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

Regulators are Cracking Down on Counterparty Identifiers in Line with the MiFID Review

Subscribe to our newsletter

The UK Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) recent fining of German bank Commerzbank for its transaction reporting failures is just one instance of the regulator’s current focus on the data details of a firm’s business. One of the underlying problems in Commerzbank’s case was the incorrect allocation of counterparty codes and the use of proprietary codes for these counterparties, which is exactly why the FSA and other European regulators are so keen for the mandatory inclusion of Bank Identifier Codes (BICs) in these transaction reports, among other data standards.

The need for a more standardised approach to identifying counterparties to a trade and for identifying instruments themselves is all part and parcel of the current review of MiFID going on within Europe. The transmission of this data across the central Transaction Reporting Exchange Mechanism (Trem) in Europe further highlights any failings in firms’ data details, as the miscommunication goes cross border. There is no doubt that the UK has blazed the regulatory trail with regards to implementing MiFID but if even the FSA is spotting serious systems and controls failures with regards to reporting data, what hope does the rest of Europe have?

Under MiFID, both buy and sell side firms are required to report accurate and complete trading data through approved reporting mechanisms (ARMs) by the end of the next business day post-trade. This includes a complete set of accurate reference data, which is seemingly where many firms are falling foul of the FSA. Moreover, firms may be able to outsource this reporting function but they are still held accountable for the reports that are produced at the end of the day and must therefore closely monitor these to ensure they meet the regulator’s standards.

The Committee of European Securities Regulators’ (CESR) MiFID review is looking for more detail from firms about how they are meeting the requirements of the directive, which came into force way back in November 2007. With regards to reference data, the European regulator is therefore looking for feedback on execution data quality from firms, execution venues and vendors; details on firms’ post-trade transparency regimes; and whether counterparty and client identifiers should be mandated for transaction reporting.

The deadline for responses from the industry to the MiFID review is the end of this month (31 May), before the regulator pulls together the requirements into an updated directive. The likely outcome for firms, vendors and trading venues will be the introduction of new data definitions around execution, which will entail costs around the implementation of new standards. If BICs are mandated as counterparty and client identifiers across Europe, then firms will have to alter their systems accordingly; ditto with any changes to instrument codes and standardisation.

Last year, CESR published a consultation paper recommending the adoption a set of identifiers and classifications for OTC derivatives for the purpose of including those instruments in the exchange of transaction reports amongst CESR members. The extension of MiFID to more complex instruments is part of what has been dubbed MiFID mark two by many in the market, but before this can happen, a lot of the issues that firms haven’t tackled as a result of the first instance of MiFID must be ironed out.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best approaches for trade and transaction reporting

Compliance practitioners and technology leaders in capital markets face mounting pressure to ensure that reporting processes are efficient, accurate, and aligned with global standards. Market developments and jurisdictional nuances in regulatory frameworks like MiFID II, EMIR, SFTR and MAS create a continual challenge for compliance teams. This webinar brings together senior RegTech executives and seasoned...

BLOG

November 2025 Deadline for ISO 20022: Are We Ready?

Global payment networks are undergoing a fundamental transformation as the financial industry transitions to ISO 20022 – a structured messaging standard designed to replace legacy formats and drive interoperability. In capital markets and treasury operations, this shift is most evident in the SWIFT cross-border payments network and high-value systems like the U.S. Fedwire. SWIFT’s Cross-Border...

EVENT

RegTech Summit London

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

GUIDE

The DORA Implementation Playbook: A Practitioner’s Guide to Demonstrating Resilience Beyond the Deadline

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) has fundamentally reshaped the European Union’s financial regulatory landscape, with its full application beginning on January 17, 2025. This regulation goes beyond traditional risk management, explicitly acknowledging that digital incidents can threaten the stability of the entire financial system. As the deadline has passed, the focus is now shifting...