“A year’s delay should be sufficient, not least for the regulators to put in place some of the systems they need. I would guess most firms would maintain their current programmes even if there is a delay, and only use the flex on the difficult parts.”
EY executive director Uner Nabi, who is responsible for MIFID II in wealth and asset management across EMEA, said he was only surprised the delay was being put forward on the directive in its entirety.
He explained how a phased approach had been rejected by the EC, given the interlinked nature of many aspects of MIFID II.
Nadi added: “It was always ambitious. With such diverse areas, the regulatory impact was going to be quite complex on the IT systems for both the buyside and the sellside. I don’t think it’s a country-specific thing.”
With the rules not expected to be finalised until well into 2016, it would leave insufficient time for strategies to even be signed off, let alone implemented.
Julian Kramer, head of external distribution for Northern Europe at BNP Paribas Investment Partners, said once the final regulatory standards are revealed next year the distributors, advisers and asset managers all need enough time to get their IT systems and future models in place.
“One of the big issues is that ESMA has been asked by the EC to come up with the nitty-gritty details and it is not necessarily aligned with the parliament, or the individual countries.
“If [the delay] happens I think they will still push through the final outcome but then just give the individual countries and, subsequently, the firms involved a little bit more time to get it together to achieve their desired model going forward. If you get this wrong it could be very problematic so taking a little more time is not unwise.”
