you're reading...
Mifid, Uncategorized

MiFID II Europex statement and other articles

The last few days has seen a continuation of activity and publications around the proposed delay to the implementation of MiFID II. This article on the Reuters website reports an EU official as seeing the need for a delay.

Today Europex issued this press release, also calling for the delay. In addition to giving the usual delay justifications, such as the difficulty in introducing functioning position reporting systems in time, Europex have called for the RTS to be finalised as soon as possible, and also for the market sizes to be published. They urge a clear and sensible definition of “financial instrument” (as defined by Annex I Section C of MiFID) and highlight the danger of too narrow a definition, which could cause an unwanted shift to physical instruments. They also call for the data period on which calculations for the ancillary activity test are to be performed to be 2017, i.e. the year running up to the proposed new date of introduction. The justification is that such a move gives companies time to re organise their activity before the tests are introduced. The downside of this arrangement is that it is difficult to calculate the numbers based on all of 2017 data and then be ready for 3 January 2018. Europex’s stance on MiFID II has been to argue for a fitting “Commodity Dealer” regime within the rules, rather than to argue that the rules should not apply at all to the sector.

Navigant Consulting have issued this paper on MiFID II, written by  Gajan Sritharan. The paper is written based on a survey of market participants, and divides them up into several categories:

– Unlikely to be impacted – and who may take advantage of this fact in future business.
– Fully embracing the rules – and embedding a “compliance culture” throughout.
– Looking to pro-actively minimise the impact – by organisational change and other mechanisms.
– Waiting for the final rules – before carrying out any serious activity – and who wish to minimise impact.

Until a delay, and its shape, is confirmed, the general approach of the market has been to assume that there will be none. Even if a delay occurs, the lesson to learn is to make good use of any extra time available to properly prepare. The vibe from the regulators is that if a new date is set, there will be no further changes.





About avivhandler

Aviv is the Managing Director of ETR Advisory, a niche consultancy focused on the regulation of the commodity, energy and financial markets. He has more than 23 years of experience in the financial, energy and commodity markets, covering regulatory compliance, credit, risk and financial technology. Prior to founding ETR, he was Partner at SunGard Global Services, where he built a Centre of Excellence in European Energy and Commodity Regulation. Before that, he founded Coherence, a consulting firm specializing in credit risk in commodity and energy trading as well as software product management. The credit practice ultimately became part of Sirius Solutions, where he was the Managing Director of Europe. He has also held management roles at KWI and Iris Financial, among other organizations. Mr. Handler holds a degree in computer science from Imperial College, University of London.


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s