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

FCA Cracks Down on OMS Reporting Errors: Regulated Firms Pay the Price

Subscribe to our newsletter

By Matt Smith, CEO, SteelEye.

Certain Order Management Systems (OMSs) have recently come under scrutiny from the FCA because of quality issues around MiFIR reporting. Firms that heavily rely on their OMS for daily regulatory reporting have been found to consistently over or under report their transactions.

The responsibility for accurate reporting rests solely with the regulated entity, and soon reporting errors from certain OMSs will no longer be tolerated.

Some OMSs are likened to black boxes when it comes to transaction reporting. There is very little transparency and visibility into what goes in the daily transaction reports downloaded by clients. As a result, regulated firms relying on this method have little to no way of knowing if the daily extract of transactions is in alignment with regulatory standards.

In fact, a couple of common issues with these systems is that they have slow or inaccurate MiFIR eligibility checks and struggle with security identification for anything more complex than listed products. To give an example, when a security is unknown to the system, certain fields are populated with default values. Take FX Forwards for example – through various consultations, we have seen multiple examples where these have been reported as Indices. Whilst this passes the validation checks (by defaulting the [Underlying Index Id] field value), it produces an inaccurate transaction report.

Because of these issues and the lack of visibility into the reporting process, many firms have unknowingly over, under or mis-reported.

The regulator’s intensified push on data accuracy is certainly being felt and several firms have already been approached – often given less than 3 months to remediate their reporting. The implications are grave, and fines are rife for reporting errors. In 2019, Goldman Sachs was fined £34.3 million for failing to provide accurate and timely reporting. The same year, UBS were fined £27.6 million for reporting issues. And that does include the reputational and commercial consequences of such bad press. Is now the time for firms to start taking their reporting more seriously?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Navigating a Complex World: Best Data Practices in Sanctions Screening

As rising geopolitical uncertainty prompts an intensification in the complexity and volume of global economic and financial sanctions, banks and financial institutions are faced with a daunting set of new compliance challenges. The risk of inadvertently engaging with sanctioned securities has never been higher and the penalties for doing so are harsh. Traditional sanctions screening...

BLOG

CFTC File Format Change to Impact Futures Data Management Teams

For futures commission merchants, clearing members, proprietary trading firms, and banks with material futures and options exposure, the transition of CFTC Part 17 Large Trader Reporting to FIX Markup Language (FIXML) is a test of data management maturity. This change directly affects firms responsible for aggregating, validating, and submitting large trader position data, often across...

EVENT

Eagle Alpha Alternative Data Conference, Spring, New York, hosted by A-Team Group

Now in its 9th year, the Eagle Alpha Alternative Data Conference managed by A-Team Group, is the premier content forum and networking event for investment firms and hedge funds.

GUIDE

The Global LEI System – Slow but Sure

After what looked like a slow start to the summer, the initiative to establish a global standard for legal entity identifiers (LEIs) took a series of significant leaps forward during August, that appears to have put the project firmly back on track. If the marketplace felt a little reticent in June and July, it could...