2 years on the same tariff, it is enough...

 

 

On 28 March 2018 in the answer to the Question 12 (non-equity transparency, Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35) ESMA explained that the trading obligation for derivatives as specified in Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/2417 does not apply to non-par swaps.

 

 

DEA provider must have access to information on its DEA clients, irrespective of DEA clients’ jurisdiction or their authorisation status - ESMA underlined this once more in an interpretation of 28 March 2018.

 

 

Positions in an OTC contract which is economically equivalent to more than one exchange-traded derivative (ETD) contract traded on the EU trading venue are to be reported to any of the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) of the trading venues where the ETD contract is traded (ESMA’s clarification of 28 March 2018).

 

The inherent condition is that those ETD contracts do not qualify as the same derivative contract in accordance with Article 5(1) of RTS 21.

 

 

The EU aligns its OTC collateral framework for physically-settled forwards and swaps with other major jurisdictions.

 

 

Do you know which extra-EU transactions must be made public through the Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) as from 3 January 2018 under the MiFID II post-trade transparency?

  

 

The updated ESMA's Q&As of 1 February 2017 include a new answer in relation to transition to the revised technical standards on EMIR reporting, consisting of:

 

- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories;

 

- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/104 of 19 October 2016 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 148/2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories with regard to regulatory technical standards on the minimum details of the data to be reported to trade repositories.

 

Amended reporting standards will apply from 1 November 2017, except for Article 1(5) of the ITS (delaying the backloading requirement) which will apply from 10 February 2017.

 

The Q&As clarify that:

- the reporting entities are not obliged to update all the outstanding trades upon the application date of the revised technical standards and

- they are required to submit the reports related to the old outstanding trades only when a reportable event takes place (e.g. when the trade is modified).

 

Furthermore, the Q&As explain how those reports will be validated by the trade repositories.

 

ESMA's Questions and Answers on EMIR (Q&As) are non-legislative, and periodically-updated piece of knowledge about required format of EMIR reporting.

 

 

 

On 31 January 2017 ESMA explained that the calculations for the purposes of the definition of systematic internaliser under MiFID II should be carried out at the legal entity level and not at the group level (Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, 31 January 2017, ESMA70-872942901-35).

 

Moreover, according to ESMA for EU investment firms operating branches in the Union, the activity of those branches would need to be consolidated for the purpose of the systematic internaliser calculations.

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, 31 January 2017, ESMA70-872942901-38 - explanation regarding references to 'market makers' in MiFID II Article 2(1)(d)(i)

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, 31 January 2017, ESMA70-872942901-38

 

Question 4 [Last update: 31/01/2017]

 

Do the references to 'market makers' in MiFID II Article 2(1)(d)(i) and Article 2(1)(j) cover those market makers as defined under MiFID II Article 4(1)(7) or those firms engaged in a market making agreement according to Article 17(4) of MiFID II?

 

Answer 4

 

The reference to market makers' in MiFID II Article 2(1)(d)(i) and Article 2(1)(j) covers both firms engaged in a market making agreement according to Article 17(4) of MiFID II and other market makers covered by Article 4(1)(7) of MiFID II.

 

 

 

 

"Announcement" of the interim or year-end financial results determines the timing of the closed period referred to in Article 19(11) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (MAR).

 

ESMA explains that the term "announcement" of an interim or a year–end financial report used in Article 19(11) of MAR is the public statement whereby the issuer announces the information included in an interim or a year-end financial report that the issuer is obliged to make public according to the rules of the trading venue where the issuer's shares are admitted to trading or national law.

 

The date when the "announcement" is made is the end date for the thirty-day closed period.

 

 

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has updated on 6 June 2016 its EMIR Q&As.

 

The updated EMIR Q&As deal with the clearing obligation, in particular:

 

- the self-categorisation that is necessary in order to establish which counterparties belong to which categories,

 

- the issue how counterparties should handle the situation where some of their counterparties have not provided the information on the category they belong to.