MiFID II Regulations to Impact U.S. Asset Managers

MiFID II Regulations to Impact U.S. Asset Managers

Ivy Schmerken

Editorial Director at FlexTrade

Views 585

MiFID II Regulations to Impact U.S. Asset Managers

14.03.2017 08:45 am

North American broker-dealers and asset managers domiciled in the U.S. are watching their European counterparts gear up for compliance with MiFID II.

But will MiFID II affect U.S. broker-dealers and asset managers based in the U.S.?

Could the massive regulation that requires asset managers to unbundle research payments from executions, and quantify the value of research for its clients, find its way onto U.S. shores?

That question was the focus of an open call held by the Security Traders Association (STA) on March 2 examining the impact of MIFID II on North American broker dealers and asset managers.

Under the MiFID II delegated acts, which go into effect on Jan. 3, 2018, asset managers will need to pay for research from their own P&Ls, or set up so-called research payment arrangements (RPAs), which are to be funded by a commission sharing account (CSA) or a direct payment by the client.

Although the ruleset impacts firms based in Europe, U.S.-based asset managers competing for mandates against European investment firms could face competitive pressure to adhere to MiFID II rules.

MiFID II is most relevant for global asset managers that are based in the U.S., but have a physical location in Europe where they serve European client, said Tom Conigliaro, managing director at Markit Brokerage and Research Services.

“Technically the European operations of those firms are within the bull’s eye of the regulations,” explained Tom Conigliaro.

While global firms can continue to operate their U.S. divisions under existing U.S. rules, “operating a global business under two starkly different regulatory regimes is very challenging,” says Conigliaro.

“Most global firms are going to opt into MiFID across the globe, and that’s how the massive regulation will “leak” into the U.S.,” he said. Global asset managers would prefer to adhere to the stringent regulatory standard, so they can operate synergistically across the globe, he added.

Buy-side firms that fall under the MiFID II rules on unbundling research payments from executions will need to:

  1. Track interactions with research counterparties.
  2. Regularly assess the quality of research and its contribution to the investment process.
  3. Establish a research budget.
  4. Allocate the budget to the strategy level.
  5. Manage payments either directly or through a RPA Administrator.

 

For a U.S. asset manager that doesn’t have a physical presence or any jurisdiction in Europe, these firms are not in the bullseye of the regulation, he said. However, practically speaking, U.S. managers that are managing European mandates or competing for European clients’ assets will face competitive pressure as clients come to expect the level of transparency they are receiving from asset managers in Europe.

Most asset managers will view MiFID II as a positive due to its transparency, disclosure of prices and better reporting.

For instance, a state pension fund or college endowment fund could be evaluating investment managers including a European firm that is following a MiFID unbundled research regime. That firm is providing more transparency and disclosure than a US domiciled manager is providing

In this scenario, a North American asset manager that is not in compliance with MiFID II could be seen as having a competitive disadvantage, Conigliaro suggested.

Rather than sit tight and watch how developments unfold, U. S. asset managers can take steps to align with best practices.

A lot of U.S. asset managers are doing this already, such as setting budgets for their research, having an evaluation program, paying attention to ratings and rankings of their research, and providing data to their clients “to tell a better story” about performance based on the research, which the client is ultimately funding, said Conigliaro. “You can do all of these things that are aligned with the spirit of MiFID to the letter of the law until either there is a seismic shift from the industry, or a client calls demanding more transparency that it gets from reports from its other managers in Europe,” noted Conigliaro.

Rather than being caught flat-footed, this gives asset managers a head start when they have no choice but to comply with a MiFID II-oriented regime.

 

This article originally was published on the FlexTrade FlexAdvantage Blog

 

Latest blogs

James Booth PPRO

Brave New World: A Futuristic Vision of Payments

Over the last ten years, the retail e-commerce ecosystem has undergone a wide-ranging transformation. As recently as 2010, the e-commerce and payments value chain were relatively straightforward: Any eCommerce merchant could integrate a payment Read more »

Nish Kotecha Finboot

How blockchain could potentially transform global healthcare in the wake of COVID-19

In the globalised world we live in, entities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been established to ensure cooperation between different governments on global health-related issues. In the face of pandemics such as the one we are Read more »

Lina Andolf-Orup Fingerprints

Dispelling biometric myths and misconceptions

Gangsters cutting off enemies’ fingers to access secret locations and spies lifting fingerprints from martini glasses - the imagination of the entertainment world has been running wild ever since biometrics entered the scene. Couple that with the Read more »

Shiran Weitzman Shield

Tackling Apparent Contradictions of Compliance versus Privacy

As technology evolves and becomes more complicated, so too do the moral and ethical dilemmas, along with the associated regulations. However, well-intentioned regulations designed to protect people and businesses alike can sometimes seemingly Read more »

Francis Leclerc Horizon Software

Just about managing: How cloud can help boost trading profits

It’s a tough environment for trading at the moment. Margins are being squeezed across the board to the extent that some major investment banks are completely withdrawing from certain asset classes upon discovering they are not making a profit. Read more »

Related Blogs

Helen Bevis SteelEye

How Tech Can Meet the Challenges of Increased Market Surveillance

There is growing pressure across the financial services industry for firms to detect market abuse and ensure their companies protection against manipulative market risk. With the emergence of regulations such as the Markets in Financial Instruments Read more »

Linda Jamison Wolters Kluwer

Regulatory Relief in The USA: A Wolters Kluwer View

Regulatory relief for mid-size banks in the US is here– and it’s a potential game changer when it comes to implementing the right regulatory reporting IT systems. With that in mind the nation’s banks would be well advised to adopt an integrated Read more »

Steve Grob Fidessa

Mexico Blues

Back from a couple of weeks in Mexico where it seemed the whole world was going steadily insane (or maybe that was just the tequila). Anyways, it was reassuring to start the week with another “wow is that what they really meant?” moment whilst Read more »

Chris Skinner The Financial Services Club

America’s Banking Regulations Strangle Innovations

Only three new banks have opened in the United States since 2010.  Before the financial crisis, over 100 banks set up shop each year, on average, according to data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the agency that approves new banks. Read more »

Simon Stickley Capco

GDPR Implementation - Ready, Set, Go!

It’s a major regulatory development and there are just two years to prepare for compliance. The time to understand the impacts and implications - and to get ready for implementation - is now. Read more »

Magazine
ALL
Free Newsletter Sign-up
+44 (0) 208 819 32 53 +44 (0) 173 261 71 47
Download Our Mobile App
Financial It Youtube channel