--- title: "ESMA Q&A 2790 — Q&A — “Under supervision” – responsibility, role awareness [Question Rejected]" shortTitle: "ESMA Q&A 2790 — Q&A — “Under supervision” – responsibility, role awareness [Question Rejected]" answer_id: ESMA_QA_2790 topic: "Suitability" status: "Question Rejected" type: qa instrument_type: qa authority: ESMA binding: false binding_character: non_binding legal_status: withdrawn regulation: "MiFID II" mifid_level3: true mica_level2: false legal_basis: "ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.), paras. 4(j), 19, 20(c)-(g); MiFID II (Directive 2014/65/EU), Art. 16(2) and 16(6), Art. 25(1), Art. 25(2), 25(6) and 25(9); Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, Art. 54 and Art. 72." date: 26 February 2026 source_link: https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2790 lifecycle: "Question Rejected" text_version: "ESMA Q&A register, 26 February 2026" source_url: "https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2790" check_status: matched verified: true last_checked: 2026-10-26 checked_against: "the ESMA publication" source: prepared_by: "not stated in the document" published_by: "ESMA" published_in: "ESMA Q&A tool" evidence: prepared_by: "ESMA_QA_2790" locator: "ESMA Q&A entry ESMA_QA_2790: no answer; no author named" document_type: "qa_question" legal_nature: "not_legislation" addressees: "not stated in the document" dates: question_submitted_on: "2026-02-26" locators: question_submitted_on: "ESMA Q&A Excel export ESMA_QA_2790, column 'Date of submission'" lifecycle_label: "Question Rejected" --- **Question published in the ESMA Q&A tool · no answer · not legislation [Question Rejected]** *Question Rejected · ESMA Q&A register, 26 February 2026 · Checked against the ESMA publication on 26 Oct 2026 · [Official source](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2790)* | | | |---|---| | **Full title** | ESMA Q&A 2790 — Q&A — “Under supervision” – responsibility, role awareness \[Question Rejected\] | | **Prepared by** | Not stated in the document | | **Published by** | ESMA, in the ESMA Q&A tool | | **Reference** | ESMA_QA_2790 | | **Document type** | Q&A | | **Legal nature** | No answer · not legislation | | **Addressees** | Not stated in the document | | **Dates** | Question submitted 26 February 2026 | | **Legal basis** | ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.), paras. 4(j), 19, 20(c)-(g); MiFID II (Directive 2014/65/EU), Art. 16(2) and 16(6), Art. 25(1), Art. 25(2), 25(6) and 25(9); Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, Art. 54 and Art. 72. | | **Related instruments** | None recorded | | **Text on this page** | Word for word — the full text of the ESMA publication | **“Under supervision” – responsibility, role awareness, real-time supervision, sign-off / “Under supervision” in investment advice: responsibility, role assignment and supervisory sign-off** ### Question I would like to request a general clarification on the interpretation of the ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) regarding “under supervision” in the context of investment advice, in particular paragraphs 4(j), 19 and 20(d)–(g). In practice, investment firms use supervision/tandem models in which a supervised staff member communicates the personal recommendation to the client, while a qualified/experienced person performs supervision and carries out documentation/approval steps. Against this background, I kindly request clarification on the following points: 1. Real-time supervision vs. ex post review Do the Guidelines typically require that, for “under supervision”, the supervisor is able to intervene in real time (e.g. by attending, listening-in/reading along, and having an immediate stop-go capability), or can an exclusively ex post review/approval be sufficient? 2. “Under the responsibility of” / “same responsibility” How should the requirement be understood that the activity is performed “under the responsibility of” a qualified/experienced person (para. 4(j)) and that the supervisor assumes “the same responsibility” (para. 20(g))? Which organisational minimum features are typically expected where the supervised staff member communicates the personal recommendation to the client? 3. Explicit assignment and awareness of the supervisory role Does “under supervision” require that the supervisory role is explicitly assigned and that both the supervised staff member and the supervisor are aware of their respective role, responsibilities and limits? 4. Conscious assumption of responsibility / sign-off Is the signing of the suitability statement by the supervisor mentioned in para. 20(g) to be understood as a standard expectation (or, in digital processes, a functional equivalent such as a documented review/approval/sign-off)? Is the mere presence of a qualified person without a conscious assumption of responsibility sufficient? *** **Source:** [ESMA original document](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2790)