In the Final Report of 28 September 2015
Wednesday, 15 March 2017 16:08
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.


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