About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Associations Warn of Harmful Effects of Extra-territoriality

Subscribe to our newsletter

Eight global and regional trade associations today called on regulators to intensify cooperation to prevent, alleviate or limit the harmful effect of overlap, inconsistency and ambiguity resulting from extra-territoriality in regulatory efforts to implement G20 commitments. Extra-territoriality is a fundamental concern in derivatives business, where it is common for counterparties based in different parts of the world to transact with each other. The associations urge policymakers to consult with each other in formation of legislation, and to resolve differences in the course of implementation of legislation. They further ask regulators to ensure that reform of the international financial regulatory system is based on consistency of approach and on mutual recognition. Harmful effects of a failure to address this concern, cited by the associations, include

  • A more fragmented view of financial market activity making it difficult for regulators to prevent build-up and concentration of systemic risk.
  • Legal uncertainty for internationally-active firms, giving rise to further risk.
  • Greater costs for internationally-active firms and their clients, making for higher financing costs for the wider economy.
  • Negative impacts on investment and employment levels.

The eight associations signing the letter are: the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA), the European Banking Association (EBF), the Futures and Options Association (FOA), the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA), the Investment Management Association (IMA), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), the London Energy Brokers’ Association (LEBA) and the Wholesale Market Brokers’ Association (WMBA).   The letter cites examples of extra-territoriality concerns, such as: 

  • Licensing, authorisation or registration rules;
  • Potential overlap and conflict in regulation of derivatives market participants in foreign jurisdictions;
  • Discrimination in dealing with sovereigns;
  • Rules for CCPs;
  • Trade repositories.

The full text of the letter is available on the Associations’ websites.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best practices for best execution in multi-venue environments

Best execution has long sat at the foundation of trading operations across all market and practitioner types. But the introduction of more onerous best execution requirements under MiFID II has raised the bar, both in terms of dealing with fragmented markets from an operational standpoint and providing evidence of delivery on best execution policies. The...

BLOG

The US Litigation Paradox: Why Passive Participation is the Key for European Asset Managers

In the second blog of our series on securities litigation claims, we look at how the complexity of fragmented legal jurisdictions globally often deters European asset managers from getting involved in litigation and argue that the simplicity of the US system may mean participation is easier than many European firms are aware of. Access the...

EVENT

RegTech Summit New York

Now in its 9th year, the RegTech Summit in New York will bring together the RegTech ecosystem to explore how the North American capital markets financial industry can leverage technology to drive innovation, cut costs and support regulatory change.

GUIDE

AI in Capital Markets Handbook 2026

AI adoption in capital markets has moved into a more disciplined phase. The priority is now controlled deployment: where AI can be used safely, where it can deliver measurable value, and how outputs can be governed, monitored and evidenced. The 2026 edition of the AI in Capital Markets Handbook examines how AI is being applied...