Monday 21 April 2014
Advertise  |  Subscribe  |  Register  | 

Close

About cookies: we use cookies to support features like login and sharing articles. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.

Concerns over financial directive

27.09.2012 / 03:40 CET
Policymakers need to weigh up the costs of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).

As a recent report in your paper observes, one of the most controversial parts of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) has been that concerning electronic market-makers (“MEPs and industry at odds over planned financial trading rules” 20-26 September). For whatever reason, traders – who I represent – tend to attract emotive rhetoric that bears little relation to evidence that we play a positive role in providing markets' liquidity and reducing costs for investors.

FIA European Principal Traders Association, which represents firms that trade their own capital on the financial markets, strongly supports balanced measures that ensure safe, resilient and transparent markets. However, we urge policymakers to weigh carefully the costs, which are more than monetary. Ironically, some of the proposals advocated in the Commission's original proposal, as well as the amendments sought in the European Parliament, would reduce – rather than increase – transparency, by pushing trading off-exchange.

A particular concern is the proposed obligation for electronic market-makers to quote continuously under any market condition, even if our risk systems tell us

to withdraw. This would be akin to forcing banks to lend money to anyone who walks into their branches regardless of credit history. It would also be in direct contradiction of other provisions in MiFID regarding risk controls.

Equally, the proposed limit on the ratio of unexecuted to executed orders (known as the order-to-trade ratio), the minimum order resting time and the proposed order-cancellation charges could severely hamper the work of electronic market-makers in particular on the derivatives markets. These proposals will quite simply cause bid-ask spreads to widen and liquidity to decrease. This would entail additional costs for investors.

These obligations on market-makers might benefit other participants in the financial industry, but less-transparent markets, higher risks for market-makers and higher costs for investors are not, surely, the objective of those pushing for these regulations.


Remco Lenterman Chairman, FIA  European Principal Traders Association  Brussels

© 2014 European Voice. All rights reserved.
Varrow

Most viewed in Comment

letterstrade screen (r)

Related articles

Praising the Commission for good policy-making on biofuel.

Setting straight the rules of Georgian citizenship.

The future of the global internet is at stake.

The debate over the future governance of the internet.

Advertisement

Comments

 

Your comment
Please note: The fields followed by an asterisk (*) are obligatory fields

Comment*

Name*
E-mail*
Website

Please, copy the code on the left into the box on the right

 I accept the Terms & conditions
 I would like to share my e-mail & website

Advertisement

Cookies info | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions