Regulators Are Holding All the Cards, But Will They Play Them?
It’s become a cliché in financial journalism to start an article with “Since the financial crisis of 2008...” But, like so many clichés, this is rooted in truth. The constant waves of regulations being unleashed on the capital markets are going to keep on coming as regulators across the globe strive for the transparency they hope will avert another disaster, at least on the same scale as eight years ago. While the sell side bore the brunt of the legislative tsunami in recent years, the buy side is now feeling a similar wave descending upon them as the authorities turn their gaze to the other side of the Street. The vanguard for this, at least in Europe, is Mifid II, the sprawling set of rules due to come into force at the start of 2018.
While the industry got its much-needed reprieve through a 12-month delay, there is still much consternation among buy-side participants on the subject, particularly around a continuing lack of specificity in some parts of the regulation as the implementation date draws closer.
Best execution is a prime example; Mifid II is meant to bring further clarity to rules around best execution from those introduced under the original Mifid regulation. However, many industry participants I have spoken to believe that it is simply causing more problems.
Under Mifid II, the obligation to take “all reasonable steps” has been upgraded to “all sufficient steps” to provide best execution for the end-investor, but what exactly is sufficient? This is an area I’ll be looking at in much more detail in next month’s issue of Waters.
There are also lingering concerns around research unbundling and commission-fee rule changes, while last month the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) proposed that trading obligations for interest-rate swaps denominated in G4 currencies, as well as credit derivatives, be pushed onto trading venues from the first day of the Mifid II implementation.
Who wants to be the first to appear in the media for being fined or sanctioned as a result of not adhering?
Part of the problem here is that the regulators cannot demand compliance and transparency from asset managers when the timeframes are being shifted and the rules are being tweaked from month to month. Take the introduction of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), which brought in new rules regarding intentions to manipulate the markets through insider dealing and unlawful disclosures of inside information. A swathe of new technologies has come to the market in light of these new rules, yet regulators softened their stance to allow a longer timeframe to get such systems up and running beyond the original implementation date.
Thorny Issue
Then there’s the thorny issue of how compliance with Mifid II would be affected should the UK withdraw from the European Union; I’m not even going to touch that can of worms.
The buy side has seen compliance costs increase while margins are squeezed, resulting in investments that would have historically gone to the front-office diverted to strengthen risk and reporting in the middle office.
This, in part, is driving demand from the buy side for greater managed services, as firms look to outsource reporting processes to cut costs and burdens on existing infrastructures. It also has a knock-on effect on front-office technologies, such as multi-asset execution management systems that need to evolve to meet new user demands.
Compliance is always going to be necessary for asset managers, because who wants to be the first to appear in the media for being fined or sanctioned as a result of not adhering? It comes down to the approach regulators take in enforcing the rules and punishing those who transgress.
In this month’s cover feature, Alasdair Haynes of Aquis Exchange said he wants to see regulators become Rottweilers rather than Andrex puppies (referencing the infamously cute golden retrievers used to advertise toilet paper in the UK), while others I have spoken to believe that a more considerate approach similar to the implementation of MAR will be more likely. Some even go so far as to opine that another delay might well occur.
A further delay is unlikely, and we will probably see a more conciliatory approach from regulators and harsher punishments for serial offenders. Either way, the powers that be need to decide if they are going to hold or go all in.
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Verafin launches genAI copilot for fincrime investigators
Features include document summarization and improved research tools.
Waters Wrap: Open source and storm clouds on the horizon
Regulators and politicians in America and Europe are increasingly concerned about AI—and, by extension, open-source development. Anthony says there are real reasons for concern.
DSB says industry is ready to meet UPI mandate ahead of deadline
The Unique Product Identifier will be required for certain OTC derivatives in the EU at the end of April, following US adoption in January.
‘Very careful thought’: T+1 will introduce costs, complexities for ETF traders
When the US moves to T+1 at the end of May 2024, firms trading ETFs will need to automate their workflows as much as possible to avoid "settlement misalignment" and additional costs.
Court case probes open-source licenses as movement stands at crossroads
The Software Freedom Conservancy’s lawsuit against TV-maker Vizio begins trial in California, raising questions about open-source licenses and the risks posed by adhering to them.
Waters Wavelength Podcast: Countdown to T+1
DTCC’s Val Wotton joins the podcast this week to discuss the impending move to T+1 in the US.
Consolidated tape hopefuls gear up for uncertain tender process
The bond tapes in the UK and EU are on track to be authorized in 2025. Prospective bidders for the role of provider must choose where to focus their efforts in anticipation of more regulatory clarity on the tender process.
Fighting FAIRR: Inside the bill aiming to keep AI and algos honest
The Financial Artificial Intelligence Risk Reduction Act seeks to fix a market abuse loophole by declaring that AI algorithms do not have brains.
Most read
- Chris Edmonds takes the reins at ICE Fixed Income and Data Services
- Deutsche Börse democratizes data with Marketplace offering
- Waters Wavelength Podcast: Broadridge’s Joseph Lo on GPTs