Following on from the MAR report in my last blog comes one on a consultation from ESMA concerning the Organised Trading Facility (OTF) Regime. The accompanying paper provides an overview of the functioning of the OTF regime. It discusses the definition of OTF’s, the use of discretion in the execution of orders and the practice concerning the use of matched principal trading.
As we approach Halloween market abuse has come back to haunt the FX market. Our Advent Blog last year covered the ESMA Consultation Paper on the provisions of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and highlighted the fact that spot FX is not covered by MAR.
While reviewing our recent White Paper “Captive Insurers - The Risks and Opportunities in a Hardening Covid-19 Market”, I was struck by the dilemma that companies face. Even without the unprecedented challenges to the market in 2020, corporate risk managers may feel that there is little they can do to rescue themselves from coverage risks and rising costs. Does technology offer a new way to handle these problems?
For some time in the UK the regulators and authorities have tried to introduce true competition to the traditional banks. Much debate has occurred as to the rights and wrongs of allowing a new grouping of Challengers, Neos and FinTech enter the banking market with a lighter regulatory touch to the incumbents.
Given the longstanding focus on the familiar, well-used trading benchmarks and indices currently in use but due to be retired or changed, it’s quite normal to feel that you don't know your SARON from your €STR!
I have been catching up on some light reading in the glorious English sunshine. One report in particular caught my eye; the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures released a paper in July
The regulation for Uncleared Margin Rules (UMR) was set in motion at the 2009 G20 meeting following the global financial crisis.
A triumvirate of the Working Group on Risk-Free Reference Rates (RFRWG), the FCA and the Bank of England published joint statements in March and April (see my previous blog LIBOR Wars) reiterating that firms must move away from referencing LIBOR and reduce the stock of legacy LIBOR contracts.
The effect of the pandemic has been a mixed bag for many involved in our markets. The increase in volatility has seen a boost to trading activities and RegTech has been busy innovating to help overcome the compliance issues of remote working. With banks splitting personnel between the office, disaster recovery sites and working from home, issues have arisen that will spur technological development and system renewals.
Regulations are having a profound effect on the trading landscape alongside a proliferation of Codes of Conduct. In the UK, there are three codes replacing the former NIPS code covering FX, Money Markets and Precious Metals.
We have been seeing a lot of discussion and interest concerning a blog I penned in March last year under the title of “Beware the Ides of March - A Drama of FX Swaps Reporting”.
This March, we had a Consultation from ESMA, nattily entitled, “MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for non-equity instruments and the trading obligation for derivatives”, which may equally be causing this issue to be re-visited.
In my last blog, looking at the rise of the challengers to the traditional banking industry, I stated “these ‘lightweight’ contestants in the banking market have harnessed new technologies and processes to deliver a better customer experience.” The blog elicited a comment from Kevin Gillespie when posted on LinkedIn – “You missed the entrance of mobile phone companies in payments ... mPesa in Kenya is 45% owned by Vodafone and operates payments in Romania on the same platform ... the new competitors may not even bother to get in the ring and still win the fight as they invent new ways of exchanging value”.