Financial markets continue to evolve their surveillance capabilities to adhere to regulatory expectations
amount spent on surveillance over the last two years*
have surveillance situated fully/predominantly in 2LoD*
have appetite for continued investment*
Market events over the past few years concluded that organisations were falling short in protecting orderly markets and detecting market abuse. This perpetuated wholesale changes to regulation, focused on having a greater appreciation for market abuse risk and implementing automated surveillance to detect potential instances of market abuse, if they were to crystallise.
We carried out our last Market Abuse Surveillance Survey at the beginning of 2016, shortly before the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) went live. At that time, organisations were working to understand the expanded regulation's impact on surveillance given the requirement to implement adequate systems and controls to prevent and detect market abuse.
Three years on, our survey shows that the maturity of banks’ surveillance functions has increased considerably and a lot of lessons have been learnt.
Ruk Permal looks at the key themes emerging from this year’s study on Market Abuse Surveillance.
Graham Ure discusses whether the relationships between technology vendors and banks has helped to deliver effective surveillance.
We interviewed 21 banks; 14 of which also participated in the 2016 survey, allowing us to draw out a view of how the organisations have evolved. While we have focused on ‘Markets’ business within the banks, which as a sub-sector are the furthest ahead and give us the best view of ‘leading practice’, our intention was to provide a representative view across organisations of different size: six participants could be described as being Tier 1 with the remaining 15 representing banks of various sizes with different international footprints.