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
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
Leaked EU plans offer extra temporary relief for FRTB models
Risk factors would need only two observations to be modellable. Do changes foreshadow US Basel III?
Iosco chief talks cyber, AI and clearing
Buenaventura discusses Iosco’s role in aiding market resilience and cross-border co-operation
US regulators bid to save FRTB IMA, but it’s no small task
Even if industry wish-list is granted, a 2028 start date might be too soon for model adoption
Hopes rise for cross-product netting under SA-CCR
Banks want rule change in Basel III endgame to lower capital costs of clearing UST repos