23 September 2017
Anne Plested

65582

Anne Plested - Fidessa

26Posts 89,777Views 2Comments

The ever-growing MiFID II shopping list

19 September 2016  |  5123 views  |  1

Amongst other things, MiFID II’s transparency reforms intend to clean up the quality of post-trade data and eradicate duplicate prints – long-suffered bugbears for investment firms. But in simply stating the rules, ESMA has left buy- and sell-sides puzzling over just how significant a change this is. A look at the cost benefit analysis the regulator published in September last year reassured me that a sweeping reinvention of the wheel is not the intention.

The brokers’ exchange-traded domain looks likely to remain unaffected, aside from the handling of new, harmonised trade flagging and of waiver IDs to help regulators and exchanges count for the equity dark caps. But it is ESMA’s clarification of OTC reporting responsibility that may have a much wider impact. OTC trade publication responsibility falls squarely with the seller, according to the text, so now the buy-side is potentially looking to budget for an APA as well as an ARM on their MiFID II shopping list. With impact more likely to be in the non-equity space, asset managers will either have to get up to speed with trade reporting themselves or look to delegate the task, with possible inducement implications. Either way, they are still responsible for publication and need to have reconciliation controls in place. Only where one side to the OTC trade is an SI can the buy-side stay clear of this obligation. As the implementation details continue to unfold and the shopping list grows longer, it’s plain to see that the cost of regulation is only going to go up.

TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Comments: (2)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member | 20 September, 2016, 09:40

Does that mean, unless there is a real business need, Buy sides would like to do OTC trade only with SI ??

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Anne Plested
Anne Plested - Fidessa - London | 20 September, 2016, 12:48

Thanks Ahsan. That is certainly one of the points being debated since it would leave the trade reporting responsibility (and costs) with the SI.

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Comment on this story (membership required)

Latest posts from Anne

ESMA sets a date for SI compliance

08 November 2016  |  2838 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

The clock’s ticking on MiFID’s extra time

06 October 2016  |  3526 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

The ever-growing MiFID II shopping list

19 September 2016  |  5123 views  |  1 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

No summer break for MiFID II

18 July 2016  |  5532 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

So much to do, so little time

23 March 2016  |  11628 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Anne's profile

job title EU Regulation Change
location London
member since 2013
Summary profile See full profile »
I head up the regulation change programme for Fidessa in Europe. Since joining in 2009 I have played a significant role in the establishment of the Fidessa Regulation Team, monitoring and evaluating t...

Anne's expertise

Member since 2013
26 posts2 comments
What Anne reads

Who's commenting on Anne's posts