The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published a Q&A document seeking to clarify expected standards around certain practices, including best execution.
The questions have been set following feedback and enquiries from the general public, other regulators and market participants.
On best execution ESMA publishes two Q&As, the first explains the different between the “reasonable steps” firms were expected to take to obtain the best possible execution under MiFID I and the “sufficient steps” they are required to take under MiFID II.
Where, indeed if, spot FX sits within the European Securities and Markets Authority's Market Abuse Regime, MAR, has been the subject of speculation for some months. Earlier this year, ESMA issued an updated MAR document and again there was no mention of spot FX, however this did not stop some sounding concerns that the broader definition could mean spot FX is "in scope". In a Q&A paper issued last week, ESMA appears to have provided some clarification - by mentioning spot FX explicitly.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has asked the European Commission to delay the extension of mandated clearing to smaller counterparties.
Due to a range of reasons, but in particular the fact that the relevant EU legislations are under review or still being finalised, ESMA says it proposes to postpone the phase-in period for central clearing of OTC derivatives applicable to financial counterparties with a limited volume of derivatives activity.
ESMA’s report proposes to amend EMIR’s Delegated Regulations on the clearing obligation in order to prolong, by two years, the phase-in for financial counterparties with a limited volume of derivatives activity – those ones classified in Category Three under EMIR Delegated Regulations.