Join us on Thursday 22nd June for a free webinar, where a panel of respected experts will discuss ESMA’s view of EMIR Article 9, published in January 2017.
Trade reporting requirements have always been daunting for the derivatives industry. Now, as firms begin to ramp up their existing reporting infrastructure to comply with MiFID II as well as new G20 mandates like ESMA L2, MAS3 L2, and SEC regulations, they need an even more robust control framework to avoid fines related to heightened regulatory scrutiny of more complex data. This infrastructure also needs to ensure that firms avoid under- or over-reporting trades, which can also incur sizeable penalties.
Achieving the timeliness and completeness requirements for risk aggregation under the Basel Committee’s BCBS 239 is particularly challenging in an intraday risk environment. A successful risk aggregation project requires a change in mindset and adoption of new technologies.
Acccording to the Basel Committee’s BCBS 239, risk aggregation is defined as the process of defining, gathering and processing risk data.
Part 4 of Risk Focus’ comparative analysis of Splunk and ELK.
There are a number of other interrelated regulations in the United States and Europe which significantly affect the trading, reporting and IT infrastructure investments of firms active in the derivatives markets.
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID) is European Union regulation for investment services across the 31 European countries (EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). MiFID was written prior to EMIR and overlaps with EMIR’s derivatives trading and reporting obligations in many respects. MiFID also conflicts with some of EMIR’s requirements, particularly in the use of Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs).