With MiFID II regulation now less than 12 months away, the race to ensure compliance heats up. In a recent letter penned by Steven Maijoor ESMA Chair, Mr Maijoor expressed concerns on the "potential establishment of networks of Systematic Internalisers (SIs) to circumvent certain MiFID II obligations."

The implementation of MiFID I saw the introduction of Systematic Internalisers, meaning "an investment firm can on an organised, frequent and systematic basis may deal on own account by executing client orders outside a regulated market or an MTF". With this a number of loopholes opened up for firms, and although the implementation of MiFID II is intended to close some of these, it would seem that the SI debate is one that is still outstanding.

So what exactly is a Systematic Internaliser and why would a firm go to the trouble of becoming one?

Traditionally, an SI would essentially be an investment firm that could match ‘buy and sell’ orders from clients in-house provided that they conform to certain criteria. Instead of sending orders to a central exchange such as the London Stock Exchange, a bank would then be able to match orders against its own book. So an SI firm is then able to compete directly with a stock exchange or automated dealing system. Following a trade, the information about the transaction would also need to be made available in the same way a trading exchange would be subject to.

Is ESMA right to be concerned about the rise in SIs?

The answer to this question is yes. In Steven Maijoor’s open letter he stated he and his colleagues “are very concerned about this potential loophole. In its technical advice of 19 December 2014, ESMA already raised concerns that the SI regime may be used to circumvent the MiFID II provisions, in particular concerning the trading obligation for shares.”

The concern is exploitation of this loophole in order to hinder the process of making share trading more transparent. To date, there are fewer than 10 Systematic Internalisers in Europe; this number is set to rise considerably during preparations for MiFID II compliance as banks battle to stay one step ahead. This increase in private venues goes against the good intentions of MiFID II regulation and would essentially result in more and more share trading conducted on these ‘private venues’ and away from the scrutiny of public exchanges. The one measure used to control SIs is that ESMA requires them, just as other market operators, to report according to RTS 27.

What does this mean for firms?

Quite a lot. Currently an SI is exempt from rules on tick sizes that put restrictions on minimum price increment on regulated markets, MTFs or OTFs. Sell-side firms will not be at all able to execute client orders against each other to a negotiated price if the Double Volume Caps are hit. Rather they need to execute them in the lit markets, which is one of the goals of MiFID II, or optionally to rely on the evolution of new market structures, such as periodic auction venues.

MEP Kay Swinburne has also made statements regarding the potential loophole, warning banks against trying to circumvent the regulations through setting up networks of SIs. She claims that this activity would tread the gray area and not give investors best price, meaning it would not be fulfilling the spirit of MiFID II.

How does this affect firms planning on becoming an SI?

If the Double Volume Caps are hit an investment firm will need to become an SI to keep their competitive edge, although they will think twice should this loophole be closed. Those in breach of the limits of OTC trading must either become an SI or stop that specific part of their trading. Discussions will then go back to focus on what the SI was intended for and, with the deadline fast approaching, banks and firms looking at implementation projects will be left with more questions than answers. At the end of the day, investment firms are left to their common sense to understand whether their SI strategy is in line with the spirit of MiFID II or not.

Related content

Ismael Sami talking about low-touch trading

Low-touch trading trends

The rise of low-touch trading desks offering DMA/DSA have emerged like start-ups inside institutions and have gradually captured...

Read more
Regulation 1

Addressing MiFID II’s pre- and post-trade transparency rules

With under three months to go before MiFID II’s implementation date, market practitioners are grappling with the challenges posed...

Read more

FIX Trading Community Chicago Regional Meeting, 25 July

This year, Itiviti is proud to sponsor the FIX Trading Community Chicago Regional Meeting. 

Join us as the FIX...

Read more
Clash of titans insight thumbnail

Clash of the Titans - SARS vs Covid-19

I am writing this from my home in Hong Kong, not far away from the border of China...

Read more
Testing 3

The role of automated testing in MiFID II compliance

 

Jim Northey gives his top three tips on achieving MiFID II compliance in the final run-up to the...

Read more
Brexit post itiviti

BREXIT as the clock strikes 11pm - what’s next?

With the risk of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal eliminated, Feb 1st will...

Read more

The 18th Asia Pacific Trading Summit, 20 October, JW Marriott Hong Kong

Join Itiviti at the 18th Asia Pacific Trading Summit. This one-day, electronic trading event is known to bring...

Read more
Testing 2

The evolution of enterprise testing

Testing in the financial industry is changing, both as a consequence of new regulatory requirements and in response...

Read more
Evolution Innovation 2

Converging high- and low-touch business calls for integrated order management systems

Sell-side equities front office headcounts are leveling off from the radical reductions that followed the financial crisis. Capitals...

Read more

Written by

Johannes Frey-Skött

Share this insight