Mark Holloway
18 January 2017 9:39am
Hi,
Is there any guidance clarifying how the MiFID II regulations apply to non-EU firms trading EU instruments and EU firms trading non-EU instruments (and other cross-border scenarios)?
There is a good article on this subject on Tabb Forum:
Dangerous Border Crossings Under MiFID II
but its over a year old. Have the regulators published anything clarifying these cross-border scenarios? Does anyone have any insight/advice/opinions?
Kind regards,
Mark
George Bollenbacher
23 February 2017 3:47pm
Hi, Mark. I’m the author of that article, and there is not a lot of new guidance on what I am calling the applicability question. I have uploaded a compendium of articles I have done on the EU regs. Happy to discuss this with anyone.
George Bollenbacher
Carl Erdly
21 April 2017 9:51am
Hello,
This is a topic my team and firm are working as well. Relating back to how we handle trade reporting for MiFID 1 (our buy-side firm self reports rather than depending on the PM exemption), in addition to the EEA executions report we transaction report all trades submitted by an EEA portfolio managers but executed on our Boston and Hong Kong desks. We will continue doing this for MiFID II, but we have some questions on what level of detail we need to provide for the non-EEA legal entity and trader personal info.
In short - relating back to MiFID 1 - the Counterparty 1 value for all trades executed by Boston or Hong Kong is the BIC value for that specific office. We do not need to “look through” beyond one step up the chain to the street counterparty that our Boston / Hong Kong entity traded with. For MiFID II, however, as you know we are required to provide more detailed information including PII data for the person executing the trade. My question is - do we need to “look through” to that level of detail or can we just report the Boston/Hong Kong office LEI similarly to how we only include the BIC value currently?
George, if you are still following this discussion, it would be great to get your inputs on this. And of course if anyone else out there is grappling with the same (in a scenario where you have trades to report that were executed by NON-MIFID legal entities with trading agreements in place with your MiFID entities, it would be great to get your understanding on this.
Thanks!
Carl
George Bollenbacher
21 April 2017 3:34pm
Hi, Carl. I am assuming that you are referring to trades SSGA does for its clients. In that case, for MiFID II purposes, the party to the trade (“account holder” in MiFIDspeak) is your client, not SSGA, while the decisionmaker and trader would be individuals at SSGA, not the client. If SSGA were acting as principal, then it would be the account holder. I would assume that MiFID II wants the actual decisionmaker and trader that originated and handled the trade, not a branch that the trade was passed through. I’m not sure if I understand the question completely; if not, please send me a private email (george.bollenbacher@capital-markets-advisors.com).
Regards,
George