It goes without saying, I suppose, that financial markets regulation has always been something of a conundrum – the markets have always been global, to a greater or lesser degree, and regulations have always been national or regional. But it does seem that today more than ever the problem is exacerbated. After the financial panic of 2008-09, every regulator and every government seemed to embark on a market reregulation binge, and managed to do it without much regard for what everyone else was doing.
At a recent webinar hosted by Riskfocus we discussed trade reporting. There is no end of research extoling the grim realities or lamenting the high costs and negative impacts of Trade and Transaction Reporting, unfortunately, it’s not going away. We thought it was time to explore the positive perspective. In this enhanced recording of a live event on June 30th we asked four firms with varying stakes in the Trade and Transaction Reporting domain to discuss the perceived, achieved and potential positives to be gained from this unavoidable obligation. Watch the recording of the event with added video, audio and slides to understand the positive opportunities that come directly or indirectly from trade reporting.
More than three years after the entry into force of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”) and the regulatory technical standards of 19 December 2012 with respect to, inter alia, indirect clearing arrangements, indirect clearing is again at the centre of attention.
The revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive represents a fundamental change for financial markets across many areas, requiring major re-engineering of some business models and an opportunity for transformational change.
Finally, the EU Commission has published the delegated regulation on organizational requirements, including thresholds for systematic internalisation (SI), inter alia.
If your point of reference is ESMA’s technical advice back from December 2014, you will see some unwanted surprises. However, if you had a chance to look at the leaked version late in 2015, you may feel some relief now.
As MiFID II looms large, swathes of the markets for financial instruments are being completely remade.
For any investment firm operating a single-dealer bond or swap ECN in Europe, MiFID II raises a life-altering decision – whether to become an organized trading facility (OTF) or a systematic internalizer (SI). Given the way MiFID II is worded, that choice has far-reaching implications. And, since Article 20 of MiFID says, “Member States shall not allow the operation of an OTF and of a systematic internaliser to take place within the same legal entity,” this is very much an either-or decision.