Search results

1 – 10 of 22
To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 9 July 2018

Katica Tomic

Product intervention power is introduced under the markets in financial instruments regulation (MiFIR) and packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs…

Abstract

Product intervention power is introduced under the markets in financial instruments regulation (MiFIR) and packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) Regulation for all EU Member States and gives National Competent Authorities (NCAs), European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and European Banking Authority (EBA) powers to monitor financial products (and services) under their supervision and to “temporarily” prohibit or restrict the marketing, distribution, or sale of certain financial instruments, or to intervene in relation to certain financial activities or practice. This extends the supervisory measures defined in MiFID II to any PRIIPs (including insurance-based investment products “IBI products”) that would not otherwise fall under the scope of MiFID II. Product intervention power is given to the NCAs, and in order to use power, it requires to take the specifics of the individual case into account and a series of conditions, criteria, and factors to fulfill. Moreover, ESMA and the EBA have a type of control function and ability to override national regulators on product. The aim of product intervention powers is to ensure strengthening of investor protection, but given the potential significant impact of this power, calls into question of possibility to delay innovation and slow down product developments on the capital market.

This paper provided an overview of supervisory measures on product intervention, that is, scope of the product intervention power, criteria, factors, and risks which have to be taken into consideration when using this regulator’s tool.

Details

Governance and Regulations’ Contemporary Issues
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78743-815-6

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 13 November 2019

Maik Huettinger and Agnė Krašauskaitė

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.

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, vol. 12 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1755-4179

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 15 February 2013

Diego Valiante

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework for the legal classification of trading venues in financial markets. Currently, there is no clear…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework for the legal classification of trading venues in financial markets. Currently, there is no clear definition of when a trading platform should be classified as multilateral or bilateral. This paper builds a theoretical framework that will allow regulators to define the border (with its regulatory implications) between multilateral and bilateral trading venues.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach used for this paper focuses on looking at the different trading models available in financial markets and analyzing their key features in order to bring up recurrent aspects that have helped to build the theoretical framework.

Findings

Multilateral trading facilities would not only be systems bringing together multiple interests from third parties, but those systems bringing together multiple interests with “no discretion” (ex ante rules) vis‐à‐vis membership, admission of products to trading, and matching of interests. All trading venues that do not meet these three key requirements will be falling under the bilateral trading classification, which implies the application of fiduciary duties, such as conflicts of interest rules and best execution. The paper then advances a proposal to solve the legal classification issue in the revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive in Europe (MiFID). In effect, despite the claim that the Organised Trading Facility (EU) and the Swap Execution Facility (USA) would be equivalent categories, EU and US regulators, respectively, have taken divergent paths on how these venues will ultimately look.

Originality/value

The value of the paper is in its ability to provide a theoretical framework to something that has not been assessed in these terms previously. Today, only the SEC is trying, for the first time, to have a definition of when a RFQ model can be defined “multilateral”. This topic has been rarely discussed before in financial regulation, while it is extensively discussed in market microstructure (but on the market structure implications, rather than its regulatory and policy implications).

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 10 January 2019

Peter Yeoh

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical 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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 27 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 7 November 2016

David Sahr, Mark Compton, Alexandria Carr, Guy Wilkes and Alexander Behrens

To explain the impact for financial services firms of the UK’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) and to assess the possible options for conducting cross-border…

Abstract

Purpose

To explain the impact for financial services firms of the UK’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) and to assess the possible options for conducting cross-border financial services between the UK and EU in the future. Key to this is the likely loss of the EU “passport” for financial services that allows a firm licensed in one EU state to offer its services freely throughout all EU states.

Design/methodology/approach

Explains the process by which the UK will leave the EU and negotiate future trading arrangements; the key considerations for financial services firms doing cross-border business in the EU; the various options for cross-border business in the future; and the key steps financial services firms should be taking to respond to the vote to leave the EU.

Findings

Many issues still remain uncertain and are unlikely to be resolved for a number of years, but long lead times to implement solutions mean that firms should be considering their options now.

Practical implications

Firms should be evaluating their current reliance on EU passports and the alternative options that might be suited to their business, such as the “quasi-passports” available under certain specific EU laws or relocation of part or all of their business.

Originality/value

Legal analysis and practical guidance concerning an unprecedented political development with profound impacts on financial services in Europe, by experts with long-term experience of EU negotiations and financial services gained from working for the British government, regulators and regulated firms.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 17 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 9 July 2018

Abstract

Details

Governance and Regulations’ Contemporary Issues
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78743-815-6

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 9 July 2018

Patrick Ring

In the context of increasing private provision of social security and welfare, alongside what is argued to be the ‘financialisation’ of daily lives, individuals in many…

Abstract

In the context of increasing private provision of social security and welfare, alongside what is argued to be the ‘financialisation’ of daily lives, individuals in many countries face an array of potentially difficult financial choices and decisions. Limitations in levels of knowledge and expertise may lead them to consider seeking financial advice. Yet, in the wake of the great financial crisis, trust in the financial services industry is low.

At the same time, in a number of countries the financial advice sector is facing its own challenges. These include regulatory issues concerning the definition, suitability and delivery of advice; the affordability of advice; and the challenges and opportunities facing the advice sector as a result of the increasing use of technology in the financial services sector.

This chapter examines the implications of these developments for the regulation and governance of financial advice in the context of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II. In particular, it considers the example of the UK and issues this raises for the implementation of recent European regulatory reforms.

Details

Governance and Regulations’ Contemporary Issues
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78743-815-6

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 20 January 2021

Charles Fergus Graham

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the European Union (EU) comprehensively restructured its derivative regulation. A key component of this new framework is a…

Abstract

Purpose

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the European Union (EU) comprehensively restructured its derivative regulation. A key component of this new framework is a reporting obligation for every derivative trade. As the reporting requirement does not involve public disclosure of the information, existing academic analysis on reporting regulations to-date, which focusses on public disclosure, is limited in predicting the effectiveness of the reform. This paper aims to assess whether the reform has been designed effectively based on the regulatory setup in the UK.

Design/methodology/approach

Framing the reporting regulation as a moral hazard problem with asymmetric information, this paper uses a game-theoretical approach to evaluate whether the new derivative reporting obligation effectively induces firm compliance. I also discuss potential extensions of the derivative reporting model, with particular emphasis on how the framework could account for heterogeneous firms and different regulatory tools.

Findings

Based on the theoretical analysis, this paper finds that while firms are unlikely to comply fully with derivative reporting requirements, it is possible to induce relatively high firm compliance. Although this does not mean we are immune from another financial crisis, the derivative reporting requirements should equip EU regulators to monitor a more transparent and secure derivatives market.

Originality/value

This paper provides a theoretical foundation for further study of post-crisis derivatives reforms. In particular, the implications of the model point to an empirical strategy to test the accuracy of the model.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 29 April 2014

Graeme Baber

– The purpose of this paper is to report and review the legislative and regulatory responses to the global financial crisis (GFC) from within the United Kingdom (UK).

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to report and review the legislative and regulatory responses to the global financial crisis (GFC) from within the United Kingdom (UK).

Design/methodology/approach

The paper observes aspects of the effect of the GFC within the UK, using economic statistics and institutional case studies. It summarises the laws that the European Union (EU) and the UK have produced in the wake of the crisis and recommends approaches to be taken from this point.

Findings

The regulators are putting in place a comprehensive, integrated framework, much of which is sensible in its content. However, this structure will be insufficient to re-establish the effective operation of the financial sector, unless firms comply with the rules and a “relationship culture” is developed.

Research limitations/implications

It is not yet clear how the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will perform and coordinate.

Originality/value

The paper presents a comprehensive review of relevant EU and UK legislation, thereby bringing readers up to date with the situation in the UK.

Details

Journal of Financial Crime, vol. 21 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1359-0790

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 10 June 2021

Ciro Troise, Diego Matricano, Elena Candelo and Mario Sorrentino

Starting from the state-of-the-art of Fintech development, this study aims to propose some research propositions comparing reward-crowdfunding (RCF) and…

Abstract

Purpose

Starting from the state-of-the-art of Fintech development, this study aims to propose some research propositions comparing reward-crowdfunding (RCF) and equity-crowdfunding (ECF). In this sense, the present research provides a comprehensive analysis of fintech development and – to conceptualize the comparison between RCF and ECF – it focuses on campaigns’ characteristics, aims and post-campaigns scenarios.

Design/methodology/approach

All the research propositions related to the comparison between RCF and ECF are rooted in dedicated literature. The methodological approach adopted in the present paper can be referred to theorizing.

Findings

This study suggests that five key elements characterize the development of fintech: regulation, infrastructure, technologies, finance and innovations. The research provides nine propositions: four related to the campaigns’ characteristics; two related to the use of crowdfunding models by entrepreneurs; and three related to the performance of crowdfunded companies.

Practical implications

By offering nine research propositions, this study is expected to foster and support the investigation of fintech development from an entrepreneurial and managerial point of view.

Originality/value

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to explore the fintech development and to propose a comparative approach between RCF and ECF. This research contributes to the current debate on fintech development as well as on the comparison between crowdfunding models.

Details

Measuring Business Excellence, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1368-3047

Keywords

1 – 10 of 22