Community
The current MiFID II draft suggests that trading venues have to fulfil the transaction reporting for non-EEA exchange members. While it is understandable that regulators want to ensure complete records of all trading activity within Europe, the operational burden could be far-reaching.
Currently, exchanges rely largely on trading interfaces to collect information from their members, but these were never designed for transaction reporting. Most importantly, some of the required information is not available when the order is submitted to the exchange. A short sale flag, for example, is usually determined elsewhere and long after the trade occurred.
Looking at the bigger picture, I start to worry about the extraterritoriality aspects of MiFID II. As discussed previously, non-EEA firms run the risk of being caught in MiFID II’s net, and even if they decide to become a full exchange member they face hurdles such as transaction reporting. It looks like MiFID II will leave few firms unaffected, even from a global perspective.
This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.
Anusha Sivaramakrishnan Consulting Partner at TCS
17 July
Viacheslav Kostin CEO at WislaCode Solutions
14 July
Alex Kreger Founder and CEO at UXDA Financial UX Design
Milko Filipov Senior Manager at valantic
Welcome to Finextra. We use cookies to help us to deliver our services. You may change your preferences at our Cookie Centre.
Please read our Privacy Policy.