ESMA have recently published this note, dated 2 October, which gives their thoughts on why parts, or all, of MiFID II should be delayed, and suggests legal mechanisms by which a delay may be released. Those in the commodities and energy sector will note that position limits and reporting is one of the 4 items that are considered to require significant technical effort to implement. There is a good summary of the note, from a financial markets perspective, here on RegTechFS.

When thinking of the pros and cons of different approaches, the note considers the issue of regulatory uncertainty. At the same time it is still not clear when any changes to the “ancillary activity” test may apply in the event of a partial delay.  For those who lose their exemption, this will have an impact on when other parts of MiFID come into force. In any case, the denominators of the “market size” test have not yet been published, which is quite a stumbling block for this calculating the exemption. This post by Andy Williams of Baringa examines the topic in more detail.

In the mean time, articles about the delay continue to appear, for example this one on the DerivSource web site. The general thought in the market is to assume for now that there is no delay unless it is actually agreed, and in any case to use any extra time wisely.