In light of the final rules, the potential early-adopter group has doubled to 18.2%, up from 9.1% while the group of managers which are neutral and ‘waiting to see’ has grown slightly from 42% to 45%.

At the same time, 18.2% were found to be ‘sceptical and not engaged’, while 9.1% confirmed they were ‘not interested in moving’, regarding the unbundling rollback as “an unwelcome distraction, now that they finally have their post-Mifid II processes in place and working well,” said Substantive.

Changes made by the FCA in the final rules have eliminated some deal breakers for the more engaged firms keen to proceed.

Specifically, the FCA has removed key operational barriers which were hampering the potential take-up of greater flexibility in research funding.

The survey found ‘relaxation of the rules around strategy level budgets’ was the most important change for 60% of respondents, followed by 18.2% who highlighted ‘removing the requirement for buy-side firms to have separate written agreements with providers’.

Speaking to The TRADE, Mike Carrodus, chief executive of Substantive Research, explains: “Asset managers now have clarity in the UK, so from a regulatory perspective the focus moves onto the EU. Proposed research ‘joint payments’ language for the EU’s Listing Act seems more flexible and less prescriptive than the FCA’s consultation paper, but legal reviews are ongoing and there is uncertainty about how much added guidance is still to come.”

He further adds that the likelihood is for less of a regulatory clash between the US, the EU and the UK going forwards, however “how truly aligned they will be remains to be seen”.

The final FCA payment optionality rules for investment research were published in July and came into force on 1 August 2024.

Read more: FCA tables re-bundling to support more ‘flexible’ approach to research 

Notably, a number of senior executives on the buy-side are not keen to open up the fees discussion at the moment due to the current market situation representing such a challenging landscape for asset gathering and retention. 

Carrodus explained: “As these are new costs being reintroduced after 6 years of asset managers paying for them out of their own pockets, they anticipate pushback from clients and do not want to have to try and figure out what to do if a handful of clients object and opt out of paying while the rest acquiesce.

“Brokers and independent research providers may target a more lucrative future after years of price deflation, but we’ll only know if those hopes are well founded when the first canaries venture down the coalmine this winter!”

The post Asset managers split on approach to FCA’s unbundling rules appeared first on The TRADE.

With three months to go until the Libor transition deadline the watchdog has confirmed that is has no intention to use its powers to compel the ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (IBA) to continue to publish the settings beyond September.

Speaking last April, when the official extension of the expiration deadline was announced, the FCA asserted: “Firms must therefore continue to actively transition contracts that reference US dollar Libor. We continue to expect firms to take action and deliver demonstrable progress.

“Synthetic Libor is only a temporary bridge, and synthetic settings will not continue simply for the convenience of those who could have transitioned their contracts but have not done so.”

The 1-, 3- and 6-month synthetic US dollar LIBOR settings are set to cease after publication on Monday 30 September 2024 specifically. 

Read more: FCA extends expiration deadline of synthetic US dollar Libor to September 2024

“Their cessation will mark the final milestone in the transition away from Libor […] Parties to contracts still referencing US dollar LIBOR should be taking steps to transition to appropriate, robust reference rates, renegotiating with counterparties where necessary,” concluded the watchdog.

The post FCA confirms no chance of further Libor extension as September deadline approaches appeared first on The TRADE.

Daniel Mayston and Edward Wicks

Members will serve for a two-year period between June 2024 and June 2026.

Key buy-side members include Daniel Mayston, head of e-trading and market structure at BlackRock, Edward Wicks, global head of trading at LGIM, Tom Lee, head of trading at Hargreaves Lansdown, and Frances Ritter, Equity Index Group portfolio manager and trader at Vanguard Asset Management.

Members hailing from sell-side include Kate Finlayson, manging director at JP Morgan, Eleanor Beasley, managing director at Goldman Sachs, Chris Dickens, head of non-financial risk, markets and securities services at HSBC Bank, Virginie Saade, head of government and regulatory policy, EMEA at Citadel. 

As well as Elisa Menardo, deputy head, governmental affairs, EMEA at UBS, Hans Buehler, co-CEO at XTX Markets, Peter Whitaker, head of Europe/Asia market structure at Jane Street, and Maria Salamanca Meija, executive director, EMEA head of market structure at Morgan Stanley.

The committee is aimed at supporting the watchdog’s work across equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodities across the scope of securities, futures, swaps, and options markets. Specifically, the members will assist through developing reforms focused on improving market competition, increasing customer protection and enhancing market integrity.

In addition, the committee will provide data and analysis to support policy reform as well as identifying key market developments which have the potential to affect the proper functioning of secondary markets.

The FCA has also appointed experts hailing from various trading venues, such as: Nick Dutton, chief regulatory officer at CBOE Europe, Kristina Combe, chief regulatory and compliance officer at LME Group, Laurence Walton, head of regulation and compliance at ICE Futures Europe, and Jessica Morrison, head of market structure and quantitative analysis at London Stock Exchange Group. 

Mel Gunewardena, senior advisor to Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive is set to chair the committee, working closely with director of infrastructure and exchanges, Jon Relleen and the FCA’s trading policy team.

Read more: When it comes to capital market regulation, market input is essential to avoid taking a hammer to crack a nut, says FCA 

Other members include Arran Rowsell, head of strategy at BGC, Carla Grundy, EMEA head of trading venues and market infrastructure at TP ICAP, Rosie Murphy Williams, chief oversight officer, EMEA/global controls at The Bank of New York Mellon, and Gary Chia-Hsing Li, head of regulatory affairs, EMEA and APAC at MarketAxess.

Making up the remainder of the committee are: Jennifer Keser, managing director, head of regulation and market structure at Tradeweb, Kirston Winters, chief risk officer at OSTTRA, Judy Barrage, head of regulation and trade controls – trading and supply – at Shell International Trading and Shipping Company, Anne Plested, head of regulation change at ION Markets, and Rebecca Healey, managing partner – capital markets consultant at Redlap Consulting.

The post BlackRock, LGIM, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman individuals among those listed in latest FCA secondary markets committee line up appeared first on The TRADE.

The overarching theme of the director’s speech was a call for a decidedly collaborative and “calm” approach to market reforms, wherein market participants and regulators (namely the FCA) continue a symbiotic relationship to foster a proportional approach to regulating the ever-evolving market.

In order to avoid unintended consequences “or worse, taking a hammer to crack a nut,” as Pritchard put it, market input is paramount as the watchdog looks to future-proof its rules and create a cohesive reform agenda.

The speech directly addressed the recent research payment rules, which followed the Investment Research Review, chaired by Rachel Kent, supporting greater optionality around how firms can pay for research. 

Specifically, the FCA confirmed last month that its proposed reforms will look to give asset managers greater flexibility on how they buy research.

Speaking to the process which led to the decision, Pritchard explained: “We know that one size doesn’t always fit all – which is why we have acted quickly […] This greater choice should suit firms of varying business models and sizes, helping to promote competition. It will allow the ‘bundling’ of payments for third-party research and trade execution, and would exist alongside those already available, such as payment from an asset manager’s own resources or from a dedicated account.”

The ease of cross-border activity is due to the proposed new plans being compatible with rules governing research payments in certain other major jurisdictions, said the watchdog at the time. 

Read more: A welcome freedom, temporary measure or futile task? The industry reacts to the UK’s new research proposal 

In this vein, the speech also touched on the importance of consistent standards across jurisdictions as the impact of volatility and turbulent geopolitics continue to affect the pursuit for healthy and efficient capital markets. 

“We live in sometimes staggering times of technological change, changing demographics and international marketplaces […]  There are often differing regimes in place internationally but as the world economy and financial markets are ever more global, we are leading the way in key areas where international cohesion is most important,” asserted Pritchard.

She also confirmed that the FCA continues to foster close relationships with international partners on market risk, explaining that despite differing viewpoints, engaging and testing across the market is vital.

“While the economic and financial weather may not always be calm and sunny, we need to make sure that our rules work and can adapt for all types of challenges and can cope with some serious buffeting, at the worst of times.”

Elsewhere in the speech, the FCA’s digital securities sandbox initiative, which celebrates its tenth birthday this year, was discussed. Pritchard took time to share some specific wins that firms entering the regulatory sandbox had seen in recent times.

Read more: Bank of England and FCA to launch joint Digital Securities Sandbox

Sandbox firms saw a 15% increase in capital raised, and these entities have also been found to be 50% more likely to raise capital than peers. In addition, Pritchard confirmed that the model has been replicated by over 95 international regulators to date.

When it came to future plans, the speech made clear the FCA’s focus on ‘future-focused regulation,’ specifically for insurgent themes such as AI.

“We will not be regulating for regulation’s sake and will be guided by our outcomes-driven approach. But we must provide certainty and encourage the safe adoption of AI in UK finance markets, so we must also look at digital infrastructure, resilience, consumer safety and data,” said Pritchard.

The post When it comes to capital market regulation, market input is essential to avoid taking a hammer to crack a nut, says FCA appeared first on The TRADE.

Things are definitely evolving and all the noise creates more discussion. In terms of initial impact we took a first look and the main thing was that there were no major stumbling blocks in the consultation paper, no real sting in the tail. For asset managers there is nothing operationally, or from a regulatory perspective, that will act as a real dealbreaker, however there are some things that asset managers will either need clarifying or will have to make a call on in terms of interpretation.  

There are a couple of specific areas that many on the buy-side have found unhelpful, including how granular the reporting and disclosure requirements would have to become. Right now you can already charge clients for your research costs using an operationally burdensome Research Payment Account (RPA) arrangement which puts most firms off, so it’s key that this new structure is seen as a simpler option. 

These freedoms soften the burden to an extent. Asset managers will move onto the commercial conversations with their client base about whether they will allow these costs to be returned to them, and change will hinge on whether managers feel confident that there’s not going to be any sort of negative competitive consequences.  

What are the expected speed bumps following this news? 

It links to pre and post reporting, and how that fits into regulatory alignment – across the US and UK. There are a lot of American firms who use research and pay as they go, as opposed to setting a budget. Many just pay using the commission sharing arrangements (CSA) and then assess – they’re not setting a clear, delineated research budget at the beginning of the year, and others that do set a budget often set it at a firm-wide level which may not be sufficiently detailed.

It also depends on a firm’s structure internally, such as whether they share research around the firm which can create issues within this new structure. For those who already have the systems in place in terms of budgets and metrics, they will feel like this is less of a challenge. However, for others, they’ll have to set up steering groups and take more time. There’s a clear spectrum of varying responses to the consultation paper from our survey group. 

Is there a common denominator between the parties that are quite pro-rebundling? 

I think it’s easier to understand the eagerness from those who are just trying to have consistency across different regions and jurisdictions, it’s an authentic narrative that shows a preference for global alignment and the ability to mirror the regulatory alignment with your own global process. Outside of those use cases the positivity for these new freedoms is not so clear cut. 

The review led by Rachel Kent outlined that returning research costs to end investors could be commensurate with their best interests, and could contribute to better performance and allocation of capital. But whether asset owners buy into this is another question. 

In addition, for firms which do not have business in multiple geographies, the importance of global cohesiveness and aligning with that shift loses gravitas, and it’s unsurprising that some firms that are UK-only are less keen. It’s a nuanced conversation, and following this consultation paper, end investors will have two key questions – what do I get for the extra money that I’m being charged? and how do I know it is an appropriate use of tightening budgets?  

Read more: FCA tables re-bundling to support more ‘flexible’ approach to research 

In the first instance, they’re not going to be guaranteed alpha, but these new freedoms could add a flexibility and structure that allows for optionality in getting different research inputs to contribute to investment decisions. This could be in the interests of the asset owner. In terms of spending budget wisely and focusing on value, that’s the intention of the FCA’s guardrails and constraints. It’s extremely interesting for us at Substantive Research that price benchmarking is one of the suggestions to come from the Kent review.

It’s important to note that price benchmarking is not necessarily about always driving the cost of research down. Even if this payment optionality trend didn’t take off, our data already shows that research budgets and research payments have stabilised somewhat. But what benchmarking of this kind does is illustrate to firms where they are over or underspending versus peers, so for example if they want to reward a provider 20% or 30% more than peers, they can do so from a position of knowledge which they can report confidently to clients.  

Now that the US and the UK are more closely aligned, what’s the current state of play across the rest of Europe?  

I’m not an expert on EU processes but we now have some of the new language to assess, and it appears that there is more openness to actual rebundling from the EU bloc. However, also included are mentions about separate research agreements, assessing the value of research and understanding how much firms are paying, which indicates an element of CSA.  

So on the one hand, you’ve got language that leans positively towards rebundling, but then there are other factors, for example one intriguing part of the EU rhetoric which says that in essence end investor clients should be able to ask firms for details about their managers’ policies on research, if indeed they have them. But if your asset manager decides not to have that information collated, then they might not have to deliver it. It’s a potential loophole in theory. 

This aside, the EU will have fewer guardrails but a similar approach to whatever final form the FCA’s new rules take. In the end, I suspect the EU research market will get to a very similar place, which is a CSA-led process, plus more specific terminology for optionality on how to pay for research, but with a greater disclosure burden. Longer term, I think the US will mimic Europe and the UK in those requirements for greater disclosure in exchange for continuing research payment optionality. 

For the moment conversations are almost entirely internal, but there are some outlier firms who are more keen to test the waters on this with their clients. There may be an early adopter group this autumn making changes, and all eyes will be on them to see how they get on!

The post In conversation with… Substantive Research’s Mike Carrodus appeared first on The TRADE.

A key aspect of the new rules is the allowance of ‘bundling’ of payments for third-party research and trade execution. Prevention of payment bundling was introduced in 2018 under Mifid II due to various concerns, including that it could lead to less disciplined spending on duplicative or low-quality research.

Now, payments would exist alongside those already available, such as payment from an asset manager’s own resources or even a dedicated account.

Read more: A welcome freedom, temporary measure or futile task? The industry reacts to the UK’s new research proposal 

Speaking in an official announcement, Sarah Pritchard, executive director, markets and international at the FCA, said: “High quality, easily accessible investment research is a vital part of a healthy, dynamic capital market. It supports the decisions investors make.

“We are proposing to provide more options on how to pay for such research, helping boost competition and making it easier to buy research across borders.”

The ease of cross-border activity is due to the proposed new plans being compatible with rules governing research payments in certain other major jurisdictions, said the watchdog. 

According to the watchdog these proposals have been developed following feedback from research providers and end investor representatives, as sell- and buy-side firms, the latter of which was gathered via detailed surveys which collected quantitative evidence. 

The analysis showed that asset managers are largely getting the research they need under the current rules, however the FCA added that despite the relative effectiveness of the current set up, it is operationally complex and skewed in favour of larger asset managers, as well as being restrictive to UK asset managers’ ability to buy investment research produced outside their jurisdiction. 

The new rules are therefore set to be more suitable for firms or varying business models and sizes, effectively boosting competition.
  
The consultation is understood to be closely aligned with the Kent review, published by Hogan Lovells lawyer Rachel Kent, who led the UK’s Investment Research Review under the Edinburgh Reforms. 

She published recommendations that the UK government has accepted, which included paving the way for a new ‘Research Platform’ that would provide a one-stop-shop for firms looking for research experts. 

The FCA is set to produce final rules in H1 2024, dependent on the quality of the feedback received.

The post FCA tables re-bundling to support more ‘flexible’ approach to research appeared first on The TRADE.

Successful applicants to the DSS will  operate under a set of rules and regulations that have been modified to facilitate this.

The DSS is intended to last for five years, after which regulators will be better informed to design a permanent technology friendly regime for the securities market.

Firms that successfully apply to the DSS will be able to manage  the issuance, maintenance and the settlement of financial securities.

The central bank and UK regulator said it will also be possible to combine these activities with that of a trading venue, creating new business models.

The BoE and the FCA have three overarching aims, including: facilitating innovation to promote a safe, sustainable and efficient financial system; protecting financial stability; protecting market integrity and cleanliness.

Examples of financial instruments which could be issued and traded in the DSS include equities, corporate and government bonds, and money market instruments.

“The intention of the Bank and the FCA is that financial market participants, such as companies that use capital markets to raise finance, or participants in financial markets who trade securities, should be able to interact with the firms inside the DSS as normal while benefitting from the new technology,” the pair said in a statement.

“Similarly, unless otherwise specified by the regulators, all financial market participants will be able to use the securities issued in the DSS as they normally would any other security, including in securities financing transactions, or as collateral.”

Derivative contracts based on those securities can also be written, with those activities still being required to comply with the regulations that govern them.

The BoE stated that it will impose limits on the value of securities that can be issued in the DSS to protect financial stability.

The DSS will comprise of varied stages of permitted activity, with a series of gates for sandbox entrants to move through, with permitted activity increasing with each stage.

“The application of new technology such as distributed ledgers could materially improve the efficiency of ‘post-trade’ processes that take place after a trade is executed,” added the BofE and the FCA..

“By making these processes faster and cheaper, the adoption of these technologies could, if successfully implemented, lead to material savings across financial market participants, such as pension funds, investment firms and banks.”

In order to meet the aims of the DSS, while giving fair consideration to the impact of their policy on key stakeholders, the BoE and the FCA have released a consultation paper. The closing date for responses is 29 May 2024.

Following the review period, a formal communication will be issued with final guidance and rules. The DSS is expected to open applications in the summer of 2024.  

The post Bank of England and FCA to launch joint Digital Securities Sandbox appeared first on The TRADE.

In the EU, ESMA has confirmed that the selection of the bond tape provider is set for two years from now. The expected timeline according to ESMA begins with the Mifir review entering into force in Q1 2024. The preparation of technical standards and procedures is expected to follow throughout the year. Following this will be the launch of the first selection for a bond CTP in Q4 2024.

The preparatory phase could include a public consultation and stakeholder workshops in a bid to adhere to principles of transparency and equal treatment, said ESMA.

Yet, the evaluation for the CTP is only set to take place from Q1-Q3 2025, with the authorisation of this bond CTP not expected until Q4 2025 – a year on from the initial launch of the bond CTP selection.

Read more: Long overdue consolidated tape is a ‘big missing piece’ in European market infrastructure

Speaking to The TRADE, Alex Wolcough, founder and chief executive at GreenBirch Group, shared the views from the market on the EU’s timeline: “In some respects, this is not a surprise as policy takes time but I know there will be a lot of disappointed individuals and firms to see this so far out. From a technology perspective, a consolidated tape still remains a relatively easy thing to do, and in many cases, prospective CTP candidates have already built their prototypes.”

ESMA has confirmed that it plans to award to a single entity the right to operate as a CTP for five years, with one authorised for each asset class: bonds, equity (shares and ETFs) and OTC derivatives (or relevant subclasses).

The selection procedure will call for tenders on a public platform and each selection process will be finalised six months after launch, confirmed ESMA, with explanations regarding the decision making process communicated publicly.

The EU authority confirmed in an announcement that “to appoint those CTPs, ESMA will be responsible for selecting the most suitable candidates on the basis of pre-defined criteria and subsequently authorising and supervising the CTPs.”

Read more: Mifid post-Brexit: The current state of play 

In the UK case, the FCA has provided a detailed policy statement on the establishment of a CTP for bonds in the UK with final rules shared.

Under the tape specifications laid out by the FCA in CP23/33 – altered since its previous proposals (under CP23/15) – two significant changes are being proposed. First, that the bond CTP will be required to provide a historical data service, meaning that the provider must invest in making that data available.

“It will [also] mean that the CTP is a source of benchmark historical data which will put it in a stronger position to sell this data than would be the case if it were not required by regulation to make this service available,” said the FCA.

Secondly, comes the requirement for a CTP to establish a separate legal entity if choosing to provide value-added services. This is not expected to add significantly to the cost of the CTP.

In addition, the FCA has clarified governance requirements, including the aspect of a consultative committee, which may make recommendations to the CTP, which if rejected must receive clear reasoning for the decision. Moreover, the watchdog has confirmed that the CTP committee must have a majority of data users.

“The establishment of a consolidated tape for bonds in the UK is a major milestone. The UK has a leading global market and it is vital to ensure that it remains competitive by widening access to market data and broadening participation in capital markets from investors, both domestically and internationally,” said Victoria Webster, managing director of fixed income at AFME, in an announcement back in September.
 
Currently, the FCA is continuing to consult on the commercial aspect of how the CTPs will operate, with the question as to whether the provider should be required to make payments to data providers to the tape – and indeed how – still under discussion.
 
The short consultation on payments to data providers and on the forms for data reporting services providers closes on 9 February 2024.

This communication by the FCA effectively meets its commitment – as per the Edinburgh Reforms, previously communicated by the Chancellor – to have a legislative and regulatory regime for a UK CT in place by 2024.

Read more: If you build it, will they come? 

The FCA has also confirmed that next steps for the equities consolidated tape will be published next year, while ESMA sets forth a possible 2026 equity tape date and confirmed Q4 2025 at the earliest for the launch of the first selection for derivatives CTP. 

Elsewhere, the FCA also published its consultation paper on improving the UK’s non-equity transparency regime (CP23/32), which is aimed at protecting the market against risk, as well as importantly, improving the consistency and quality of data inputted into the future bond CTP. Responses to the market consultation on the regime can be submitted until March 2024.

The post EU and UK regulators reveal updated plans for bond tape frameworks appeared first on The TRADE.

The thematic review specifically focused on the progress made by firms in implementing the internal capital adequacy and risk assessment (ICARA) process and reporting requirements under IFPR – which applies to the investment firms engaged under Mifid.

IFPR is aimed at streamlining and simplifying the prudential requirements for the 3,500 Mifid investment firms that are prudentially regulated. 

In terms of the firms’ liquidity adequacy, the FCA found some poor practice across the market and recommended that firms must work on considering all the relevant, plausible stresses which could affect business models, and subsequently do more to ensure that the resources are in place to minimise harm if severe situations should arise.

Read more: Brexit is not the problem, Europe’s lack of liquidity is

Where stress events and time periods were considered, these were found not to be necessarily relevant to their cashflows or liquid asset positions, or applied to only a subset. Further, currently “most” firms have not gotten into the habit of regular reviews and subsequent adjustments to their liquid asset levels in line with external market changes, said the FCA.

Highlighting the importance of doing so, the regulator explained: “Recent events have highlighted the importance of adopting this practice. The financial markets have been affected by heightened geopolitical risks and a challenging macroeconomic environment. There have been periods of rapidly escalating and sustained volatility, and higher prices in some markets. 

“These lead to substantial margin calls, higher costs, credit stresses and increased counterparty risks for some firms. The impact of volatility in one market also tends to spill over to others, eventually being felt by other firms.”

Read more: Prop trading firms turn to Middle East as they consider leaving Europe in the wake of IFPR

The FCA also highlighted that insufficient consideration has been given by firms to timeframes, specifically in firms with significant intra-day or inter-day funding gaps or increases in liquid asset requirements during stress. 

In these instances, only monthly or quarterly intervals were used to analyse stressed cashflows, found to be “insufficiently time granular to understand and plan for the actual timings and prompt mitigation of liquidity stresses specifically intra-day and inter-day stresses,” said the regulator. 

It further suggested that these firms were more at risk of running out of cash in stressed conditions – with a possible end result of firm failure.

Read more: Ongoing Mifir Review and regulatory complexity is harming liquidity in Europe, says AFME

Other key areas of improvement found by the FCA included recommendations around: data quality, wind down plans, and ICARA risk processes. 

The financial watchdog’s findings stated that the wind-down assessments from firms did not sufficiently consider impact on members and overall had not adequately planned for instances of potential failures.

Notably, it also found that for most firms, their internal intervention points lacked the appropriate structure to ensure actions could be triggered within the appropriate time frame to mitigate firm failure.

The IFPR regime came into force on 1 January 2022 and these final findings follow initial observations from the FCA’s thematic review in February – while all firms receive individual feedback, the regulator has urged the market to consider and proactively address the latest findings.

Despite some pain points, the FCA asserted in its most recent publication that “firms have made progress in understanding the requirements of the new regime. We saw a deliberate shift toward considering and seeking to mitigate the harm the firm can pose, particularly to consumers and markets.”

The post Investment firms must improve market stress assessments when it comes to liquidity adequacy, says FCA appeared first on The TRADE.

Named the Statutory Instrument (SI) the new tool replaces existing European law which has been retained since Britain left the EU at the start of 2020. HM Treasury is now accepting comments on the proposals until 10 January next year, with plans to implement the changes in 2024 “subject to parliament time”.

“Replacing retained EU law will enable firms to benefit from a streamlined and accessible legislative framework for financial services, where rules adapt over time in response to changing practices in an agile manner,” said HM Treasury in its findings.

Central to the changes is the greater decision-making power awarded to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which under the new regime – if approved in its current state – would gain rulemaking and intervention powers around setting requirements and exemptions.

The changes follow the results of the Short Selling Review, published in July, and the Short Selling Regulation Consultation, delivered earlier this month.

The new instrument defines and sets out the designated activity of short selling of shares and related instruments. It also empowers the FCA to exempt certain shares from the requirements and to make the rules requiring person engaged in short selling activity concerning shares to comply with specific requirements.

“This is part of a wider effort to enhance transparency, oversight over short selling activities in the capital markets. Most of the time, short selling plays a key role in price discovery by reflecting negative sentiments and providing information about market expectations,” chief executive of VoxSmart, Oliver Blower told The TRADE.

“However, on the occasions when executed improperly, it has the potential to disrupt market integrity. This is why we are seeing more and more financial institutions looking to reconstruct their trades to help authorities assess whether short-selling activities adhere to established rules.”

The proposal gives the FCA a rulemaking power to set out aspects of the net short position notification regime and if approved would require the watchdog to aggregate and publish net short positions received by each issuer. It also requires the watchdog to publish a list of shares to which certain rules apply.

Importantly, the FCA has been given power to exempt market making activities and stabilisations from certain short selling requirements. It also allows the watchdog emerging powers that permit it to intervene in “exceptional circumstances”. The rules set out that the FCA must publish a statement of policy setting out further detail of how it considers it will use its powers to intervene in said circumstances.

According to the proposal, the new initial notification threshold for a net short position reporting to the FCA should be 0.2% of issued share capital.

HM Treasury confirmed the FCA is set to consult with market participants on restrictions on uncovered short selling, how firms should report net short positions to the FCA, an exemption for market making and stabilisation activities, and its approach to using its emergency intervention powers.

The FCA is also expected to define arrangements and criteria for the list of reportable shares and how it will publish aggregated net short position reports.

Short selling globally

Short selling is the practice of selling a security that is borrowed – or not owned by the seller – with the intention of buying it back later at a lower price in order to make a profit.

The practice has come under fire from regulators globally as of late with many reviewing their oversight regimes.

It was controversially re-banned in South Korea until 2024 earlier this month. Regulators in the region initially banned the practice due to excessive market volatility levels. They moved to re-ban the practice until next year in response to “naked short selling” – a process that regulators said undermined the price formation process. The decision sparked criticism from several global banks.

The Thai Stock Exchange also reportedly moved to restrict the practice earlier this month.

The post Short selling buck to stop with the FCA as watchdog gets greater powers post-Brexit appeared first on The TRADE.