Subscribe to Itiviti Talks

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

By Johannes Frey-Skött, Vice President Engineering Agency Trading, Apps, Itiviti
October 24, 2017
Share:

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

Transparency is a major aspect of MiFID II. By improving visibility, particularly around OTC derivatives, regulators are hoping to minimize the risk of a repetition of the 2008 Credit Crisis, which has been attributed in part to a lack of transparency in this marketplace.

Transparency in MiFID II takes several forms. For instance, the regulation introduces exchange-like trading facilities for OTC instruments, in an attempt to shift liquidity from dark pools to ‘lit’ execution venues. It also establishes new rules governing high frequency trading and the use of trading algorithms.

More broadly, MiFID II increases the number of reporting data points for brokerages and investment banks to more than 60, compared with 35 under its predecessor. It expands reporting requirements to cover a broad array of activities – affecting custodians, fund administrators, asset servicers and sell-side institutions – and asset classes (including fixed income and OTC derivatives vs. MiFID I’s equities-only focus). And as discussed in a previous blog, it sets higher standards for firms to demonstrate best execution for client orders.

Among the more challenging aspects aspects of MiFID II transparency are its pre- and post-trade reporting requirements for non-listed instruments. The new rules take three forms: First, market-makers and liquidity providers in certain instruments – notwithstanding whether they are registered as systematic internalisers – are required to publish their market orders in real time to so-called Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs). This is aimed at ensuring a level playing field for pre-trade price information and price discovery.

To date, more than 65 entities have indicated their intention to perform the role of APA, among them: Deutsche Boerse, London Stock Exchange/BOAT, TP ICAP (the merged Tullett Prebon and ICAP), Thomson Reuters’ TradeWeb and TRAX. Industry practitioners expect more APA operators to emerge, and they are now facing the additional challenge of assessing how many APAs to monitor in order to get a full picture of the markets they are active in.

Firms are also required to file two types of post-trade report. The first of these is the requirement to report trade information details – price, volume and time of execution – for all transactions they execute, again to their chosen APAs. This must happen within 15 minutes of the execution time-stamp to start with; regulators will later tighten the lag to five minutes.

Finally, firms are also required to file more detailed post-trade transaction reports, which include a broader set of data fields and must be delivered within a T+1 reporting period. These transaction reports are to be sent to so-called Approved Reporting Mechanisms (ARMs), such as those operated by Abide Financial, Bloomberg, Euroclear, Getco Europe, London Stock Exchange Unavista and TRAX.
In each of these three reporting instances, firms’ internal reporting mechanisms will need to draw upon reference data describing the assets and counterparties involved in the transaction, as well as the details of the trade itself in order to deliver reports seamlessly to the designated APA and/or ARM.
Firms will need to establish commercial relationships with and physical connections to their chosen APAs and ARMs. And they’ll need to set in place the analytics and reference data required to assess whether they or the other side to any trade is responsible for reporting the transaction.
This determination may depend on counterparty, instrument, buyer or seller, or whether the transaction qualifies for deferment. Where an institution is executing on a trading venue or systematic internaliser, then it is the venue or SI that reports the trade. Where the trade is between two institutions (OTC), then the seller has the responsibility to report. For transaction-reporting, meanwhile, all counterparties need to report transactions clearly identifying what was traded and the parties involved in the trade, either directly or through an ARM.
MiFID II’s pre- and post-trade transparency requirements involve many elements, requiring practitioners to establish correct processes and draw upon appropriate descriptive data and codes to ensure they meet the criteria. All reported data needs to be structured and validated before delivery into the chosen reporting mechanism, whether third-party APA or ARM, or direct to regulators, and this requires firms to understand the formats, frequencies and other nuances of how the recipient accepts reported information.

Download our MiFID II white paper

Related Content

MiFID II in action: half-year review

MiFID II in action: half-year review

Risk & Compliance Roughly six months after the introduction of MiFID II, Johannes Frey-Skött – VP Apps Engineering, Itiviti – talks to The TRADE about the short-term impact of the regulation on European market players, looking at both the positive and negative effects witnessed so far. He also outlines current pain points in MiFID II compliance and the […] July 17, 2018

MiFID II: the need for a centralized messaging platform

MiFID II: the need for a centralized messaging platform

Risk & Compliance With the pressure of initial implementation now a distant memory, MiFID II-regulated firms are turning their attention to the real work required to create sustainable long-term solutions. For many, the race to meet the January 3 deadline meant implementing temporary compliance processes that were far from perfect. Unless updated and improved, these could lead to […] July 10, 2018

Jitneytrade client connectivity case study

Jitneytrade client connectivity case study

Risk & Compliance What happens when one of the top 10 active brokers in Canada is confronted with: Stringent risk control requirements for electronic trading Time-to-market imperative to supersede TMX’ monitoring service termination Need to consolidate 14 internal trading platforms into a central gateway for enterprise-level risk management Optimization of latency and access speed for client connectivity Download […] June 26, 2018

The new Itiviti

The new Itiviti

Execution Following the merger between Itiviti and ULLINK in March 2018, Richard Bentley – Chief Product Officer of the combined company – talks to The TRADE about the new company at IDX London 2018. On the agenda: the rationale behind the merger, the company’s individual and combined strengths, product strategy going forward, key priorities for the […] June 11, 2018

Itiviti Talks

Itiviti Talks is your source for the technology perspective on the global capital markets. We have created this to be an engaging forum for sharing ideas with our clients, partners and other industry professionals. You will find videos, blog posts, white papers and more that deal with the needs and challenges of brokers, market makers and trading executives.
 
Watch, read and enjoy for new inspiration and insights.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.

Itiviti Talks

Get our view on global capital markets

Subscribe

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing!

Close window

Itiviti Talks

Get our view on global capital markets

Weekly email

    Trends in global capital markets from a technology perspective.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.