Summary of the audit approach Audit subjects Audit criteria Audit evidence (i) Were the registrations of all possible CRAs done correctly and as efficiently as possible? (i) Legal requirements and objectives in the CRA regulation as well as complementing delegated regulations (technical standards); (ii) ESMA's handbook for CRA Registrations. (i) Analysis of the registration process; (ii) Analysis of a selection of registration files; (iii) Interviews with key staff; (iv) Information gathering visits to a selection of CRAs; (v) Consultation of NCA via an inquiry on their practices; (vi) Comparison with practices at the SEC (US). (ii) Did ESMA develop and implement a sound planning and risk assessment for its supervisory activities? (i) ESMA’s internal supervision manual and supervisory handbook. (i) Analysis of the risk assessment conducted by ESMA; (ii) Analysis of ESMA’s internal planning documents; (iii) Interviews with key staff; (v) Consultation of NCA via an inquiry on their practices. (iii) Does the implementation of the supervisory framework capture the problems revealed in the CRA business, including those related to independency of rating boards and preventing conflicts of interest? (i) Legal requirements and objectives in the CRA regulation as well as complementing delegated regulations (technical standards); (ii) ESMA’s internal supervision manual and supervisory handbook; (iii) Relevant IOSCO guidelines and principles. (i) Analysis of the files regarding the ongoing supervisory work; (ii) Analysis of the supervisory files and internal documents, especially the thematic and individual reviews; (iii) Interviews with key staff; (iv) Information gathering visits to a selection of CRAs; (v) Consultation of NCA via an inquiry on their practices; (vi) Comparison with practices at the SEC (US). (iv) Did ESMA and the CRAs publish sufficient and value adding information to its stakeholders, in particular the European Parliament, about its supervisory activities? (i) Legal requirements and objectives in the CRA regulation as well as complementing delegated regulations (technical standards); (ii) ESMA’s internal supervision manual and supervisory handbook. (i) Quantitative analysis of the rating information in the CEREP database; (ii) Analysis of the Socrat database; (iii) External experts assessed the public disclosure requirements concerning the methodologies, models and key rating assumptions; (iv) Review by external expert of the rating performance indicators in the CEREP database; (v) Consultation of NCA via an inquiry on their practices. 
Sammanfattning av revisionsmetoden Revisionsämnen Revisionskriterier Revisionsbevis i) Registrerades samtliga möjliga kreditvärderingsinstitut korrekt och så effektivt som möjligt? i) Rättsliga krav och mål i förordningen om kreditvärderingsinstitut samt kompletterande delegerade förordningar (tekniska standarder). ii) Esmas handbok för registreringar av kreditvärderingsinstitut. i) Analys av registreringsprocessen. ii) Analys av ett urval av registreringshandlingar. iii) Intervjuer med nyckelpersonal. iv) Informationsinsamlingsbesök hos ett urval av kreditvärderingsinstitut. v) Konsultation hos nationella behöriga myndigheter genom en förfrågan om deras praxis. vi) Jämförelse med praxis vid den amerikanska finansinspektionen. ii) Tog Esma fram och genomförde en noggrann planering och riskbedömning för sin tillsynsverksamhet? i) Esmas interna tillsynsmanual och tillsynshandbok. i) Analys av Esmas riskbedömning. ii) Analys av Esmas interna planeringsdokument. iii) Intervjuer med nyckelpersonal. v) Konsultation hos nationella behöriga myndigheter genom en förfrågan om deras praxis. iii) Ringades de problem som konstaterats i kreditvärderingsbranschen in genom införandet av tillsynsramen, också dem som gällde styrelsernas oberoende och förebyggandet av intressekonflikter? i) ii) iii) Rättsliga krav och mål i förordningen om kreditvärderingsinstitut samt kompletterande delegerade förordningar (tekniska standarder).