 The Mexican transparency standoff: What will you do ‘next time’?Alaric Gibson and Daniel Simpson Journal of Securities Operations & Custody, 2015, vol. 7, issue 4, 362-369 Abstract: Nearly six years on from the launch of the G20 plan for financial services reform, hundreds of thousands of pages of regulation have been written on transparency. As increasingly more regimes are put in place across the G20, the difficulty in meeting the requirements rises: new data fields are required to be sourced, infrastructure needs to be built and complexity arises from each regime’s distinctive ‘flavour’ of requirements. At the same time, even if one argues that firms in theory could meet these disparate and often vague transparency requirements, they have little incentive to invest the vast amounts of resources required because the penalties for not doing so are less burdensome. UK-based firms have been fined a total of £33m over the last six years for transaction reporting failures, less than £5m for risk reporting failures and nothing at all for trade reporting. Meanwhile, regulators, without the quality data with which to analyse the financial system, find their ability to prevent future crises compromised. Without significant changes in the approach to providing data for systemic risk analytics, the industry will continue to live with an opaque and murky system. Keywords: transaction reporting; regulatory transparency; data management; MiFID II; EMIR (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aza:jsoc00:y:2015:v:7:i:4:p:362-369 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Journal of Securities Operations & Custody from Henry Stewart Publications |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.