Subscribe to Itiviti Talks

What MiFID II means for non-EU trading firms and venues

By Johannes Frey-Skött, Vice President Engineering Agency Trading, Apps, Itiviti
October 10, 2017
Share:

MiFID II – the second iteration of the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive – takes effect on January 3. Touted as the most extensive shake-up of the financial markets landscape in a generation, MiFID II is high on the agenda for EU financial institutions of all kinds.

MiFID II’s extensive changes – to the execution landscape and to practitioners’ obligations with respect to investor protection and market transparency – will be felt most on its home turf: Europe. But in today’s globalized markets, many non-EU financial institutions will be impacted. These players need to take time to understand which of their activities are MiFID II-liable and how best to deal with their new obligations.

Non-EU firms need to consider whether they will be affected by MiFID II under either a ‘beneficial’ or an ‘exposed’ paradigm. Non-EU firms are ‘beneficial’ if they are owners of Europe-based companies or beneficiaries of funds or portfolios of European investments. They are ‘exposed’ if they invest or trade in MiFID II-mandated instruments that are traded on European Regulated Markets or other trading platforms.

Either situation can mean significant obligations under MiFID II. The regulation introduces complexity for transactions between EU and non-EU institutions, whether orders originating from non-EU institutions for execution on EU trading venues or vice versa. For non-EU financial institutions and execution venues, working with EU investments and orders may require adherence to MiFID II’s reporting obligations.

For example, non-EU venues executing instruments listed both on EU and non-EU markets need to comply with MiFID II transaction reporting rules, which among other things requires they ensure the entities they are dealing with have been assigned legal entity identifiers (LEIs) and that they are compatible with MiFID II reporting systems, including Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) for pre-trade and Approved Reporting Mechanisms (ARMs) for post-trade. Meanwhile, orders originating from non-EU jurisdictions but executed in the EU will need all parties to have LEIs for transaction reporting.

MiFID II’s best execution rules expand those of its predecessor to include non-equity securities and introduce more granular data reporting requirements. In order to demonstrate best execution should the regulator require it, trading firms need to collect and store transaction details including order/quote, trade price, volume and transaction counterparty, as well as time-stamps throughout the trade order flow.

Any EU orders handled by non-EU firms will be subject to MiFID II outsourcing provisions. These require EU entities to attest to the suitability of US affiliates, so that a client order originated outside the EU for execution on an EU Regulated Market (exchange) or other trading platform (multilateral trading facility [MTF], organised trading facility [OTF] or systematic internaliser[SI]), can be subject to MiFID II outsourcing or client classification provisions.

A non-EU firm providing advisory services to a European client, meanwhile, may have a relationship with a European executing broker that is governed by MiFID II. This means the non-EU advisor needs to be aware of best execution and reporting obligations, as well as client classification provisions, which assess a customer’s qualifications for investing in any given security.

Non-EU firms operating with clients or execution venues in the EU must ensure their data processes and data quality metrics are in line with MiFID II rules. This entails the use of International Securities Identification Numbers (ISINs) for instruments, LEIs for entities, Market Identifier Codes (MICs) for venues and multiple other identifiers used within other aspects of the regulation.

Non-EU US firms working with European counterparts also need to be aware that many of MiFID II’s requirements are subject to its record retention provisions, which are required for trade surveillance and fraud prevention. Finally, non-EU firms planning to unbundle research and broker execution services in keeping with MiFID II need to consider using commission sharing arrangements (CSAs).

Download our MiFID II white paper

Related Content

Trading system testing: a practitioner checklist

Trading system testing: a practitioner checklist

FIX Infrastructure End-to-end testing of trading environments is essential for financial services firms today – yet it can seem daunting to implement these complex systems, especially if it involves an overarching overhaul of existing point or legacy solutions. Taking a step-by-step approach can break this down into a more manageable process, while the resulting benefits have the […] December 3, 2018

The need to take an enterprise approach to testing

The need to take an enterprise approach to testing

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

Exploring the business side of Systematic Internalisation

Exploring the business side of Systematic Internalisation

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

Industrializing the trading technology stack: the benefits of UL Bridge

Industrializing the trading technology stack: the benefits of UL Bridge

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

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.