UK unprotected by MAD, says CFA Institute
The UK Treasury should maintain its enhanced market abuse protection until the MAD review is complete
LONDON – The UK Treasury is right to propose an extension of its super-equivalent provisions of the UK market abuse regime amid current market conditions, according to the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity. It says HM Treasury’s provisions provide a higher degree of protection than the EU Market Abuse Directive (MAD), which is under review.
Market stress on firms and regulators requires increased vigilance on market abuse, says the CFA Institute Centre, which concludes that wider definitions of market abusive behaviour, proof of such behaviour and the investments included in such behaviour, enable the UK regime to better encompass market abuse than the provisions of the MAD.
The call to maintain a high level of market abuse awareness comes soon after false rumours of concerning HBOS in the UK resulted in short selling of shares shortly afterwards. Adding fuel to the fire, the Financial Services Authority announced in its Market Watch 26 newsletter that 2007 has seen a rise in insider dealing, aided by the increasing use of complex financial instruments.
Charles Cronin, head of the CFA Institute Centre for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, says: “We believe that retaining the super-equivalent provisions of the UK regime is central to ensuring greater investor protection and market efficiency, particularly at a time when market conditions lend themselves to volatile behaviour. The CFA Institute Centre fully supports HM Treasury’s extension proposal and welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with industry peers in upholding the highest standards of ethical and professional behaviour.”
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs