|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
| A lot more information from the JC’s big brother [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Section_110_Special_Purpose_Vehicle_(SPV) here]. | | A lot more information from the JC’s big brother [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Section_110_Special_Purpose_Vehicle_(SPV) here]. |
| ===MiFID=== | | ===MiFID=== |
| MiFID is implemented in Ireland through the [https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/si/375/made/en/print European Union (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2017] of Ireland. We mention this only because there are some odd provisions of MiFID 2 which potentially put SPVs into scope should they look to securitise [[commodity derivative]]s or carbon emission allowances. | | MiFID is implemented in Ireland through the [https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/si/375/made/en/print European Union (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2017] of Ireland. |
|
| |
|
| So, an odd thing. In MiFID 1, commodity derivatives and carbon emissions products were (largely) excluded from scope. To ensure participants on commodity derivatives markets appropriately regulated and supervised, MiFID 2 narrowed exemptions, especially as regards “[[dealing on own account]]”.
| | See a detailed exposition of the travails of European [[repackaging]] [[SPV]]s that aspire to repackage emissions allowances or commodity derivatives who wonder whether this might count as a MiFID 2 regulated activity at our [[dealing on own account]] page. |
| | |
| This activity is vaguely defined in MiFID — always has been, as “'trading against proprietary capital resulting in the conclusion of transactions in one or more financial instruments”<ref>Article {{mifid2prov|4(1)(6)}}.</ref> — but given MiFID’s purpose, generally has been understood as being restricted to brokerage and market-making activity; a continual activity in the market either to be able to fulfil third-party customer demand or provide market liquidity, only holding prop inventory. In other words, this is not about participants using their own capital to buy, and go on risk to, financial instruments.<ref>See this in the FCA’s [https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/13/3.pdf Q&A to its perimiter guidance rules] which, indeed, no longer represent European law but are all the same heavily influenced by them, to the point of being presently identical:
| |
| | |
| {{quote|“Dealing on own account involves position-taking which includes proprietary trading and positions arising from market-making. It can also include positions arising from client servicing, for example where a firm acts as a systematic internaliser or executes an order by taking a market or ‘unmatched principal’ position on its books.
| |
| | |
| Dealing on own account may be relevant to firms with a dealing in investments as principal permission in relation to MiFID financial instruments, but only where they trade financial instruments on a regular basis for their own account, as part of their MiFID business. We do not think that this activity is likely to be relevant in cases where a person acquires a long term stake in a company for strategic purposes or for most venture capital or private equity activity. Where a person invests in a venture capital fund with a view to selling its interests in the medium to long term only, in our view he is not dealing on own account for the purposes of MiFID.”}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Indeed, MiFID is meant to ''protect'' people like that, not ''regulate'' them.
| |
| {{sa}} | | {{sa}} |
| *[[ICAV]] | | *[[ICAV]] |