Trade surveillance encapsulates the processes and procedures that help financial institutions detect and prevent trading rule violations. While various regulations push for increased scrutiny and security, MAR and MiFID II notably have far-reaching implications for trade behavior, post-trade surveillance and pre-trade risk controls checks.
Few banks today develop truly differentiated technology, having moved from being ’technology makers’ to ‘technology takers’. The development of proprietary software has taken a back seat, and is now only considered in situations where creating a competitive advantage or controlling sensitive data is of paramount importance.
One of the most difficult challenges companies face today is how to be more flexible and adaptive in a dynamic business environment. ‘Speed to market’ demands identifying and capitalizing on opportunities as soon as they appear and has become a major driver for the adoption of DevOps in the financial market industry. These changes have paved the way for new design approaches such as Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) and Infrastructure as Code (IaC) based on automated configuration and provisioning.
Under MIFID II, asset managers were free to use different methods for calculating transaction costs – either by interpreting the MIFID II requirements themselves or, as most firms have done, by leveraging PRIIPS methodology.
MiFID II implementation is well underway but there is no time for respite. Part 2 of this series considers how the changes involved in the MiFID II research unbundling process, particularly regarding client data, can cause the sellside to inadvertently breach the GDPR.
Following the 2008 global financial crisis and recent malpractice scandals, institutions across the financial services industry have started taking proactive measures to protect themselves from market and operational risks by improving their surveillance capabilities.
The first article in a two-part series, Johnson Oni outlines how MiFID II’s research unbundling mandates pose significant operational and tactical challenges to sellside institutions. Part 2, to be published next week, will explore how the process of becoming MiFID II research unbundling compliant may, in fact, breach the upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
2017 has been an exciting time for GreySpark due to the growth of our two new offices in New York and Edinburgh. Edinburgh has done extremely well, hiring three new consultants over the summer period. New York has also made some great progress and we have built a great pipe of consultants who are ready to go in 2018.
From a sales and account management perspective, there were two imperatives that permeated 2017 for the London-based business development team: the need to grow the team and open new accounts.
This past year was an eventful one for GreySpark’s thought leadership research practice. As always, we are very grateful to our loyal subscriber sponsors and readers, CMI Blog browsers and – indeed – to our subject matter expert colleagues across the capital markets industry, within GreySpark’s client base and within GreySpark as a whole for their commentary, feedback and general inputs into our now well-established research product.