Community
An ESMA Q&A published this week provides some further guidance regarding the authorization of sub-delegated DEA providers, but it still leaves room for uncertainty. The Q&A draws a distinction between a DEA client that has EU exchange access directly via a member (Tier 1 DEA client), and a DEA client that obtains access through a sub-delegated DEA provider (Tier 2 DEA client). ESMA argues that Tier 2 clients do not have DEA access because in most cases they are not technically in possession of the trading code of the exchange member.
Furthermore, the Q&A reiterates the Article 48(7) requirement that in order to provide DEA access, a member of an EU exchange must be a registered MiFID II firm or credit institution. However, it is not absolutely clear whether the authorization requirement includes sub-delegated DEA providers. If you analyze the question by reference to the above-mentioned client tiers a sub-delegated DEA provider's clients are Tier 2 and don't have DEA.
Logically it follows that if the clients don't have DEA, how can a sub-delegated firm be providing DEA? So much for clarification! With a short amount of time until implementation, further guidance on the issue seems unlikely. Therefore, we must look to answer the question on the authorization of sub-delegated DEA providers by a review of the client tiers
This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.
Taras Boyko Founder at BTG Corporate Services Provider
12 May
Ted Sausen Director - AML Subject Matter Expert at NICE Actimize
09 May
Scott Dawson CEO at DECTA
08 May
Vitaliy Shtyrkin Chief Product Officer at B2BINPAY
07 May
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.