According to an article in Risk.net, ESMA's request to postpone the reporting of ETDs has been declined. Full article available here (subscription required) or here.
An issue often raised by corporates of late has been which instruments will potentially not be recognized as hedges under the ESMA definition.
You could be excused for thinking that an issue such as this would be relatively easy to resolve given that there are accounting standards which analogously also apply to corporates which do not directly apply these standards.
The legislator is (apparently) more lenient here and provides a broader definition: a derivative must foremostly, and possibly in a wider sense, be risk-mitigating in order not to be recognized as subject to the clearing threshold. Does this clarify the issue?
ESMA published today the new EMIR timeline after still not having appointed Trade Repositories (TR) so far.
Now the first TR registrations are expected not earlier than November 7, 2013. As the reporting obligation starts 95 calendar days after the first TR registration, the new start date for reporting all OTC asset classes (IR, FX, commodities ...) is now scheduled for February 12, 2014.
EMIR's roadmap foresees further requirements regarding risk mitigation, which will become mandatory from September 15 for those companies which trade OTC derivatives. It is then required to have binding agreements with counterparties in place.
Is an agreed Trade ID also necessary for backloaded trades?
ESMA's answer to this question (Q&A document as of June 4, 2013): To the extent that a backloaded contract is still outstanding at the time of reporting, a Trade ID needs to be agreed between the two counterparties and reported, together with the other information on that contract.
This website uses necessary cookies that ensure the functionality and security of the website. In addition, we integrate YouTube with your consent. You can find more information in the privacy policy.
