A-Team Insight Blogs

Why US Research Houses Need Less Talk and More Action in Response to SEC Letter

Share article

By Daniel Carpenter, Head of Regulation at Meritsoft (a Cognizant company).

Over a year has passed since the introduction of MiFID II, and the situation for research brokers has changed beyond all recognition – and not just for those operating in Europe. The massive increase in the cost of research, partially driven by the substantial additional administration burden requiring individually itemised costs, has weighed heavily on research houses with asset managers focusing their budgets in the midst of an industry shakeup. While US broker-dealers servicing European clients were recently provided some relief in the form of no-action letters issued by the SEC, these letters are set to expire in just over a years’ time.

All of the above and the extended adoption of CSA’s (Commission Sharing Agreements) have triggered widespread speculation about what the landscape of research payments will look like. Even though the SEC is expected to extend the letters, will ‘unbundling’ still find its way over to the US? The next 12 months looks increasingly uncertain for research houses, but should it?

For those unfamiliar with the regulatory climate in Europe, these changes will see research houses tasked with itemising the cost of investment research and then “unbundling” this from the costs of transactions billing. These are the costs which would previously have been combined with the other fees paid by the asset manager. Under MIFID II, research houses have two choices; they can bill the client for a separate research fee, or absorb the costs of research in their P&L. Either way, research houses need to have the right solutions and infrastructure in place to itemise these costs, communicate them with recipients and reconcile consumption. The rest is up to them.

The new rules have transformed how markets operate in Europe and the SEC has clearly taken note. At a recent industry conference, two representatives from the SEC highlighted their concern stating that ‘unbundling’ would benefit larger houses, while damaging mid-sized and smaller brokers. Despite this, the same representatives acknowledged that the regulatory body is looking at different answers to the questions posed in the no-action letter. It looks increasingly likely that the solution will, at its heart, most likely involve asset managers paying for their European-facing research separately from other services.

The SEC has confirmed that regardless of which approach, or approaches, it finds workable they are likely to issue guidance or “market-based” no-action relief to provide the industry with clarity about acceptable solutions for compensating US brokers for their investment research. However, US research and brokerage houses cannot afford to sit and wait for the SEC to provide specific steps. It is safe to assume, regardless of the policy outcome, that asset managers will want a much more granular level of insight into their research activity, with audited research interactions which can then be invoiced, as well as tracked and aligned with CSA’s. With this in mind, research business lines need to see the writing on the wall and begin making the necessary preparations for a landscape that will bear some resemblance to Europe’s.

Looking at the bigger picture, the no-action letters are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s almost two years since Sharon Bowen, former CFTC Commissioner, strongly endorsed the adoption of a MIFID II-style set of regulations in the US, and while there’s been no solid action yet, the momentum amongst US policy makers is building for an equivalent set of rules. The debate around the no-action letters provides banks and research houses with an opportunity to fully integrate the best systems for itemising research costs, not just for European-facing clients, but also for all US-facing clients who would surely be affected by a US version of MiFID II.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Privacy vs. Surveillance: Managing conflicting regulations in Germany and other privacy-sensitive jurisdictions

The EU’s MiFID II and other regulations globally have placed greater emphasis than ever on market surveillance, recording of trading communications and records-retention processes in an attempt to stamp out market abuse and boost investor confidence and protections. At the same time, the public’s attitude toward data privacy has hardened, most visibly through new regulations...

BLOG

Research Unbundling for US Asset Managers: ‘One Size Fits Nobody’

RegTech Insight sits down with Joel Burnette, Solutions Consultant at Red Deer, to discuss the response to the research unbundling requirements of MiFID II… and explore how the US markets are handling the new normal. RTI: What has been the most interesting thing about the North American research market’s response to MiFID II? Joel: We...

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2019/2020 – Seventh Edition

Welcome to A-Team Group’s best read handbook, the Regulatory Data Handbook, which is now in its seventh edition and continues to grow in terms of the number of regulations covered, the detail of each regulation and the impact that all the rules and regulations will have on data and data management at your institution. This...