Acronyms are not unusual in financial markets, but the list is about to get a lot bigger. OTFs, SIs, TOTV, LIS and SSTI – these are just a selection of the terms that are about to elbow their way into Europe’s financial vernacular as the revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II) comes into force.
Scheduled for implementation from next year, MIFID II and its accompanying regulation, MIFIR, will introduce new trading venues, a trading obligation, a new transparency regime and strict reporting requirements, among other things. It is vast in scale, and it’s very, very complicated. So much so that it’s difficult to find many practitioners who are truly confident its implementation will be completely smooth and without incident.
That’s partly due to a lack of clarity in key areas. For example, market participants point to a critical need for equivalence decisions to avoid crippling liquidity fragmentation. There has been some recent progress between the European Commission (EC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but trading venue equivalence needs to be in place before the end of the year to ensure cross-border trading is not affected after the start date of MIFID II.
Outside of MIFID II, there’s plenty going on to keep firms busy. Along with the start of the EU Benchmarks Regulation from January 1, European regulators are reviewing the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), with the objective of reducing complexity and unnecessary costs. The EC is also reviewing rules for the supervision of third-country central counterparties (CCPs) – and, as part of that, has proposed a location policy for those CCPs that pose significant systemic importance to the EU.
In this issue of IQ, we take a quick tour of some of the issues keeping European policy-makers busy. The first article looks at MIFID II, and highlights some of the remaining areas of uncertainty. We then turn to the review of EMIR, and highlight the requirements that would benefit from reform. We round off the package with an article on CCP supervision, and present ISDA’s analysis on the impact of a possible location policy for third-country CCPs.
Click on attached PDF to read the full issue.
Documents (1) for Leap to MIFID II – Vol 3, Issue 3: November 2017
Latest
Strengthening DC Governance
The Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees (DCs) play a vital role. Without a single, industry-wide determination on whether a credit event has occurred, it simply wouldn’t be possible to clear credit default swaps (CDS), making the market less safe and less...
ISDA CSA Significant Errors Notification SOP
The ISDA CSA Notification of Significant Error or Omissions Suggested Operational Practices (SOP) considers current institutional processes and outlines suggested operational practices related to the new requirement under §26.3(2) of the Canadian Trade Repositories and Derivatives Data Reporting rules rewrite...
ISDA Paper on UPI Identifiers
On July 16, ISDA submitted a paper (UPI as the Foundation for OTC Derivatives Reporting: The Case for UPI) to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The paper was developed to complement ISDA’s response to the FCA’s discussion paper DP24/2:...
IRD Trading Activity First Quarter of 2025
This report analyzes interest rate derivatives (IRD) trading activity reported in Europe. The analysis is based on transactions publicly reported by 30 European approved publication arrangements (APAs) and trading venues (TVs). Key highlights for the first quarter of 2025 include:...