Michael Hodson, Director of Asset Management Supervision in the Central Bank addresses a KPMG Seminar in relation to MiFID II

Mr Hodson addressed issues relating to MiFID II such as new supervisory and enforcement powers for competent authorities, product intervention and product monitoring, MiFID II issues which firms should now be in a position to address, transposition, industry engagement and supervisory & thematic priorities.


European Fund and Asset Management Association responds to the EBA Discussion Paper on designing a new prudential regime for investment firms

The response to the Discussion Paper was limited to questions related to the design of a new prudential regime for the non-systemic and bank-like investment firms. The EFAMA stated that they would welcome the proposed single prudential regime, complete with the necessary built-in proportionality, however, the key differences between banks’ versus non-banks’ business models should be recognised.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/323 of 20 January 2017 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 and supplementing EMIR is published

The Delegated Regulation provides for derogation from the dates specified in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 (which concerns risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a central counterparty) in relation to the application of Articles 9(1), 10 and 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 in certain specified circumstances.

European Supervisory Authorities publish statement on variation margin exchange under the EMIR RTS on OTC derivatives

The statement published by the three ESAs responds to concerns raised by industry in relation to operational challenges in meeting the deadline of 1 March 2017 for exchanging variation margin. The ESAs stated that neither the ESAs nor competent authorities (CAs) possess any formal power to disapply directly applicable EU legal text. However, in respect of difficulties that smaller counterparties are facing in particular, the ESAs expect CAs to apply risk-based supervisory powers and take into account the size of the exposure to the counterparty plus its default risk. This approach does not entail a general forbearance, but a case-by-case assessment from the CAs on the degree of compliance and progress.