In Regulatory Wrap for the week to April 5, Rob Mason considers how firms can ensure effective surveillance procedures and complete trading data capture in reflection of related enforcements.
Written by a human
In this Regulatory Wrap, we evaluate industry reactions to the nearly $350 million fine against a U.S. investment bank for its lacking surveillance program, leading to inadequate trade data capture, and how firms can position themselves in preparation for coming regulatory action.
1. In November 2021, the FCA published Market Watch 68 regarding the compliance risks digital trading venues pose, especially when using web-based graphical user interfaces (GUI) to connect with firms
2. Unless this connection is adjusted for surveillance purposes, information like order messages and communications data may not be included within a firm’s data capture solution, leading to unidentified market abuse and recordkeeping violations
3. If firms have front-office staff trading through platforms or venues that the surveillance team is unaware of, this could mean that trade and communications data is not being retained
4. In order to avoid noncompliance, firms will likely be hurrying to examine their data completeness and reflect on potential missing data
5. Similar to JP Morgan, firms may also decide to be proactive and self-report in the case of possible regulatory scrutiny
This Regulatory Wrap is brought to you by Global Relay’s Director of Regulatory Intelligence, Rob Mason.
Consider employing surveillance solutions to confirm that your data sets are complete, compliant, and fit for regulatory scrutiny in light of the recent fine for trade surveillance data gaps.
