CM18: There will be no third MiFID anytime soon
12 October 2018 Amsterdam
Image: Shutterstock
There will be no third Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) anytime soon, affirmed a representative of the European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) at this year's’ Annual Collateral Management Forum in Amsterdam.
The representative stated it was “a guess [he was] happy to take”, in a panel discussing post-trade service activities related to the settlement of transactions.
He said that under MiFID II it can be difficult to collect the right level of liquidity across different venues.
He added "this was pretty much the same as in 2014" when MiFID II was in the process of being implemented.
He also suggested there "needs to be practical balances" in how the industry reach the right levels of liquidity to match the ruling of MiFID II.
"Identifiers need to be clearer", he stated, and added: “How can you be sure you’re trading with the right person all the time? For example, if you don’t have legal entity identifiers you will be fined, this is extremely costly.”
He also affirmed, looking forward to future and pending regulations, that the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation and the Central Securities Depositories Regulation, in particular, should not be underestimated.
In the conclusion of the discussion, the moderator asked the EFAMA representative, if he thought there was currently too much or too little regulation within collateral management at the moment.
To this, he answered: “Not all the text that is published by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and discrepancies within ESMA ruling are clear in their intended impacts for both the buy-side and sell-side.”
“A person in charge of a big sell-side firm contacted me recently, he read ESMA’s publishings and could not clearly see the intended impact for the buy-side. He told me: ‘I'm not able to price or calculate the impact.’”
The EFAMA representative added that “from a pure mathematical aspect, the differences are not always easy to access, nor easily tracked.”
He concluded that, in addition, “the question of equivalence is now more important than ever.”
The representative stated it was “a guess [he was] happy to take”, in a panel discussing post-trade service activities related to the settlement of transactions.
He said that under MiFID II it can be difficult to collect the right level of liquidity across different venues.
He added "this was pretty much the same as in 2014" when MiFID II was in the process of being implemented.
He also suggested there "needs to be practical balances" in how the industry reach the right levels of liquidity to match the ruling of MiFID II.
"Identifiers need to be clearer", he stated, and added: “How can you be sure you’re trading with the right person all the time? For example, if you don’t have legal entity identifiers you will be fined, this is extremely costly.”
He also affirmed, looking forward to future and pending regulations, that the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation and the Central Securities Depositories Regulation, in particular, should not be underestimated.
In the conclusion of the discussion, the moderator asked the EFAMA representative, if he thought there was currently too much or too little regulation within collateral management at the moment.
To this, he answered: “Not all the text that is published by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and discrepancies within ESMA ruling are clear in their intended impacts for both the buy-side and sell-side.”
“A person in charge of a big sell-side firm contacted me recently, he read ESMA’s publishings and could not clearly see the intended impact for the buy-side. He told me: ‘I'm not able to price or calculate the impact.’”
The EFAMA representative added that “from a pure mathematical aspect, the differences are not always easy to access, nor easily tracked.”
He concluded that, in addition, “the question of equivalence is now more important than ever.”
← Previous industry article
CM18: The industry isn't doing enough to investigate disputes on collateral calls
CM18: The industry isn't doing enough to investigate disputes on collateral calls
Next industry article →
CM18: Nearly 60 percent of audience have not outsourced their collateral process
CM18: Nearly 60 percent of audience have not outsourced their collateral process
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
