22 results
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
VAST: An ASKAP Survey for Variables and Slow Transients
- Part of
- TARA MURPHY, SHAMI CHATTERJEE, DAVID L. KAPLAN, JAY BANYER, MARTIN E. BELL, HAYLEY E. BIGNALL, GEOFFREY C. BOWER, ROBERT A. CAMERON, DAVID M. COWARD, JAMES M. CORDES, STEVE CROFT, JAMES R. CURRAN, S. G. DJORGOVSKI, SEAN A. FARRELL, DALE A. FRAIL, B. M. GAENSLER, DUNCAN K. GALLOWAY, BRUCE GENDRE, ANNE J. GREEN, PAUL J. HANCOCK, SIMON JOHNSTON, ATISH KAMBLE, CASEY J. LAW, T. JOSEPH W. LAZIO, KITTY K. LO, JEAN-PIERRE MACQUART, NANDA REA, UMAA REBBAPRAGADA, CORMAC REYNOLDS, STUART D. RYDER, BRIAN SCHMIDT, ROBERTO SORIA, INGRID H. STAIRS, STEVEN J. TINGAY, ULF TORKELSSON, KIRI WAGSTAFF, MARK WALKER, RANDALL B. WAYTH, PETER K. G. WILLIAMS
-
- Journal:
- Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia / Volume 30 / 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 February 2013, e006
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) will give us an unprecedented opportunity to investigate the transient sky at radio wavelengths. In this paper we present VAST, an ASKAP survey for Variables and Slow Transients. VAST will exploit the wide-field survey capabilities of ASKAP to enable the discovery and investigation of variable and transient phenomena from the local to the cosmological, including flare stars, intermittent pulsars, X-ray binaries, magnetars, extreme scattering events, interstellar scintillation, radio supernovae, and orphan afterglows of gamma-ray bursts. In addition, it will allow us to probe unexplored regions of parameter space where new classes of transient sources may be detected. In this paper we review the known radio transient and variable populations and the current results from blind radio surveys. We outline a comprehensive program based on a multi-tiered survey strategy to characterise the radio transient sky through detection and monitoring of transient and variable sources on the ASKAP imaging timescales of 5 s and greater. We also present an analysis of the expected source populations that we will be able to detect with VAST.
List of illustrations
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp x-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Managing conflicts of interest: from ISD to MiFID
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 91-113
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Conflicts of interest at the heart of financial services
Conflicts of interest are endemic to the provision of financial services in a free-market capitalist system. On the one hand, the senior management of the bank are held accountable to shareholders to maximize profits yet, on the other hand, the core of the activities banks undertake in retail client segments involves acting in a fiduciary capacity: whether the nature of the service provided is custodial (safekeeping of client assets), advisory (recommending a course of action to a client) or discretionary (being empowered by the client to act on their behalf), there is a breach of trust, and possibly of contract, if the bank and its staff do not act in a way that is aligned to clients' best interests. At a high level, these two fundamental objectives of a bank – maximizing corporate profits and acting in the best interests of clients – are, if not irreconcilable, at least difficult to align.
In the long run, one would expect that acting in the best interests of clients would be intimately tied to the ability of a bank to remain profitable. As game theory predicts, because traditional banking is a business activity which generally involves relationship-building and continuous service, as opposed to one-off contact with consumers, a bank or investment firm which is not seen by actual or potential clients to be treating them fairly or effectively managing its conflicts of interest is essentially doomed to fail as its clients leave with their assets for another institution.
3 - Client suitability and appropriateness under MIFID
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 45-57
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
MiFID's stated objective is ‘to further integrate the European financial markets, thus creating a real level playing field for all European stakeholders. In order to reach this objective, we need to guarantee an appropriate level of transparency and information as well as investor protection against the complexity of the market.’ To this end, MiFID introduces two new key concepts in European law, i.e. client suitability and appropriateness assessments. Together with the best execution requirement, they form the core building blocks of the new conduct-of-business rules of MiFID.
A broad conduct of business framework was in place in the ISD, also introducing elements of suitability and appropriateness at a very high level. However, similarly to best execution, its definition was vague and its enforcement was left to the country where the service was provided. The ISD requested firms to act in the best interest of their clients and to seek information about their ‘financial situation, investment experience and objectives’ (art. 11.1). The ambiguous wording led to a variety of rules, creating hindrances to an effective single market in securities trading for both professional and retail investors.
Under the MiFID regime, investment firms have to comply with an entirely new set of obligations, requiring them to re-map and re-classify new and already existing clients into three main categories. These are ‘eligible counterparties’, ‘professional clients’ and ‘retail clients’. The severity of conduct of business rules is graduated and predicated upon a client's classification, retail clients being afforded the highest level of protection.
1 - The MiFID revolution
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 6-25
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) has essentially been seen as a compliance and IT exercise for financial services firms. As a result, much of the analysis surrounding MiFID compliance and the development of business strategies for the new regulatory landscape has focused on upgrading internal procedures and building the supporting IT infrastructure.
The impact of MiFID extends far beyond mere compliance and IT alone, however. The unprecedented scope of harmonization of securities markets legislation and the resulting open architecture ushered in by MiFID, especially in trade execution and reporting, will cause a profound upheaval within existing market structures.
MiFID is nothing short of a revolution: it will see banks operating as exchanges for some activities, exchanges offering alternative execution services that more closely resemble the structure of OTC markets than traditional organized markets, and the decentralization of order execution among a panoply of venues in markets previously governed by concentration rules: le monde à l'envers. MiFID has a profound impact on the organization, day-to-day operations and business strategies not only of investment firms – which have tended to be the focus thus far – but also of exchanges, asset managers and other financial markets intermediaries, such as brokers, data consolidators and business solutions providers. Overall market design and functioning are likely to be heavily impacted, not least because the implementation of MiFID is not a static event necessitating only one-off sunk costs; rather, it requires firms to make constant dynamic readjustments to remain competitive.
Frontmatter
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
8 - MiFID's impact on the fund management industry
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 140-157
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
There remains considerable confusion as to how exactly the MiFID and UCITS Directives will interact in the long run. This uncertainty reflects the growing pains of a regulatory transformation that represents nothing less than a tectonic shift from intense and prescriptive product regulation to a more flexible, principles-based regulation of management functions. Unlike UCITS, MiFID is a horizontal directive that cuts across the entire financial services industry (except for insurance). Precisely because the two directives are rooted in diverging regulatory philosophies, they are not natural partners, and the exercise of trying to fit the two together is likely to be neither effortless nor seamless.
This confusion can be traced to apparently contradictory – or, at the least, ambiguous – wording in the MiFID as to how its provisions relate to collective investment schemes. In reality, the UCITS–MiFID nexus is a web of dizzying complexity, on which this chapter attempts to shed more light. On the one hand, MiFID Recital 15 and art. 2(1) (h) state that collective investment schemes (whether or not coordinated at EU level), their management companies and depositaries are excluded from the scope of MiFID provisions. Since UCITS are collective investment undertakings that are coordinated at Community level, they, their managers and depositaries do not come under MiFID rules.
On the other hand, UCITS are listed in Section C of MiFID Annex I as MiFID financial instruments. Therefore, in their dealings with clients involving transactions in UCITS, all MiFID firms must apply conduct of business rules, which include best execution and suitability.
Index
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 223-228
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
5 - Financial market data and MiFID
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 78-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The opening up of the market for equity market data, as foreseen in the MiFID, raises the question of whether data will be sufficiently consolidated and of high enough quality, or whether the information will become too fragmented, thereby hindering price transparency and the implementation of best execution policies. This chapter outlines the market for financial market data, the provisions of MiFID and the implementing measures regarding financial data and data consolidation. It also looks at the approaches taken by Committee of European Securities Regulators, the FSA and the US authorities. It concludes that markets should be capable of adapting and that additional licensing requirements, such as those proposed by the FSA, are in fact premature and might act as a barrier to the single market. Nor does it find that a US-style monopoly consolidator would be needed.
Introduction
One aspect of the MiFID that is rarely discussed is its impact on the financial market data business. MiFID not only abolishes the concentration rule for trading of equity securities, but also for market data generated from these trades. Whereas today market data on equity transactions is primarily controlled by the exchanges, MiFID leaves open how and by whom this information will be consolidated in the future. It says only that it should be done on a reasonable commercial basis, and as close to real time as possible.
4 - Best execution
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 58-77
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The requirement to seek the most favourable execution reasonably available for securities transactions is one of the core concepts of the new conduct of business regime of the MiFID Directive. Under MiFID, the EU has put in place a framework under which best execution is regulated in a harmonized framework. In conjunction with the abolition of the monopoly of exchanges, it provides the basic structure for competition among trading platforms and execution venues. Investment firms are requested to execute a trade on the basis of the best possible result for their clients. Its practical implementation holds many conceptual and practical challenges, however.
In this chapter, we argue that best execution originated from the common contract law's concept of fiduciary duty in light of the agency relation between brokers and their clients. Provided that brokers hold superior information and have conflicting interests with respect to their clients, regulators mandated best execution to ensure investor protection. However, because of high monitoring and measuring costs, best execution must stress process and market competition over a strict quantitative enforcement. Thus best execution mutates from a pure investor protection objective to both an investor protection and a market efficiency objective. In effect, MiFID follows exactly this approach: by allowing flexible best execution policies and encouraging trading venues' competition, MiFID aims at achieving investor protection and market efficiency without cumbersome and unenforceable regulation.
A broad fiduciary duty concept already existed in EU law, but its definition was vague and its enforcement was left to the host country.
Glossary
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 215-218
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Bibliography
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 221-222
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
2 - Origins and structure of MiFID
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 26-44
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The ISD and the development of European capital markets
The past decade has seen a sea change in European capital markets. From a predominantly bank-dominated system, the European financial system has become more market-based. According to some indicators, it has even recently surpassed the US in this respect. For example, leading European stock market indexes have become more cyclical than those in the US, and both the issuance of international bonds and the number and total value of IPOs (initial public offerings) in Europe surpassed those in the US in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The change since 1996, when the Investment Services Directive (93/22/EC) (ISD) came into force, is remarkable. As can be seen from the hexagon in Figure 2.1, bond issuance more than doubled, equity market capitalization tripled and equity market turnover and the total amount of derivatives contracts written increased seven-fold. Figure 2.2 shows that the growth of bank assets was overtaken by the growth in bond assets during several years, which is another sign of the move towards a more market-based system. Although the growth of the IPO market has benefited from the enforcement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US and from some large-scale privatizations in the EU in 2005, it is a sign that the European regulatory regime is not too burdensome and/or that it manages to cope with diversity.
It is difficult to distinguish the extent to which this phenomenon is the result of regulatory initiatives, as compared to simple market developments.
Contents
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp v-ix
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
7 - The MiFID approach to inducements – imperfect tools for a worthy policy objective
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 114-139
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter looks at the MiFID rules on inducements. It argues that while the policy objectives underpinning the rules are valid and necessary, the instruments regulators have chosen for achieving those objectives are in need of fine-tuning, and especially clarification, if the objectives are to be met without inflicting collateral damage on the European fund industry.
Implementing the MiFID inducements rules
Regulating distribution models: the pros and the cons
The MiFID requirements on inducements, particularly around disclosure, represent a controversial and bold attempt to shed more light on the mechanics of the distribution channels through which savings products make their way from the product factory into client portfolios.
Broadly, there are three distribution channels through which savings products enter client portfolios: advised sales, unadvised sales (execution-only), and allocation of product to discretionary managed funds. The mix of product – whether homespun or sourced from a third party – that is channelled to client portfolios will depend on an investment firm's distribution architecture. These models range from a ‘closed-shop’, where a firm only distributes its own product, to a ‘guided architecture’ where the firm sources product from a select panel of providers, to a ‘whole of market’ proposition (also known as ‘open architecture’).
In the HNW client space, closed-shop models are a relict of the past. Set against the backdrop of the increasing competition in financial services that has accompanied the dismantling of national regulatory barriers to trade at the European level, investment firms are gradually shifting from pushing product to developing a product set that offers innovative solutions to clients and responds to a client ‘pull’.
11 - MiFID and Reg NMS: a test-case for ‘substituted compliance’?
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 199-214
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter compares the EU MiFID and the US Regulation National Market System (Reg NMS) and explores whether they could be accepted as equivalent by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Apart from many similarities, the most important one being that the main purpose of both measures is to enforce best execution in equity trading, there are also many differences in the definition of best execution, the structures of the markets, and the role and powers of supervisory authorities. It calls upon the European Commission to make a detailed comparison between both measures and to take the opportunity to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement on securities trading with the US.
Introduction
Two substantive pieces of legislation came into force on both sides of the Atlantic at roughly the same time – MiFID in the EU and Reg NMS in the US. Both aimed at updating regulation to reflect technological changes and market developments. Should this coincidence be taken as a sign of a well-functioning regulatory dialogue or of capital market integration? At the heart of each regulation is the introduction and specification of the best execution concept in securities transactions. MiFID intends to complete the process started with the 1993 Investment Services Directive (ISD) and further liberalizes Europe's capital markets, by abolishing the monopoly of exchanges. Reg NMS aims to modernize and strengthen the National Market System (NMS) for equity securities trading.
ANNEX I - List of services and activities and financial instruments falling under the MiFID's scope
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 219-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Investment services and activities
Reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments.
Execution of orders on behalf of clients.
Dealing on own account.
Portfolio management.
Investment advice.
Underwriting of financial instruments and/or placing of financial instruments on a firm commitment basis.
Placing of financial instruments without a firm commitment basis.
Operation of multilateral trading facilities.
Ancillary services
Safekeeping and administration of financial instruments for the account of clients, including custodianship and related services such as cash/collateral management.
Granting credits or loans to an investor to allow him to carry out a transaction in one or more financial instruments, where the firm granting the credit or loan is involved in the transaction.
Advice to undertakings on capital structure, industrial strategy and related matters and advice and services relating to mergers and the purchase of undertakings.
Foreign exchange services where these are connected to the provision of investment services.
Investment research and financial analysis or other forms of general recommendation relating to transactions in financial instruments.
Services related to underwriting.
Investment services and activities as well as ancillary services of the type included under Section A or B of Annex 1 related to the underlying of the derivatives included under Section C – 5, 6, 7 and 10 – where these are connected to the provision of investment or ancillary services.
Introduction
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 1-5
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
MiFID was formally adopted by the EU legislator on 30 April 2004, but until now, a systematic overview and discussion of the impact of the directive and its different provisions has not existed. The European Directive 2004/39/EC, better known as the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), is nothing short of a revolution. This directive represents the cornerstone of the Commission's Financial Services Action Plan and was recently transposed into national law and implemented by investment services providers.
MiFID will fundamentally alter the structure of European securities markets, in a way that possibly not many other pieces of EU financial services legislation have so far done. Much of the available analysis surrounding MiFID has focused on compliance, on building the supporting IT infrastructure and on upgrading procedures within financial institutions. Yet the regulatory impact of MiFID extends far beyond short-term implementation for investment firms. The unprecedented scope of harmonization of securities markets legislation and the resulting open architecture ushered in by MiFID, especially in trade execution and reporting, will cause a profound upheaval within existing market structures.
MiFID is indeed revolutionary; its role and impact can be considered ground-breaking from the competitive, economic and legislative points of view. MiFID came into force in the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries on 1 November 2007, but as there were serious delays at the level of the member states and firms in adapting to this, a full appreciation of the changes brought about by this process can still be expected to take some time.
9 - MiFID and bond market transparency
- Jean-Pierre Casey, Barclays Bank, London, Karel Lannoo, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
-
- Book:
- The MiFID Revolution
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 08 October 2009, pp 158-178
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The most important outstanding issue of MiFID is the application of pre- and post-trade transparency requirements to non-equity markets. Although the general conduct of business provisions apply to all financial instruments, the pre- and post-trade transparency requirements apply only to equity markets for the time being. Article 65.1 tasked the Commission with conducting a study to report by 31 October 2007 on whether the transparency requirements ought to be extended to classes of financial instruments other than shares.
This chapter presents the pros and cons of introducing greater transparency into non-equity markets, especially bonds. It highlights the insufficient level of data available to market participants and regulators on volumes and aggregate bond market activity, as well as the lack of appropriate information made available to retail investors, suggesting that dealers may have little time to come up with a solution, and that an industry code of conduct may be an appropriate avenue to introduce more transparency, preferable to legislative initiatives.
Introduction
The debate on bond market transparency is a difficult one, owing to the complex interaction and possible trade-offs between the policy objectives of market liquidity, transparency, stability, efficiency and investor protection. All of these are valid policy objectives; the critical challenge becomes one of finding the appropriate mix.
Pre- and post-trade transparency may equally enhance or harm market liquidity and efficiency, depending on how they are applied, by whom, for what instruments, in which markets and at which latency.