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 practice approaches to data management for regulatory reporting

Effective regulatory reporting requires firms to manage vast amounts of data across multiple systems, regions, and regulatory jurisdictions. With increasing scrutiny from regulators and the rising complexity of financial instruments, the need for a streamlined and strategic approach to data management has never been greater. Financial institutions must ensure accuracy, consistency, and timeliness in their...

BLOG

Generali-Natixis Tie-up Highlights Data and Operational Complexities of Asset Management M&A

By Jeremy Katzeff, head of buy-side solutions at GoldenSource. After much speculation, it’s now confirmed. The asset management industry welcomes another mega fund to its ranks after the tie-up between the asset management businesses of Natixis and Generali Group. The reasons behind the merger are the same as they have been for the last few...

EVENT

Buy AND Build: The Future of Capital Markets Technology

Buy AND Build: The Future of Capital Markets Technology London examines the latest changes and innovations in trading technology and explores how technology is being deployed to create an edge in sell side and buy side capital markets financial institutions.

GUIDE

AI in Capital Markets: Practical Insight for a Transforming Industry – Free Handbook

AI is no longer on the horizon – it’s embedded in the infrastructure of modern capital markets. But separating real impact from inflated promises requires a grounded, practical understanding. The AI in Capital Markets Handbook 2025 provides exactly that. Designed for data-driven professionals across the trade life-cycle, compliance, infrastructure, and strategy, this handbook goes beyond...