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

FIX EMEA 2018 - 15th March, London

One of Europe’s largest one-day electronic trading events is celebrating its 10th year. The 2018 EMEA Trading Conference will cover...

Read more
Evolution Innovation 3

What NYFIX can do for the buy-side

For the third year running, NYFIX was named "Best low latency network" in the Waters Buy-Side Technology Awards...

Read more
Evolution Innovation 3

FX: Filtering out the noise in surveillance systems

The world of FX has been fortunate to have relatively easy access to good practices and advanced technological...

Read more

Australia FIX Conference - 18th October, Sydney

Australia FIX Conference brings together 400 industry participants from leading buy- and sell-side firms, regulators, exchanges and solution...

Read more
Regulation 3

MiFID II: The implications for trading systems and infrastructure

MiFID II marked a sea change in the approach to the handling of order, trade and transaction data....

Read more

FIX EMEA Trading Conference 2019, 14 March, London

Europe’s largest one-day electronic trading event is returning in 2019. The EMEA Trading Conference will cover the most...

Read more

Assiom Forex 2017 - 27th & 28th January, Italy

Join the Itiviti team at the 23rd Annual Congress of the financial market will be held in the...

Read more
Infrastructure 3

To SI or not to SI, that is the question

With MiFID II regulation now less than 12 months away, the race to ensure compliance heats up. In...

Read more
Evolution Innovation 2

The Nordics: a fertile algo FX trading ground

Adoption of FX algos in the Nordic region has been slower than anticipated, but that could change as...

Read more

Share this insight