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

ESF’s Angheben Warns Firms to Keep a Close Eye on Post-Trade Transparency Regime Progress

Subscribe to our newsletter

Firms need to keep a close eye on what is shaping up to be MiFID II, under the auspices of the Committee of European Securities Regulators’ (CESR) consultation on post-trade transparency, warned Marco Angheben, director of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the European Securitisation Forum (ESF) at last week’s Thomson Reuters Global Pricing Forum in London. The increase in scope of the MiFID transparency requirements will place additional data pressures on financial institutions operating in Europe, he noted.

CESR issued its consultancy paper on post-trade transparency last month, which indicates that European firms may soon face a whole host of new data requirements for structured products, and it is due to issue advice to the European Commission over the summer on the subject. Angheben indicated that the regulator should closely examine evidence of trends within these markets before it calibrates an appropriate solution, and the same advice should be given to firms themselves. “There should not be a one size fits all approach to this space,” he cautioned.

The regulatory community has become much more open to participating in dialogue with the industry, said Angheben, but it will not be easy to find a global solution to the reform process. The move towards mandatory central counterparty clearing (CCP) in the derivatives market is another area that needs to be carefully considered by the regulators and industry participants alike. “They need to look at the real facts of the situation – the liquidity of a product over a certain length of time – and understand the costs and benefits of moving to CCP clearing for each individual product,” cautioned Angheben.

The idea of a standardised product definition is particularly tricky for these markets as any such definition needs to keep up with the innovation of new product types. Angheben noted that this generally means the need for two types of transparency: that around price for regulatory requirements such as those around MiFID and for data transparency.

The advent of Basel III is also aimed at increasing the level of data around risk modelling, said Angheben, although he added that regulators need to increase their level of understanding around products. The focus will therefore move from credit risk modelling to scrutiny of firms’ internal risk models.

Many of the attendees to the Thomson Reuters event, however, were not convinced that either Basel III or MiFID II would make much of a difference in the long run. During an interactive poll, 46% indicated they thought neither would improve the financial markets, with 13% opting for MiFID, 17% for Basel, and 24% said both were part of a necessary approach to the market.

As for CCPs, the majority were in favour of their introduction but said that each product should be considered separately before being pushed down the clearing route. A total of 55% opted for this answer, with only 9% in favour of CCPs across the board, 27% indicating that they were unsure about the idea and 9% against the idea of CCPs altogether.

The majority of attendees also indicated that they felt the regulatory community should focus on institutions rather than regulating products, at 42%. Whereas 26% opted for a product focused approach and 32% said both should be considered, which is generally reflective of the focus of Basel III.

However, attendees were not hopeful about the prospect of global harmonisation, with only 32% indicating it should be a priority. The majority either wished to retain regulatory arbitrage opportunities, at 20%, or thought that global regulatory agreement was “impossible”. Not a great portent for progress this year…

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best practices for creating an effective data quality control framework

Data quality is critical to capital markets processes from identifying counterparties to building customer relationships, regulatory reporting, and ultimately improving the bottom line. It can also be extremely difficult to achieve. One solution is a data quality control framework that includes an automated and systematic process that monitors the state of data quality and ensures...

BLOG

AFME Makes Recommendations for Open Finance Framework

The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) has underlined the importance of a level playing field for responsible data sharing and made recommendations for an Open Finance Framework ahead of the publication of the European Commission’s framework for data access in financial services that is due to be published in coming months. EFMA shares...

EVENT

A-Team Briefing: Cloud Innovation for Data Ops

This Innovation Briefing will explore approaches to data infrastructure transformation, technologies required and how to make sure processes are optimised to support real time data management. Hear from leading practitioners and innovative technology solution providers who will share insight into how to set up and leverage your data infrastructure to provide user access to consistent data and analytics, and companies the ability to monetise their data.

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2022/2023 – Tenth Edition

Welcome to the tenth edition of A-Team Group’s Regulatory Data Handbook, a publication that has tracked new regulations, amendments, implementation and data management requirements as regulatory change has impacted global capital markets participants over the past 10 years. This edition of the handbook includes new regulations and highlights some of the major regulatory interventions challenging...