Each calls for rationalisation of reporting regimes

Source: Each

The attached response represents the views of EACH Member CCPs on the European Commission consultation on fitness check on supervisory reporting.

In summary, we have highlighted the following issues to make reporting more efficient and effective:

Avoid double reporting - CCPs are generally subject to different reporting regimes like EMIR, MiFID II/MiFIR or REMIT. This creates heavy reporting burdens and consequently the need to streamline the requirements.

We suggest:

Switching off transaction reporting for ETDs and instead using the position reporting regime of EMIR in order to monitoring systemic risks.
Any changes to the current reporting requirements are aimed to simplify reporting.
Timely guidance on the implementation of reporting requirements, in the form of Q&As. The lack of timely guidance creates room for interpretation, creating uncertainties in the market, as well as different approaches across the industry.

Too many authorities to report - EACH would like to raise awareness that what considerably raises compliance costs are the number of entities that should be receiving the reports. In order to comply with the reporting regimes under different legislations, CCPs have to set up connections with countless supervisory authorities, such as ESMA and different national competent authorities (NCAs).

We suggest:

Rationalising the number of entities that need to receive reporting.
Standardising at least the formats for the identical data, if the obligation to send the data to different receivers cannot be eliminated entirely.

Competitive disadvantage for reporting ETD - EACH has concerns about the reporting requirements for ETD contracts. A complete record of all ETD contracts is already available from CCPs. The sheer number of ETD transactions has resulted in significant challenge for regulators and trade repositories to consume the data in a meaningful way. The requirement to report ETD contracts represents a major competitive disadvantage for European reporting entities compared to other jurisdictions like the US and is out of the scope of the original G20 mandate agreed in Pittsburgh.

Use of reporting standards agreed internationally - EACH is concerned about the requirements to use new reporting standards different to the ones agreed internationally. Using existing standards would avoid unnecessary translation of existing clear trade confirmation data into new concepts. Prescribed standards provide no additional increase in the data quality or validation of data.

Comments: (0)