A-Team Insight Blogs

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

Share article

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?

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: The Transformation of Buy-Side Market Surveillance

Asset managers, hedge funds, insurance firms, and other buy-side firms globally are becoming more active in their approach to market surveillance, as regulatory pressure to up their game mounts. Buy-side firms are now building out their surveillance infrastructure as they seek to respond to the requirements posed by Dodd-Frank, MiFID II and the Market Abuse...

BLOG

BearingPoint Sells RegTech Business to Nordic Capital

Tech consultancy BearingPoint has confirmed the sale of its independent RegTech business unit to Nordic Capital, a private equity investor with a strong track record of developing technology companies and enabling and driving global growth. The sale does not come as a complete surprise – RegTech has been working to develop its autonomy within BearingPoint...

EVENT

RegTech Summit London

Now in its 6th year, the RegTech Summit in London explores how the European financial services industry can leverage technology to drive innovation, cut costs and support regulatory change.

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2020/2021 – Eighth Edition

This eighth edition of A-Team Group’s Regulatory Data Handbook is a ‘must-have’ for capital markets participants during this period of unprecedented change. Available free of charge, it profiles every regulation that impacts capital markets data management practices giving you: A detailed overview of each regulation with key dates, data and data management implications, links to...