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

UK FSA Reiterates its Commitment to Move from FRN IDs to the BIC for Transaction Reporting by End 2011

Subscribe to our newsletter

In its latest Market Watch newsletter the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) reiterates its intention to move from its proprietary FSA Reference Numbers (FRNs) to Swift’s Bank Identifier Codes (BICs) for entity identification purposes within transaction reports, as required under MiFID. In keeping with its discussions with the industry on the subject over the last six months or so, the intention is to bring the UK into line with the rest of Europe by the end of this year, in accordance with the cross border requirements under the incoming second version of MiFID.

Under current regulation, all MiFID investment firms need to endeavour to obtain a BIC to allow for the tracking of data cross border in the European Economic Area. After obtaining a BIC, firms must then provide this data to the FSA’s Transaction Monitoring Unit (TMU). However, in order to allow the regulator to track client and counterparty data for market abuse detection purposes, firms must also provide one of three identifiers for these parties to the FSA: the BIC, if one is available, is the preferred option; but firms can also request an FRN code from the regulator; or use their own proprietary identifiers.

The intention now is to remove the FRN option and to compel firms to report using BIC codes in the required reporting firm identification fields. To this end, the FSA notes: “We will be working with the industry to set a date when we expect firms to make this mandatory change to their systems; this should be towards the end of this year. We intend to consult on this change during 2011 as part of our quarterly consultation process.”

The regulator also indicates in the newsletter that the implementation of Alternative Instrument Identifier (AII) reporting, which has faced a number of delays, will require additional counterparty and client field validations. “Our current validation checks whether the counterparty 1 field is populated for principal trades, whether counterparty 2 is populated for agency trades and whether both the counterparty 1 and 2 are populated for principal and agency cross trades. With the additional validation, our system will not accept principal transactions where the firm has populated the counterparty 2/client field.” More data checking is on its way.

Moreover, the FSA also notes that a “significant number” of OTC derivatives transaction reports it receives are below par with regards to data checking practices. It indicates that in these reports firms have populated the instrument type field with X (other), F (future) or O (option) and have not provided the underlying instrument ISIN. It warns: “It is essential that firms supply the underlying ISIN in the transaction report, so we are able to effectively monitor the market for abuse. Therefore we are introducing an additional validation so that when instrument types X, F and O are selected, the underlying instrument ISIN must be provided. This is in line with the current validation procedure when selecting instrument types A (equity) or B (bond).”

When Dario Crispini, manager of the FSA’s TRU, indicated that the regulator is planning to tighten scrutiny of data quality, he certainly wasn’t joking…

This commitment to the BIC also comes at an interesting juncture, given that there is talk of a new legal entity standard on the cards for the global regulatory community. Let’s hope that, should the new standard come into being, a more joined up approach to these developments is adopted by national regulators.

See the full FSA newsletter here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Multi-cloud environments – How to maximise data value while keeping on the right side of privacy and security

Multi-cloud environments have much to offer beyond single-vendor cloud setups, including the benefits of access to a variety of best-in-class cloud solutions, opportunities for price optimisation, greater flexibility and scalability, better risk management, and crucially, increased performance and availability. On the downside, multiple cloud vendors in a technology stack can cause complexity, more vulnerabilities, and...

BLOG

Trading in the Cloud: What Works and What Doesn’t

By Mike Powell, CEO, Rapid Addition. In previous blogs, we’ve explored the factors driving capital markets’ embrace of cloud technologies, the benefits firms are already enjoying from making the move, and some of the obstacles that can derail a cloud migration strategy. What’s clear is that for capital markets, cloud isn’t a panacea but rather...

EVENT

Data Management Summit London

Now in its 14th year, the Data Management Summit (DMS) in London brings together the European capital markets enterprise data management community, to explore how data strategy is evolving to drive business outcomes and speed to market in changing times.

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2023 – Eleventh Edition

Welcome to the eleventh edition of A-Team Group’s Regulatory Data Handbook, a popular publication that covers new regulations in capital markets, tracks regulatory change, and provides advice on the data, data management and implementation requirements of more than 30 regulations across UK, European, US and Asia-Pacific capital markets. This edition of the handbook includes new...