The Transatlantic Influence of MiFID II

While MiFID II may have been implemented and enforced solely within the EU, its effects are starting to extend beyond European borders.

A recent report published by the TABB Group, entitled ‘US Institutional Trading 2018: Adapting to New Reality’, has shown that 87% of American asset management firms either expect to be or currently are impacted by MiFID II’s regulatory framework despite not being legally obliged to comply. This belief is shared both by firms with European exposure, and by smaller, regional firms with no international presence whatsoever.

American firms are implementing a number of different procedures and practices so as to better comply with MiFID II. For one, a much greater emphasis is being placed on automation and algorithmic trading. A central tenet of MiFID II is achieving best execution. This pressure to achieve best execution is largely responsible for the push towards algorithmic trading; algorithmic trading is easier to analyse quantitatively, free from the possibility of human error, and perhaps most importantly, lower cost.

Reducing the cost of trading is vital owing to the fact that MiFID II has also resulted in the unbundling of research from execution fees. With research now being priced and sold individually, an increased degree of scrutiny is being placed on the value of said research. This has resulted in a total overhaul of the established research model, with the buy side cutting over 31% of their research providers in 2017. With this in mind, the funds freed up by adopting algorithmic trading allows better and more selective allocation of funds for research purposes.

The push towards automated, algorithmic trading also makes sense with regards to MiFID II’s insistence on transparency. By automating trading, firms are able to make their trading strategies more easily quantifiable, and are thus able to be more transparent about their trading procedures.

Considering how widespread these changes are, it is worth questioning why American firms are adopting MiFID II’s regulatory framework. There is no legal obligation on the part of these firms, and in many cases these alterations are proving difficult to implement. Why, then, would so many firms actively decide to comply with these regulations?

While there is no legal obligation on the part of US firms to adhere to MiFID II, there are competitive pressures which encourage them to do so. MiFID II’s insistence on transparency, best execution, and detailed transaction reporting are extremely appealing prospects for both potential clients and potential investors. As MiFID II continues to become increasingly ubiquitous, investors are becoming increasingly insistent that American firms adhere to its guidelines. It seems that in order to succeed, American asset managers may be forced into complying with MiFID II so as to make themselves more attractive to potential investors.

This compliance has not come without difficulty, however. Indeed, only 27% of firms who took part in the TABB Group survey believed that they would see any benefits occur directly as a result of MiFID II. Dayle Scher, the author of the TABB Group survey, writes that ‘it’s hard to convey the anxiety that traders are feeling relative to MiFID […] They are really sitting on tenterhooks waiting to see the impact’.

Regardless, it seems undeniable to state that MiFID II is having a genuine, tangible, transatlantic influence and is fundamentally altering the way American asset management firms conduct their business. How positive this change will be, and how well these firms will cope, as of yet remains to be seen.

Market Abuse, Insider Trading and the European Energy Market

Europe's Energy Regulators Tackle Market Abuse and Insider Trading In an attempt to increase investor protection and promote market integrity, a number of European energy regulators have joined together to tackle market abuse and insider trading in the European...

MiFID II Inducements: How Should You Handle Them?

Inducements Under MiFID II MiFID, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, is a fundamental part of the financial law in the European Union. It sets out standards for investment services and activities across the EU, although its influence stretches beyond...

Trade Reporting vs Transaction Reporting: What’s the Difference?

Trade Reporting and Transaction Reporting Under MiFID II In January of 2018, the updated framework of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) was rolled out, marking one of the biggest overhauls to Europe’s financial industry in decades. The new...

Financial Times UK Warns Financial Advisors of Fake Bitcoin Email Campaign

Fake Bitcoin Email Campaign Imitates FCA Branding Con artists will try anything to make their schemes appear legitimate to unwitting victims. In a recent email doing the rounds to financial advisors, scammers have been impersonating the UK‘s Financial Conduct...

The Impact of Poor Quality Data on Best Execution Reporting

Bad Data is Stopping Correct Best Ex Analysis The buy-side is growing increasingly frustrated with low-quality, non-uniform data provided by the sell-side. With RTS 27 and RTS 28 in effect, this poor data is making it harder for the buy-side to comply with MiFID’s...

Contact Info

Sales Enquiries

+44 (0) 207 101 4493
sales@eflowglobal.com

Service Support

+44 (0)117 373 6251
support@eflowglobal.com



Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2019 eflow Ltd.

Get in touch
Call us: +44 (0) 207 101 4493
Email: sales@eflowglobal.com