Charlie McCreevy is now threatening legal action if countries do not ratify the MiFID rulebook in time. (See the article on the Finextra website ) . The strong statement quoted in the article comes about six months before November 1st. The deadline for institutions not countries. As the FSA keeps telling us the UK was the only countru to ratify MiFID on time.
So, is there a mad rush out there ? Actually not, and it is not surprising. There are a few things tied to transposition (and ratification), the easier to discuss is transaction reports. Until a regulator has fully transposed, the information required may actually change and with that reference data, etc. etc. Therefore, until transposition an institution can only go by the EU directive and be prepared to implement changes. No wonder that there is not a mad rush.
A transaction report is one of the things a host regulator will require from investment businesses passported into their jurisdiction, if France has not fully transposed the delay in formalising a definitive requirement for transaction reporting does not just affect French companies, it will also affect any other institution with a presence in France.
Guidelines on transition become more and more important, the balancing act for regulators is to be pragmatic and assertive at the same time. This cannot be left to a case by case policy.
MiFID changes the way people involved in investment businesses will work, these changes will go beyond compliance with new regulation. There is a strategic element to MiFID that has to be considered when planning compliance.
All of this takes time, UK based institutions are still behind (the smaller they are the further behind they are) and they had about three months advantage on any jurisdiction that will ratify by the end of April. Institution based in other countries can learn from the British experience but however wonderful they are they will not be able to become compliant instantly.
It is time to define a 'core MiFID' where regulators will be strict for a period of say six months provided there is a plan in place to achieve full compliance (The FSA has already esplicitely stated that they will tolerate delays provided there is evidence of a plan to achieve compliant and a progress report to prove that the plan is being executed) without it threatening legal actions on countries will have no practical consequences for institutions doing business in those countries.
So, is there a mad rush out there ? Actually not, and it is not surprising. There are a few things tied to transposition (and ratification), the easier to discuss is transaction reports. Until a regulator has fully transposed, the information required may actually change and with that reference data, etc. etc. Therefore, until transposition an institution can only go by the EU directive and be prepared to implement changes. No wonder that there is not a mad rush.
A transaction report is one of the things a host regulator will require from investment businesses passported into their jurisdiction, if France has not fully transposed the delay in formalising a definitive requirement for transaction reporting does not just affect French companies, it will also affect any other institution with a presence in France.
Guidelines on transition become more and more important, the balancing act for regulators is to be pragmatic and assertive at the same time. This cannot be left to a case by case policy.
MiFID changes the way people involved in investment businesses will work, these changes will go beyond compliance with new regulation. There is a strategic element to MiFID that has to be considered when planning compliance.
All of this takes time, UK based institutions are still behind (the smaller they are the further behind they are) and they had about three months advantage on any jurisdiction that will ratify by the end of April. Institution based in other countries can learn from the British experience but however wonderful they are they will not be able to become compliant instantly.
It is time to define a 'core MiFID' where regulators will be strict for a period of say six months provided there is a plan in place to achieve full compliance (The FSA has already esplicitely stated that they will tolerate delays provided there is evidence of a plan to achieve compliant and a progress report to prove that the plan is being executed) without it threatening legal actions on countries will have no practical consequences for institutions doing business in those countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment