With the review of the MIFID II/MIFIR framework, policy-makers and supervisors are particularly concerned by the lack of accessibility and readability of market data and by a perceived unlevel playing field between multilateral trading facility operators and investment firms operating as systematic internalisers. One view often offered is that the means of achieving consistency in the data submitted by trading venues and investment firms is alignment of the bond and derivatives markets to the equity pre- and post-trade transparency regimes. This push towards alignment of regimes is known as ‘Regulatory Equitisation’.
This regulatory equitisation of the derivatives business raises many questions as some key concepts at the heart of equity markets are not appropriate for derivatives markets. The predominant risk is that the transparency framework that is under review would not take into account the specifics of derivatives instruments and market structure and would adversely affect both liquidity provision and the efficient functioning of these markets.
This paper highlights some of the key differences between equity markets and derivatives markets and explains how and where equitisation of regulation of derivatives markets would lead to negative consequences for users of derivatives.
Documents (1) for MIFID II/MIFIR Review: Regulatory Equitization
Latest
Recognition of Cross-product Netting is Critical
US regulators are in the process of making important changes to the regulatory capital framework by proposing modifications to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio, which should help stop it from acting as a non-risk-sensitive constraint on bank capacity – a...
ISDA, GFXD Response to FCA on SI Regime
On September 10, ISDA and the Global Foreign Exchange Division (GFXD) of the Global Financial Markets Association responded to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) consultation paper CP25/20 on the systematic internalizer (SI) regime for derivatives and bonds. ISDA and the...
ISDA, IIF Response to PRA on Market Risk Framework
On September 12, ISDA and the Institute of International Finance (IIF) submitted a joint response to the Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA) consultation on adjustments to the market risk capital framework (CP 17/25). ISDA and the IIF strongly believe the market...
ISDA Response on Clearing Costs
On September 8, ISDA responded to consultation by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) on a draft regulatory technical standard on clearing fees and associated costs (article 7c(4) of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)). In the response, ISDA...