hatstand snaphot - extraterritorial reach of the mifid review

Extraterritorial Reach of the MiFID Review Snapshot

2 Extraterritorial Reach of the MiFID Review Snapshot

Disclaimer We try to ensure that the information in this document is correct at the time of going to press, but we do not give any express or implied warranty as to its accuracy. We do not accept any liability for error or omission. We are not liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of this document, or from any action or decision taken as a result of using this document. Any opinions or suggestions contained in this document are for discussion purposes only and do not constitute financial, legal or other professional advice. You should consult your professional adviser if you require financial or legal advice.

The content of this briefing paper represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the Hatstand corporate view. We encourage our readers to seek legal advice before taking any action based on the contents of this document.

Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................3

2 Data ...........................................................................................................................................................................4

3 Relationship between Entities .............................................................................................5

4 Product Governance and Unbundling ......................................................................7

5 How Hatstand can help .................................................................................................................8

Extraterritorial Reach of the MiFID Review Snapshot 3

Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................3

2 Data ...........................................................................................................................................................................4

3 Relationship between Entities .............................................................................................5

4 Product Governance and Unbundling ......................................................................7

5 How Hatstand can help .................................................................................................................8

1 Introduction

Disclaimer: At the time of writing this paper (early February 2016) MiFID II/MiFIR is still not cast in stone. The start date has not been confirmed. This paper is based on the most recent documentation published by ESMA and the European Commission, not the latest rumour. Things may change and once they do, this paper will be updated.

Investment banking is a global business. Most regulators however, have a tendency to look at things in isolation. It is as if the borders of a jurisdiction are brick walls that rival the Great Wall of China for thickness rather than electronic firewalls or less.

As a consequence, legal entities based outside the MiFID jurisdiction will be affected by some regulatory aspects if they have a business relationship with a legal entity based inside this jurisdiction. Moreover, although some regulations may not be mandatory, it may be advisable for a ‘foreign’ legal entity to comply with them for the sake of the business relationship with a stakeholder based within the jurisdiction and to protect itself.

This snapshot gives an overview of the impact of MiFID II/MiFIR on clients and legal entities based outside the Single Market for Financial Services (EU plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Andorra). It is divided into three areas: data, relationships between entities (an investment firm as defined by MiFID1 , a trading venue and a client) as described in Figure 1 below when one or more of those entities are based outside the MiFID Area and issues around inducements, unbundling and product governance.

Figure 1 describes the information flows if all the participants are in the same jurisdiction. This paper aims to provide an overview of what happens when they are not.

Figure 1 - Reporting and Information Flows


2 Data

One of the greatest challenges posed by MiFID II/MiFIR is having the right data in the right place at the right time. There are instances where the ‘right data’ may come from a source outside of the MiFID Area, a ‘source’ that may have no direct relationship with the entity based in the MiFID Area.

For instance:

� Transaction reporting requires the person/entity responsible for the investment decision to be identified.

� The investment decision may have been taken outside the jurisdiction (e.g. a US company instructing a broker-dealer who then passes the order on to their European office).

In this case, the identification of the entity responsible for the investment decision must be communicated to the European broker even though the business relationship is with the US head office and not with the European subsidiary. Following this example, the US Company that instructs a broker/dealer in the US may have to identify the person responsible for the investment decision in accordance with the Regulatory Technical Standard 22 of MiFID II/MiFIR. This applies even if the American client has nothing to do with the investment firm based in the MiFID area.


3 Relationship Between Entities

Figure 1 demonstrates the reporting and information flows irrespective of jurisdiction as described in MiFID II/MiFIR. This section looks at what happens when there are jurisdiction boundaries between entities. The issues described include both “exported compliance”, when a ‘foreign’ legal entity is subject to a MIFID II/MiFIR rule, and “courtesy compliance” when, in theory, they do not have to do it but it either helps a client to meet their regulatory obligation or may possibly protect them from future problems e.g. fines or lawsuits.

3.1 Investment Firm outside the MiFID Area trading on an Execution Venue inside the MiFID Area

The execution venue will have to keep a record of the order and so will require the investment firm to provide the correct data-set for that order regardless.

� The execution venue must report the transaction, providing the correct data-set to its authority when nobody else does. This may require an extended set of data-items to be sent to the execution venue when the order is being transmitted.

� The non-MiFID investment firm will have to provide more data to the execution venue to enable it to meet their its obligations.

� The investment firm will receive the Venue Execution Quality report quarterly as part of the venue’s obligations.


3.2 Investment Firm outside the MiFID Area with Clients resident inside the MiFID Area

It is our understanding that if a client based in the MiFID Area has signed a discretionary mandate in the jurisdiction2 of the investment firm then there is no obligation to provide Best Execution according to MiFID II/MiFIR rules.

� If the client is based in a jurisdiction where the investment firm has a cross-border licence, the client is entitled to Best Execution. In practice this means that:

• the investment firm will have to keep records of the transactions executed on behalf of the client and their environment;

• the investment firm will have to show evidence that they consider more than one trading venue to execute the orders received by clients;

• the client is owed an Execution Quality Report annually. This report requires information from the execution venue. If the execution venue is based inside the MiFID Area, the investment firm will receive them quarterly. If not, an arrangement needs to be put in place to ensure that the information required to compile their annual Execution Quality Report is provided.

� If the client is based in a jurisdiction where the investment firm has no cross-border licence, the client is still entitled to Best Execution and therefore the issues raised above still apply but the investment firm will have to limit its business relationship with the client to the services that the client has proactively sought. Anything else must be provided by a branch or subsidiary based in the Area.

3.3 Execution Venue outside the MiFID Area executing orders forwarded by an Investment Firm inside the MiFID Area

An investment firm in the MiFID Area needs the information received in the quarterly Execution Quality Report from an execution venue to show their client that their decision to use a specific trading venue provided the best possible environment for executing that specific client order. The Best Execution policy of an investment firm will be communicated to its clients on onboarding and verified by an annual report also called an Execution Quality Report. A firm’s report can only be compiled if an execution venue provides the relevant information required in their quarterly report to the investment firm.

This is a case of ‘courtesy compliance’. There is no obligation for an execution venue to prepare an Execution Quality Report. Without one, those of its members who are based in the MiFID Area will not be able to fulfil their obligations.


4 Product Governance and Unbundling

4.1 Product Governance

An investment firm that creates an investment product will have an obligation to assess all the risks associated with that product, define a profile of investors for whom the product will be suitable, define the relevant guidelines for selling it, produce documentation for the potential investor to clarify all the risks, and train its own advisors and distribution network in all aspects. Investment firms also have to have monitoring processes in place to ensure that the guidelines are met and that the documentation is distributed appropriately. Failing to meet these requirements make firms liable for fines associated with product mis-selling.

If the product is originated by a firm outside the MiFID Area and it is pro-actively sold in the MiFID Area, the originating firm will need either a branch/subsidiary or a lead distributor in the Area who will take responsibility for meeting the product governance guidelines.

4.2 Research Unbundling and Inducements

The MiFID II/MiFIR rules concerning the provision of research will be detailed in the Delegated Acts expected at the end of February 2016. The basic principle is that the cost of research has to be specifically paid for and not ‘bundled’ with commissions, transaction fees or other service fees. A client can decline to pay for research and therefore not receive it.

MiFID II/MiFIR Level 1 contemplate two possible arrangements:

1. Commission Sharing Agreement – Where research is a percentage of the Commission Fee, a budget for research has to be agreed annually and the total cost of research capped. If research is 25% of commission fees and there is an annual budget of 5,000, once commissions have reached a total value of 20,000 it will not be possible to charge the 25% for any more research that year.

2. Research Supply Arrangement – Where research is the subject of a separate contractual relationship, it should be charged for accordingly.

Irrespective of the arrangements that will be included in the Delegated Acts, this will have global consequences. Will providers of research have different rules for the EU/EEA? How will that impact local rules (e.g. the US )? Unfortunately, it will be impossible to answer these questions until there is a stable version of the Delegated Acts. Future updates of this paper will provide the details as they become available.


5 How Hatstand can help

Hatstand’s approach to Regulatory Change Management consists of three stages:

The Regulatory Management Office (RMO) provides a comprehensive review of all the new regulations affecting our clients. We take a step back and look at all your regulation related obligations and their relevant timelines. We then consider your current business and its strategy for the future. We may suggest changes to that strategy depending on any new factors introduced by the regulation(s) considered.

Once we have completed the analysis we define the change and implementation strategy following the steps broadly described above.

We implement the strategy or support you in its implementation in any way you require. We can cover the whole programme, support your existing team in specific areas or just run the Project Management Office on your behalf.


Endnotes

1 This definition includes an investment bank, an asset management and fund management company, a private bank and a retail bank.

2 The reader may want to seek legal advice before acting on this statement.


How to Contact UsLONDON [email protected] +44 20 7423 5660

NEW YORK [email protected] +1 212 918 4568

HONG KONG [email protected] +852 3793 6456

SINGAPORE [email protected] +65 6632 3740

GENEVA [email protected] +41 225 803 392

DUBAI [email protected] +971 4279 0720

SYDNEY [email protected] +61 2 8249 1863

About Hatstand

We are a software enabling solutions provider focusing on:

• Trading Systems and Connectivity,

• Data Management

• Regulation and Risk

We work closely with our clients to deliver flexible, bespoke products and solutions that address the diverse challenges of the financial technology environment. Our international reach allows us to successfully execute projects and managed services across the globe, with offices in London, Geneva, Dubai, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore and Sydney.

Author: Silvano Stagni - Global Head of Research

© Copyright 2016 by Hatstand Ltd or a Hatstand affiliate/subsidiary company. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission.

www.hatstand.com

hatstand snaphot - extraterritorial reach of the mifid review

Documents