Article 1 Subject-matter
This Regulation introduces a common framework to ensure the accuracy and integrity of indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts, or to measure the performance of investment funds in the Union. This Regulation thereby contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market while achieving a high level of consumer and investor protection.
Article 2 Scope
1. This Regulation applies to the provision of benchmarks, the contribution of input data to a benchmark and the use of a benchmark within the Union. 2. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) a central bank; (b) a public authority, where it contributes data to, provides, or has control over the provision of, benchmarks for public policy purposes, including measures of employment, economic activity, and inflation; (c) a central counterparty (CCP), where it provides reference prices or settlement prices used for CCP risk-management purposes and settlement; (d) the provision of a single reference price for any financial instrument listed in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU; (e) the press, other media and journalists where they merely publish or refer to a benchmark as part of their journalistic activities with no control over the provision of that benchmark; (f) a natural or legal person that grants or promises to grant credit in the course of that person's trade, business or profession, only insofar as that person publishes or makes available to the public that person's own variable or fixed borrowing rates set by internal decisions and applicable only to financial contracts entered into by that person or by a company within the same group with their respective clients; (g) a commodity benchmark based on submissions from contributors the majority of which are non-supervised entities and in respect of which both of the following conditions apply: (i) the benchmark is referenced by financial instruments for which a request for admission to trading has been made on only one trading venue, as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, or which are traded on only one such trading venue; (ii) the total notional value of financial instruments referencing the benchmark does not exceed EUR 100 million; (h) an index provider in respect of an index provided by said provider where that index provider is unaware and could not reasonably have been aware that that index is used for the purposes referred to in point (3) of Article 3(1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 2 Scope):
1. This Regulation applies to the provision of benchmarks, the contribution of input data to a benchmark and the use of a benchmark within the Union.
Article 3 Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘index’ means any figure: (a) that is published or made available to the public; (b) that is regularly determined: (i) entirely or partially by the application of a formula or any other method of calculation, or by an assessment; and (ii) on the basis of the value of one or more underlying assets or prices, including estimated prices, actual or estimated interest rates, quotes and committed quotes, or other values or surveys; (2) ‘index provider’ means a natural or legal person that has control over the provision of an index; (3) ‘benchmark’ means any index by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract, or the value of a financial instrument, is determined, or an index that is used to measure the performance of an investment fund with the purpose of tracking the return of such index or of defining the asset allocation of a portfolio or of computing the performance fees; (4) ‘family of benchmarks’ means a group of benchmarks provided by the same administrator and determined from input data of the same nature which provides specific measures of the same or similar market or economic reality; (5) ‘provision of a benchmark’ means: (a) administering the arrangements for determining a benchmark; (b) collecting, analysing or processing input data for the purpose of determining a benchmark; and (c) determining a benchmark through the application of a formula or other method of calculation or by an assessment of input data provided for that purpose; (6) ‘administrator’ means a natural or legal person that has control over the provision of a benchmark; (7) ‘use of a benchmark’ means: (a) issuance of a financial instrument which references an index or a combination of indices; (b) determination of the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract by referencing an index or a combination of indices; (c) being a party to a financial contract which references an index or a combination of indices; (d) providing a borrowing rate as defined in point (j) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC calculated as a spread or mark-up over an index or a combination of indices and that is solely used as a reference in a financial contract to which the creditor is a party; (e) measuring the performance of an investment fund through an index or a combination of indices for the purpose of tracking the return of such index or combination of indices, of defining the asset allocation of a portfolio, or of computing the performance fees; (8) ‘contribution of input data’ means providing any input data not readily available to an administrator, or to another person for the purposes of passing to an administrator, that is required in connection with the determination of a benchmark, and is provided for that purpose; (9) ‘contributor’ means a natural or legal person contributing input data; (10) ‘supervised contributor’ means a supervised entity that contributes input data to an administrator located in the Union; (11) ‘submitter’ means a natural person employed by the contributor for the purpose of contributing input data; (12) ‘assessor’ means an employee of an administrator of a commodity benchmark, or any other natural person whose services are placed at the administrator's disposal or under the control of the administrator, and who is responsible for applying a methodology or judgement to input data and other information to reach a conclusive assessment about the price of a certain commodity; (13) ‘expert judgement’ means the exercise of discretion by an administrator or a contributor with respect to the use of data in determining a benchmark, including extrapolating values from prior or related transactions, adjusting values for factors that might influence the quality of data such as market events or impairment of a buyer or seller's credit quality, and weighting firm bids or offers greater than a particular concluded transaction; (14) ‘input data’ means the data in respect of the value of one or more underlying assets, or prices, including estimated prices, quotes, committed quotes or other values, used by an administrator to determine a benchmark; (15) ‘transaction data’ means observable prices, rates, indices or values representing transactions between unaffiliated counterparties in an active market subject to competitive supply and demand forces; (16) ‘financial instrument’ means any of the instruments listed in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU for which a request for admission to trading on a trading venue, as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, has been made or which is traded on a trading venue as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or via a systematic internaliser as defined in point (20) of Article 4(1) of that Directive; (17) ‘supervised entity’ means any of the following: (a) a credit institution as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 16 ) ; (b) an investment firm as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU; (c) an insurance undertaking as defined in point (1) of Article 13 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 17 ) ; (d) a reinsurance undertaking as defined in point (4) of Article 13 of Directive 2009/138/EC; (e) a UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC or, where applicable, a UCITS management company as defined in point (b) of Article 2(1) of that Directive; (f) an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) as defined in point (b) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 18 ) ; (g) an institution for occupational retirement provision as defined in point (a) of Article 6 of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 19 ) ; (h) a creditor as defined in point (b) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC for the purposes of credit agreements as defined in point (c) of Article 3 of that Directive; (i) a non-credit institution as defined in point (10) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU for the purposes of credit agreements as defined in point (3) of Article 4 of that Directive; (j) a market operator as defined in point (18) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU; (k) a CCP as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 20 ) ; (l) a trade repository as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (m) an administrator; (18) ‘financial contract’ means: (a) any credit agreement as defined in point (c) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC; (b) any credit agreement as defined in point (3) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU; (19) ‘investment fund’ means an AIF as defined in point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU, or a UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC; (20) ‘management body’ means the body or bodies of an administrator or another supervised entity which are appointed in accordance with national law, which are empowered to set the strategy, objectives and overall direction of the administrator or other supervised entity, and which oversee and monitor management decision-making and include persons who effectively direct the business of the administrator or other supervised entity; (21) ‘consumer’ means a natural person who, in financial contracts covered by this Regulation, is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession; (22) ‘interest rate benchmark’ means a benchmark which for the purposes of point (1)(b)(ii) of this paragraph is determined on the basis of the rate at which banks may lend to, or borrow from, other banks, or agents other than banks, in the money market; (23) ‘commodity benchmark’ means a benchmark where the underlying asset for the purposes of point (1)(b)(ii) of this paragraph is a commodity within the meaning of point (1) of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 ( 21 ) , excluding emission allowances as referred to in point (11) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU; (24) ‘regulated-data benchmark’ means a benchmark determined by the application of a formula from: (a) input data contributed entirely and directly from: (i) a trading venue as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or a trading venue in a third country for which the Commission has adopted an implementing decision that the legal and supervisory framework of that country is considered to have equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 22 ) , or a regulated market considered to be equivalent under Article 2a of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, but in each case only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments; (ii) an approved publication arrangement as defined in point (52) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or a consolidated tape provider as defined in point (53) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, in accordance with mandatory post-trade transparency requirements, but only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments that are traded on a trading venue; (iii) an approved reporting mechanism as defined in point (54) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, but only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments that are traded on a trading venue and that must be disclosed in accordance with mandatory post-trade transparency requirements; (iv) an electricity exchange as referred to in point (j) of Article 37(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 23 ) ; (v) a natural gas exchange as referred to in point (j) of Article 41(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 24 ) ; (vi) an auction platform referred to in Article 26 or 30 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 ( 25 ) ; (vii) a service provider to which the benchmark administrator has outsourced the data collection in accordance with Article 10, provided that the service provider receives the data entirely and directly from an entity referred to in points (i) to (vi); (b) net asset values of investment funds; (25) ‘critical benchmark’ means a benchmark other than a regulated-data benchmark that fulfils any of the conditions laid down in Article 20(1) and which is on the list established by the Commission pursuant to that Article; (26) ‘significant benchmark’ means a benchmark that fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 24(1); (27) ‘non-significant benchmark’ means a benchmark that does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Articles 20(1) and 24(1); (28) ‘located’ means, in relation to a legal person, the country where that person's registered office or other official address is situated and, in relation to a natural person, the country where that person is resident for tax purposes; (29) ‘public authority’ means: (a) any government or other public administration, including the entities charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt; (b) any entity or person either performing public administrative functions under national law or having public responsibilities or functions or providing public services, including measures of employment, economic activities and inflation, under the control of an entity within the meaning of point (a). 2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 in order to specify further technical elements of the definitions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article, in particular specifying what constitutes making available to the public for the purposes of the definition of an index. Where applicable, the Commission shall take into account the market or technological developments and the international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks. 3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts in order to establish and review a list of public authorities in the Union falling within the definition under point (29) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 50(2). Where applicable, the Commission shall take into account the market or technological developments and the international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 3 Definitions):
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘index’ means any figure: (a) that is published or made available to the public; (b) that is regularly determined: (i) entirely or partially by the application of a formula or any other method of calculation, or by an assessment; and (ii) on the basis of the value of one or more underlying assets or prices, including estimated prices, actual or estimated interest rates, quotes and committed quotes, or other values or surveys; (2) ‘index provider’ means a natural or legal person that has control over the provision of an index; (3) ‘benchmark’ means any index by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract, or the value of a financial instrument, is determined, or an index that is used to measure the performance of an investment fund with the purpose of tracking the return of such index or of defining the asset allocation of a portfolio or of computing the performance fees; (4) ‘family of benchmarks’ means a group of benchmarks provided by the same administrator and determined from input data of the same nature which provides specific measures of the same or similar market or economic reality; (5) ‘provision of a benchmark’ means: (a) administering the arrangements for determining a benchmark; (b) collecting, analysing or processing input data for the purpose of determining a benchmark; and (c) determining a benchmark through the application of a formula or other method of calculation or by an assessment of input data provided for that purpose; (6) ‘administrator’ means a natural or legal person that has control over the provision of a benchmark; (7) ‘use of a benchmark’ means: (a) issuance of a financial instrument which references an index or a combination of indices; (b) determination of the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract by referencing an index or a combination of indices; (c) being a party to a financial contract which references an index or a combination of indices; (d) providing a borrowing rate as defined in point (j) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC calculated as a spread or mark-up over an index or a combination of indices and that is solely used as a reference in a financial contract to which the creditor is a party; (e) measuring the performance of an investment fund through an index or a combination of indices for the purpose of tracking the return of such index or combination of indices, of defining the asset allocation of a portfolio, or of computing the performance fees; (8) ‘contribution of input data’ means providing any input data not readily available to an administrator, or to another person for the purposes of passing to an administrator, that is required in connection with the determination of a benchmark, and is provided for that purpose; (9) ‘contributor’ means a natural or legal person contributing input data; (10) ‘supervised contributor’ means a supervised entity that contributes input data to an administrator located in the Union; (11) ‘submitter’ means a natural person employed by the contributor for the purpose of contributing input data; (12) ‘assessor’ means an employee of an administrator of a commodity benchmark, or any other natural person whose services are placed at the administrator's disposal or under the control of the administrator, and who is responsible for applying a methodology or judgement to input data and other information to reach a conclusive assessment about the price of a certain commodity; (13) ‘expert judgement’ means the exercise of discretion by an administrator or a contributor with respect to the use of data in determining a benchmark, including extrapolating values from prior or related transactions, adjusting values for factors that might influence the quality of data such as market events or impairment of a buyer or seller's credit quality, and weighting firm bids or offers greater than a particular concluded transaction; (14) ‘input data’ means the data in respect of the value of one or more underlying assets, or prices, including estimated prices, quotes, committed quotes or other values, used by an administrator to determine a benchmark; (15) ‘transaction data’ means observable prices, rates, indices or values representing transactions between unaffiliated counterparties in an active market subject to competitive supply and demand forces; (16) ‘financial instrument’ means any of the instruments listed in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU for which a request for admission to trading on a trading venue, as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, has been made or which is traded on a trading venue as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or via a systematic internaliser as defined in point (20) of Article 4(1) of that Directive; (17) ‘supervised entity’ means any of the following: (a) a credit institution as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 ); (b) an investment firm as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU; (c) an insurance undertaking as defined in point (1) of Article 13 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2 ); (d) a reinsurance undertaking as defined in point (4) of Article 13 of Directive 2009/138/EC; (e) a UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC or, where applicable, a UCITS management company as defined in point (b) of Article 2(1) of that Directive; (f) an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) as defined in point (b) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ); (g) an institution for occupational retirement provision as defined in point (a) of Article 6 of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ); (h) a creditor as defined in point (b) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC for the purposes of credit agreements as defined in point (c) of Article 3 of that Directive; (i) a non-credit institution as defined in point (10) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU for the purposes of credit agreements as defined in point (3) of Article 4 of that Directive; (j) a market operator as defined in point (18) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU; (k) a CCP as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ); (l) a trade repository as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (m) an administrator; (18) ‘financial contract’ means: (a) any credit agreement as defined in point (c) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC; (b) any credit agreement as defined in point (3) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU; (19) ‘investment fund’ means an AIF as defined in point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU, or a UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC; (20) ‘management body’ means the body or bodies of an administrator or another supervised entity which are appointed in accordance with national law, which are empowered to set the strategy, objectives and overall direction of the administrator or other supervised entity, and which oversee and monitor management decision-making and include persons who effectively direct the business of the administrator or other supervised entity; (21) ‘consumer’ means a natural person who, in financial contracts covered by this Regulation, is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession; (22) ‘interest rate benchmark’ means a benchmark which for the purposes of point (1)(b)(ii) of this paragraph is determined on the basis of the rate at which banks may lend to, or borrow from, other banks, or agents other than banks, in the money market; (23) ‘commodity benchmark’ means a benchmark where the underlying asset for the purposes of point (1)(b)(ii) of this paragraph is a commodity within the meaning of point (1) of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 ( 6 ), excluding emission allowances as referred to in point (11) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU; (23a) ‘EU Climate Transition Benchmark’ means a benchmark which is labelled as an EU Climate Transition Benchmark and fulfils the following requirements: (a) for the purposes of point 1(b)(ii) of this paragraph and of Article 19b, its underlying assets are selected, weighted or excluded in such a manner that the resulting benchmark portfolio is on a decarbonisation trajectory; and (b) it is constructed in accordance with the minimum standards laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 19a(2); (23b) ‘EU Paris-aligned Benchmark’ means a benchmark which is labelled as an EU Paris-aligned Benchmark and fulfils the following requirements: (a) for the purposes of point 1(b)(ii) of this paragraph and of the delegated act referred to in Article 19c, its underlying assets are selected, weighted or excluded in such a manner that the resulting benchmark portfolio’s carbon emissions are aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved by the Union on 5 October 2016 ( 7 ) (the ‘Paris Agreement’); (b) it is constructed in accordance with the minimum standards laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 19a(2); and (c) the activities relating to its underlying assets do not significantly harm other environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives; (23c) ‘decarbonisation trajectory’ means a measurable, science-based and time-bound trajectory towards alignment with the objectives of the Paris Agreement by reducing Scope 1, 2 and 3 carbon emissions as referred to in point (1)(e) of Annex III; (24) ‘regulated-data benchmark’ means a benchmark determined by the application of a formula from: (a) input data contributed entirely and directly from: (i) a trading venue as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or a trading venue in a third country for which the Commission has adopted an implementing decision that the legal and supervisory framework of that country is considered to have equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 8 ), or a regulated market considered to be equivalent under Article 2a of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, but in each case only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments; (ii) an approved publication arrangement as defined in point (52) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU or a consolidated tape provider as defined in point (53) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, in accordance with mandatory post-trade transparency requirements, but only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments that are traded on a trading venue; (iii) an approved reporting mechanism as defined in point (54) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, but only with reference to transaction data concerning financial instruments that are traded on a trading venue and that must be disclosed in accordance with mandatory post-trade transparency requirements; (iv) an electricity exchange as referred to in point (j) of Article 37(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ); (v) a natural gas exchange as referred to in point (j) of Article 41(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ); (vi) an auction platform referred to in Article 26 or 30 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 ( 11 ); (vii) a service provider to which the benchmark administrator has outsourced the data collection in accordance with Article 10, provided that the service provider receives the data entirely and directly from an entity referred to in points (i) to (vi); (b) net asset values of investment funds; (25) ‘critical benchmark’ means a benchmark other than a regulated-data benchmark that fulfils any of the conditions laid down in Article 20(1) and which is on the list established by the Commission pursuant to that Article; (26) ‘significant benchmark’ means a benchmark that fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 24(1); (27) ‘non-significant benchmark’ means a benchmark that does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Articles 20(1) and 24(1); (28) ‘located’ means, in relation to a legal person, the country where that person's registered office or other official address is situated and, in relation to a natural person, the country where that person is resident for tax purposes; (29) ‘public authority’ means: (a) any government or other public administration, including the entities charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt; (b) any entity or person either performing public administrative functions under national law or having public responsibilities or functions or providing public services, including measures of employment, economic activities and inflation, under the control of an entity within the meaning of point (a). 2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 in order to specify further technical elements of the definitions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article, in particular specifying what constitutes making available to the public for the purposes of the definition of an index. Where applicable, the Commission shall take into account the market or technological developments and the international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks. 3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts in order to establish and review a list of public authorities in the Union falling within the definition under point (29) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 50(2).
Article 4 Governance and conflict of interest requirements
1. An administrator shall have in place robust governance arrangements which include a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent roles and responsibilities for all persons involved in the provision of a benchmark. Administrators shall take adequate steps to identify and to prevent or manage conflicts of interest between themselves, including their managers, employees or any person directly or indirectly linked to them by control, and contributors or users, and to ensure that, where any judgement or discretion in the benchmark determination process is required, it is independently and honestly exercised. 2. The provision of a benchmark shall be operationally separated from any part of an administrator's business that may create an actual or potential conflict of interest. 3. Where a conflict of interest arises within an administrator due to the latter's ownership structure, controlling interests or other activities conducted by any entity owning or controlling the administrator or by an entity that is owned or controlled by the administrator or any of the administrator's affiliates, that cannot be adequately mitigated, the relevant competent authority may require the administrator to establish an independent oversight function which shall include a balanced representation of stakeholders, including users and contributors. 4. If such a conflict of interest cannot be adequately managed, the relevant competent authority may require the administrator to either cease the activities or relationships that create the conflict of interest or cease providing the benchmark. 5. An administrator shall publish or disclose all existing or potential conflicts of interest to users of a benchmark, to the relevant competent authority and, where relevant, to contributors, including conflicts of interest arising from the ownership or control of the administrator. 6. An administrator shall establish and operate adequate policies and procedures, as well as effective organisational arrangements, for the identification, disclosure, prevention, management and mitigation of conflicts of interest in order to protect the integrity and independence of benchmark determinations. Such policies and procedures shall be regularly reviewed and updated. The policies and procedures shall take into account and address conflicts of interest, the degree of discretion exercised in the benchmark determination process and the risks that the benchmark poses, and shall: (a) ensure the confidentiality of information contributed to or produced by the administrator, subject to the disclosure and transparency obligations under this Regulation; and (b) specifically mitigate conflicts of interest due to the administrator's ownership or control, or due to other interests in the administrator's group or as a result of other persons that may exercise influence or control over the administrator in relation to determining the benchmark. 7. Administrators shall ensure that their employees and any other natural persons whose services are placed at their disposal or under their control and who are directly involved in the provision of a benchmark: (a) have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience for the duties assigned to them and are subject to effective management and supervision; (b) are not subject to undue influence or conflicts of interest and that the compensation and performance evaluation of those persons do not create conflicts of interest or otherwise impinge upon the integrity of the benchmark determination process; (c) do not have any interests or business connections that compromise the activities of the administrator concerned; (d) are prohibited from contributing to a benchmark determination by way of engaging in bids, offers and trades on a personal basis or on behalf of market participants, except where such way of contribution is explicitly required as part of the benchmark methodology and is subject to specific rules therein; and (e) are subject to effective procedures to control the exchange of information with other employees involved in activities that may create a risk of conflicts of interest or with third parties, where that information may affect the benchmark. 8. An administrator shall establish specific internal control procedures to ensure the integrity and reliability of the employee or person determining the benchmark, including at least internal sign-off by management before the dissemination of the benchmark.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 4 Governance and conflict of interest requirements):
1. An administrator shall have in place robust governance arrangements which include a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent roles and responsibilities for all persons involved in the provision of a benchmark. Administrators shall take adequate steps to identify and to prevent or manage conflicts of interest between themselves, including their managers, employees or any person directly or indirectly linked to them by control, and contributors or users, and to ensure that, where any judgement or discretion in the benchmark determination process is required, it is independently and honestly exercised. 2. The provision of a benchmark shall be operationally separated from any part of an administrator's business that may create an actual or potential conflict of interest. 3. Where a conflict of interest arises within an administrator due to the latter's ownership structure, controlling interests or other activities conducted by any entity owning or controlling the administrator or by an entity that is owned or controlled by the administrator or any of the administrator's affiliates, that cannot be adequately mitigated, the relevant competent authority may require the administrator to establish an independent oversight function which shall include a balanced representation of stakeholders, including users and contributors. 4. If such a conflict of interest cannot be adequately managed, the relevant competent authority may require the administrator to either cease the activities or relationships that create the conflict of interest or cease providing the benchmark. 5. An administrator shall publish or disclose all existing or potential conflicts of interest to users of a benchmark, to the relevant competent authority and, where relevant, to contributors, including conflicts of interest arising from the ownership or control of the administrator. 6. An administrator shall establish and operate adequate policies and procedures, as well as effective organisational arrangements, for the identification, disclosure, prevention, management and mitigation of conflicts of interest in order to protect the integrity and independence of benchmark determinations. Such policies and procedures shall be regularly reviewed and updated. The policies and procedures shall take into account and address conflicts of interest, the degree of discretion exercised in the benchmark determination process and the risks that the benchmark poses, and shall: (a) ensure the confidentiality of information contributed to or produced by the administrator, subject to the disclosure and transparency obligations under this Regulation; and (b) specifically mitigate conflicts of interest due to the administrator's ownership or control, or due to other interests in the administrator's group or as a result of other persons that may exercise influence or control over the administrator in relation to determining the benchmark. 8. An administrator shall establish specific internal control procedures to ensure the integrity and reliability of the employee or person determining the benchmark, including at least internal sign-off by management before the dissemination of the benchmark. 9. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the requirements to ensure that the governance arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 are sufficiently robust. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 October 2020. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 5 Oversight function requirements
1. Administrators shall establish and maintain a permanent and effective oversight function to ensure oversight of all aspects of the provision of their benchmarks. 2. Administrators shall develop and maintain robust procedures regarding their oversight function, which shall be made available to the relevant competent authorities. 3. The oversight function shall operate with integrity and shall have the following responsibilities, which shall be adjusted by the administrator based on the complexity, use and vulnerability of the benchmark: (a) reviewing the benchmark's definition and methodology at least annually; (b) overseeing any changes to the benchmark methodology and being able to request the administrator to consult on such changes; (c) overseeing the administrator's control framework, the management and operation of the benchmark, and, where the benchmark is based on input data from contributors, the code of conduct referred to in Article 15; (d) reviewing and approving procedures for cessation of the benchmark, including any consultation about a cessation; (e) overseeing any third party involved in the provision of the benchmark, including calculation or dissemination agents; (f) assessing internal and external audits or reviews, and monitoring the implementation of identified remedial actions; (g) where the benchmark is based on input data from contributors, monitoring the input data and contributors and the actions of the administrator in challenging or validating contributions of input data; (h) where the benchmark is based on input data from contributors, taking effective measures in respect of any breaches of the code of conduct referred to in Article 15; and (i) reporting to the relevant competent authorities any misconduct by contributors, where the benchmark is based on input data from contributors, or administrators, of which the oversight function becomes aware, and any anomalous or suspicious input data. 4. The oversight function shall be carried out by a separate committee or by means of another appropriate governance arrangement. 5. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the procedures regarding the oversight function and the characteristics of the oversight function including its composition as well as its positioning within the organisational structure of the administrator, so as to ensure the integrity of the function and the absence of conflicts of interest. In particular, ESMA shall develop a non-exhaustive list of appropriate governance arrangements as laid down in paragraph 4. ESMA shall distinguish between the different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation and shall take into consideration the differences in the ownership and control structure of administrators, the nature, scale and complexity of the provision of the benchmark, and the risk and impact of the benchmark, also in light of international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to governance requirements of benchmarks. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify the elements referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 5 Oversight function requirements):
1. Administrators shall establish and maintain a permanent and effective oversight function to ensure oversight of all aspects of the provision of their benchmarks. 2. Administrators shall develop and maintain robust procedures regarding their oversight function, which shall be made available to the relevant competent authorities. 4. The oversight function shall be carried out by a separate committee or by means of another appropriate governance arrangement. 5. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the procedures regarding the oversight function and the characteristics of the oversight function including its composition as well as its positioning within the organisational structure of the administrator, so as to ensure the integrity of the function and the absence of conflicts of interest. In particular, ESMA shall develop a non-exhaustive list of appropriate governance arrangements as laid down in paragraph 4. ESMA shall distinguish between the different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation and shall take into consideration the differences in the ownership and control structure of administrators, the nature, scale and complexity of the provision of the benchmark, and the risk and impact of the benchmark, also in light of international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to governance requirements of benchmarks. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify the elements referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.
Article 6 Control framework requirements
1. Administrators shall have in place a control framework that ensures that their benchmarks are provided and published or made available in accordance with this Regulation. 2. The control framework shall be proportionate to the level of conflicts of interest identified, the extent of discretion in the provision of the benchmark and the nature of the benchmark input data. 3. The control framework shall include: (a) management of operational risk; (b) adequate and effective business continuity and disaster recovery plans; (c) contingency procedures that are in place in the event of a disruption to the process of the provision of the benchmark. 4. An administrator shall establish measures to: (a) ensure that contributors adhere to the code of conduct referred to in Article 15 and comply with the applicable standards for input data; (b) monitor input data including, where feasible, monitoring input data before publication of the benchmark and validating input data after publication to identify errors and anomalies. 5. The control framework shall be documented, reviewed and updated as appropriate and made available to the relevant competent authority and, upon request, to users.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 6 Control framework requirements):
1. Administrators shall have in place a control framework that ensures that their benchmarks are provided and published or made available in accordance with this Regulation. 2. The control framework shall be proportionate to the level of conflicts of interest identified, the extent of discretion in the provision of the benchmark and the nature of the benchmark input data. 4. An administrator shall establish measures to: (a) ensure that contributors adhere to the code of conduct referred to in Article 15 and comply with the applicable standards for input data; (b) monitor input data including, where feasible, monitoring input data before publication of the benchmark and validating input data after publication to identify errors and anomalies. 5. The control framework shall be documented, reviewed and updated as appropriate and made available to the relevant competent authority and, upon request, to users.
Article 7 Accountability framework requirements
1. An administrator shall have in place an accountability framework, covering record-keeping, auditing and review, and a complaints process, that provides evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. 2. An administrator shall designate an internal function with the necessary capability to review and report on the administrator's compliance with the benchmark methodology and this Regulation. 3. For critical benchmarks, an administrator shall appoint an independent external auditor to review and report on the administrator's compliance with the benchmark methodology and this Regulation, at least annually. 4. Upon the request of the relevant competent authority, an administrator shall provide to the relevant competent authority the details of the reviews and reports provided for in paragraph 2. Upon the request of the relevant competent authority or any user of a benchmark, an administrator shall publish the details of the audits provided for in paragraph 3.
Article 8 Record-keeping requirements
1. An administrator shall keep records of: (a) all input data, including the use of such data; (b) the methodology used for the determination of a benchmark; (c) any exercise of judgement or discretion by the administrator and, where applicable, by assessors, in the determination of a benchmark, including the reasoning for said judgement or discretion; (d) the disregard of any input data, in particular where it conformed to the requirements of the benchmark methodology, and the rationale for such disregard; (e) other changes in or deviations from standard procedures and methodologies, including those made during periods of market stress or disruption; (f) the identities of the submitters and of the natural persons employed by the administrator for the determination of a benchmark; (g) all documents relating to any complaint, including those submitted by a complainant; and (h) telephone conversations or electronic communications between any person employed by the administrator and contributors or submitters in respect of a benchmark. 2. An administrator shall keep the records set out in paragraph 1 for at least five years in such a form that it is possible to replicate and fully understand the determination of a benchmark and enable an audit or evaluation of input data, calculations, judgements and discretion. Records of telephone conversation or electronic communications recorded in accordance with point (h) of paragraph 1 shall be provided to the persons involved in the conversation or communication upon request and shall be kept for a period of three years.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 8 Record-keeping requirements):
2. An administrator shall keep the records set out in paragraph 1 for at least five years in such a form that it is possible to replicate and fully understand the determination of a benchmark and enable an audit or evaluation of input data, calculations, judgements and discretion. Records of telephone conversation or electronic communications recorded in accordance with point (h) of paragraph 1 shall be provided to the persons involved in the conversation or communication upon request and shall be kept for a period of three years.
Article 9 Complaints-handling mechanism
1. An administrator shall have in place and publish procedures for receiving, investigating and retaining records concerning complaints made, including about the administrator's benchmark determination process. 2. Such a complaints-handling mechanism shall ensure that: (a) the administrator makes available the complaints-handling policy through which complaints may be submitted on whether a specific benchmark determination is representative of market value, on a proposed change to the benchmark determination process, on an application of the methodology in relation to a specific benchmark determination, and on other decisions in relation to the benchmark determination process; (b) complaints are investigated in a timely and fair manner and the outcome of the investigation is communicated to the complainant within a reasonable period of time, unless such communication would be contrary to objectives of public policy or to Regulation (EU) No 596/2014; and (c) the inquiry is conducted independently of any personnel who may be or may have been involved in the subject-matter of the complaint.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 9 Complaints-handling mechanism):
1. An administrator shall have in place and publish procedures for receiving, investigating and retaining records concerning complaints made, including about the administrator's benchmark determination process.
Article 10 Outsourcing
1. An administrator shall not outsource functions in the provision of a benchmark in such a way as to impair materially the administrator's control over the provision of the benchmark or the ability of the relevant competent authority to supervise the benchmark. 2. Where an administrator outsources to a service provider functions or any relevant services and activities in the provision of a benchmark, the administrator shall remain fully responsible for discharging all of the administrator's obligations under this Regulation. 3. Where outsourcing takes place, the administrator shall ensure that the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the service provider has the ability, capacity, and any authorisation required by law, to perform the outsourced functions, services or activities reliably and professionally; (b) the administrator makes available to the relevant competent authorities the identity and the tasks of the service provider that participates in the benchmark determination process; (c) the administrator takes appropriate action if it appears that the service provider may not be carrying out the outsourced functions effectively and in compliance with applicable law and regulatory requirements; (d) the administrator retains the necessary expertise to supervise the outsourced functions effectively and to manage the risks associated with the outsourcing; (e) the service provider discloses to the administrator any development that may have a material impact on its ability to carry out the outsourced functions effectively and in compliance with applicable law and regulatory requirements; (f) the service provider cooperates with the relevant competent authority regarding the outsourced activities, and the administrator and the relevant competent authority have effective access to data related to the outsourced activities, as well as to the business premises of the service provider, and the relevant competent authority is able to exercise those rights of access; (g) the administrator is able to terminate the outsourcing arrangements where necessary; (h) the administrator takes reasonable steps, including contingency plans, to avoid undue operational risk related to the participation of the service provider in the benchmark determination process.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 10 Outsourcing):
1. An administrator shall not outsource functions in the provision of a benchmark in such a way as to impair materially the administrator's control over the provision of the benchmark or the ability of the relevant competent authority to supervise the benchmark. 2. Where an administrator outsources to a service provider functions or any relevant services and activities in the provision of a benchmark, the administrator shall remain fully responsible for discharging all of the administrator's obligations under this Regulation.
Article 11 Input data
1. The provision of a benchmark shall be governed by the following requirements in respect of its input data: (a) the input data shall be sufficient to represent accurately and reliably the market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure. The input data shall be transaction data, if available and appropriate. If transaction data is not sufficient or is not appropriate to represent accurately and reliably the market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure, input data which is not transaction data may be used, including estimated prices, quotes and committed quotes, or other values; (b) the input data referred to in point (a) shall be verifiable; (c) the administrator shall draw up and publish clear guidelines regarding the types of input data, the priority of use of the different types of input data and the exercise of expert judgement, to ensure compliance with point (a) and the methodology; (d) where a benchmark is based on input data from contributors, the administrator shall obtain, where appropriate, the input data from a reliable and representative panel or sample of contributors so as to ensure that the resulting benchmark is reliable and representative of the market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure; (e) the administrator shall not use input data from a contributor if the administrator has any indication that the contributor does not adhere to the code of conduct referred to in Article 15, and in such a case shall obtain representative publicly available data. 2. Administrators shall ensure that their controls in respect of input data include: (a) criteria that determine who may contribute input data to the administrator and a process for selecting contributors; (b) a process for evaluating a contributor's input data and for stopping the contributor from providing further input data, or applying other penalties for non-compliance against the contributor, where appropriate; and (c) a process for validating input data, including against other indicators or data, to ensure its integrity and accuracy. 3. Where the input data of a benchmark is contributed from a front office function, meaning any department, division, group, or personnel of contributors or any of its affiliates that performs any pricing, trading, sales, marketing, advertising, solicitation, structuring, or brokerage activities, the administrator shall: (a) obtain data from other sources that corroborate that input data; and (b) ensure that contributors have in place adequate internal oversight and verification procedures. 4. Where an administrator considers that the input data does not represent the market or economic reality that a benchmark is intended to measure, that administrator shall, within a reasonable time period, either change the input data, the contributors or the methodology in order to ensure that the input data does represent such market or economic reality, or else cease to provide that benchmark. 5. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further how to ensure that input data is appropriate and verifiable, as required under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, as well as the internal oversight and verification procedures of a contributor that the administrator has to ensure are in place, in compliance with point (b) of paragraph 3, in order to ensure the integrity and accuracy of input data. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall take into account the different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation, the nature of input data, the characteristics of the underlying market or economic reality and the principle of proportionality, the vulnerability of the benchmarks to manipulation as well as the international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify the elements referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 11 Input data):
3. Where the input data of a benchmark is contributed from a front office function, meaning any department, division, group, or personnel of contributors or any of its affiliates that performs any pricing, trading, sales, marketing, advertising, solicitation, structuring, or brokerage activities, the administrator shall: (a) obtain data from other sources that corroborate that input data; and (b) ensure that contributors have in place adequate internal oversight and verification procedures. 4. Where an administrator considers that the input data does not represent the market or economic reality that a benchmark is intended to measure, that administrator shall, within a reasonable time period, either change the input data, the contributors or the methodology in order to ensure that the input data does represent such market or economic reality, or else cease to provide that benchmark. 5. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further how to ensure that input data is appropriate and verifiable, as required under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, as well as the internal oversight and verification procedures of a contributor that the administrator has to ensure are in place, in compliance with point (b) of paragraph 3, in order to ensure the integrity and accuracy of input data. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall take into account the different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation, the nature of input data, the characteristics of the underlying market or economic reality and the principle of proportionality, the vulnerability of the benchmarks to manipulation as well as the international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify the elements referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.
Article 12 Methodology
1. An administrator shall use a methodology for determining a benchmark that: (a) is robust and reliable; (b) has clear rules identifying how and when discretion may be exercised in the determination of that benchmark; (c) is rigorous, continuous and capable of validation including, where appropriate, back-testing against available transaction data; (d) is resilient and ensures that the benchmark can be calculated in the widest set of possible circumstances, without compromising its integrity; (e) is traceable and verifiable. 2. When developing a benchmark methodology, a benchmark administrator shall: (a) take into account factors including the size and normal liquidity of the market, the transparency of trading and the positions of market participants, market concentration, market dynamics, and the adequacy of any sample to represent the market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure; (b) determine what constitutes an active market for the purposes of that benchmark; and (c) establish the priority given to different types of input data. 3. An administrator shall have in place clear published arrangements that identify the circumstances in which the quantity or quality of input data falls below the standards necessary for the methodology to determine the benchmark accurately and reliably, and that describe whether and how the benchmark is to be calculated in such circumstances.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 12 Methodology):
3. An administrator shall have in place clear published arrangements that identify the circumstances in which the quantity or quality of input data falls below the standards necessary for the methodology to determine the benchmark accurately and reliably, and that describe whether and how the benchmark is to be calculated in such circumstances. 4. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions to ensure that the methodology referred to in paragraph 1 complies with points (a) to (e) of that paragraph. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 October 2020. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 13 Transparency of methodology
1. An administrator shall develop, operate and administer the benchmark and methodology transparently. To that end, the administrator shall publish or make available the following information: (a) the key elements of the methodology that the administrator uses for each benchmark provided and published or, when applicable, for each family of benchmarks provided and published; (b) details of the internal review and the approval of a given methodology, as well as the frequency of such review; (c) the procedures for consulting on any proposed material change in the administrator's methodology and the rationale for such changes, including a definition of what constitutes a material change and the circumstances in which the administrator is to notify users of any such changes. 2. The procedures required under point (c) of paragraph 1 shall provide for: (a) advance notice, with a clear time frame, that gives the opportunity to analyse and comment upon the impact of such proposed material changes; and (b) the comments referred to in point (a) of this paragraph, and the administrator's response to those comments, to be made accessible after any consultation, except where confidentiality has been requested by the originator of the comments. 3. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further the information to be provided by an administrator in compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, distinguishing for different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation. ESMA shall take into account the need to disclose those elements of the methodology that provide for sufficient detail to allow users to understand how a benchmark is provided and to assess its representativeness, its relevance to particular users and its appropriateness as a reference for financial instruments and contracts and the principle of proportionality. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 4. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify further the elements referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 13 Transparency of methodology):
1. An administrator shall develop, operate and administer the benchmark and methodology transparently. To that end, the administrator shall publish or make available the following information: (a) the key elements of the methodology that the administrator uses for each benchmark provided and published or, when applicable, for each family of benchmarks provided and published; (b) details of the internal review and the approval of a given methodology, as well as the frequency of such review; (c) the procedures for consulting on any proposed material change in the administrator's methodology and the rationale for such changes, including a definition of what constitutes a material change and the circumstances in which the administrator is to notify users of any such changes; (d) an explanation of how the key elements of the methodology laid down in point (a) reflect ESG factors for each benchmark or family of benchmarks, with the exception of interest rate and foreign exchange benchmarks. Benchmark administrators shall comply with the requirement laid down in point (d) of the first subparagraph by 30 April 2020. 2. The procedures required under point (c) of paragraph 1 shall provide for: (a) advance notice, with a clear time frame, that gives the opportunity to analyse and comment upon the impact of such proposed material changes; and (b) the comments referred to in point (a) of this paragraph, and the administrator's response to those comments, to be made accessible after any consultation, except where confidentiality has been requested by the originator of the comments. 2a. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the minimum content of the explanation referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article, as well as the standard format to be used. 3. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further the information to be provided by an administrator in compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, distinguishing for different types of benchmarks and sectors as set out in this Regulation. ESMA shall take into account the need to disclose those elements of the methodology that provide for sufficient detail to allow users to understand how a benchmark is provided and to assess its representativeness, its relevance to particular users and its appropriateness as a reference for financial instruments and contracts and the principle of proportionality. However, the ESMA draft regulatory technical standards shall not cover or apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 4. ESMA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, addressed to administrators of non-significant benchmarks to specify further the elements referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article.
Article 14 Reporting of infringements
1. An administrator shall establish adequate systems and effective controls to ensure the integrity of input data in order to be able to identify and report to the competent authority any conduct that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of a benchmark, under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. 2. An administrator shall monitor input data and contributors in order to be able to notify the competent authority and provide all relevant information where the administrator suspects that, in relation to a benchmark, any conduct has taken place that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of the benchmark, under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, including collusion to do so. The competent authority of the administrator shall, where applicable, transmit such information to the relevant authority under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. 3. Administrators shall have procedures in place for their managers, employees and any other natural persons whose services are placed at their disposal or under their control to report internally infringements of this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 14 Reporting of infringements):
1. An administrator shall establish adequate systems and effective controls to ensure the integrity of input data in order to be able to identify and report to the competent authority any conduct that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of a benchmark, under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. 2. An administrator shall monitor input data and contributors in order to be able to notify the competent authority and provide all relevant information where the administrator suspects that, in relation to a benchmark, any conduct has taken place that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of the benchmark, under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, including collusion to do so. The competent authority of the administrator shall, where applicable, transmit such information to the relevant authority under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. 3. Administrators shall have procedures in place for their managers, employees and any other natural persons whose services are placed at their disposal or under their control to report internally infringements of this Regulation. 4. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the characteristics of the systems and controls referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 October 2020. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.