Financial counterparty: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*Commodity traders who are not active in regulated financial markets | *Commodity traders who are not active in regulated financial markets | ||
*any [[Special purpose vehicle|espievies]] that are not specifically set up as investment funds — so repackaging SPVs, securitisation vehicles — that kind of thing. | *any [[Special purpose vehicle|espievies]] that are not specifically set up as investment funds — so repackaging SPVs, securitisation vehicles — that kind of thing. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Non-financial counterparty]] |
Latest revision as of 13:25, 28 June 2023
|
The EU’s EMIR regulation — which deals with unglamorous but important stuff like trade reporting, mandatory clearing of derivatives, regulation of central counterparties and regulatory margin, and makes a big fuss about whether one is a “financial counterparty”, and therefore automatically in scope for the full horror of European infrastructure regulation, or not, in which case your scoping will have to do with how often, in your daily travels, you interact with the regulated bits of the financial system. In a nutshell the following are financial counterparties:
- a MiFID investment firm
- a credit institution authorised under the Capital Requirements Directive
- an EU-regulated insurer, assurer, reinsurer;
- a UCITS and its management company;
- An EU-regulated pension fund; and
- An AIF and its AIFM
Which means a number of potentially important entities will not be. For example:
- Ordinary corporates — your Vodafones, Apples and, Volkswagens, who will generally be clients
- Commodity traders who are not active in regulated financial markets
- any espievies that are not specifically set up as investment funds — so repackaging SPVs, securitisation vehicles — that kind of thing.