One of the repercussions of the crisis in 2008 was and is the re-regulation of the financial markets. This wave, which in the industry is often referred to as “regulatory tsunami”, has peaked in the last few years. The most prominent example for this is MiFID II/MiFIR, which entailed projects with a duration of many years. Even though there is a legitimate reason to assume that this wave of re-regulation is over for the time being, and supervisory authorities and politicians like to consider and analyse the effectiveness now before new adaptations are carried out, in 2018 a not to be underestimated number of old and new topics are also to be addressed.
One of the most significant challenges for international banking groups in connection with the automatic data exchange is the enormous variety of county-specific requirements, which in parts significantly deviate from both standards FATCA and CRS or even go beyond them. On top of that, numerous countries have started to adjust their provisions for the upcoming reporting year, whereby additional need for adjustment arises.
The 2nd annual Best Execution and Transparency under MiFID II forum, organised by marcus evans, took place in London from September 21 to September 22, following a series of similar conferences that marcus evans organised on this topic over the past few years. This time, the focus was on transparency rules, namely cost transparency and investor protection under Article 24, and the various implications of pre- and post-trade price transparency for trading venues and systematic internalisers (SI).
The Tax Congress for Financial Institutions (TCFI), September 19-20 2017 in London, took place in a new format with two co-located conferences, one on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) and one on Tax and Technology. The two streams with some joint sessions clearly demonstrated the close relationship of the two topics.
The need for data migration of 1.6 million customers to new structures arose from the requirement to upgrade the entire T-Mobile prepaid card system to a state-of-the-art online charging platform including new CRM systems. Based on the experience of similar previous projects, this time a new approach was chosen. Design and implementation of the migration logic were implemented at first; during the implementation cycle of the new applications only small adaptations were necessary. This approach decisively contributed to the project’s success.
The “hot phase” of integration projects starts with the import of newly delivered software into the internal integration testing environment: Within no time, extensive technical and functional tests have to ensure that existing processes as well as new functionalities work seamlessly across all systems and interfaces and are fully operational with one’s own databases.
Hence, the phase of system integration is characterised by high time pressure and staff costs from IT and software tests divisions. Errors encountered in this project phase cause additional effort for analysis and administration putting project management to the test time and again.
January is always a time when people indulge in retrospection and SDS is no exception here and wants to recap the last year.
On 28 September, the WM seminar on the US withholding tax took place in Frankfurt. Due to the recent developments in this field, the seminar was completely booked, the conference room was densely packed and the speakers from Ernst & Young, Commerzbank and HSBC Trinkaus were welcomed by a highly interested audience.
The 14th AEoI congress organised by Osney Media took place on the 14-15 September in London. The sheer number of more than 140 participants shows the unabated interest in information on CRS. While FATCA is slowly becoming business as usual after the first reporting periods, the implementation of CRS in operations and IT is still in progress and entails corresponding challenges. Precisely this aspect was the common thread running through many presentations, starting from the welcome address by the chairman John Shoemaker (UBS).
Many financial service providers are currently facing the question how to represent the requirements for MiFIR (Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation) transaction reporting according to article 26, becoming effective as of 2018, as well as for the upcoming SFTR (Securities Financing Transaction Regulation) in their own system environment. To answer this question, it is worth looking at the most important requirements to be met in this context.