Search results

This paper aims to discuss the impact of nascent Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) initiatives and, thus, to deliver practical insights into MiFID II implementation, compliance and cost reduction MiFID II constitutes the backbone for the upcoming financial market reforms. With the first proposal of MiFID drafted in October 2011, this regulatory framework has undergone over 2,000 amendments. As MiFID II currently stands, this Directive attempts to address issues exposed by the global financial crisis.

This study, based on secondary research and an in-depth analysis of the MiFID II framework, investigates structural and technological challenges entailed by this Directive. The analysis is broken down into the following sections: technological and structural challenges; costs of implementation; MiFID II teams; facilitating near real-time regulatory reporting; increased transparency requirements; and information technology (IT) initiatives for MiFID II compliance.

MiFID II commands significant changes in business and operating models. With this in mind, the study indicates current technological and structural challenges faced by financial institutions and advises on ways of mitigating MiFID II risks. Although it is too early to assess the costs of implementing MiFID II, this paper suggests ways of reducing MiFID II-related costs. The study also advises on organising dedicated teams to deal with MiFID II. Furthermore, this paper argues that early investments in IT systems and processes would allow financial services firms to gain a competitive advantage and, hence, scoop up market share or launch new, lucrative services – especially in the area of collateralisation and market data processing.

This paper shows that the current version of MiFID II still requires a great deal of attention from the regulators that need to readdress contentious issues revolving around the links between MiFID II and other regulatory frameworks such as European Market Infrastructure Regulation and Dodd–Frank. This study addresses the MiFID II compliance issues by adopting European Union and non-European Union banks’ and asset managers’ perspectives and, hence, delivers practical implications for risk managers and compliance officers of various financial institutions.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the impact of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) on investment managers but also on funds' units as financial instruments.

Starting from the innovative legislative structure and scope of the MiFID, the paper assesses the way investment managers and funds'units are impacted, knowing that investment managers and funds'units are already largely tackled by another Directive, the UCITS Directive.

In spite of increasing many organizational and process requirements within investment management companies, the MiFID will probably not create dramatic changes in the daily functioning of those companies. However, the linkage between the provisions of the MiFID and the UCITS Directive has not been clearly made by European legislative institutions, which leaves uncertainties in the way the national legislators and regulators will transpose the MiFID in order to get the best consistence between this Directive and the UCITS one.

Final assessment should be made once Member States have transposed the MiFID Directive and have enforced it in practice.

The value of the paper is to set a bridge between two different directives (the MiFID on the one hand, the UCITS Directive on the other hand) which both impact investment managers and funds' units.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of the markets in financial instruments directive II (MiFID II) on investment services in the Baltic states.

The authors take an exploratory, qualitative approach, based on data conducted from interviews with nine investment industry professionals using the laddering technique. The pool of experts was selected using the purposeful sampling method, and experts must have had a minimum of five years investment experience in the Baltics, working familiarity with MiFID II, and a university education in the fields of finance or economics.

The strict requirements of MiFID II reduce the range of available investment products and services for customers in the Baltics. Also, the profitability of Baltic investment companies decreased due to high compliance costs and bans on inducements. The results indicate that this may lead to increased barriers to entry and mergers and acquisitions for small investment companies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to research the implications of MiFID II implementation in the Baltic states. The qualitative approach chosen offers a unique opportunity to highlight the critical effects of MiFID II on financial intermediates in smaller geographical markets.

With the introduction of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), financial institutions are faced with many investor protection provisions; this has a major impact on the day-to-day operations of private banks, which provide investment services to predominately retail or non-professional investors. The purpose of this paper is to determine how MiFID provisions regarding investor protection with respect to suitability are complied with in practice by private banks.

Based on interviews with 25 representatives of private banks from 10 different European Union (EU) member states, the researchers have determined how these provisions are fulfilled and associated risks mitigated. Mapping out the suitability requirements of MiFID and comparing them with how these have been operationalised, we arrive at the question of whether this leads to a level playing field and investor protection by different private banks.

Although MiFID is trying to achieve a level playing field between the EU member states, this study shows that this has not been achieved in all areas. Investor protection requirements from MiFID are interpreted and operationalised differently. Although these differences are sometimes small, sometimes they are larger and affect the way the investor is served and suitability determined.

This research provides a unique insight into the way private banks in Europe have implemented the MiFID II requirements and gives insight into best practices. For the future, this research can serve as a prelude to in-depth follow-up research on the implementation of EU provisions.

This paper aims to identify the duty of care that applies to ‘professionally classified clients’ based on the recently implemented Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) as well as the previous Markets in Financial Instruments Directive I (MiFID I). The authors place critical notes on the effectiveness of some MiFID provisions.

The authors have reviewed the Delegated Acts of MiFID I and II, as well as Q&A’s of the European Regulator, ESMA and jurisprudence. The authors aim to add value by facilitating a discussion on the effectiveness of applicable MiFID provisions.

This review of the legal provisions provides researchers and practitioners in the investment sectors with a clear overview of the legal provisions detailing how these provisions should be met and how improvements to the provisions can be achieved.

This paper specifies what the provisions for professional classified clients are and facilitates a discussion on the effectiveness of these provisions.

Addressing the legal provisions which are applicable to ‘professional classified clients’ that derive from MiFID I and II and includes a critical analysis which offers an original perspective.

This paper aims to discuss key concerns surrounding the recent implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II). It focuses on the UK regime. The insights derived are envisaged to be helpful guides for participants and regulators in financial markets.

This paper used the legal-economics perspective. It relied on primary data from statutes and regulations and secondary data from the public domain to analyze the phenomenon. The analytical framework comprised the following sections: Introduction, MiFID I review, MiFID II scope, MiFID II key concerns and concluding remarks.

Only half of the EU Member States including the UK managed to transpose MiFID II within the 3rd January 2018 effective date. At this early stage of implementation, various teething problems were encountered. These pertained to costs and charges reporting, firm governance, product governance, transaction reporting, best execution and research. Owing to the sheer scale and complexity of MIFID II, most entities barely coped with their reporting obligations. Noting the situation, the Financial Conduct Authority assured firms taking all sufficient steps that they would be treated fairly.

The paper was not sufficiently empirical. However, the study benefited reasonably from triangulation of data and perspectives to provide good insights on the implementation effects of the complex and voluminous EU rules for governing financial markets with global implications.

Investors could gain from the enhanced transparency and best execution rules. Investment banks could gain from the emerging resilient, integrated and efficient financial markets. Regulators with better access to more and higher quality reporting could intervene more effectively when required.

This paper assembled and critically analyzed currently available research insights in these areas so as to provide useful guidance to those needing to work and comply with MiFID II rules and academics teaching financial services law.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II directive was enforced in the EU in January 2018. While EU-member states implemented this directive in their national legislation, investment firms are still enforcing compliance. With the purpose of “investor protection”, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of transparency, suitability, warning and information requirements. How do investment advisers view and embrace these MiFID II requirements? Are differences evident within this group of professionals?

In total, 267 Dutch investment advisors serving non-professional investors daily completed structured surveys on their opinion of the acceptance and effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements. The findings are compared with existing literature to examine similarities with other legislation.

The results demonstrated differences depending on the investment firms’ size and investment advisors’ seniority and gender. Professionals should be critical of new legislation and regulations, as it limits their autonomy. However, female investment advisors and those with up to ten years’ experience are less critical of the effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements, embracing them without discussion. Investment advisors in large investment firms believe that MiFID II contributes to investors’ interests, whereas those in small and medium-sized investment firms often do not share this opinion. For example, respondents considered cost transparency an effective requirement to achieve better investment services and protect investors’ interests.

The effectiveness and applicability of legislation are often viewed from a legal perspective, and enforcement is essential. However, this study explores legislation from the perspective of professionals under supervision.

The objective of this paper is to review Spanish regulatory evolution in the collective investment area, which is very recent in its principal aspects.

The paper assesses the way investment funds are impacted by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and the Spanish legislation.

The legal aspect of the Collective investment institutions (CII) in Spain has experienced a major renovation over the past four years. There were three basic principles: increased flexibility of the CIIs' regime, reinforced protection for investors, and improved administrative intervention regime. Although MiFID focuses its attention on financial markets and investment firms, it also implies an important change for collective investment institutions. New conditions arising after the introduction of this norm are imposing major challenges for financial entities, supervisory authorities and financial markets.

The unified regulatory system, even after the implementation of MiFID, remains fragmented, and the way in which it will apply to investment funds is not easy to disentangle.

As a result of this process, it is hoped that levels of competitiveness will increase and transaction costs fall, which will ultimately result in improved conditions for investors and more efficient companies.

The paper establishes the implications of the MiFID and the UCITS Directives for the investment fund industry in Spain.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) and regulation national market system (Reg NMS) affect the competition for order flow among trading venues in, respectively, Europe and the USA.

The paper examines the differences between MiFID and Reg NMS and provides, based on market microstructure principles, insights as to their likely impact on European and the US securities markets.

Although MiFID and Reg NMS share the common objective of enhancing competition in securities markets, they adopt different provisions with respect to three issues that strongly influence the competition for order flow among trading venues. Specifically, some of the provisions set forth by the US regulation with respect to the best execution duty, the consolidation of market data and the disclosure of execution quality information appear to be more effective, compared to the European Union ones, in strengthening competition for order flow among trading venues.

Regulatory factors can only partly explain the current structure of the European and US securities markets. Technology and heterogeneity in traders' demand are other important factors that concur in shaping the European and US markets.

The degree of competition for order flow among trading venues depends on how regulations define the best execution duty, the availability of updated and consolidated pre‐trade (i.e. quotations) and post‐trade (i.e. transactions) information and the efficiency of post‐trading infrastructures.

The paper addresses issues not yet investigated and provides valuable insights for financial intermediaries, incumbent and prospective exchanges as to the competition in the securities industry, and to regulators as to the likely impact of the new regulations.

To introduce the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).

Provides a brief overview of the MiFID, how it widens the scope of business permitted under the “passport” regime, the types of financial institutions it covers, and the time frame for implementation.

The biggest challenge facing regulated firms is the limited time they will have to comply with MiFID's requirements.

Discusses the scope and importance of MiFID.