In the Final Report of 28 September 2015
Wednesday, 15 March 2017 17:08
In the Final Report of 28 September 2015 ESMA sustained its stance that, as MiFID II does not address the possibility of the same derivative contract being listed on a third-country venue (i.e. a venue that is not a trading venue as defined by MIFID II), the geographical scope of Article 57 MiFID II is limited to the European Union. This is a clear consequence - netting and aggregation of positions on third-country venues were not included in the RTS 21.
Comments (1)
1 Wednesday, 15 March 2017 17:39
MBud
Thanks - very helpful. Also, in relation to "The sufficient determinant for the aggregation at the group level is if the parent undertaking can control the use of positions of its subsidiary." This statement is referenced in the preamble to RTS 21 but did not make its way into the actual articles. Do you have any views or have seen any policy statements on how this will potentially be applied?

Add your comment

Your name:
Your website:
Comment:
 

Search

Twitter
Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Michal Glowacki. All rights reserved.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer