FIA Warns Against ESMA’s Overly Prescriptive Margin Transparency Rules

The Futures Industry Association (FIA) has cautioned the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) against introducing overly prescriptive margin transparency requirements for clearing member firms. The warning comes in response to ESMA’s consultation on draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) under Article 38 of EMIR 3.0, which sets out transparency obligations for central counterparties (CCPs) and clearing service providers (CSPs).

Transparency Objectives Supported, But Scope Matters

FIA Chief Operating Officer and SVP of Global Policy, Jacqueline Mesa, emphasized the association’s alignment with ESMA’s broader policy goals:

“We strongly support the EU’s overarching policy objectives to enhance transparency and enable clearing members, clients and end-users to be better prepared for liquidity needs, particularly under stressed market conditions. However, we urge ESMA to ensure that these RTS remain firmly aligned with the Level 1 mandate, both in scope and proportionality.”

According to FIA, Article 38(7) and (8) of obligation on CCPs. CSPs, by contrast, should focus on forwarding CCP disclosures and providing additional information only where they impose their own margin add-ons.

Market Evidence: CCP Margin Is the Driver

An FIA survey of clearing members reveals that 86.5% of clients are charged CCP margin only, 10.5% face CCP margin plus CSP add-ons (usually multipliers), and just 3% are subject to proprietary CSP models. This means that CCP disclosures are the dominant factor shaping client exposures, while CSP transparency needs are limited.

FIA therefore welcomes ESMA’s emphasis on strengthening CCP disclosures but warns against placing heavier-than-necessary obligations on CSPs.

Concerns Over Proposed CSP Obligations

Among FIA’s specific concerns is a proposal requiring CSPs to provide “two scenarios related to the individual risk of the client”. FIA argues this would go beyond CCP obligations, and would be operationally unfeasible for CSPs with large client bases.

Mesa consequences:

“Overly burdensome or non-risk-aligned requirements on EU-based CSPs, particularly where similar expectations are not imposed standards, may inadvertently fragileen the relative attractiveness and scalability of clearing services in Europe.”

Recommendations for ESMA

FIA has set out three core recommendations for ESMA as it finalizes the RTS:

• Reinforce transparency requirements for CCPs in line with EMIR Article 38(7).
• Ensure CSP disclosures are proportionate and risk-based, avoiding obligations that exceed the Level 1 mandate.
• Clarify and streamline simulation expectations so they add value for clients but remain feasible for CSPs.

Implementation Timeline and Sequencing

Separately, FIA has called for a proportionate compliance timeline that reflects the operational and technological complexity of the rules. In particular, FIA recommends a staggered implementation — with CCPs required to comply first, followed later by CSPs once CCP frameworks are in place. Without such staging, FIA warns, CSPs could face regulatory breaches if they are unable to access CCP disclosures in time.

The association argues that an unrealistic , undermining the objectives of EMIR 3.0 rather than supporting them.

Outlook

As Europe moves to strengthen post-trade resilience under EMIR 3.0, the balance between transparency, proportionality, and global competitiveness will be key. FIA’s intervention highlights the challenge of designing rules that protect clients and markets without creating undue burdens for intermediaries. ESMA’s next steps will determine whether the RTS framework strikes that balance.