On October 10, 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) informed that the planned implementation timeline for MiFID II will not hold, asking the European Commission to allow for a delay. This announcement started a harsh debate between ESMA and the European Commission. However, on February 10, the European Commission proposed a postponement of MiFID II by a year, setting the new target date at January 3, 2018. Even if the European Parliament and the member states must formally approve the proposal, the event of a delay is now almost a certainty.
There is also an apparent risk for even further delay. The deadline to convert the EU rules into law has been set to July 3, 2016. Currently, the Regulatory Technical Standards are not endorsed by the European Commission (or accepted by the Parliament and the Council), nor have the Delegated Acts been issued. This leaves very limited time for regulators to transpose the Directive into national law.
Even if the Regulatory Technical Standards and the Delegated Acts will be in place ”soon”, the time allowed for the national lawmakers may prove too short. One reason is that these documents are not detailed enough to convert into law, as they still leave room for interpretation, e.g. regarding the proposed Double Volume Caps on dark pool trading.
There is definitely a need for an interactive process between the local Competent Authorities and the industry in order to get the national law in place. Additionally, a stated goal of ESMA is to “promote supervisory convergence” to ensure a level playing field. For this purpose, there will be a comprehensive Level 3 process, where all the 28 Competent Authorities need to work together to supply QAs and guidelines.
In essence, the issue today is not whether MiFID II be delayed, but how, and for how long. There are at least three probable scenarios:
FIX Infrastructure It goes without saying that it’s imperative for trading technologists to thoroughly test their systems before the put them in a production environment. Clearly, building a market-beating trading platform requires a high level of uptime and a propensity for failure that’s as close to zero as possible. And for years technologists have used a range […] November 5, 2018
Risk & Compliance Nine months into the MiFID II era, it’s time to look beyond the compliance issues and start considering the business opportunities presented to firms operating under the Systematic Internaliser regime. With the support from a value-adding regulatory solution, SI status can be used for competitive advantage, suggests Jonas Lindqvist, Principal, Trading and Trade Execution, Itiviti. […] October 9, 2018
Risk & Compliance Trading firms across the board are discovering that operational and regulatory requirements increasingly demand a consistent approach to connectivity, messaging and data management. To industrialize their response to these emerging requirements – to address the challenges in a streamlined, consistent and scalable way – firms need to put in place a centralized connectivity and messaging […] September 25, 2018
Risk & Compliance MiFID II marked a sea change in the approach to the handling of order, trade and transaction data. Rigorous new requirements around data capture, analysis, reporting and record-keeping made the communication of data a central theme in ensuring trading systems were MiFID II compliant, and connectivity – between external and internal systems, databases and processors […] August 14, 2018
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.