13 July 2017
London
Reporter: Drew Nicol

MiFID II best execution challenges securities finance


The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) has outlined what it considers to be “ambiguous, disproportionately burdensome” or “simply inappropriate” standards for securities financing transactions in the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).

In its latest quarterly report, the association highlighted rules relating to transaction reporting, pre- and post-trade transparency, and best execution reporting, as its main contention points with the framework that comes into force in January 2018.

Best execution rules, which are covered under RTS 27, require quarterly reports that include nine separate templates that apply to each single instrument. ICMA described these as “in many cases highly detailed”.

ICMA has maintained that RTS 27 should not be applied to securities financing transactions, since it would be unnecessarily onerous to comply with the reporting requirements, and the resulting data produced by banks would be meaningless at best, and misleading at worst.

“Until July 2017, there was no official guidance on whether securities financing transactions should be reported under RTS 27, or, in the event that they should, how this could be achieved in a clear, consistent, and meaningful way,” according to ICMA.

A specific exclusion for reporting has been carved out in MiFID II for SFTs that fall under the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR) and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, but trades with central banks in the European system of central banks (ESCB) are notably absent.

“ICMA has advocated that this is unnecessary, and that securities financing transactions with ESCB central banks should also be exempt. The European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Commission did not agree.”

“However, they did agree that MiFID II/R transaction reporting for these securities financing transactions would not be required until SFTR reporting comes into effect (so avoiding the necessity for firms to build separate reporting functionality).”

ICMA also noted that MiFID II/R was ambiguous with respect to the pre- and post-trade reporting of securities financing transactions and advocated that they should not be subject to these transparency obligations.

An amendment to MiFID II was published in the Official Journal on 30 June 2016 that included an exemption for securities financing transactions under Article 1 relating to pre- and post trade transparency obligations.

More news
The latest news from Securities Lending Times
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Hedge funds continue 2017 run
23 November 2017 | Madrid | Reporter: Drew Nicol
Global AUM of hedge funds rose 24 percent to $3.2 trillion in the past two years, according to data captured by IOSCO’s latest market survey.
Goldman Sachs appointed by Thrivent for agent lending
23 November 2018 | Minneapolis | Reporter: Jenna Lomax
Thrivent Financial has appointed Goldman Sachs as it new lending agent
ICMA maps repo and cash bond operations
22 November 2017 | Zurich | Reporter: Zsuzsa Szabo
ICMA has launched a free-to-read mapping directory for more than 80 technology solutions for repo and cash bond operations
FCA publishes MiFID II guide
22 November 2017 | London | Reporter: Jenna Lomax
The guide focuses on the regulatory regime in MiFID II for trading venues and data reporting services providers
Hedge fund industry reaches new highs in Q3
22 November 2017 | London | Reporter: Zsuzsa Szabo
The hedge fund industry has recorded strong performance in Q3 2017, after stumbling in 2016, according to Preqin
India reviews SBL position limits
21 November 2017 | New Delhi | Reporter: Zsuzsanna Szabo
The Securities and Exchange Board of India has altered its securities lending rulebook, following market calls for change
EU Commission opens consultation of SFTR TR fees
21 November 2017 | Paris | Reporter: Drew Nicol
UK-based trade repositories may be forced to shoulder additional third-party recognition fees to operate under EU regulatory frameworks post-Brexit, according to proposed EU Commission rules