With the start of MiFID II less than 2 months away, there have been a few developments in the position limits and reporting streams of work, which apply to all entities who have position in within-scope commodity derivatives, whether they are an Investment Firm or not.
The Financial Market Law Committee (FMLC) has written this letter to ESMA asking for clarification on the application of the requirement to remain within the limit based on positions held “on an aggregate group basis”. The letter seeks clarification on the concept of “control”, on the basis that RTS 21 implies that such aggregation should be applied when the parent entity has control over the other entity’s position. The letter seeks clarification over the definition of control, and whether the ownership by a parent of a subsidiary is in itself enough to qualify for aggregation. ESMA and the FCA have recently published several limits (see here and here).
This article on the Reuters web site advises that Euronext has announced the weekly publication “Commitment of trader” reports to qualified entities.
This article on the Reuters web site discusses the “escape” of oil traders from “MiFID II regulations”. It refers to the fact that many such companies are using commodity derivatives position to hedge, and such positions are exempt from the rules if a hedge exemption is granted (see here). However, the exemptions are only available to non financial entities who are exempt from MiFID II, which will often be on the basis of the Ancillary Activity exemption found in Article 2(1)j of MiFID II and detailed in RTS 20 (see here).