FSA warns non-ISD firms to check if they fall under Mifid and CRD
Mifid could require previously non-ISD firms to comply with CRD.
The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has issued guidance letters to CEOs (or equivalent) of non-ISD (Investment Services Directive) hybrid venture capital or corporate finance firms alerting them to the fact that they need to consider whether they fall within the scope of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid) and will therefore be subject to the requirements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) from November 1, 2007.
Mifid covers a much wider area than the ISD and brings new activities into its scope including investment advice. As a consequence, corporate finance and venture capital firms that fall within the scope of Mifid because they provide investment advice may also be subject to the CRD.
Similarly, new prudential categories may apply to such firms if they intend to carry on Mifid business beyond the provision of investment advice and/or the reception and transmission of orders and/or if they are authorised to hold client money or assets in relation to Mifid business.
Exemptions may, however, be available. The FSA advises firms to take steps to determine whether or not they are subject to Mifid and their CRD category, and to complete an online form by June 21, 2007, confirming this to the FSA.
Alternatively, firms can apply for a ‘variation of permission’ by August 1, 2007, taking into account the new standard limitations and requirements.
If firms do not take the above steps, the FSA will categorise those firms from November 1, 2007, on the basis of what the firm could do under the terms of its current Part IV permission rather than what it actually does, which is likely to give rise to a higher capital requirement than expected.
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
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive
Fed to move tailored-capital goalposts soon, says Bowman
Banks hope agencies will index triggers for harsher capital rules to economic growth
Will SEC reporting proposal supercharge alt data providers?
Move that would allow companies to opt out of quarterly reporting disclosures welcomed
EU lawmaker calls for review of Luxembourg’s cross-border rules
Grand Duchy accused of side-stepping rules aimed at prising away banking business from London
Un-American or un-JPM? Surcharge rethink divides G-Sibs
Some see sense in rethink to funding indicator, others call for a backtrack
Bank of England softens tone on CCP cross-product margining
Breeden supports margin efficiencies to encourage more repo clearing, but still warns on leverage