300 Pages of Confusion in the Name of Transparency
Particpants need more clarity on Mifid's trade reporting requirements
![files-new files-new](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/117/321117/files-new-580x358.jpg.webp?itok=8pLiNt1i)
The problem with the trade and transaction reporting changes under Mifid II is not only the length of the documentation—over 300 pages—but also the content itself. Everyone I spoke to for this month’s feature described it as one of the most confusing texts they had ever encountered. One member of the buy-side community spoke to me for almost an hour and used the words “confusion,” “complicated” and “obscure” more than 30 times.
Out of this enormous piece of regulation, there are a couple of key points to focus on in order to appreciate how the European regulatory bodies plan to bring about their anticipated goal: the creation of a transparent trading environment across all European markets.
The European Commission and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) have pointed to the establishment of two mechanisms: Approved Reporting Mechanisms (ARMs) and Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs). These entities will be responsible for the success—or failure—of regulators’ aims to create a transparent market. APAs will make quotes available and publish trades in real time across all asset classes, while ARMs will aggregate transactions on a post-trade basis, including significant additional information regarding accountable parties to those transactions.
Volker Lainer, global head of regulatory solutions and data connections at data management technology provider GoldenSource, says these mechanisms will give regulators what they need to monitor the way trading takes place in the European markets. “It is a major widening of the breadth and depth of transparency and it gives significant insights into liquidity,” Lainer says.
Large Data Flow
How effective will a trading environment be where data volumes reach unprecedented levels?
The industry is set to face a significant increase in dataset sizes and volumes, given that firms need to produce detailed reports on responsibilities and who did what. Via the ARMs, firms and individuals need to be identified using both legal entity identifiers and country-assigned identifiers. Anne Plested, head of Fidessa’s regulation change program, explains that the reporting of over-the-counter (OTC) trades is an indication that regulators will seek to monitor every aspect of the trading workflow. “The introduction of a number of new post-trade data flags will standardize the publication of trade information,” she says. “This applies across a wider universe with the scope of the post-trade transparency rules extended to cover equity-like instruments such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and non-equity instruments such as bonds, structured products, and derivatives.”
Rob Boardman, CEO of equities broker ITG, says the massive amount of required data will force brokers to demand more information from their clients, an unpopular issue on the buy side, especially smaller firms. “I know that big firms are considering an in-house solution for this, but there are some firms that don’t want to do that on their own and they’ll need some help,” he says. “There is the issue of time and people working on investigating every transaction or trade, and a small firm doesn’t have enough human and capital resources to do that.”
Even if we consider APAs and ARMs as the key to unlocking the complexity of the new regulatory regime for trade and transaction reporting, a number of critical questions remain: How effective will a trading environment be where data volumes reach unprecedented levels? Who ensures that the providers of ARMs and APAs will work on equal terms, and who can guarantee that the differences in the quality of the service won’t affect the performance of each portfolio manager? How well can a market function if all trading activity is under rigorous scrutiny and constant monitoring? And, who can guarantee that these changes won’t introduce unfavorable conditions, especially for OTC trading, forcing investors to abandon the European markets all together? These are the questions regulators need to address well before Mifid II takes effect in January 2018.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
The costly sanctions risks hiding in your supply chain
In an age of geopolitical instability and rising fines, financial firms need to dig deep into the securities they invest in and the issuing company’s network of suppliers and associates.
Industry associations say ECB cloud guidelines clash with EU’s Dora
Responses from industry participants on the European Central Bank’s guidelines are expected in the coming weeks.
Regulators recommend Figi over Cusip, Isin for reporting in FDTA proposal
Another contentious battle in the world of identifiers pits the Figi against Cusip and the Isin, with regulators including the Fed, the SEC, and the CFTC so far backing the Figi.
US Supreme Court clips SEC’s wings with recent rulings
The Supreme Court made a host of decisions at the start of July that spell trouble for regulators—including the SEC.
This Week: FCA, Plato/Turquoise, Franklin Templeton, and more
A summary of the latest financial technology news.
Insurers deny cyber premiums are rising
Contrary to banks’ complaints, underwriters and brokers claim current market for policies is soft.
Size matters: US equity market players wrangle over new tick size regime
The industry expects the SEC to finalize the Reg NMS shake-up as soon as late summer. While there is broad agreement about the need for change, the extent of the reduction in access fees and tick sizes will have a big impact on markets.
CME: CFTC OKs clearing move to Google Cloud
The CFTC has given the Chicago-based exchange approval to run its clearing and settlement infrastructure on the Google Cloud Platform, while the exchange and vendor have extended their partnership to last until at least 2037.