Mifid

Uhm grazie dei link mi stavo leggendo la kilometrica 93/22 CEE, ma ho anche un pò di lavoro a cui badare :)

Leggo dopo con calma
 
Forse su Officine Giuridiche ho postato qualcosa in passato se metti nel motore...
 
A prima vista direi che farà aumentare i costi di gestione del servizio intermediazione titoli per maggiori oneri a carico delle banche, le quali lo riverseranno probabilmente sul cliente finale.
Rimane il dubbio che il costo di un eseguito a 40€ (ipotesi) falcidierebbe il numero di quelli che fanno trading, ma a quel punto le banche ci perdono sia in clienti che in guadagni commissionali. Alternativa ? sella o chi per essa abbandona il trading, quindi utili minori dalle commissioni.

Magari sbaglio, ma in quest'ottica mi sembra di vedere la ricerca del ritorno del cliente scappato dalla gestione fondi (ahiaaa.....) costringendolo a passare obbligatoriamente per l'uff. titoli e il "consulente autorizzato".
Norme di tutela che rischiano di diventare norme di favore ai soliti noti ?

:mmmm:
 
non lo vedrei come l'ennesimo tentativo di fregare il prossimo. Anzi come principio aiuta il prossimo perche' ad esempio la banca dovra' dimostrarti che ha eseguito un tuo ordine al meglio in quel momento. Azioni quotate su piu' mercati non potranno piu' essere chiusi solo su mercati scelti dalla banca ma su mercati aperti: ovunque appaia il prezzo migliore. E la banca deve dimostrarlo... Le comunicazioni vanno fatte alla Commissione, per alcuni prodoti, entro 3 minuti dalla conclusione del deal.

I costi aumenteranno ma solo per via della parte di implementazioni della direttiva non certo perchè le banceh devono fregare. In fondo sono proprio i piccoli investitori che aiutano le banche a fare soldi, quelli che non chiedono sconti e co,prano al meglio...

Il problema è un altro. non so onestamente se esporlo perchè ho un problema di confidenzialità da rispettare e non so mai se in questi forum ci sono amici degli amici, ma diciamo solo che le Banche potrebbero aiutare i propri clienti ad uscire da questo ingranaggio con la scusa del minor costo ma riducendo le garanzie. E purtroppo, tanti accetterebbero.

La domanda da porsi è: sono disponibile a pagare di piu' per la trasparenza e la protezione? Sareste disposti a pagare piu' tasse per una garanzia di incolumità ad uscire di notte?

Ecco...
 
luigir ha scritto:
La domanda da porsi è: sono disponibile a pagare di piu' per la trasparenza e la protezione? Sareste disposti a pagare piu' tasse per una garanzia di incolumità ad uscire di notte?

Ecco...

Dipende ;)

se la protezione costa una cifra che le mie finanze non mi permettono evito di uscire la sera e rimango in casa a guardare la tv. Però conviene ai bar e altri locali che la maggior parte dei poveracci come me non vadano più a spendere 5€ di una birra ?

Dalla banca al pub è solo un parallelismo, se i costi salgono troppo le aziende possono dimenticare una grossa (penso) fetta di denaro reperito sul mkt e devono ricorrere alle banche con costi maggiori.
 
skymap ha scritto:
Dipende ;)

se la protezione costa una cifra che le mie finanze non mi permettono evito di uscire la sera e rimango in casa a guardare la tv. Però conviene ai bar e altri locali che la maggior parte dei poveracci come me non vadano più a spendere 5€ di una birra ?

Dalla banca al pub è solo un parallelismo, se i costi salgono troppo le aziende possono dimenticare una grossa (penso) fetta di denaro reperito sul mkt e devono ricorrere alle banche con costi maggiori.

esempio calzante. Ma mi chiedo, se poi fai causa al pub perchè ti hano picchiato li fuori? gli conviene ancora al publican? E se le batoste portano a costi economici e sociali, conviene allo Stato stesso che tu vada a spendere i 5 euro per una birra?
 
luigir ha scritto:
esempio calzante. Ma mi chiedo, se poi fai causa al pub perchè ti hano picchiato li fuori? gli conviene ancora al publican? E se le batoste portano a costi economici e sociali, conviene allo Stato stesso che tu vada a spendere i 5 euro per una birra?

Vero, però in questo modo si entra in un circolo vizioso dove non si fa più nulla perchè ad ogni azione può risponderne una peggiore in una ottica di contenimento dei rischi esagerata.

Forse è meglio tornare alla sana civiltà contadina, tutta lavoro e salute.

:)
 
skymap ha scritto:
Vero, però in questo modo si entra in un circolo vizioso dove non si fa più nulla perchè ad ogni azione può risponderne una peggiore in una ottica di contenimento dei rischi esagerata.

Forse è meglio tornare alla sana civiltà contadina, tutta lavoro e salute.

:)

Ma non è poi vero. In fondo, come ho già detto prima ci sono centinaia di prodotti di cui le masse non sanno neanche l'esistenza... Si puo' vivere bene lo stesso... ;)
 
How to Prepare for MiFID
Ian Jack, COLT - Mark O'Conor, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary - 23 May 2006

MiFID will apply equally to all firms dealing in the securities markets but it will not impact all organisations in the same way. This article provides practical guidance on dealing with the requirements of MiFID.

MiFID is being cited as the largest shakeup of the financial markets to date and represents a significant overhaul of 1993's Investment Services Directive (ISD). It aims to create a single market in financial services across Europe by increasing the number of services that can be 'passported' and provided in markets around the Community. According to the UK-based Financial Services Authority's (FSA) 'Planning for MiFID'1 document, it will affect all firms currently covered by the ISD, including investment banks, portfolio managers, stockbrokers and broker dealers, corporate finance firms, futures and options firms and commodities firms. Crucially, the FSA also plans to review its Handbook to accommodate the requirements of MiFID and warns that 'even if your firm's investment business is partly or wholly outside the scope of MiFID, this does not mean that you will be unaffected by our approach to its implementation'.

In practical terms, what does MiFID mean for you? In truth, it is too early to provide concrete advice on this subject as the final rules for implementing MiFID will not be published until January 2007 (although, given that the dates for compliance have already been pushed back to 1 November 2007, it would be no surprise if this deadline slips even further). The broad scope of the legislation, however, is clear and, given the sweeping changes that it ushers in, now is the time to start planning for it.

Different types of financial institutions are in different states of preparedness and, given that (at best) firms are still in the early planning stages, we have segmented the MiFID community into four distinct groups:

1. Tier 1 - investment banks and exchanges.
2. Tier 2/3 - investment banks, smaller exchanges and inter-dealer brokers.
3. The buy side.
4. Companies outside the scope of the ISD but who are affected by MiFID.

Status of MiFID

MiFID was passed at the EU level under the Lamfalussy process, the process for regulation of financial services in the EU since 2001. MiFID is a framework directive which means that the main provisions (the Level 1 measures) have already been published and will be followed by Level 2 measures to detail the legislation. On 6 February 2006, the Level 2 measures were published by the European Commission. These measures consist of a regulation and a directive: the former details the requirements for transparency, and the various reporting and record keeping obligations; the latter covers organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms.

The process is now for the European Parliament to review the drafts over a three-month period and to express an opinion. Provided they survive this scrutiny, the European Securites Committee will then vote on whether to approve the drafts. Given that the Commission has chosen to use a regulation as part of the Level 2 measures, it is clear that it is keen to avoid delay in implementation and divergence of implementing local regulation. A regulation is directly effective in member states (whereas a directive requires implementation by local regulation).
1. Tier 1 - Investment Banks and Exchanges

It is clear that these larger institutions have already begun investigating MiFID and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of them are confident that compliance represents only a minor hurdle. There is some logic to this belief as, through building the systems and processes to trade in multiple markets, they will already be compliant with many of the measures of MiFID. However, the devil is in the detail and there may be less harmonisation than they expect.

There is also potential danger if this confidence slips into complacency. MiFID introduces a number of new requirements, significantly proof of 'best execution', which is taking 'all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible result for its clients including... considerations such as price, cost, speed and the likelihood of execution and settlement when executing orders.2'

Importantly, this data must be kept for five years and available in near real-time and may have to have 'evidential weight', i.e. firms must be able to prove the integrity of the data. The 'recreation' of each trade (both voice and data transactions) has immense implications on data storage. Banks, being banks, have largely kept their cards close to their chests when discussing anything other than the clarification of MiFID's terms; however, if there is a case for an industry-wide community-based solution to this problem, it has yet to present itself.

Few - if any - of even the largest institutions have in place the systems (e.g. high speed networking and storage capabilities) and processes to support these data storage requirements. There is little doubt that a majority will be compliant by the due date but - if Basel II compliance is any guide - the number of firms taking last-minute, reactive measures as the deadlines approach will more than offset the number of large sell-side firms that take a pre-emptive approach to building a compliant infrastructure. In some cases, compliance will be achieved by simply throwing money at the problem - perhaps not the most efficient use of resources. Firms are underestimating the amount of additional infrastructure required to achieve compliance with MiFID as it stands today.

Also, given the scale of recent initiatives, including Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) and Basel II, some organisations may choose to kill a number of 'regulatory' birds with one stone and roll their responses to these into a single re-worked system - this may create some efficiencies, but also introduces significant complexity and should clearly be handled very carefully.

A detailed roadmap for SOX IT compliance (and enhancing internal control generally through IT) is set out in the Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (CobiT), a product of the IT Governance Institute (ITGI). ITGI has been keen to ensure that its proposed framework is consistent with ISO17799, the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and the common criteria to ensure that compliance with SOX (from a systems perspective) also means following IT best practice. As such, an ISO17799 project will wrap up a number of requirements for compliance in one go and help with MiFID compliance.
2. Tier 2/3 - Investment Banks and Smaller Exchanges

Some of these organisations have invested heavily in technology and are closer to larger institutions in terms of their preparedness. However, the majority lack the resources of their larger competitors and MiFID may be part of a long 'to do' list or - as the deadline for implementation may feel a long way off - may be filed in the 'important but not urgent' category. These organisations, however, are subject to the same requirements as the biggest investment bank and must make the same investment in systems and processes.

Analysts are predicting the costs of MiFID compliance to be £10m for upgraded IT systems and £12m for new processes - costing the industry around £1bn. Some careful thought therefore needs to be given to whether or not continued participation in the securities market is justified in light of the costs and disruption involved. If trading in the securities market is a core business then, clearly, there is no choice but to proceed with the compliance programme.

However, it is important to realise that non-compliance with the requirements of MiFID would be severe. Some smaller organisations have under-estimated the resources required for MiFID compliance and they are most at risk; only urgent action will prevent potential catastrophe.

Other organisations for which securities trading is only a small proportion of their business may opt to get out of this market altogether, prompting a wave of consolidation. It is inevitable that some organisations will choose to exit the market and it is ironic that one of the unintended side-effects of a directive expressly aimed at increasing competition may be to actually decrease choice for the consumer.
3. The Buy Side

A survey of buy-side organisations3 conducted by block trading specialists, Liquidnet, in November 2005 found that there was little consensus around the benefits of MiFID with almost half the respondents (43.8 per cent) saying their firm did not plan to spend any money to meet its requirements. However, MiFID requires a buy-side firm to create a policy for best execution which must then be provided to - and proven to - their clients. As Clare Vincent-Silk, the chair of the MiFID Joint Working Group Buy-Side focus group, points out4, "There will be a greater need for pre-trade and post-trade transaction cost analysis tools that allow you to analyse the liquidity, price and likely market impact of trading this particular order on a trading venue. Therefore, you are looking at the purchase of additional systems for the buy-side to show that you are giving your clients best dealing performance."

MiFID is also likely to result in buy-side firms taking a more active role in procurement of networking services, and continue the phasing out of conventional 'soft dollaring'. The buy side will have to be more transparent than it is used to being and will need to meet the same audit requirements - and is therefore subject to the same infrastructure requirements - as its sell-side counterparts. The only difference here is that, as the survey showed, there is a much lower appreciation in the buy-side that action is required. Again, the sooner the problem is investigated, the sooner a relevant solution can be found.
4. Other Affected Companies

Given the broad scope of MiFID and the lack of clear guidance as to the type of companies to which it may apply, it is difficult to provide definitive advice concerning companies not currently covered by the ISD. All one can really recommend is to keep abreast of developments and bookmark sites such as the FSA's website that provides information on the Directive. In addition, read your trade publications so that you have the earliest information on MiFID's consequences.

If it is becoming clear that your type of organisation will fall under the scope of the Directive and that this will be to your detriment, then this early intelligence will enable you to have the best possible chance of deciding a response. In this case, our recommendation would be to make your representations to your trade body and work with them and other companies in the same position to determine a coordinated position on the Directive.
Systematic Internalisers

A systematic internaliser (SI) is defined by MiFID as an investment firm which, on an organised, frequent and systematic basis, deals on its own account by executing client orders 'off book' i.e. outside a regulated market or multilateral trading facility (MTF). Generally, these tend to be sell-side investment banks and the new transparency regime relating to the real-time publication of trades falls heavily upon them. Trades in over-the-counter stock must be published to any end-investor within three minutes and transactions in all instruments must be reported to a competent authority - typically the national regulator - by close of play the following day. Furthermore, all off-book activity must be provided not only to the primary exchange, but also to a wide variety of different MTFs and third parties. Simply posting the information on a company Web site is unlikely to meet these requirements and doing so will put strains on systems and processes similar to those described above. A more general problem may be that many SIs are not aware that they qualify in this category: a large number of firms are waiting for Level 3 (ratification by the EU) before taking any action - a dangerously short-sighted approach.

Given the sheer volume of data that must now be published, some SIs may opt to add value to that data and become financial publishers. Exchanges might be considered an obvious example of an organisation that may go down this route, but data vendors and MTFs may also choose to enter the fray. Again, the rewards of doing so must be carefully balanced against the risks.
Outsourcing

One final word of caution: the sheer costs involved in ensuring compliance with MiFID and other financial regulatory requirements may well encourage many firms to consider leveraging the capabilities of third party IT or service providers. While any new contracts will clearly need to be drawn up in the context of the new regulation, the FSA 'Planning for MiFID' guidance states that 'firms will need to ensure that all existing outsourced arrangements meet the relevant requirements as finally agreed'. If this is to be taken literally, it could mean that affected firms with existing outsourcing contracts will need to implement a number of complicated contract changes to meet the new requirements (when they are finally published!) If so, does the outsourcer have to foot the bill or does that current contract mandate that the service provider meets all legal and regulatory requirements, now known or to be implemented in the future?

It remains to be seen what the relevant technical implementing measures (Level 2 legislation) will entail, but one thing is immediately clear: organisations currently planning to outsource must ensure that their contractual arrangements deal expressly with this issue in order to avoid a costly change to services and systems, and achieve compliance at a later date.
Conclusion

MiFID will have a huge impact on those organisations working within securities markets. The major players will most likely be compliant on time, although poor planning will mean that they pay over the odds for the privilege. Smaller investment firms and exchanges have the most to lose by not planning for their MiFID implementation and they should act before it is too late. Similarly, firms who are concerned that they may fall within the scope of MiFID should ensure that they are fully up-to-date with the latest guidance and are prepared to act in their own defence if necessary.

On a more positive note, the requirements for the publication of financial data may create opportunities for those able to move fast enough to exploit them. Related IT spend may be required to ensure that database capacity, storage methods and speed of retrieval of data is sufficient. Also, it is likely that MiFID compliance (together with SOX, etc) may prompt a fresh look at STP technology and drive the need to ensure common standards for interoperability.

Planning for MiFID implementation now will ensure that you are not exposed when it arrives.
Timeline for MiFID

* February 2006 - Level 2 measures published.
* February - April 2006 - European Parliament scrutinises Level 2 measures.
* Q2 2006 - ESC votes on Level 2 measures.
* July 2006 - Commission adopts Level 2 measures.
* Q3 & 4 2006 - FSA CPs on market transparency, reporting, authorisation, enforcement and cooperation, together with CPs on impact of MiFID for businesses outside the scope of MiFID.
* 31 January 2007 - Member states required to have implementing measures in place.
* 1 November 2007 - MiFID comes into force.

***

1http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/international/planning_mifid.pdf
2 Ibid
3 Liquidnet Europe Survey Gathers Buy-Side Opinion on MiFID and PS 05/9
4 The Banker: Cash & Securities Services: Buy-side Ignores MiFID At Its Peril, 1 November, 2005.
Gtnews
 
Indietro