Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of UK investment firms’ implementation of the requirements in Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/589 (more commonly known as “Regulatory Technical Standard 6” or “RTS 6”) that govern the conduct of algorithmic trading activities.

A qualitative examination of 19 semi-structured interviews with practitioners working for, or with, UK investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading activities.

The paper finds that practitioners generally have a good understanding of the requirements in RTS 6. Some lack knowledge of algorithms, coding and algorithmic strategies but have used best efforts to implement RTS 6. However, regulatory fatigue, complacency, cost pressures, governance in international groups, overreliance on external knowledge and generous risk parameter calibration threaten to undermine these efforts.

The study’s findings are limited to the participants’ insights. Some areas of the RTS 6 regime attracted little comment from participants.

The paper proposes the introduction of mandatory algorithmic trading qualification requirements for key staff; the lessening of the requirements in RTS 6 for automated executors; and the introduction of a recognised software vendor regime to reduce duplication and improve coordination between market participants that deploy algorithmic trading systems.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the study represents the first qualitative examination of firms’ implementation of the algorithmic trading regime in the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/EU.

This paper aims to conceptualize and empirically illustrate the challenges that financial market regulation presents to politicians and the organization tasked with specifying regulations and supervising their implementation in the interest of users and consumers of financial instruments. It analyses the problem from the viewpoint of the governor's dilemma and the control/competence conflict, the linked problem of the rent-seeking of agents/intermediators and consumers of financial instruments. Political accountability problems are enhanced by the materiality of the technologies used, i.e. algo trading.

The paper theoretically conceptualizes and empirically illustrates the argument.

The paper finds that regulators of digitalized financial markets are faced with considerable problems and depend on private agents when regulating financial transactions. However, the new technological instruments also offer new possibilities for securing compliance.

Further research should focus more in-depth on the cooperation between public and private actors in the specification and implementation of regulatory details. It should further investigate the conditions which allow regulators to use RegTech in the surveillance of financial firms.

Since financial market transactions are opaque for most users, the creation of more transparency is crucial to hold regulators accountable in their activity of surveillance of financial firms. New algorithm-based technologies may lend important support in doing so.

By linking the different analytical perspectives, i.e. the governor's dilemma vis-à-vis the intermediator or agent and the possible rent-seeking of intermediators, under the condition of a highly developed technology of financial transactions as well as the market structure, the paper offers new insights into the limits as well as new opportunities of regulating financial markets allowing for political accountability of regulators and financial firms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.