UK unprotected by MAD, says CFA Institute
The UK Treasury should maintain its enhanced market abuse protection until the MAD review is complete
LONDON – The UK Treasury is right to propose an extension of its super-equivalent provisions of the UK market abuse regime amid current market conditions, according to the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity. It says HM Treasury’s provisions provide a higher degree of protection than the EU Market Abuse Directive (MAD), which is under review.
Market stress on firms and regulators requires increased vigilance on market abuse, says the CFA Institute Centre, which concludes that wider definitions of market abusive behaviour, proof of such behaviour and the investments included in such behaviour, enable the UK regime to better encompass market abuse than the provisions of the MAD.
The call to maintain a high level of market abuse awareness comes soon after false rumours of concerning HBOS in the UK resulted in short selling of shares shortly afterwards. Adding fuel to the fire, the Financial Services Authority announced in its Market Watch 26 newsletter that 2007 has seen a rise in insider dealing, aided by the increasing use of complex financial instruments.
Charles Cronin, head of the CFA Institute Centre for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, says: “We believe that retaining the super-equivalent provisions of the UK regime is central to ensuring greater investor protection and market efficiency, particularly at a time when market conditions lend themselves to volatile behaviour. The CFA Institute Centre fully supports HM Treasury’s extension proposal and welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with industry peers in upholding the highest standards of ethical and professional behaviour.”
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@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net 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@risk.net
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@risk.net
More on Regulation
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga