra time for central counterparties to develop technical solutions for non-cash collateral transfers.12
Why — This avoids forcing pension schemes to manage complex liquidity risks or sell significant assets.3
Impact — Pensioner beneficiaries would face lower retirement income if funds are forced to hold cash.4
Read full response

Response to Extension of transitional period for CCPs

16 Nov 2016

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association ("ISDA") welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the extension of the transitional periods related to own funds requirements for exposures to central counterparties set out in Regulations (EU) No 575/2013 ("CRR") and (EU) No 648/2012 ("EMIR") of the European Parliament and of the Council. We strongly support the overarching goal of reducing systemic risk in the OTC derivatives market and the central clearing of certain classes of OTC derivatives in central counterparties ("CCPs") that have been authorised or recognised in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 ("EMIR"), and are fully supportive of the proposed implementing regulation to extend the transitional provisions related to own funds for exposures to CCPs in CRR. Given our members regularly trade on a cross-border basis and clear trades through third country CCPs, we believe that the expiry of the transitional provisions would result in European firms incurring onerous capital requirements if they continue to access third-country CCPs that have not yet been recognised, or have simply failed to apply for recognition. This could negatively impact European firms by restricting cross-border trading resulting in practical consequences including a loss of risk management flexibility, a reduction in market liquidity, and the breaking up of established netting sets. Resulting increases in capital requirements for clearing members could also ultimately limit and disrupt EU client’s access to clearing services of third country CCPs, which have applied for recognition under EMIR. Furthermore, we believe it is important that banks are not penalized by the imposition of higher capital requirements due to a lack of completion of the recognition process for CCPs, and welcome the European Commission’s acknowledgement of this concern in the draft implementing regulation. We therefore believe that in order to avoid a negative impact on the availability and price of hedging instruments, and subsequent knock on effects for the real economy, it is crucial that the transitional provisions are extended so as to and to allow extra time for the European Commission to continue its equivalence assessment efforts of the legal and supervisory framework of third-country CCPs, which would allow for the recognition of such CCPs by the European Securities and Markets Authority. We encourage the European Commission to continue its work with other jurisdictions to ensure that positive equivalence assessments are completed as soon as possible to fully address the uncertainty EU firms are still facing when operating under the current transitional provisions. We thank the European Commission for considering our comments. We look forward to continued dialogue on these issues going forward. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Read full response

Meeting with Marlene Madsen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

26 Oct 2016 · Recovery and resolution on CCPs

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

11 Dec 2015 · European Market Infrastructure Regulation

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

9 Jun 2015 · Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II/Classes of financial instruments approach

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

7 May 2015 · Capital Markets Union/Markets in Financial Instruments Directive