Feeds

MiFID gives most firms a headache

Record-keeping bamboozles, survey finds

Protecting users from Firesheep and other Sidejacking attacks with SSL

Firms across Europe have just two weeks to comply with a law that aims to create a single European market for financial services. But most are struggling with the directive's record-keeping duties, according to survey findings published today.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) harmonises the regulatory regime for investment services across the 30 member states of the European Economic Area (the 27 Member States of the EU plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein).

Article 51 of MiFID (pdf) demands the retention of certain records by financial firms for at least five years. Others must be kept for the duration of the relationship with a client. A firm's retention must be in a manner that allows national regulators "to access them readily and to reconstitute each key stage of the processing of each transaction".

This causes a problem for firms, according to the independent think tank JWG-IT. It claims that 64 per cent of financial firms say they cannot reconstruct events after the fact in reasonable timeframes or cost levels.

PJ Di Giammarino, CEO of the London-based group, warned that if record keeping is done incorrectly, it could falsely trigger or hide market abuse issues.

"If you get caught out with it wrong, it could cost you hundreds of thousands of euro in fines," he said. "If what you have given to the regulators, the market, and your customers does not match what you hold internally for up to five years from 1 November, you are exposing yourself to new risks.

"Record keeping is a big problem and we are working with the industry to make senior management more aware of their new responsibilities under a principles based regime."

JWG-IT is appearing at the Storage Expo, at Olympia, London, this week.

Copyright © 2007, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Related link

Minimum records that the FSA requires UK investment firms to keep (pdf)

Website security in corporate America

More from The Register

next story
Phones 4u slips into administration after EE cuts ties with Brit mobe retailer
More than 5,500 jobs could be axed if rescue mission fails
Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians
'Disciplinary treatment will be sharp and clear' vow spy-chiefs
Apple CEO Tim Cook: TV is TERRIBLE and stuck in the 1970s
The iKing thinks telly is far too fiddly and ugly – basically, iTunes
Huawei ditches new Windows Phone mobe plans, blames poor sales
Giganto mobe firm slams door shut on Microsoft. OH DEAR
Phones 4u website DIES as wounded mobe retailer struggles to stay above water
Founder blames 'ruthless network partners' for implosion
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet
Explores the current state of website security and the contributions Symantec is making to help organizations protect critical data and build trust with customers.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.