AI Research Analysis
AI governance after MiFID II: beyond (mere) technological neutrality?
This article examines the evolving intersections between artificial intelligence (AI) and EU financial regulation, focusing on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II). Grounded in the principle of technological neutrality, MiFID II seeks to enhance investor protection, safeguard market integrity, and ensure that innovation develops within competitive and well-regulated markets across the Union. The article argues, however, that while this neutrality renders the framework functionally enabling, it also leaves it normatively silent in the face of the distinctive and evolving risks introduced by financial AI. As AI applications become increasingly heterogeneous—both across the financial functions in which they are deployed and in their underlying lifecycles and value chains—MiFID II's activity-based logic increasingly struggles to accommodate their diverse and evolving risk profiles. Reflecting the EU's broader shift toward risk-based AI governance, the article outlines an initial taxonomy of financial AI applications designed to guide the proportionate alignment of regulatory obligations with AI-related risks, thereby supporting the continued adaptability, coherence, and future-proofing of EU financial services law.
Key Findings & Executive Impact
Understanding the core insights from the research and their implications for your enterprise strategy.
Deep Analysis & Enterprise Applications
Select a topic to dive deeper, then explore the specific findings from the research, rebuilt as interactive, enterprise-focused modules.
MiFID II's Regulatory Blind Spot
Despite MiFID II's functional flexibility, its core design—rooted in a pre-AI era—struggles to address the distinctive risks posed by advanced AI systems.
Silent On AI-specific risksEvolution of EU AI Governance
AI Risk Categories in Financial Services
A comparative overview of how different AI applications introduce diverse risk profiles under MiFID II.
| Application Domain | Key Risks Addressed by MiFID II | AI-Specific Gaps/Risks |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer-Facing AI |
|
|
| Market-Facing AI (Algorithmic Trading) |
|
|
| Firm-Internal (RegTech) |
|
|
| Supervisory (SupTech) |
|
|
AI Act's Impact on Financial AI
The AI Act introduces a horizontal framework that classifies AI systems by risk, influencing financial sector applications like credit scoring.
Challenge: Integrating cross-sectoral AI regulation into existing financial law.
Solution: AI Act classifies certain financial AI uses (e.g., credit scoring) as 'high-risk', imposing proportionate obligations.
Outcome: Promotes coherence across EU AI governance while ensuring investor protection and market integrity.
Calculate Your Potential AI ROI
Estimate the efficiency gains and cost savings AI can bring to your specific business context. Adjust the parameters below to see an instant impact calculation.
Proposed AI Governance Roadmap
A phased approach to integrating a risk-based AI governance framework into your existing MiFID II compliance.
Phase 1: AI Inventory & Risk Mapping
Firms must identify all AI systems, their functional domains, and assess risk profiles (intrinsic/structural complexity, severity).
Phase 2: Supervisory Guidance & Soft Law Integration
Leverage ESMA guidance to align regulatory expectations and compliance mechanisms with AI-specific risks.
Phase 3: RTS/ITS Development & Standardisation
Formalise proportionate documentation, testing, and disclosure duties calibrated to technology-specific risks via technical standards.
Phase 4: Legislative Reform (MiFID III)
If current measures prove insufficient, codify risk-based proportionality within the legislative framework for long-term adaptability.
Ready to Future-Proof Your Financial AI?
Don't let regulatory complexity hinder your AI innovation. Our experts are ready to help you navigate MiFID II and the evolving AI landscape.