Senior Managers and Certification Regime: Why Paper-Based Processes Create Unnecessary Risk
The Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) was introduced to strengthen accountability across financial services. At its core is a simple principle: firms must be able to demonstrate who is responsible for key decisions and activities, and senior managers must be able to show they have taken reasonable steps to discharge their responsibilities. While the principle is straightforward, maintaining effective accountability in practice can be challenging. Responsibilities evolve, reporting lines change, regulatory requirements develop, and employees move between roles. For firms that continue to rely on paper records, spreadsheets and manual processes, keeping pace with these changes can become increasingly difficult. The limitations of paper become particularly apparent when considering the dynamic nature of financial services. Responsibilities change, new regulations are introduced, and staff move between roles. Keeping track of all this manually is not only time-consuming but error-prone. A handwritten note about a change in responsibilities can be lost, a signature can be missed, and before you know it, there are gaps in your accountability framework. The stakes are high. Under SM&CR, senior managers can be held personally accountable for failures in their areas. This means that incomplete or inaccurate records aren’t just a compliance issue; they can have serious personal consequences for individuals. The regime also requires firms to maintain a Single Directory of all certified staff, which becomes increasingly difficult to manage manually as organisations grow. The digital age demands digital solutions. Firms need systems that can keep pace with change, provide clear audit trails, and give regulators confidence in their accountability frameworks. How Complyport Can Help ComplyPortal, Complyport’s Compliance Management System, transforms SM&CR from a bureaucratic burden into a manageable process. The document management feature provides a secure, centralised repository for all Statements of Responsibilities, Management Responsibilities Maps and handover records. Task assignments ensure that certifications are renewed on time, while the audit trail functionality provides the transparency that regulators require. This digital approach not only meets regulatory requirements but also gives senior managers peace of mind that their accountability is properly documented. For more information on how ComplyPortal can transform your compliance processes, please get in touch with our team to book a demo.
EU EMIR Reporting: Complete Guide to EU EMIR Refit Reporting Requirements in 2026
The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) is a framework designed to increase transparency in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market and reduce systemic risk across financial markets. EMIR requires counterparties trading derivative contracts to report details of those trades to authorised trade repositories. The regulation applies to both exchange-traded and OTC derivatives and remains one of the most important reporting obligations for firms established in the EU. Following the introduction of EMIR Refit, reporting requirements have become more detailed, with firms expected to submit significantly larger datasets and maintain stronger data quality controls. For many firms, achieving accurate and timely reporting has become increasingly challenging, making specialist reporting technology essential. What Is EMIR? EMIR was introduced in response to commitments made by the G-20 countries in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Its objectives are to: Increase transparency in derivatives markets Reduce counterparty credit risk Improve market oversight Support financial stability EMIR includes requirements relating to: Clearing obligations for certain derivatives Timely confirmations Exchange of Collateral Collateral quality and quantities Post Trade Risk Reduction exercises – portfolio compression Valuations of outstanding positions The reporting obligation espoused under EU EMIR is meant to demonstrate that counterparties to derivative contracts comply with the abovementioned obligations, as well as provide the relevant authorities with an overview of market activity in the OTC space. EU EMIR and UK EMIR Following the UK’s departure from the European Union in 2020, the UK onshored many rules inherited from its EU membership. EMIR is one of those rules. At their core, both EU and UK EMIR rules are very similar; however, as time progressed, the two rulesets have begun to deviate. This is more pronounced on the EU side with the introduction of “EMIR 3” amending EMIR, which created additional requirements regarding authorisation of initial margin models, validation of proforma models, as well as the CCP active account requirements. Additionally, the FCA and the BoE have provided level 3 guidance to UK reporting entities, which in some cases may differ from guidance provided by ESMA. In addition, the FCA applies different validation rules for its own EMIR reporting requirements. Therefore, UK entities with an EU footprint (or EU firms with a UK footprint) must not presume that the two rulesets are the same. What Is EMIR Refit? EMIR Refit is a major update to the original EMIR reporting framework. The reforms were introduced to improve: Data consistency Reporting accuracy Cross-border regulatory alignment Trade repository data quality Regulatory oversight EMIR Refit aligns reporting standards more closely with global frameworks developed by CPMI-IOSCO and introduces ISO 20022 reporting standards. The number of reportable fields increased significantly, requiring firms to capture and validate much more detailed information about derivative transactions. Who Must Report Under EMIR? EMIR obligations apply to a wide range of market participants. Financial Counterparties (FCs) Examples include: Investment firms Credit institutions Insurance companies UCITS Alternative Investment Funds Pension scheme arrangements Non-Financial Counterparties (NFCs) Undertakings established in the EU that enter into derivative trades. Which Financial Instruments are Captured? All Financial Instruments specified under points (4) to (10) of the MIFID Directive. Both OTC and exchange-traded derivatives are generally reportable. EMIR Reporting Deadlines Firms must report derivative transactions no later than the next working day – T+1. This means details must be submitted by the end of T+1 following: Trade execution Modification Valuation updates Collateral updates Lifecycle Events such as: Exercising of Options (if exercised before maturity) Novation Corporate Actions Credit EventsEtc. Terminations Failure to meet reporting deadlines can result in regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action. Key EMIR Refit Data Fields EMIR Refit introduced over 200 reportable data fields. Important data elements include: Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI) The UTI uniquely identifies a transaction and allows regulators to match reports submitted by both counterparties. The UTI construction is harmonised at a global level by ISO 23897 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) The UPI identifies the derivative product being traded. The UPI is harmonised at a global level by ISO 4914:2021 and the issuance and maintenance of the UPI codes are assigned to the Derivatives Service Bureau. Granular derivative details EMIR Refit introduced additional data points that offer a more granular overview of each derivative contract’s mechanics such as: Crypto asset flags Derivative Direction distinctions: Payer/Receiver e.g. swaps Buyer/Seller e.g. futures Report Triggering Event flags e.g. New Trade Exercising Allocations Step-in events Schedules, where the contract espouses throughout its lifecycle different parameters such as: prices quantities notional amounts Collateralisation details EMIR Refit expanded the collateralisation categories to provide a clearer view to competent authorities regarding which counterparty is liable to post/receive collateral, as well as the type of collateral posted/received (initial or variation margins or both). Collateral haircuts EMIR Refit introduced the concept of collateral haircuts whereby counterparties report in detail the nominal amount of collateral received/posted and the amount of the same collateral post haircut applications (subject to internal risk management processes). Common EMIR Reporting Challenges Many firms struggle with: Data Quality Issues Inconsistent source data often leads to: Rejections Pairing failures Reconciliation breaks UTI Management Generating and exchanging UTIs within required timeframes remains a challenge for many counterparties. Reconciliation Failures Trade repositories compare submissions from both sides of a transaction. Differences can trigger regulatory concern. Legacy Systems Older reporting systems often struggle to support ISO 20022 data standards and EMIR Refit requirements. EMIR Reporting Penalties and Regulatory Expectations Regulators expect firms to maintain: Accurate reporting processes Data governance frameworks Reconciliation controls Error correction procedures Management oversight National competent authorities have repeatedly highlighted data quality as a supervisory priority. Firms should regularly review: Reporting completeness Data accuracy Trade repository feedback Exception management processes Delegated Reporting Under EMIR Many firms choose delegated reporting arrangements to reduce operational burden. Under delegated reporting: A service provider submits reports on behalf of the counterparty. The reporting obligation may be operationally delegated. Regulatory responsibility generally remains with the reporting entity. Firms should conduct ongoing oversight of delegated reporting providers and maintain appropriate governance arrangements. EMIR Reconciliation and Data Quality Controls Strong reconciliation controls are
From Complexity to Clarity: ESMA’s Roadmap to Simpler Transaction Reporting
ESMA has set a new direction for EU transaction reporting. Its latest recommendations provide a practical roadmap towards a simpler, more integrated reporting framework. Here’s what it means for firms. On 23 June 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) launched its Call for Evidence on simplifying financial transaction reporting, inviting industry feedback on streamlining reporting across MiFIR, EMIR and SFTR. Following extensive industry engagement, ESMA published its Final Report on 2 July 2026, setting out its preferred approach and a practical roadmap for implementation. Rather than focusing solely on reducing reporting burdens, ESMA has outlined a blueprint for a more integrated, efficient and data-driven reporting ecosystem. The Future of Transaction Reporting ESMA’s preferred long-term solution, Option 2a, proposes a fully integrated reporting model across MiFIR, EMIR and SFTR. The objective is straightforward: replace fragmented reporting processes with a framework that enables information to be submitted once and reused wherever appropriate, reducing duplication while preserving the quality and value of regulatory data. Importantly, simplification is not about reducing regulatory oversight. It is about improving consistency, enabling greater automation and making reporting more efficient for firms and supervisors alike. Immediate Relief, Long-Term Reform Recognising that full implementation will take time, ESMA has also proposed a package of short- and medium-term measures designed to reduce operational burden while laying the foundations for long-term reform. These include: Removing or deprioritising reporting fields with limited supervisory value. Expanding delegated reporting arrangements. Improving consistency across reporting requirements. Simplifying reporting processes while maintaining robust data quality. Together, these measures demonstrate ESMA’s commitment to delivering practical benefits ahead of the longer-term reforms. A More Integrated Reporting Landscape Perhaps the most significant proposal is the move towards a single reporting channel, replacing today’s fragmented reporting landscape with a more integrated and efficient model. For firms, the benefits include: Reduced duplication across reporting regimes. Simpler reporting processes. Common reporting standards and consistent data definitions. Greater automation and straight-through processing. Higher-quality regulatory data. Lower operational complexity and reporting costs. Ultimately, the objective is to make reporting simpler for firms while ensuring supervisors continue to receive consistent, high-quality information. A Clear Roadmap Unlike the original Call for Evidence, the Final Report sets out an indicative implementation roadmap. Subject to the necessary Level 1 legislative changes, ESMA envisages: Mid-2028 – Governance arrangements established to support implementation. Mid-2029 – Completion of the integrated Level 2 reporting template. H2 2031 – Delivery of the integrated reporting model, allowing approximately 12–18 months for firms to prepare. While these milestones remain dependent on the legislative process, they provide the clearest indication yet that ESMA has moved from consultation to a structured implementation roadmap. Looking Ahead ESMA’s Final Report marks an important milestone in the evolution of EU transaction reporting. By combining immediate burden reduction measures with a clear long-term vision, ESMA has provided firms with greater certainty about the future direction of reporting. For firms, the message is clear: now is the time to streamline reporting processes, strengthen data governance and prepare for a more efficient, technology-enabled reporting environment. How Complyport Can Help As the regulatory reporting landscape continues to evolve, firms need technology that not only meets today’s requirements but is also designed to adapt to tomorrow’s regulatory changes. Complyport, through its award-winning RegTech platform, MAP FinTech, helps firms simplify regulatory reporting by providing a centralised platform that supports multiple reporting regimes and jurisdictions. MAP FinTech validates, enriches, transforms and routes data to regulators, Trade Repositories and Approved Reporting Mechanisms (ARMs), helping firms improve data quality, reduce operational complexity and respond efficiently to evolving regulatory requirements. ESMA’s vision of greater harmonisation, reusable data and more integrated reporting closely aligns with the principles on which MAP FinTech has been built. By consolidating reporting processes within a single, scalable platform, firms can strengthen operational resilience today while preparing for the future of EU transaction reporting. Whether you are looking to optimise existing reporting processes or prepare for the next generation of reporting requirements, Complyport combines deep regulatory expertise with proven RegTech solutions to support your compliance journey. If you have any questions about ESMA’s proposed reforms or the future of the EU transaction reporting framework, please contact our team.
Regulatory Reporting: From Compliance Obligation to Strategic Advantage
For many years, regulatory reporting was viewed primarily as a compliance exercise or a necessary process to satisfy regulatory requirements and avoid potential sanctions. While accuracy and timely submissions remain essential, the role of regulatory reporting has evolved significantly. Today’s regulatory environment is more complex than ever. Firms face increasing reporting obligations, growing data volumes and heightened regulatory scrutiny. At the same time, senior management teams are seeking greater visibility into risks, operations and business performance. As a result, organisations are beginning to recognise that regulatory reporting can deliver value far beyond compliance. The Strategic Value of Reporting Data Regulatory reporting requires firms to collect, validate and analyse large volumes of information relating to their activities, transactions and exposures. When managed effectively, this data can provide valuable insights that support decision-making across the organisation. Reporting data can help firms: Strengthen risk management and oversight Improve governance and accountability Enhance operational transparency Identify inefficiencies and control gaps Support strategic planning and growth initiatives Rather than existing solely to satisfy regulatory requirements, reporting frameworks can become an important source of business intelligence. Common Challenges Facing Reporting Teams Despite significant investment in reporting processes, many organisations continue to face operational challenges that limit the value of their reporting activities. Fragmented Data Sources: Data is often spread across multiple systems, departments and business functions. This can create inconsistencies, increase reconciliation efforts and make it difficult to establish a single source of truth. Manual Processes: Many reporting teams still rely heavily on spreadsheets and manual controls. While these approaches may work in the short term, they can become increasingly difficult to manage as reporting obligations expand. Data Quality Concerns: Inaccurate or incomplete data can lead to reporting errors, increased remediation efforts and greater regulatory scrutiny. Maintaining confidence in reporting outputs requires robust controls throughout the reporting lifecycle. Limited Visibility: Without effective monitoring and oversight, organisations may struggle to identify issues early, assess reporting performance or extract meaningful insights from reporting data. Building a More Effective Reporting Framework To unlock the full value of regulatory reporting, firms should consider a more integrated and strategic approach. Key areas of focus include: Data Governance: Establishing clear ownership, accountability and controls over reporting data helps improve consistency and reliability. Automation: Automating reporting processes can reduce manual effort, minimise operational risk and improve scalability as regulatory requirements evolve. Monitoring and Oversight: Continuous monitoring enables firms to identify issues quickly, track performance and strengthen confidence in reporting outcomes. Collaboration Across Functions: Regulatory reporting should not be viewed solely as a compliance responsibility. Effective reporting requires collaboration between compliance, operations, risk, technology and senior management teams. Looking Ahead Regulatory reporting will continue to play a critical role in helping organisations meet their obligations and maintain regulatory confidence. However, the firms that derive the greatest value from reporting will be those that view it as more than a compliance requirement. By investing in robust governance, high-quality data and modern technology solutions, organisations can transform regulatory reporting into a strategic capability that supports stronger decision-making, improved efficiency and long-term resilience. How Complyport Can Help MAP FinTech, a RegTech platform by Complyport, helps organisations manage complex regulatory reporting obligations through a single, centralised platform. Supporting multiple reporting regimes and jurisdictions, the platform enables firms to automate key processes, improve data quality and strengthen oversight across the reporting lifecycle. To learn more about MAP FinTech, contact our team for a demo.
MAP FinTech’s feedback to ESMA’s Call for Evidence
As we have mentioned in a previous blog post, ESMA has issued a call for evidence for the Simplification of Financial Transaction Reporting. MAP FinTech has carefully studied ESMA’s proposals and has replied to the call for evidence. In the spirit of alleviating our clients from duplicative reporting , streamlining reporting regimes and achieving maximum harmonisation with other financial centres, our proposals to ESMA can be summed as follows: Report Once principle: A single report, for all reporting obligations under Art.9 of EMIR (to TRs), Art 26 (to ARMs or NCAs), Art. 6,10,20 and 21 (APA) of MiFIR and Art.4 of SFTR. Harmonised reporting template for the Reporting Once principle. Extension of the deadlines to report under Art. 26 of MiFIR, Art.9 of EMIR and Art.4 of SFTR to T+2. Abolish dual sided reports. Exemptions from reporting for small Financial Counterparties (e.g. Investment Firms, Funds, etc.) on the basis of operational complexity, size, exposures etc. (small buy-side Firms). Exclude ETDs from post trade events reporting, i.e. no valuation or collateral updates for Exchange Traded Derivatives ( Exchange Traded Derivative has the same meaning as EMIR). Read our feedback here. Disclaimer: This blog was written by MAP FinTech’s Market Infrastructure Team and under no circumstance does it replace advice or guidance by Firms’ compliance and/or risk management functions. Firms affected by the topics discussed in this blog should consult with their compliance/risk management personnel and or consultants for specific guidance and must not rely on the information contained herein. Contact our team of experts for more information or any assistance you may require.
The FX Swaps conundrum for multi-jurisdictional firms.
Major financial centres from across the world are harmonising their derivatives reporting requirements in accordance with IOSCO’s CPMI technical guidance on critical OTC derivatives data elements (other than the UTI and the UPI), the CDE. Australia, Singapore the UK, the EU went live with their implementation of the CDE in 2024, while Canada has done so in 2025. As these jurisdictions harmonised their data reporting requirements, there was hope that similar products traded across jurisdictions would be reported in much the same way. This however has not come to pass and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of physically settled FX Swaps. Physically settled FX Swaps – A primer In very broad strokes a FX swap is exactly what it says on the tin. 2 parties agree to exchange (swap) a specific amount of currencies, at specific prices in the future. These swaps come in 2 flavours: The Spot – Forward Swap Counterparty A exchanges X amount of Euros for Y amount of USD with Counterparty B at the spot market price with the spot leg (or near leg) of the trade settling within 2 business days, while Counterparty A will receive back its Euros and Counterparty B its USD at a predefined price sometime in the future (the forward leg or second leg). [table id=SpotForwardSWap /] The Forward – Forward Swap As before, Counterparty A exchanges X amount of Euros for Y amount of USD, but this time price is a predefined forward price, and the first leg settles in the future (beyond the 2 business days threshold). The second leg unwinds the first leg and is itself executed in the future (usually at a later date than the first leg) and at a price different than the price for the first leg. [table id=ForwardForwardSWap /] Reporting requirement across jurisdictions EU and the UK Both the EU and the UK require that an FX Swap (either Spot – Forward or Forward – Forward) be reported in a single line as explained by ESMA in their Guidelines for EMIR REFIT reporting and by the FCA when the Authority adopted an ESMA Q&A. The representation is as follows for Swaps (either Spot-Forward or Forward-Forward) [table id=12 /] Australia In Australia in accordance with ASIC Derivative Transaction Rules (Reporting) 2024 and associated technical guidance, an FX Swap is reported as 2 reports, one for the near leg and another for the far leg, linking the 2 reports using the Package Identifier elements. As such, reporting entities need to submit 2 reports for a FX Swap (one for the near leg and another for the far leg), see below a representation for a Forward-Forward Swap report for ASIC. [table id=Australia /] *Swap points are calculated as the rate of the far leg minus the rate of the near leg. Swap points can be a negative or positive number. Singapore MAS in its FAQs on reporting has taken yet another approach. MAS emulates the 2-line reporting approach as Australia, however, it adds its own twist. Where Counterparties are mandated to report each leg of the swap separately (be it a spot-forward or a forward-forward) the 2 legs need to be linked with the swap-link field (unique for MAS) while as per MAS FAQs the package identifier field should be populated to identify other types of packaged trades to connect two or more derivatives contracts that are negotiated together under a single economic agreement (e.g. a swaption) but are reported separately. [table id=Singapore /] Canada The Canadian implementation of the CDE as per the CSA Technical Manual is closely aligned with the USA’s CFTC implementation of the CDE. In the US implementation, FX Swaps are reported in 2 separate transactions linked with the Package Identifier fields (similar to Australia). As such, we can readily assume that, in the absence of additional guidance by the CSA’s, reporting entities in Canada will report FX Swaps much like the same way as Australia see representation of a Forward-Forward Swap report below. [table id=Canada /] Additional issues – The UPI problem As we’ve seen in the previous sections, all jurisdictions require reporting counterparties to report FX Swaps (either Spot-Forwards or Forward – Forwards) with their own distinct UPI that characterises the Swap. Much to the reporting parties dismay ANNA DSB specs do not currently allow reporting parties to generate UPIs for the specific case of a Spot-Forward Swap as the UPI is limited to the generation of Forward-Forward Swaps. As such, given that the overwhelming majority of FX Swaps traded are not listed on Exchange, they require to be reported with a UPI in their respective jurisdictions. This creates a problem across the board for reporting entities in Australia, the EU, the UK, Canada and Singapore considering that currently UPIs for Spot-Forward Swaps cannot exist and reporting parties resort in approximating the UPI. Additional issues – Established market practices Irrespective of how Securities Commissions in Canada/Australia/EU/etc. require FX Swaps to be reported, the established practice on the ground by many market participants is to report FX swaps as forwards. Market participants assume that a forward-forward swap is composed of 2 forward trades. For spot – forward swaps since the spot/near leg is not classified as a derivative (due to physical settlement within 2 business days) firms consider that the spot – forward swap can be reported as a single forward trade. We at MAP Fintech consider that the established practice is incorrect, if the swap is confirmed in a single confirmation (or single contract) e.g. a single ISDA confirmation for both legs of the swap then it must be reported as a swap. If on the other hand the 2 legs of a given FX operation (e.g. a Forward near and a Forward far leg) are confirmed in 2 separate confirmations (e.g. 2 ISDA confirmations) then reporting parties may be justified (with several caveats) in reporting the 2 confirmed trades as 2 forwards. Disclaimer: This blog was
Streamlining EU’s EMIR – MiFIR – SFTR reporting, ESMA call for evidence
Introduction On the 23rd of June 2025 ESMA issued a call for evidence “On a comprehensive approach for the simplification of financial transaction reporting”. ESMA requests input from interested stakeholders on its proposals for eliminating inefficiencies duplications and other such encumbrances that emanate from disparate reporting rules such as EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR. Transaction reporting under the aforesaid regimes, cost reporting entities between 1- 4 billion EUR per year, as per a 2019 study by the EU Commission. As the focus of the EU Commission has shifted towards simplifying and streamlining rules across the board, the Commission in January 2025 has set as its goal to reduce reporting burden for all companies across the board . Aligning with the Commission’s goals ESMA considered 2 thematic categories for the simplification of reporting and for each thematic category, ESMA presented 2 reporting options. It should be noted that for both options ESMA considers important to: Preserve information scope, Decrease reporting overlap, Ensure alignment with global reporting standards, Balance Cost and Burden. To wit, while ESMA acknowledges that reporting regimes (SFTR, MiFIR, EMIR and others) serve different purposes e.g. MiFIR reporting provides NCA’s with a view of market activities and assists in the detection of instances of Market Abuse, EMIR provides a measure of risk buildup (especially counterparty default risk) as well as insights on how that risk is managed (clearing, collateral exchanges, risk reduction exercises etc.) and are triggered by different events there is substantial overlap between them in terms of information provided. Option 1- Removal of Duplications For this option ESMA is suggesting 2 different approaches to reducing reporting burden. Delineation by Instrument Type As most reporting entities are aware, in the EU (and the UK) derivatives reporting also captures derivatives listed on Regulated Markets and OTC derivatives. In other jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and Singapore, only OTC derivatives are captured by the aforesaid obligation. As such for this proposal, ESMA is considering limiting the perimeter of EMIR reporting for OTC derivatives only. Currently an ETD listed on e.g. Eurex is doubly reported under both EMIR and MiFIR. ESMA is asking for feedback whether transaction reporting of such ETDs could be carried out under MiFIR only, while post-transaction events (valuations/collateral) for ETDs should be sourced from the Clearing Houses (CCPs) of the Regulated Market where the ETD was executed. In such a case OTC derivatives remain unaffected. Similarly, SFTR obligations are also unaffected. Delineation by Events ESMA is proposing to report all transactions (whether EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR) under MiFIR while post trade events such as valuations, collateral updates etc would be EMIR reportable (for derivative trades) and SFTR (for SFT trades). This implies that all new transactions whether they are on bonds, shares, margin lending, repos, CFDs, forwards, swaps etc. would be reported as new trades under MiFIR, while Valuation Updates, Collateral Updates, Novation events, Compressions, etc. would be reported under EMIR (for derivatives). SFTR reporting (similar to EMIR) will only be focusing on post trade events (e.g. valuation, margin updates etc.). Option 2- Report Once Principle ESMA is considering the creation of a unified reporting template i.e. collapse all reporting obligations into a single report reported via a unified channel. For this option ESMA is proposing 2 (very similar) approaches, one is to collapse EMIR/MiFIR/SFTR into a single report, while the other approach includes a scenario whereby non-ESMA reporting (i.e. reports not under ESMA’s mandate) could be included in the unified template e.g. Energy reporting REMIT (currently under ACER’s mandate) or Solvency II reporting (EIOPA). Of the 2 options (each with 2 approaches), ESMA recognises that the Report once Principle would be the most cost effective in terms of reducing the overall reporting burden. Nevertheless, ESMA also acknowledges that such a radical approach may incur additional costs for affected parties as they would need to reconfigure reporting processes, including investing in IT, training staff, merging siloed data and so on. Moreover, the Authority further acknowledges that such an approach may require substantial amendments to legal texts and time till it is finally implemented. Other Issues Dual Sided Reporting For both options ESMA is asking for input on the possible revision of the dual sided reports, i.e. where both counterparties to a trade/SFT will need to report and reconcile said reports. ESMA acknowledges that if the requirement for dual-sided reporting is abolished NCAs may need to take additional steps to dispense their supervisory duties, such as performing full audits on firms. Reporting at Position Level For a few of the proposals ESMA is also suggesting abolishing the allowance for position level reporting (applicable for EMIR/SFTR but not for MiFIR) and, instead, the position is calculated based off the transaction reports. ESMA acknowledges that such a move may be difficult given that for ETDs as well as some OTC derivatives and some SFTs risk, collateral, valuations are always calculated at a position level. Next Steps ESMA will consider feedback/input it receives by 19 September 2025 and expects to publish at the beginning of 2026 a final report, outlining the key areas and the preferred simplification option/approach. ESMA has further indicated that it will not put forward any new suggestions for changes to MiFIR transaction reporting for which it has consulted in 2024 (refer to our blog here for an overview) pending the outcomes of this Call of Evidence. ESMA has nonetheless produced a final report on the issue in which they record respondents’ preferences and comments (MAP FinTech participated in that consultation). As ESMA notes, irrespective the outcome of this exercise it will be years before any changes come into effect. Characteristically for option 1 (which is the easiest of the 2 to implement) ESMA expects that implementation timeframes would be approximately up to 5 years. MAP FinTech, in the spirit of assisting its clients to comply with their reporting obligations accurately and with cost efficiency, intends to constructively participate in the Call for Evidence.
Streamlining EU’s EMIR – MiFIR – SFTR reporting, ESMA call for evidence
Introduction On the 23rd of June 2025 ESMA issued a call for evidence “On a comprehensive approach for the simplification of financial transaction reporting”. ESMA requests input from interested stakeholders on its proposals for eliminating inefficiencies duplications and other such encumbrances that emanate from disparate reporting rules such as EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR. Transaction reporting under the aforesaid regimes, cost reporting entities between 1- 4 billion EUR per year, as per a 2019 study by the EU Commission. As the focus of the EU Commission has shifted towards simplifying and streamlining rules across the board, the Commission in January 2025 has set as its goal to reduce reporting burden for all companies across the board . Aligning with the Commission’s goals ESMA considered 2 thematic categories for the simplification of reporting and for each thematic category, ESMA presented 2 reporting options. It should be noted that for both options ESMA considers important to: Preserve information scope, Decrease reporting overlap, Ensure alignment with global reporting standards, Balance Cost and Burden. To wit, while ESMA acknowledges that reporting regimes (SFTR, MiFIR, EMIR and others) serve different purposes e.g. MiFIR reporting provides NCA’s with a view of market activities and assists in the detection of instances of Market Abuse, EMIR provides a measure of risk buildup (especially counterparty default risk) as well as insights on how that risk is managed (clearing, collateral exchanges, risk reduction exercises etc.) and are triggered by different events there is substantial overlap between them in terms of information provided. Option 1- Removal of Duplications For this option ESMA is suggesting 2 different approaches to reducing reporting burden. Delineation by Instrument Type As most reporting entities are aware, in the EU (and the UK) derivatives reporting also captures derivatives listed on Regulated Markets and OTC derivatives. In other jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and Singapore, only OTC derivatives are captured by the aforesaid obligation. As such for this proposal, ESMA is considering limiting the perimeter of EMIR reporting for OTC derivatives only. Currently an ETD listed on e.g. Eurex is doubly reported under both EMIR and MiFIR. ESMA is asking for feedback whether transaction reporting of such ETDs could be carried out under MiFIR only, while post-transaction events (valuations/collateral) for ETDs should be sourced from the Clearing Houses (CCPs) of the Regulated Market where the ETD was executed. In such a case OTC derivatives remain unaffected. Similarly, SFTR obligations are also unaffected. Delineation by Events ESMA is proposing to report all transactions (whether EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR) under MiFIR while post trade events such as valuations, collateral updates etc would be EMIR reportable (for derivative trades) and SFTR (for SFT trades). This implies that all new transactions whether they are on bonds, shares, margin lending, repos, CFDs, forwards, swaps etc. would be reported as new trades under MiFIR, while Valuation Updates, Collateral Updates, Novation events, Compressions, etc. would be reported under EMIR (for derivatives). SFTR reporting (similar to EMIR) will only be focusing on post trade events (e.g. valuation, margin updates etc.). Option 2- Report Once Principle ESMA is considering the creation of a unified reporting template i.e. collapse all reporting obligations into a single report reported via a unified channel. For this option ESMA is proposing 2 (very similar) approaches, one is to collapse EMIR/MiFIR/SFTR into a single report, while the other approach includes a scenario whereby non-ESMA reporting (i.e. reports not under ESMA’s mandate) could be included in the unified template e.g. Energy reporting REMIT (currently under ACER’s mandate) or Solvency II reporting (EIOPA). Of the 2 options (each with 2 approaches), ESMA recognises that the Report once Principle would be the most cost effective in terms of reducing the overall reporting burden. Nevertheless, ESMA also acknowledges that such a radical approach may incur additional costs for affected parties as they would need to reconfigure reporting processes, including investing in IT, training staff, merging siloed data and so on. Moreover, the Authority further acknowledges that such an approach may require substantial amendments to legal texts and time till it is finally implemented. Other Issues Dual Sided Reporting For both options ESMA is asking for input on the possible revision of the dual sided reports, i.e. where both counterparties to a trade/SFT will need to report and reconcile said reports. ESMA acknowledges that if the requirement for dual-sided reporting is abolished NCAs may need to take additional steps to dispense their supervisory duties, such as performing full audits on firms. Reporting at Position Level For a few of the proposals ESMA is also suggesting abolishing the allowance for position level reporting (applicable for EMIR/SFTR but not for MiFIR) and, instead, the position is calculated based off the transaction reports. ESMA acknowledges that such a move may be difficult given that for ETDs as well as some OTC derivatives and some SFTs risk, collateral, valuations are always calculated at a position level. Next Steps ESMA will consider feedback/input it receives by 19 September 2025 and expects to publish at the beginning of 2026 a final report, outlining the key areas and the preferred simplification option/approach. ESMA has further indicated that it will not put forward any new suggestions for changes to MiFIR transaction reporting for which it has consulted in 2024 (refer to our blog here for an overview) pending the outcomes of this Call of Evidence. ESMA has nonetheless produced a final report on the issue in which they record respondents’ preferences and comments (MAP FinTech participated in that consultation). As ESMA notes, irrespective the outcome of this exercise it will be years before any changes come into effect. Characteristically for option 1 (which is the easiest of the 2 to implement) ESMA expects that implementation timeframes would be approximately up to 5 years. MAP FinTech, in the spirit of assisting its clients to comply with their reporting obligations accurately and with cost efficiency, intends to constructively participate in the Call for Evidence.
Streamlining EU’s EMIR – MiFIR – SFTR reporting, ESMA call for evidence
Introduction On the 23rd of June 2025 ESMA issued a call for evidence “On a comprehensive approach for the simplification of financial transaction reporting”. ESMA requests input from interested stakeholders on its proposals for eliminating inefficiencies duplications and other such encumbrances that emanate from disparate reporting rules such as EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR. Transaction reporting under the aforesaid regimes, cost reporting entities between 1- 4 billion EUR per year, as per a 2019 study by the EU Commission. As the focus of the EU Commission has shifted towards simplifying and streamlining rules across the board, the Commission in January 2025 has set as its goal to reduce reporting burden for all companies across the board . Aligning with the Commission’s goals ESMA considered 2 thematic categories for the simplification of reporting and for each thematic category, ESMA presented 2 reporting options. It should be noted that for both options ESMA considers important to: Preserve information scope, Decrease reporting overlap, Ensure alignment with global reporting standards, Balance Cost and Burden. To wit, while ESMA acknowledges that reporting regimes (SFTR, MiFIR, EMIR and others) serve different purposes e.g. MiFIR reporting provides NCA’s with a view of market activities and assists in the detection of instances of Market Abuse, EMIR provides a measure of risk buildup (especially counterparty default risk) as well as insights on how that risk is managed (clearing, collateral exchanges, risk reduction exercises etc.) and are triggered by different events there is substantial overlap between them in terms of information provided. Option 1- Removal of Duplications For this option ESMA is suggesting 2 different approaches to reducing reporting burden. Delineation by Instrument Type As most reporting entities are aware, in the EU (and the UK) derivatives reporting also captures derivatives listed on Regulated Markets and OTC derivatives. In other jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and Singapore, only OTC derivatives are captured by the aforesaid obligation. As such for this proposal, ESMA is considering limiting the perimeter of EMIR reporting for OTC derivatives only. Currently an ETD listed on e.g. Eurex is doubly reported under both EMIR and MiFIR. ESMA is asking for feedback whether transaction reporting of such ETDs could be carried out under MiFIR only, while post-transaction events (valuations/collateral) for ETDs should be sourced from the Clearing Houses (CCPs) of the Regulated Market where the ETD was executed. In such a case OTC derivatives remain unaffected. Similarly, SFTR obligations are also unaffected. Delineation by Events ESMA is proposing to report all transactions (whether EMIR, MiFIR, SFTR) under MiFIR while post trade events such as valuations, collateral updates etc would be EMIR reportable (for derivative trades) and SFTR (for SFT trades). This implies that all new transactions whether they are on bonds, shares, margin lending, repos, CFDs, forwards, swaps etc. would be reported as new trades under MiFIR, while Valuation Updates, Collateral Updates, Novation events, Compressions, etc. would be reported under EMIR (for derivatives). SFTR reporting (similar to EMIR) will only be focusing on post trade events (e.g. valuation, margin updates etc.). Option 2- Report Once Principle ESMA is considering the creation of a unified reporting template i.e. collapse all reporting obligations into a single report reported via a unified channel. For this option ESMA is proposing 2 (very similar) approaches, one is to collapse EMIR/MiFIR/SFTR into a single report, while the other approach includes a scenario whereby non-ESMA reporting (i.e. reports not under ESMA’s mandate) could be included in the unified template e.g. Energy reporting REMIT (currently under ACER’s mandate) or Solvency II reporting (EIOPA). Of the 2 options (each with 2 approaches), ESMA recognises that the Report once Principle would be the most cost effective in terms of reducing the overall reporting burden. Nevertheless, ESMA also acknowledges that such a radical approach may incur additional costs for affected parties as they would need to reconfigure reporting processes, including investing in IT, training staff, merging siloed data and so on. Moreover, the Authority further acknowledges that such an approach may require substantial amendments to legal texts and time till it is finally implemented. Other Issues Dual Sided Reporting For both options ESMA is asking for input on the possible revision of the dual sided reports, i.e. where both counterparties to a trade/SFT will need to report and reconcile said reports. ESMA acknowledges that if the requirement for dual-sided reporting is abolished NCAs may need to take additional steps to dispense their supervisory duties, such as performing full audits on firms. Reporting at Position Level For a few of the proposals ESMA is also suggesting abolishing the allowance for position level reporting (applicable for EMIR/SFTR but not for MiFIR) and, instead, the position is calculated based off the transaction reports. ESMA acknowledges that such a move may be difficult given that for ETDs as well as some OTC derivatives and some SFTs risk, collateral, valuations are always calculated at a position level. Next Steps ESMA will consider feedback/input it receives by 19 September 2025 and expects to publish at the beginning of 2026 a final report, outlining the key areas and the preferred simplification option/approach. ESMA has further indicated that it will not put forward any new suggestions for changes to MiFIR transaction reporting for which it has consulted in 2024 (refer to our blog here for an overview) pending the outcomes of this Call of Evidence. ESMA has nonetheless produced a final report on the issue in which they record respondents’ preferences and comments (MAP FinTech participated in that consultation). As ESMA notes, irrespective the outcome of this exercise it will be years before any changes come into effect. Characteristically for option 1 (which is the easiest of the 2 to implement) ESMA expects that implementation timeframes would be approximately up to 5 years. MAP FinTech, in the spirit of assisting its clients to comply with their reporting obligations accurately and with cost efficiency, intends to constructively participate in the Call for Evidence.
Crypto assets: An overview of transaction reporting obligations under securities laws
On January 3rd 2009 the Bitcoin network came into existence with the elusive Satoshi Nakamoto mining the so called genesis block of bitcoin (block number 0) which had a reward of 50 bitcoins. Initially brushed off as another iteration of E-Gold, a rather popular digital currency from the internet’s early years that was shut down by US authorities, Bitcoin was not seriously considered as a viable asset. Bitcoin however, and the multitude of other crypto assets launched since, followed a different trajectory. Now, Investment Firms, Funds and other financial intermediaries allow their clients to invest in crypto assets. In this blog we will explore reporting obligations of such firms that emanate from trading cryptos. Definitions It is prudent to flesh out a few terms associated with the crypto-space which are relevant to the issue of transaction reporting obligations. Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) A decentralised database which is managed/distributed by various participants. There is no central authority to act as the administrator, with the ability to unilaterally make changes to the database without other participants accepting or condoning. As this database is distributed to all participants it may allow for greater transparency making the entire system more resilient to manipulation by bad actors. Blockchain A specific type of Distributed Ledger Technology that organises data into blocks, each block is closed and opened with a specific cryptographic signature called hash. This signature verifies that the data contained within the block have not been manipulated and seals them from further alterations. I.e. once data have been recorded into a blockchain they cannot be undone. Take home message, all blockchains are DLTs, but not all DLTs are blockchains. Crypto-Coins/Currencies A coin is created with the so-called mining process whereby a block is added on a blockchain (see above), the process of creating a block involves solving a cryptographic puzzle which increases in complexity as more blocks are added to the chain. This increase in complexity requires vast amounts of computing power. A lot of participants attempt to solve the puzzle, the first to get to the solution adds another block to the chain and is rewarded with a coin, which can then be traded with other participants. A key characteristic of this coin is that it can only exist on its native blockchain and cannot be used on other DLTs as is. I.e. Bitcoin/DOGE can only be mined on their native blockchain and cannot be traded on e.g. Ethereum’s blockchain as is. Crypto Tokens Tokens are created on an existing DLT that allows such programmability, e.g. Ethereum blockchain allows for the creation of such tokens, but Bitcoin’s blockchain does not facilitate this. Usually such tokens are pre-mined, i.e. the developer decides how many tokens they intend to create and distribute them to interested parties. In this case the mining process described for Crypto coins does not apply. Moreover, and more importantly, tokens may be coded with different functions (unlike coins) and can exist across different DLTs (e.g. a Token can exist on both Ethereum’s and Solana’s blockchains). Examples of tokens include Tether and NFTs. Tokenisation In layman’s terms, it’s the process of representing an asset in digital form. E.g. a title deed of a property, ownership of a car, or more relevant to the topic at hand, a financial instrument. The token is recorded on a programmable DLT which can then be traded across participants. Tokenisation promises to deliver reduced trading costs, reduction of counterparty risk and peer to peer trading. In a traditional exchange when trading e.g. shares, once execution is triggered, the order is processed by different functions within the exchange, such as e.g. the Central Clearing House that interposes between buyer and seller in order to verify that they have the monies and the assets to trade, the Central Securities Depositary that registers the change in ownership of the asset etc. Such functions may be rendered redundant if trading is done using a DLT. In fact several exchanges have launched DLT trading platforms such as, Switzerland’s SIX – Group with the SDX Exchange and Japan’s Osaka Stock Exchange Osaka Digital. At the same time major financial organisations have introduced DLT solutions, such as JP Morgan’s Kinexys (formerly known as Onyx) as a platform for trading major currencies and tokenised securities. Roundup of relevant Crypto asset rules USA In the early days of crypto-assets’ existence there was an incoherent framework on how securities regulators would be treating them, then in 2018, a landmark court ruling in the US brought some much needed clarity on the issue. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought charges against an entity alleging that cryptocurrencies are commodities and as such any security referencing them is under CFTC purview. The courts adjudicated in favour of the CFTC and this created a legal precedent for crypto-coins, categorising them as commodities. The USA has yet to formulate a comprehensive legislation package at a federal level, although federal bodies such as the Securities and Exchanges Commission, the CFTC and FDIC have enacted policies towards better regulating the crypto space. E.g. the SEC is accepting feedback from interested parties as part of its own rulemaking for crypto assets under the umbrella of the Crypto Task Force and the process is ongoing as of the date of publication of this blog. EU In 2020, the European Commission communicated its intention to develop a framework for digital finance across the EU which included crypto-assets. This spurred the European Supervisory Authorities -ESAs (ESMA, EIOPA, EBA) and the ECB to begin preparatory work on the said package. This eventually led to the adoption of the MICA package in 2022. The said package came into effect in 2024. The ESAs have produced additional guidance such as ESMA’s criteria for the qualification of crypto assets as financial instruments. UK In 2018 the UK government launched the crypto assets Taskforce consisting of HM Treasury, the FCA and the Bank of England. The Taskforce in its final report identified trends in the ecosystem and set a path