CySEC Execution of MiFID Good Practices Deficient, Determines ESMA

by Finance Magnates Staff
  • ESMA's follow-up MiFID report shows that Cyprus is one of the NCAs that did not address all of its issues.
CySEC Execution of MiFID Good Practices Deficient, Determines ESMA
Bloomberg
Join our Telegram channel

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recently published a report regarding the implementation of MiFID, in which it concluded that CySEC ’s addressing of its deficiencies in regulation were not up to the France-based organization’s standards. ESMA did acknowledge that CySEC has made significant changes to its regulatory practices since the first review came out about four years ago.

The London Summit 2017 is coming, get involved!

[gptAdvertisement]

In 2014, ESMA published a review which showed that overall there was a high degree of compliance with the regulator’s ordered practices regarding organization, monitoring of activities, supervision, thematic work, and treatment of complaints. Several of the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) did well in addressing their deficiencies, such as Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Poland, and Romania. Cyprus, however, was among the ten NCAs which did not address their deficiencies to a satisfactory level.

ESMA expressed confidence that Cyprus... will soon address its remaining deficiencies.

ESMA expressed confidence that Cyprus, among the other ten NCAs dealing with similar issues, will soon address these deficiencies. The due date is expected to be no later than January 3, 2018, when the new MiFID2/MiFIR regime will come into force.

ESMA Follow-Up Plans

ESMA said that it will continue to check up on the progress that NCAs make in implementing the peer review's recommendations. An additional goal will be to foster supervisory dialogue on MiFID, clear, fair, and honest information that is given to clients, as well as on business conduct in general.

In March, Finance Magnates covered ESMA's reporting of an increase in the total number of client complaints made in the first half of 2016. Forex and CFDs related complaints, however, decreased.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recently published a report regarding the implementation of MiFID, in which it concluded that CySEC ’s addressing of its deficiencies in regulation were not up to the France-based organization’s standards. ESMA did acknowledge that CySEC has made significant changes to its regulatory practices since the first review came out about four years ago.

The London Summit 2017 is coming, get involved!

[gptAdvertisement]

In 2014, ESMA published a review which showed that overall there was a high degree of compliance with the regulator’s ordered practices regarding organization, monitoring of activities, supervision, thematic work, and treatment of complaints. Several of the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) did well in addressing their deficiencies, such as Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Poland, and Romania. Cyprus, however, was among the ten NCAs which did not address their deficiencies to a satisfactory level.

ESMA expressed confidence that Cyprus... will soon address its remaining deficiencies.

ESMA expressed confidence that Cyprus, among the other ten NCAs dealing with similar issues, will soon address these deficiencies. The due date is expected to be no later than January 3, 2018, when the new MiFID2/MiFIR regime will come into force.

ESMA Follow-Up Plans

ESMA said that it will continue to check up on the progress that NCAs make in implementing the peer review's recommendations. An additional goal will be to foster supervisory dialogue on MiFID, clear, fair, and honest information that is given to clients, as well as on business conduct in general.

In March, Finance Magnates covered ESMA's reporting of an increase in the total number of client complaints made in the first half of 2016. Forex and CFDs related complaints, however, decreased.

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|} !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}