Major Adjustments on the MiFIR Front

Chris Pickles of the FIX Trading Community shares his thoughts on the effects of MiFID II postponement and the reasons why it happened

Chris Pickles, co-chair, FIX Trading Community's Reference Data Subgroup

What will the ramifications of MiFID II's postponement be for MiFIR?

There are still questions about details that firms are just realizing they need to ask regulators. Firms simply hadn't realized the impact of moves such as the European Securities and Markets Authority's (ESMA) publication of reference data free of charge. Firms need to work out the interrelationships of MiFID II and MiFIR with the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and Solvency II, as well as the UK's Market Abuse Regulation. The postponement gives all financial services segments time to work out what it means for their business models and to make changes. Thanks to ESMA, investment firms whose use of reference data is limited by licenses will be able to get that data license-free. All the contracts that control the use, re-use and redistribution of reference data throughout the data supply chain will need to change.

Was the postponement of MiFID II compliance by a year to early 2018 justified?

The postponement was very much justified due to the need for greater clarity on issues that MiFID II addresses. Some of the directions proposed under MiFIR and the draft technical specifications involve significant change for thousands of investment firms internationally. Take the proposed requirement to use ISINs to identify exchange-traded derivatives, when ESMA had previously made it clear that it recognized that ISINs were rarely used for derivatives. Changing central data management systems for universal banks that operate internationally is no minor task. So many other investment firm systems depend on those central data management systems.

What was the true cause of the postponement?

One of the key elements of content and timing that led to the postponement was the release of the final version of ESMA's proposed technical specifications, its recommendations to the European Commission, which decides whether to agree or dispute some or all of the specifications. If market participants think changes are still necessary, they must express that to the commission and the European Parliament, rather than to ESMA. Market participants did so, and as a result, the parliament considered the readiness of ESMA's report processing systems for implementing MiFID II, along with issues about reference data and instrument identification. It's better to allow more time so market participants and regulators get it right.

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a WatersTechnology account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here