Wednesday 3 June 11:20 a.m. - 1 p.m. (Europe/Malta)
Abstract
More than a decade after the introduction of derivatives reporting under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), the design of the reporting framework is being reconsidered in several jurisdictions, with the requirement for both counterparties to report the same transaction among the questions under debate. Dual-sided reporting is commonly presented as a straightforward trade-off: better data quality at the price of a higher burden on reporting agents. Evidence from the EMIR dataset suggests a more nuanced picture on both sides of that trade-off. Genuinely dual-sided reporting turns out to cover a considerably smaller part of the market than the label implies, yet it concerns the trades that matter most for policy and supervisory analysis, and the reconciliation of the two reports remains one of the few mechanisms capable of revealing where reporting quality breaks down. Mismatches prove to be widespread among sophisticated entities and to affect not only contract valuations but also static trade characteristics and standardised product identifiers. At the same time, the burden relief expected from a move to single-sided reporting appears limited, given how much reporting is already delegated by smaller entities and the infrastructure that larger entities would need to maintain regardless. These findings speak to the broader question of how reporting obligations can be simplified without sacrificing the scope, quality and usability of the data.
