HM Treasury’s Brexit surprise
Statutory instruments throw up unwieldy divergence in Mifid II and Emir rules
Brexit has been the political thriller of the year, promising frequent and dramatic plot twists at almost every turn. Now, one of the chapters meant to be the least controversial – the part where HM Treasury copies and pastes all European law into UK law – is throwing up nasty surprises for bankers.
Since August 2018, HM Treasury has been publishing a series of draft statutory instruments converting EU regulations into UK law. The task should be straightforward – effectively a copy-and-paste of EU rules and a find-and-replace of references to the EU and powers bestowed upon European regulatory agencies. Nothing else is supposed to change.
In practice, those apparently minor tweaks could have extreme consequences for the way the law will work post-Brexit.
For example, October’s publication of statutory instruments implementing the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation – sister to the Directive, known as Mifid II – casts doubt over when trades are relieved from transparency requirements.
Mifir requires firms to publicly disclose trades executed on trading venues as well as those transacted with systematic internalisers and investment firms off-venue. Lists governing which instruments must be reported when traded off-venue and when trades are deemed illiquid or large enough to be granted deferrals and waivers from public disclosure, are set to significantly alter under the statutory instrument.
Under the new regime, UK lists would be generated without data from EU venues, while EU lists would exclude data from UK venues. The result is that UK and EU lists could be set to diverge – perhaps dramatically.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has powers to throw the calculation process out of the window and simply align the UK’s transparency regime with the EU’s. But market participants fear perfect alignment will be impossible unless the FCA’s counterpart in the EU – the European Securities and Markets Authority – is given equivalent powers.
A second statutory instrument implementing the European Market Infrastructure Regulation also threatens to throw up operational problems for UK pension funds.
Due to the lapse of an exemption from the EU’s clearing obligation and with negotiations between EU lawmakers to renew the exemption still ongoing, HM Treasury decided not to renew the exemption until revisions have been approved by EU lawmakers.
Those negotiations, however, have stalled, meaning UK pension funds could be required to start clearing swaps subject to the clearing mandate when trading with EU counterparties. The problem would also occur in the opposite situation – if an EU pension fund trades with a UK bank.
The implication for banks is that they’ll have to set up implementation projects to align with the new UK regime.
“Brexit does not just mean we have to think only about setting up new entities in the EU. We also need to be mindful of the way it is impacting the home entity as well,” says a market structure expert at a UK investment bank.
With no-deal still on the table and Brexit less than four months away, it will be almost impossible for banks and pension funds to implement new systems in time to meet the new requirements.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Fed’s new liquidity rule spells more pain for regional banks
Limit on HTM assets follows move to deduct unrealised losses from capital buffers
Ruled out: can regulators settle the pre-hedging debate?
Market participants are at odds over the practice and whether regulation or principles can settle the score
SEC streamlines overhaul of stock trading rules
Tick size and access fee rules simplified from first draft, but Peirce still questions rationale
Supervisors use generative AI to tame ‘chaotic’ data
Officials merge credit databases with unstructured reports to sharpen bank oversight, explains Banco de España ex-deputy
EU banks fear loss of NSFR repo relief
European Commission must decide by next June; other jurisdictions adopted softer calibration
Running the numbers on Barr’s Basel III endgame revisions
Fed vice-chair’s plan to ease capital requirements for big banks still lacks critical details
Endgame manoeuvre: US banks put SLR reform back in spotlight
Plan to ease Basel III brings renewed focus to impact of leverage ratio on US Treasury market
Regulators want to fix AT1s. Investors want restraint
Tweaking the instrument that regulators love to hate may be the only way to prevent its abolition