Mifid transparency battle pits dealers against non-banks
Dealers fight to preserve reporting exemptions, but prop traders want US-style regime
Swap dealers and non-bank market-makers are lining up on opposite sides of what is shaping up to be a contentious debate over reforming the European Union’s transparency rules for financial markets.
Banks are adamant that off-venue transactions should not be subject to the same transparency requirements as instruments traded on venues. Non-bank liquidity providers bristle at the notion that trades in standardised instruments should be treated differently to each other.
The International Swaps
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry confused by EU’s ‘bingo card’ clearing rules
Uncertainty over definition of representative trades in Emir active account requirement
FDIC scrutinised over move to cover all SVB deposits
Advisory panel questions whether guaranteeing uninsured deposits was necessary to prevent contagion
EBA seeks to tighten up uneven prudent value adjustments
Regulator to consult ‘soon’ on changes to improve consistency of capital deductions
Post-Brexit divergence puts EU subsidiaries on the rack
Banks face choice between higher staffing costs or over-engineered processes at UK headquarters
SEC criticised for belt-and-braces ban on volume-based pricing
Legal experts question need for rules to prevent firms disguising agency trades as proprietary
SEC expected to protect CRT in conflicts of interest rule
Decision could come as early as today; high hopes for credit risk transfer exemption
FRTB managers face hard facts about risk factors
There are ways to reduce the capital charges caused by NMRFs, but they come at a price
SEC official defends delayed dealer registration rule
Regulator says market should be treated like equities, but PTFs warn it will harm market liquidity
