Banks bemoan data gap in Mifid II systematic internaliser test
EU-wide data is needed before banks can determine their market share under a key 'systematic internaliser' rule in Mifid II
Dealers are complaining it is impossible to work out which products they trade bilaterally will be subject to controversial transparency requirements in 16 months' time. A lack of data is leaving them unable to prepare for the rule and calculate corresponding cost increases for end-users, they say.
If a bank reaches a certain market share threshold for a product as set out in the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid II), it becomes a so-called systematic internaliser (SI)
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 Mifid
Esma guidance on swaps transparency still leaves questions
Volatile instrument attributes removed from transparency determination, but further issues remain
Mifid II research unbundling hits Japan’s asset managers
Japanese and European investors may face different payment models for investment research
Mifid’s great race to the bottom
If rules are unclear, regulators cannot prevent banks adopting the softest interpretations
Banks claim front-office content is safe from Mifid II
Work of ‘desk analysts’ is not research, banks argue; lawyers are not so sure
MTF bilateral trading protocol offers Mifid arbitrage
Nordic banks to use protocol to benefit from longer deferral period
Delay on EU pre-trade, commodity rules ‘risky’
Local authorities will apply key elements of Mifid II temporarily, owing to Esma backlog
Mifid II – The regulatory reporting challenges that lie ahead
Sponsored feature: NEX Regulatory Reporting
Mifid II position limits: Preparing, monitoring and reporting in the new regime
Sponsored webinar: FIS
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites