FSA releases policy statement dealing with best execution under Mifid
Regulator to clarify issues not addressed in CESR Q&A
The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has published a policy statement (PS07/15) that attempts to answer all final questions from respondents to FSA papers DP06/3 (covered benchmarking and internal models) and CP06/19 (proposals for the intelligent copy out for Mifid into the FSA Handbook) that deals with best execution requirements under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid).
The statement is divided into four sections: an overview, the CESR Q&A and feedback on issues it does not address, scope issues and specialist regimes. Even though the FSA agrees with all of CESR’s answers in its Q&A document, it attempts in this statement to answer any remaining issues.
The statement deals with questions concerning the requirements of the best execution policy, such as if it is necessary to obtain consent from clients for material changes to its policy, and if this can be done on the web. Other questions covered include whether firms can make contractual promises about execution quality to eligible counterparties (ECPs) without becoming subject to regulatory requirements for best execution, and related issues to ECPs among many others.
The FSA's policy statement also considers the scope of the best execution requirements in the context of quote-driven markets, retail clients and the spread-betting market. It also looks at the application of best execution requirements to specialist regimes.
The policy statement will be covered in full in the next issue of OpRisk & Compliance. To access the PS please visit the FSA website: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps07_15.pdf
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
Foreign banks can swerve US Basel op risk capital charges
New proposal offers category III and IV banks op-out from regime, but intragroup trades penalised
BoE’s Bailey expects global consensus on FRTB internal models
Isda AGM: UK is reviewing proposals from US and EU regulators before finalising its IMA rules
DRW chief slams ‘ridiculous’ OCC stablecoin rule
Isda AGM: Wilson warns week-long redemption freeze would deter use of Genius Act coins as cash leg of tokenised repo
Dealers push for more revisions to Basel III endgame
Isda AGM: Goldman, JP Morgan bankers want changes on cross-product netting, CVA and default risk charges
StanChart: UK, EU should copy US ‘commercial’ Basel III
Isda AGM: Exec warns divergent Basel III rules will push trading into less-regulated entities
NBFI oversight ‘no longer adequate’, say BdF economists
Researchers call for stronger supervision of non-bank sector ‘before risks actually materialise’
Why Brexit still stirs up trouble for cross-border business
As EU erects another obstacle, banks consider ways around it – or exit strategies
Can US regulators keep Collins happy with one capital stack?
Legal experts say Basel III endgame redraft retains spirit if not letter of the floor