Contracts 'that must be physically settled' under MiFID II - the role of balancing agreement with TSOs determined
- Category: MiFID
The ability test for "contracts which must be physically settled" (i.e. contracts falling under Sections C6 or C7 of the Annex I of the MiFID Directive, depending upon the place of execution) has taken its final - as it seems - shape.
Position limits: less than one-day divergence in delivery dates between OTC and an exchange-traded contract will not stop the EEOTC qualification
- Category: MiFID
Crafting the EU position limits legal framework seems to require an immense creativity along with an extreme caution on the part of European legislators.
Dealing with this unprecedented task reveals problems so far unknown, nevertheless of an utmost practical importance.
CSCF invalidated, but not entirely
- Category: Emissions trading
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28 April 2016 (C‑191/14, C‑192/14, C‑295/14, C‑389/14 and C‑391/14 to C‑393/14) creates dual system of the CSCF's application within the same, third trading period of the EU ETS, as both legal frameworks - the invalidated, and the new one - will be binding, however, for different years.
"Equivalent" does not always mean the same - remarks on the ground of the new financial instruments' definition
- Category: MiFID
Commission Delegated Regulation of 25.4.2016 implementing MiFID II represents the coup de grâce for the hotly-debated topic of equivalency as the criterion for the differentiation of forward contracts being financial instruments from other physically settled OTC derivatives.
This step change from purely formal criterion based on the literal wording of the contract to the objective metric dependent only on verifiable trading data seems, however, as it stands, unworkable for legal practitioners.
Systematic internalisers thresholds for emission allowances and emission derivatives determined in the MiFID II delegated Regulation
- Category: MiFID
As you certainly know emission allowances and emission derivatives are the asset classes for which - as from the MiFID II entry into force (3 January 2018) - the systematic internalisers' thresholds must be counted.
Numerical values of these thresholds became clear on 25 April 2016.
Back office alert - OTC contract admitted to trading at the organised market place
- Category: REMIT
Do you still deliberate how often the list of organised markets must be checked?
World of thresholds
- Category: Emissions trading
Every self-respecting EU legislative act must possess its own numerical thresholds, each of them of critical importance.
In order not to be monotonous, let's mention only few of them: MiFID II ancillary exemption threshold, EMIR collateral threshold, clearing threshold.
In this context it should not surprise anybody, the new Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) also operates with this technique, and what is particularly interesting for this website, MAR thresholds influence heavily emissions market.
ACER Code - a universal pass to the EU energy market?
- Category: REMIT
Is it formally correct to conclude a contract in the wholesale energy market with the counterparty that has not registered in the European Registry of Energy Market Participants and, consequently, does not have the ACER Registration Code?
Final customers' REMIT reporting - D-Day 7 April 2016
- Category: REMIT
The scope for final customers reporting under the REMIT Regulation occurs much more extensive than anyone could so far expect.
How do you report trades based on index under REMIT?
- Category: REMIT
Under the REMIT reporting scheme trades based on index may, theoretically, be reported in two alternative ways.
EFET master agreements' reporting under REMIT - everything clear?
- Category: REMIT
Are EFET master agreements reportable under REMIT? ACER's recent interpretations create confusion in the market.
Inside information on the carbon market - time to build expertise
- Category: MAD/MAR
I'm sure your company has in place documented systems and procedures to conduct - with due diligence - assessments, which of your emissions data will have the potential to influence on the market price of carbon (or that the said impact is, for example, negligible).
No? But, obviously, you have already verified whether your company exceeded, at the group level, the threshold of 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year or a rated thermal input of 2,430 MW. Not true? I don't believe it!
If, neglecting the above issues, you're counting on the fact that your company is already publishing inside information under the REMIT Regulation, this misunderstanding may have severe consequences.