Search results

1 – 10 of 29
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

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

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 definition of…

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).

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. The…

1531

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

Book part
Publication date: 24 August 2021

Athanasios Panagopoulos

This chapter aims the research whether the application of European Directive, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), had any significant effects on the European…

Abstract

This chapter aims the research whether the application of European Directive, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), had any significant effects on the European Capital Markets and the progress of the European Integration. This new regulation specifies the tasks and responsibilities of the supervisory authorities of the Member State of origin and the host Member State, in order to enhance the certainty of effectiveness of cross-border transactions supervision and to reduce the risk of imposing unnecessary legal reforms from the host Member State on investment firms which perform cross-border transactions. It has been concluded, among others, that the aligning of the national regulatory approaches to a common European regulatory system is quite necessary. It is finally concluded that MiFID will contribute to reduce problems at country level as the previous experience of the Investment Services Directive, where the European investments and economies of Member States were based mainly on the level of ‘country’ and not of the ‘sector’. An effective capital entrepreneurship market is a strategically important element in the development of new and innovative businesses, encouraging entrepreneurship, increasing the productivity and maintaining high economic growth rates in Europe. Currently, European venture capital market is much less effective than that of the US market, for example. Therefore, in this area, should be specified the priorities that will lead to new initiatives.

Details

Entrepreneurship, Institutional Framework and Support Mechanisms in the EU
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83909-982-3

Keywords

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 financial…

2557

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

Content available
Book part
Publication date: 9 July 2018

Abstract

Details

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

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 countries…

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

Article
Publication date: 8 August 2022

Alexander Conrad Culley

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of two regulatory initiatives in developing awareness of conduct risk associated with algorithmic and direct-electronic…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of two regulatory initiatives in developing awareness of conduct risk associated with algorithmic and direct-electronic access (DEA) trading at broker-dealers: the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s algorithmic trading compliance in the wholesale markets and Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/589 (CDR 589) to the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative examination of 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives of London Metal Exchange member firms, their clients and regulators.

Findings

This paper finds that the key conduct related messages in algorithmic trading compliance in the wholesale markets may not yet be fully embedded at broker–dealers. This is because of a perceived simplicity of the algorithms deployed by broker dealers or, alternatively, a lack of reflection on their impact. Conversely, a concern exists that clients’ deployment of algorithms on DEA channels provided by broker–dealers increase conduct risk. However, the threat of harm posed by clients is not envisaged in current definitions of conduct risk. Accordingly, CDR 2017/589 does not currently require firms to evaluate clients’ awareness of it.

Research limitations/implications

This study’s findings are limited to the insights provided by 15 participants.

Originality/value

This paper contributes to existing research by deepening understanding of conduct risk arising from algorithmic trading and DEA. To account for the potential harm arising from clients’ activities, this paper proposes a revision to Miles’s definition of conduct risk. This is complemented by a proposed amendment to CDR 2017/589 to require evaluation of clients’ understanding of conduct risk.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 31 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Keywords

Content available
Book part
Publication date: 24 August 2021

Abstract

Details

Entrepreneurship, Institutional Framework and Support Mechanisms in the EU
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83909-982-3

1 – 10 of 29