Last week’s MiFID reunion meeting involved both a handy roundup of all the MiFID related proposals coming down the pipe (although it was a speedy roundup, given the number of items to cover) and an opportunity for industry participants to do what they seem to like best of late: vent about regulatory grievances. In the firing line were: the ISO process (too slow), the idea of “bastardising” the Bank Identifier Code (BIC) for entity identification (too unwieldy) and the regulators themselves (industry hedgehog versus regulatory steamroller), among others.
The market fragmentation that has been a major by-product of the introduction of MiFID has resulted in a number of serious data related issues in the OTC space in particular, said Tom Davin, managing director of the Washington-based Financial Information Services Division (FISD) of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), at the recent MiFID JWG reunion meeting. Regulators are therefore tackling the post-trade space by attempting to introduce a new focus on data quality and timeliness, but the current set of proposed data standards for instrument identification may not be sufficient, suggested Davin.
As previously noted by A-Team Insight (see 
Firms need to keep a close eye on what is shaping up to be MiFID II, under the auspices of the Committee of European Securities Regulators’ (CESR) consultation on post-trade transparency (see our recent coverage 
A-Team Insight Exchange is a new event series for 2010, which will combine A-Team’s expertise in financial markets IT with thought leadership from world-class technology innovators and practical experience from financial market practitioners.
Following the publication of the Committee of European Securities Regulators’ (CESR) consultation papers on MiFID earlier this year (see our coverage of the non-equity transparency paper here), industry groups have submitted their responses to the proposals, including providing feedback on the potential data costs and system requirements to cope with the changes. To this end, the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) and Xtrakter Transaction Reporting Working Group is one such group that has raised the issue of the “large start up costs and ongoing maintenance costs” of collecting client identifiers.
Loading ...
(more…)