More Mifid risks are coming
Protiviti seminar highlights new risks as Mifid expands and evolves
LONDON – Representatives from financial services firms and regulators believe the management of changes yet to come represents the gravest risk attached to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid).
The seminar revealed how much ground still needs to be covered in industry compliance to Mifid, and how much the directive itself must evolve, before full implementation can be achieved. This is despite the directive coming into force last November.
Speakers at the seminar – held by risk consultant Protiviti – expressed fears at the timing and scope of future Mifid changes and extensions, especially with regard to commodity derivatives.
Interpretation of future European Commission pronouncements, the Committee of European Securities Regulators’ (CESR) extensive and ongoing Mifid regulatory programme, and changes by the various national regulators at member state level are also viewed as sources of risk over the directive’s first one to two years.
Speakers addressed concern at the financial burden of Mifid compliance under these levels of supervision and about the interpretation of principles-based regulation at the national level – most notably by the UK supervisor, the Financial Services Authority.
The risks of increased technological automation of the transaction process and possible opportunities to be had through international co-operation with US regulators were also discussed.
“It is clear that, with the passing of November 1, we have not seen the end of Mifid, but perhaps something more akin to the end of the beginning. There is, unsurprisingly, a large element of ‘Mifid fatigue’ now following the implementation marathon,” said Jonathan Jesty, Protiviti director. “The market must not lose sight of the next wave of Mifid-related change that the EC and CESR are clearly contemplating.”
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
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
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