ESMA's call does not expand CCP collateral categories

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is not using tokenisation as a reason to widen what a European Union central counterparty may accept as collateral. Call for evidence ESMA91-1505572268-4934, dated October 9, 2026, asks whether a tokenised form of an already eligible asset can still be moved, protected and turned into liquidity under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation when a clearing member defaults.

Responses close on January 15, 2027. Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), still requires a central counterparty (CCP) to take highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk, and to haircut it for the fall in value before liquidation. Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013 turns that duty into rules on cash, instruments, valuation, haircuts and concentration. Below: what ESMA is actually asking, how the United Kingdom and the United States have already moved, what the Nasdaq Clearing fine shows when collateral cannot be realised, and what the post-trade chain is being asked to evidence before the first-quarter 2027 assessment.

Key facts

• Call for evidence ESMA91-1505572268-4934, October 9, 2026. Comments close January 15, 2027. Assessment in the first quarter of 2027. Source: ESMA press release and the paper.
• No new eligible-asset list. Digital-twin, native and hybrid models. Annex I has 30 questions. Source: ESMA91-1505572268-4934.
• Article 46 of EMIR and Articles 37 to 42 of Delegated Regulation 153/2013 still set valuation, haircuts and concentration. Source: EUR-Lex.
• The only central-clearing tokenisation project ESMA had seen in EMIR CCP colleges was HQLAx. Source: footnote 10.
• Footnotes on the Article 88(1) list, updated October 6, 2026, leave 15 CCPs still authorised in the Union. Source: ESMA70-148-2567.
• Finansinspektionen, January 27, 2021: warning and SEK 300 million (Swedish kronor) fine on Nasdaq Clearing AB after the September 11, 2018 default. Source: Finansinspektionen.

Methodology and sources

The core text is ESMA’s call for evidence ESMA91-1505572268-4934 of October 9, 2026, read with the press release and the consultation page. The statutory baseline is EMIR and Chapter X of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013. CCP numbers come from ESMA70-148-2567, updated October 6, 2026. The deadline, the chair’s words and the scope are taken from those primary pages and the PDF.

Related:NFL tells the Supreme Court sports contracts are gambling

The comparison runs from December 8, 2025 to October 9, 2026: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Staff Letter No. 25-39 and Staff Letter No. 26-05, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England call for input of May 18, 2026, closed July 3, 2026, with FS26/1 on September 14, 2026. Enforcement is Finansinspektionen’s January 27, 2021 decision. The call is not a draft technical standard, and the HQLAx line is a college observation, not a census.

What EMIR still requires of collateral

Collateral lets a CCP absorb a clearing-member default. Tokenisation here is a digital representation of an asset or of cash, wrapped around a traditional holding or issued on a ledger. The executive summary does not add eligible categories. It asks whether the wrapper changes how an otherwise eligible asset is moved and realised. The two models are a digital twin, which may not be the authoritative record, and a native token. Hybrids are invited. Footnote 10 says HQLAx was the only central-clearing project ESMA had seen in CCP colleges.

A private key is not a title. Collateral moves by title transfer or by pledge, and ESMA asks which of those a token transfer is. Article 2(2) of the Financial Collateral Directive (Directive 2002/47/EC) requires possession or control by the collateral taker. Article 39 of EMIR requires client segregation, and Article 48 covers porting in default. Finality, where the Settlement Finality Directive (Directive 98/26/EC) applies, has to be irrevocable. Questions 12 to 14 ask which record wins if the token and a depository disagree.

A same-bond, new-wrapper claim fails at the haircut. Article 41 of Delegated Regulation 153/2013 requires stressed haircuts for time to liquidate, credit, volatility and wrong-way risk. Article 40 requires near-to-real-time monitoring. Article 42(4) caps collateral guaranteed by one credit institution at 10%, or 25% where bank guarantees exceed 50%. The wrapper can still add conversion and cyber risk. The paper lists tokenised central bank money, stablecoins, e-money tokens and tokenised deposits, and says some may not count as cash if they leave par. Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 does not switch off technology-risk duties.

ESMA’s call for evidence on CCP collateral tokenisation, reference ESMA91-1505572268-4934, was published on October 9, 2026. It asks whether tokenised forms of assets that are already eligible can be used safely by European Union CCPs. It does not add an eligible category. Article 46 of EMIR still requires highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk, and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013 still sets cash, instrument, valuation, haircut and concentration rules in Articles 37 to 42. The paper separates a digital twin, whose record may stay at a depository or custodian, from a native token on a ledger, and it asks about hybrids. It also asks whether, in a clearing-member default, the CCP can access the collateral, transfer it and turn it into liquidity. Comments received by January 15, 2027 are assessed in the first quarter of 2027. Only then does ESMA decide whether any step inside its remit is warranted.

How three jurisdictions treat a tokenised bond

The Union, the United Kingdom and the United States are looking at a familiar asset in token form. None of the measures below creates a collateral class that skips the ordinary eligibility test. The difference is sequence. EU CCPs are still being asked for a default playbook. US futures commission merchants can already sit inside a staff position. The UK has published what it heard.

Sources: ESMA91-1505572268-4934; EMIR; Delegated Regulation 153/2013; ESMA70-148-2567; FCA FS26/1; CFTC Letter 25-39; CFTC Letter 26-05; Finansinspektionen. Last updated: October 11, 2026.

Letter 25-39 points firms back to assets already eligible as regulatory margin, such as a tokenised Treasury. Letter 26-05 adds that a national trust bank may issue a payment stablecoin for the earlier no-action position. ESMA is wary where that cash leg can leave par. The FIX warning to the FCA and the Bank on tokenisation data gaps is the same point: if the message does not name the authoritative record, finality is a claim.

The European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States have not written one collateral rule for tokens. In the Union, the October 9, 2026 call ESMA91-1505572268-4934 leaves Article 46 of EMIR and Articles 37 to 42 of Delegated Regulation 153/2013 in place. Comments close on January 15, 2027. In the United Kingdom, the FCA and the Bank of England published FS26/1 on September 14, 2026, recording 123 responses to a call that closed on July 3, 2026. That statement does not change the onshored highly liquid test. In the United States, CFTC Staff Letter No. 25-39 of December 8, 2025 covers tokenised real-world assets as futures and swaps collateral, and Staff Letter No. 26-05 of February 6, 2026 is conditional no-action for certain non-securities digital assets posted as customer margin. US staff have said when they will not recommend enforcement. ESMA has said it will read the evidence first.

“Tokenisation has the potential to make Europe’s financial markets more efficient, integrated and innovative. As it moves from experimentation to the mainstream, we must create the conditions for tokenised markets to operate safely and at scale across borders, with legal certainty, interoperable infrastructures and appropriate supervision. This Call for Evidence is an important part of ESMA’s broader work to ensure that tokenisation develops safely and at scale across the Single Market, and that Europe is well placed to reap the benefits of this new technology.”

— Verena Ross, Chair, European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA press release, October 9, 2026)

What the Nasdaq Clearing fine still teaches

On the morning of September 11, 2018, Nasdaq Clearing AB declared clearing member Einar Aas in default. He was a natural person active in commodities. Pledged collateral did not cover the portfolio loss, so the CCP drew on the mutualised default fund. Norwegian Finanstilsynet, a college member, called it a breach of the CCP’s EMIR margin rules. Reuters reported on January 27, 2021 that the hole was €114 million.

On January 27, 2021, Finansinspektionen issued a warning and a fine of SEK 300 million under Chapter 25, sections 1 and 8, of the Swedish Securities Market Act (2007:528). The file is FI 18-23053, 18-23054 and 18-24342. Failings included weak checks on members, an incorrect calculation that produced insufficient margin calls, and an EMIR investment-restriction breach because own funds stayed in derivatives too long after the default.

Questions 4, 6 and 15 ask whether a CCP can turn tokenised collateral into liquidity without a new delay. A twin that must be reconciled before sale, or a token whose cash leg has left par, pushes the loss into the default fund. Article 20 of EMIR, cited for the October 12, 2017 withdrawal of CME Clearing Europe, is still available. The Swedish decision is not an ESMA fine, and it shows this call will not relax a test that already failed when collateral could not be realised.

What this means for CCPs, members and custodians

CCPs are being asked which record is authoritative and which instruction creates a title transfer or a pledge. A “no haircut change” answer still has to meet Article 41. Clearing members face Articles 39 and 48 in wallet form. Client assets must be identifiable and impossible to post twice. The MUFG trial of a Japanese government bond repo with a tokenised cash leg helps only if that cash pays the CCP in the right currency and time. Letter 26-05 does not cross the Atlantic. The CFTC registration of Coinbase Clearing does not amend Article 46.

Depositories, custodians and triparty agents are inside the twin model. Question 27 asks who performs the critical functions. HQLAx was the only project the colleges had seen, so one platform is already a concentration fact. The UK regime cannot fine the cloud firms it designates, so a plan that relies on sanctioning the vendor is not a plan. Replies use form ESMA91-1505572268-5028 and cannot hide behind an email footer. ESMA already publishes operational detail early, as in the commodity position-reporting split.

“Tokenisation can support more efficient collateral mobilisation and contribute to the further integration of EU post-trade markets. At the same time, it is key that the fundamental safeguards applicable to CCP collateral remain unchanged. Collateral must be of high quality, legally enforceable, highly liquid, and easily operationally available, including in stressed conditions and following a clearing member default. Through this Call for Evidence, we want to understand how tokenised arrangements work in practice and whether the existing framework can accommodate them safely and effectively.”

— Klaus Löber, Chair, ESMA CCP Supervisory Committee (ESMA press release, October 9, 2026)

What ESMA will do after January 15, 2027

Comments close on January 15, 2027. ESMA publishes responses unless a respondent has clearly asked that a passage be withheld. A refusal can be reviewed by the Board of Appeal and the European Ombudsman. The authority reads the file in the first quarter of 2027, alongside its other tokenisation work, and then chooses a course. The options it names are convergence measures inside its remit. It does not promise a new regulatory technical standard or a permission to post every distributed-ledger pilot as margin.

Questions 28 and 30 ask if the law is technologically neutral. The paper says EMIR, the Central Securities Depositories Regulation, the Settlement Finality Directive, the Financial Collateral Directive, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, the Digital Operational Resilience Act and the DLT Pilot Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2022/858) may apply, depending on the model. That is not a decision that an e-money token is variation margin. The UK roadmap is not a collateral rule yet, and CFTC staff letters do not bind an EU CCP. LCH Ltd, LME Clear Ltd and ICE Clear Europe left the Union list on Brexit day. Article 46 did not.

TL;DR

ESMA’s call for evidence ESMA91-1505572268-4934, published on October 9, 2026, tests tokenised forms of collateral that EU CCPs may already accept. It adds no asset class. Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and Articles 37 to 42 of Delegated Regulation 153/2013 still govern liquidity, valuation, haircuts and concentration, including in a member default. Comments close on January 15, 2027. ESMA had seen only one central-clearing project, HQLAx, in its CCP colleges, and 15 CCPs remain authorised on the list updated October 6, 2026. On January 27, 2021, Finansinspektionen fined Nasdaq Clearing AB SEK 300 million after insufficient margin in the September 11, 2018 default. UK feedback and US staff letters are further along. Neither rewrites the EU test.

Frequently asked questions

What is ESMA asking firms to file?

Evidence, not a new collateral schedule. Call ESMA91-1505572268-4934, published on October 9, 2026, asks CCPs, clearing members, clients, depositories, custodians, triparty agents and tokenisation providers how a token would behave in practice. Annex I contains 30 questions on models, legal form, porting, finality, haircuts and resilience. Replies use form ESMA91-1505572268-5028 and are due on January 15, 2027. ESMA assesses them in the first quarter of 2027 before deciding whether any measure inside its remit is justified.

Does tokenising a bond make it eligible collateral?

No. The call says it will not expand the categories a CCP may accept. Article 46 of EMIR still requires highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk. Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013 sets eligible cash, highly liquid instruments, valuation speed, Article 41 haircuts and Article 42 concentration limits. A tokenised government bond starts from that bond’s risks. The open question is whether the token changes the time and certainty of turning it into cash after a default.

How does a digital twin differ from a native token?

A digital twin mirrors rights that remain recorded in a conventional infrastructure, and it may not be the authoritative record. A native token is issued and transferred on the ledger, so posting and monitoring sit there. Hybrids use both. In a default, ESMA expects the twin to fall back on a custodian or depository, and the native token to depend on on-ledger liquidity and a settlement asset. Neither form, on the paper’s terms, upgrades the credit quality of the underlying asset.

How do the EU, UK and US approaches differ?

The Union is collecting evidence and has not amended Article 46. The United Kingdom closed its wholesale call on July 3, 2026 and published FS26/1 on September 14, 2026, with 123 responses. Collateral movement was the opportunity respondents named. That is not a new eligibility rule. The United States is further into staff practice. CFTC Letter No. 25-39 of December 8, 2025 covers tokenised real-world assets. Letter No. 26-05 of February 6, 2026 is conditional no-action for certain digital assets as customer margin. Neither letter binds an EU CCP.

Why does the 2018 Nasdaq default still matter?

The loss got past the member’s collateral. Nasdaq Clearing AB declared Einar Aas in default on September 11, 2018. Pledged collateral was short, the default fund was used, and a bad calculation had produced insufficient margin calls. On January 27, 2021 Finansinspektionen issued a warning and a fine of SEK 300 million. Reuters put the hole at €114 million. ESMA’s questions on access, transfer and conversion ask whether a token recreates that failure. Collateral that cannot be realised in time does not protect the waterfall.

Can a stablecoin be EU CCP variation margin?

The call does not say yes. It lists tokenised central bank money, stablecoins, e-money tokens and tokenised deposits as possible settlement assets, then warns that some may not count as cash. Stablecoins are named because they can leave par. Liquidity also turns on redemption rights, issuer credit and whether the asset actually discharges a cash debt. Until ESMA decides after the first quarter of 2027, Article 46 and the cash rules in Delegated Regulation 153/2013 are the test a CCP has to meet.

This article is informational analysis only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or investment advice. Regulatory frameworks change frequently and interpretation depends on facts and circumstances; primary documents and official regulator guidance always supersede summaries. Firms should consult qualified legal counsel and their relevant supervisory authority before taking any action based on the analysis above.