Updated Opinions on Position Limits Under MiFID II Published by ESMA

On February 7th, ESMA published seven opinions on position limits regarding commodity derivatives under MiFID II/MiFIR. 

The opinions published by ESMA agree with a number of proposed position limits regarding: 

  • ICE Endex Dutch TTF Gas contracts
  • EEX Phelix DE Base Power contracts
  • EEX Capesize TC5 Freight contracts
  • EEX Spanish Power Base contracts
  • MEFFPOWER  Baseload contracts

According to a press release issued by ESMA, these proposed position limits are ‘consistent with the objectives established in MiFID II and with the methodology developed for setting those limits’. 

As well as these five opinions, ESMA has published two opinions on the proposed position limits regarding the OMIP SPEL Base contracts. 

The first of these opinions relates to the position limits initially notified by Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários (CMVM ) which ESMA did not find consistent with the objectives established in MiFID II. In instances such as these, Article 57(5) of MiFID II states that the relevant NCA (National Competent Authority) must modify the position limits in accordance with ESMA’s opinions. If the NCA considers this alteration unnecessary, they must provide ESMA with justification.

ESMA has stated that, going forward, it will ‘continue to assess the notifications received and issue opinions in order to ensure that the position limits are set in accordance with the MiFID II framework’.

CHECK OUT OUR SOLUTIONS

Best execution, market abuse and regulatory reporting solutions for financial services, and workflow management for any type of business. All powered by our PATH platform.

Quality Control: Is Sampling Effective in Transaction Reporting?

Quality Control: Is Sampling Effective in Transaction Reporting?Ben Parker, CEO and FounderlinkedintwitterFinancial firms face a complex web of regulatory requirements – with transaction reporting undoubtedly taking the crown as one of the most challenging. Firms need...

Regulatory Responses to Algorithmic Trading

Recent events have pushed algorithmic trading to the front of the financial regulatory agenda. We consider what this might mean for automated trading.

David vs. Goliath or Market Abuse? The Regulatory Challenge Posed by GameStop

David vs. Goliath or Market Abuse? - The Regulatory Challenge Posed by GameStopBen Parker, CEO and FounderlinkedintwitterA New Regulatory Challenge Global financial regulators are eyeing up new controls on market manipulation following the widely reported GameStop...

UK, MAR and Market Abuse After Brexit – The New Regime Explained

The UK, MAR and Market Abuse After Brexit - The New Regime ExplainedDouglas Moffat, New Business ExecutivelinkedintwitterMAR and Market Abuse After Brexit Market abuse is a serious concern for financial regulators. It’s why the European Union sought to further codify...

Technology, Compliance & COVID: The 2021 Thomson Reuters Regulatory Report

Technology, Compliance & COVID 19: Unwrapping Thompson Reuters’ 2021 Report on FinTech, RegTech and the Role of Compliance Ben Parker, Director and Founder linkedintwitterAn increased reliance on technology, continued investment in compliance, and predictably...

Get In Touch

[contact-form-7 id="26302" title="AMP Form 2"]
MENU