Will OTFs End OTC Markets?
“No matter their nature, they should be subjected to pre and post-trade transparency,” says Patrice Aguesse, head of the market regulation division at the regulatory policy and international affairs directorate of the Autorité des marchés financiers. Aguesse told me that organized trading facilities (OTFs) were created because legislators wanted to offer more clarity on all types of derivatives trading platforms that might have been set up without a strong legal framework, such as broker crossing networks. Regulators understand the concerns of the market, which, says Aguesse, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is trying to address as fast as it can.
Market Fear
Many fear that the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market will, as a result of OTFs’ reporting requirements, be disrupted or even vanish. After all, OTFs were partly introduced as a mechanism to make OTC derivatives reportable products. The feeling among many in the industry is doubt regarding the regulators’ transparency efforts. Not all share the same sentiments when it comes to reporting requirements, promoting an efficient and transparent market environment. Several sources expressed reservations as to whether the system for delivering that transparency, which requires an effective instrument identification system, will be fit-for-purpose. That said, there are concerns with International Securities Identification Numbers as a means of identifying instruments for the purpose of delivering transparency. There is still uncertainty as to how or whether it will work, and whether the regulators will be able to develop their systems by Mifid II’s January 2018 start date.
Many on the buy side are concerned that this dynamic of moving OTC products to “transparent” venues will result in them getting “caught out” by the transparency rules. Meanwhile, the sell side fears that by fulfilling these requirements, the whole rationale for not disclosing prices on these products will cease to exist.
Mark Croxon, Bloomberg’s head of regulatory and market structure strategy, says OTC products will move onto venues, triggering uncertainty in the short term. However, he says the OTC markets won’t necessarily vanish. “OTC products are naturally customizable,” he says. “I don’t think Mifid II will lead to the death of OTC trading because the fundamental reasons why people wish to customize derivatives to meet their risk or investment profiles will remain.”
Many fear that the OTC derivatives market will, as a result of OTFs’ reporting requirements, be disrupted or even vanish.
To most, however, OTFs will have a significant impact on the OTC market, even if Mifid II’s original purpose was never about changing the structure and the methodologies of the market. The sell side especially will experience wider changes and consequences, which could affect their business. Alex McDonald, CEO of the Wholesale Markets Brokers’ Association, says that since the trade reporting requirement for which OTFs were created is accompanied by other mandates, their introduction will have a marked effect on the European trading landscape. “One upshot is that the vastly increased cost of balance sheet and trading inventory will mean that it becomes cheaper for intermediaries to pass transactions straight through to venues than to interpose their own balance sheet,” he says. “When you combine these changes with those covering market abuse, benchmarks, short-selling and a series of money laundering regulations, there will be a move to push more trade flow through trading venues than was hitherto the case.”
McDonald sees a potential move from market participants toward the agency trading model. With this, he says, they will directly connect with and combine venue prices and show an aggregated feed to their onward clients. He also says that transparency would make post-trade processes—such as confirmation and affirmation, and clearing and settlement—more efficient. “The use of harmonized trade and product identifiers will also increase transparency and mitigate risk,” he says.
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 info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
American Bankers Assoc. asks SEC: Do you know what you’re doing?
The industry group disagrees severely with regulators’ interpretation of the Financial Data Transparency Act, hinting at possible legal action in a recently published comment letter.
DORA will change the buy vs. build debate… maybe
Waters Wrap: With DORA’s deadline looming, trading firms are having to reassess their long-term tech strategies. Anthony wonders if that means more building and less buying.
The SEC needs a hand with artificial intelligence
The SEC wants to take a tough stance on AI, but it has a talent problem… or a marketing problem. Or both…
Off-channel messaging (and regulators) still a massive headache for banks
Waters Wrap: Anthony wonders why US regulators are waging a war using fines, while European regulators have chosen a less draconian path.
Banks fret over vendor contracts as Dora deadline looms
Thousands of vendor contracts will need repapering to comply with EU’s new digital resilience rules
Chevron’s absence leaves questions for elusive AI regulation in US
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron deference presents unique considerations for potential AI rules.
Aussie asset managers struggle to meet ‘bank-like’ collateral, margin obligations
New margin and collateral requirements imposed by UMR and its regulator, Apra, are forcing buy-side firms to find tools to help.
The costly sanctions risks hiding in your supply chain
In an age of geopolitical instability and rising fines, financial firms need to dig deep into the securities they invest in and the issuing company’s network of suppliers and associates.