Market Abuse Regulation Explained for Hedge Funds

If you trade European equities, credit, or derivatives, market abuse regulation shapes how your fund sources information, executes trades, and manages compliance risk. This article breaks MAR down into the parts that matter for hedge funds, with practical scenarios, enforcement examples, and controls you can put in place today.

Quick primer: what hedge funds need to know about MAR in 5 minutes

The EU market abuse regulation (Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) came into effect on 3 July 2016. It created a uniform rulebook across the European Union to prevent market abuse and protect investors. When the UK left the EU, it onshored this framework as UK MAR on 31 December 2020 through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Both regimes directly affect how hedge funds handle material non-public information, run trade surveillance, and manage the disclosure of inside information. If your fund touches European securities markets or UK trading venues, you're subject to one or both. For the broader picture of how MNPI rules interact with primary research, see our overview of MNPI and expert networks.

MAR aims to enhance market integrity and investor protection. It helps build investor confidence by ensuring a level playing field for all market participants. For hedge funds, that translates into concrete obligations around three core offences:

• Insider dealing. Trading financial instruments while in possession of inside information. This hits event-driven strategies, block trades, and any situation where PMs or analysts receive selective briefings from issuers or advisers.

• Unlawful disclosure. Sharing precise, non-public, price-sensitive information outside the normal course of duties. This covers tipping, soft signals during investor calls, and deal gossip between desks or between a fund and its counterparties.

• Market manipulation. Behaviour that gives false or misleading signals about supply, demand, or price. This catches spoofing, layering, wash trades, and spreading false information. Algorithmic strategies in thinly traded instruments are particularly exposed.

The highest practical risks for funds include:

• Trading while on wall-crossed lists, or failing to restrict trading after receiving a market sounding.

• Mismanaging market soundings without written records, consent, or confidentiality agreements.

• Poor record-keeping around delayed disclosure and insider lists.

• Weak suspicious transaction and order report (STOR) processes.

• Poorly controlled expert calls where conversations stray into non-public operational or financial data.

The rest of this article is structured as a hedge-fund-specific guide. It covers the regulatory framework, the three core offences in detail, operational obligations, high-risk trading scenarios, global comparisons, expert network compliance, and a step-by-step playbook for tightening your controls.

Regulatory framework: EU MAR, UK MAR and scope

MAR exists to preserve the proper functioning of financial markets and investor protection across EU and UK financial markets. It replaces the older market abuse directive (Directive 2003/6/EC) with a directly applicable regulation that doesn't require national transposition.

EU MAR

Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 and Directive 2014/57/EU (sometimes called MAD II or CS MAD) form the EU framework. The EU market abuse regulation came into effect on 3 July 2016. It covers market abuse offences across a broad range of financial instruments and applies in all EU member states.

MAR expands the scope of abuse to include manipulation of benchmarks and emission allowances, going well beyond the earlier directive. It also brings commodity derivatives and auctioned products based thereon into scope, along with spot commodity contracts linked to derivatives.

UK MAR

The UK onshored EU MAR on 31 December 2020 via the Withdrawal Act. The UK market abuse regulation is the reference regime for hedge funds trading on UK venues or through UK branches. UK MAR came into effect on 3 July 2016 as part of EU membership, then continued as retained UK law.

Which financial instruments are in scope

MAR applies to financial instruments traded on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), and organised trading facilities (OTFs). The scope includes:

• Shares and equity-like instruments

• Bonds and other debt instruments

• ETFs

• Derivatives (options, futures, swaps)

• Emission allowances and auctioned products based thereon on an auction platform authorised as a regulated market

• Certain spot commodity contracts where their price depends on or has an effect on financial instruments admitted to trading

• Other financial instruments whose price or value relates to admitted instruments (e.g. CFDs, total return swaps, credit default swaps)

Territorial reach

MAR covers orders and transactions on EU or UK trading venues, orders routed through brokers in these markets, and off-venue trading in financial instruments related to venue-traded instruments where that trading can influence venue prices.

Dual-listed issuers, cross-border trading, and synthetic exposures (CFDs, TRS) create overlapping obligations across EU and UK regimes. If you trade a CDS referencing a European issuer, you're in scope.

Regulatory bodies

Enforcing bodies include the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for the EU and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for the UK, which acts as the UK's markets authority. Both publish Q&As, guidelines, and Primary Market Bulletins that materially influence how hedge fund compliance teams should interpret MAR in practice.

ESMA coordinates national competent authorities across EU member states. The FCA directly supervises and enforces UK MAR.

Core MAR offences: insider dealing, unlawful disclosure and market manipulation

Hedge fund trading strategies must be built around avoiding three headline offences under the abuse regulation. Each one maps directly onto common fund activities.

Insider dealing (Article 8)

Insider dealing occurs when a person possesses inside information and uses it to acquire, dispose of, cancel, or amend orders in financial instruments to which that information relates. MAR applies to all individuals in possession of inside information, whether they got it through employment, shareholding, or any other access.

In hedge fund terms, this means:

• A PM who receives a selective briefing from an issuer's CFO about an unannounced earnings shortfall, then sells the stock, has committed insider dealing.

• An analyst who learns about a pending acquisition from a banker friend and passes a trade recommendation to the desk is caught by the "recommending or inducing" limb of Article 8.

• Even cancelling an existing order based on inside information can constitute insider dealing.

MAR prohibits insider dealing and unlawful disclosure of inside information. Ignorance isn't a defence. If you have the information and you trade, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the information didn't influence the decision.

Example scenario: A fund's event-driven PM is approached by an issuer's adviser for a market sounding ahead of a potential secondary offering. The PM accepts the sounding, receives information about likely pricing and timing, but doesn't inform compliance. The fund's equity desk continues trading the issuer's shares. This is a textbook insider dealing exposure.

Unlawful disclosure (Article 10)

Unlawful disclosure of inside information happens when someone shares precise, non-public, price-sensitive information outside the normal course of employment, profession, or duties. UK MAR prohibits unlawful disclosure of inside information in the same terms.

For funds, this covers:

• "Soft" signals during investor calls, where a PM hints at deal activity they shouldn't know about.

• Casual chats between analysts at different funds about pending corporate actions.

• Forwarding issuer materials marked confidential to someone outside the wall-crossed group.

Disclosing market participants who conduct market soundings have a specific safe harbour under MAR, but only if they follow the prescribed process: written records, consent, confidentiality, and follow-up cleansing.

Example scenario: An analyst at your fund learns from a portfolio company board member that the company is about to breach a covenant. The analyst mentions it to a PM at a different fund during a conference dinner. That's unlawful disclosure, regardless of whether the other PM trades on it.

Market manipulation (Article 12)

Market manipulation is defined in Article 12 of EU MAR. It covers behaviours that give false or misleading signals about supply, demand, or price of financial instruments, or that secure prices at artificial levels.

Market manipulation involves artificially influencing financial instrument prices. Market manipulation includes spreading false information or deceptive trading practices. UK MAR prohibits market manipulation to protect market integrity.

In hedge fund context, this includes:

• Spoofing and layering. Placing orders you intend to cancel before execution to create false impressions of demand.

• Wash trades. Trades where beneficial ownership doesn't change, designed to inflate volume or create misleading activity signals.

• Ramping. Buying aggressively near a close or fixing to push prices in your favour.

• Spreading false rumours. Disseminating false information about an issuer to move prices.

MAR covers both intent and effect. Even "strategy-driven" order placement can be treated as market manipulation if it distorts price formation. An accepted market practice approved by a national competent authority provides a defence, but the bar is high and few AMPs exist in practice.

Example scenario: A quant fund's algo places and cancels large blocks of orders in a thinly traded mid-cap stock over seconds. No fills are intended. The pattern matches layering indicators tracked by the exchange's surveillance system. The fund faces a market manipulation investigation even if the algo's design intent was different.

Inside information, disclosure and delayed disclosure: what PMs and analysts must understand

What counts as inside information

Inside information is defined as precise, non-public information relating directly or indirectly to one or more issuers or financial instruments, which, if made public, would likely have a significant effect on price. A reasonable investor would use that information as part of the basis for an investment decision. The information must be of a precise nature, not vague rumour.

For hedge funds, concrete examples include:

• Leaked M&A terms before a public announcement

• Unannounced covenant breaches in leveraged credit positions

• Unpublished trading updates showing a major revenue miss

• Draft rating actions from a credit agency before release

• Significant commodity production outages affecting a listed producer's output and the relevant commodity derivative pricing

Public disclosure obligations

UK MAR requires immediate public disclosure of inside information. Issuers must disclose inside information to the public as soon as possible. This obligation underpins hedge fund event expectations: the timing of price-sensitive announcements drives a significant portion of event-driven alpha.

Delayed disclosure

Entities can delay disclosure of inside information under specific conditions. An issuer can postpone public disclosure of inside information if:

1. Immediate disclosure would prejudice its legitimate interests (e.g. ongoing negotiations, decisions pending board approval).

2. The delay is not likely to mislead the public.

3. Confidentiality can be ensured.

Delayed disclosure must be notified immediately after public release. Under UK law, the FCA must be informed when the delay ends. Financial institutions must request consent to delay disclosure for stability reasons, such as when immediate disclosure could threaten a central bank's intervention or a financial institution's solvency.

Why this matters for your fund

You might trade in a period where issuers are sitting on non-public information under a delayed disclosure. That increases the risk that counterparties, insiders, or advisers are constrained by wall-crossing. If information leaks during a delay period and you trade on it, you face insider dealing exposure regardless of how you obtained the information.

What to do when you receive a wall-crossing request or market sounding

MAR establishes guidelines for market soundings to gauge investor interest. MAR provides clear guidelines for legal market soundings without breaching insider trading laws. If you're contacted for a sounding:

1. Stop trading in the relevant issuer's instruments immediately.

2. Escalate to compliance before accepting or declining.

3. If you accept, document the start time, the information received, and the identity of the disclosing party.

4. Apply a "do not trade" flag to the issuer across all desks.

5. Don't resume trading until compliance confirms you've been cleansed (i.e. the information has become public or is no longer material).

6. Keep records. You'll need them if the regulator asks.

The EU Listing Act 2024 changes are modifying some obligations around buy back programmes, market soundings, and issuer obligations. These are creating regulatory divergence between EU and UK MAR that compliance teams need to track.

Operational obligations for hedge funds under MAR

Although MAR is often framed for issuers and trading venues, hedge funds face direct and indirect obligations through UK MAR, EU MAR, MiFID II firms operating alongside them, and FCA/ESMA expectations. The prolonged internal controls and reporting obligations under MAR increase compliance costs for firms, but the alternative, enforcement action, costs more.

Written policies and procedures

Every fund needs written policies covering market abuse risk. These should address:

• Trade surveillance protocols

• Handling of MNPI and escalation routes

• Market sounding acceptance and cleansing procedures

• Suspicious transaction and order report (STOR) decision-making

• Expert network and primary research controls

Trade surveillance

Firms must operate systematic monitoring of orders and trades across equities, fixed income, FX, futures, options, and swaps to identify patterns consistent with market manipulation or insider dealing. Surveillance should be calibrated to your specific strategies and instrument mix, not left on generic vendor default settings.

Key surveillance scenarios include:

• Pre-announcement trading in issuers where the fund has information access

• Order patterns resembling spoofing or layering

• Wash trade indicators

• Cross-asset activity in the same issuer (equity, CDS, bonds, options)

STOR obligations

Firms must report suspicious transactions via STORs without delay. Where the fund is a person professionally arranging or executing transactions, the STOR obligation falls directly on the fund. Where the fund's MiFID broker files the STOR, the fund still needs to provide timely information to support the report.

Persons professionally arranging transactions must have internal procedures for identifying potential market abuse and escalating to the appropriate reporting channel.

Insider lists and restricted lists

UK MAR mandates maintaining insider lists for access to inside information. Entities must maintain insider lists and transmit them on request to the competent authority.

For hedge funds, this means:

• Track who has access to specific inside information by issuer, date, and time

• Maintain wall-crossed lists for soundings and private-side interactions

• Apply "do not trade" flags across all products referencing the relevant issuer

• Update lists promptly when people are added or removed

Managers' transactions and PDMR obligations

Persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) and their closely associated persons must notify their transactions. PDMRs must notify transactions exceeding €5,000 within 3 business days. This applies to transactions in shares, debt, or derivatives of the issuer for which they serve as PDMR.

Where hedge fund principals sit on portfolio company boards, or where the fund operates a listed vehicle, PDMR obligations apply. Closed periods (typically 30 days before financial results) restrict when these individuals can trade.

In 2019, the FCA issued its first fine for PDMR notification failures: a managing director was fined £45,000 for failing to notify trades within the three-business-day window. He claimed ignorance. The FCA held that wasn't a defence.

MAR compliance process flow

Here's how front office, compliance, and legal roles should interact:

1. Pre-trade checks. PM or analyst confirms with compliance that the fund isn't restricted in the relevant issuer before placing an order.

2. Wall-crossing. If a sounding or private-side conversation occurs, compliance logs it, applies trading restrictions, and manages the cleansing process.

3. Trade surveillance. Automated monitoring flags unusual patterns. Compliance reviews alerts and escalates genuine concerns.

4. STOR decision-making. Compliance and legal assess whether a suspicious transaction or order meets the threshold for filing a STOR with the FCA or relevant competent authority.

High-risk hedge fund scenarios under MAR

This section walks through five common scenarios where hedge funds face the sharpest MAR risk. Each one includes what the risk looks like and what good looks like.

Scenario 1: Event-driven M&A trading after a market sounding

A sell-side bank contacts your fund about a potential secondary offering in a listed issuer. The salesperson provides indicative pricing, timing, and size. This is a market sounding, and the information disclosed may be inside information.

Risk: If your fund continues trading the issuer's equity or derivatives after the sounding, you're trading while in possession of inside information. That's insider dealing.

What good looks like:

• Compliance reviews the sounding request before the PM hears any details.

• Trading in the issuer is halted across all desks.

• The sounding is logged with timestamps, recipients, and content.

• Trading resumes only after the information becomes public or compliance determines it's no longer material.

Enforcement precedent: National competent authorities across the European Union have brought cases against fund managers who traded after receiving soundings without properly restricting activity. Criminal sanctions have been imposed in several member states for serious insider dealing.

Scenario 2: Activist fund engaging management privately

Your fund has built a 4% stake in a listed company. You begin private conversations with the board about strategic alternatives, including a potential sale or asset disposal.

Risk: If those conversations produce inside information (e.g. the board is receptive and has received a preliminary approach from a buyer), continuing to add to your position constitutes insider dealing. Sharing details of those conversations with co-investors is unlawful disclosure of inside information.

What good looks like:

• Compliance is briefed before any management engagement.

• If discussions become price-sensitive, trading in the issuer stops.

• Co-investor communications are reviewed by compliance before sending.

• Insider list entries are created for anyone involved.

Scenario 3: Cross-asset relative value trades

Your fund trades equity, CDS, and bonds of the same issuer across different desks. A credit analyst learns about a potential covenant breach from a restructuring adviser. That information flows informally to the equity desk.

Risk: The credit analyst's information is inside information. If the equity desk trades on it, even indirectly, that's insider dealing. If the credit analyst shares it without authorisation, that's unlawful disclosure.

What good looks like:

• Information barriers between desks are documented and enforced.

• Compliance monitors cross-asset trading in the same issuer.

• Restricted lists are applied across all products, not just the one where the information originated.

Scenario 4: Expert calls with former employees or industry insiders

Your analyst schedules a call with a former senior employee of a listed company to discuss market activity and competitive dynamics.

Risk: The conversation strays into non-public details: a major contract renewal that hasn't been announced, internal sales figures for the current quarter, or a pending regulatory decision. That's inside information. If your fund trades on it, that's insider dealing. The expert may also face liability for unlawful disclosure.

What good looks like:

• Pre-approved question lists exclude topics likely to generate MNPI.

• Compliance reviews the expert's profile and vets for potential conflicts.

• Calls are monitored or recorded where permitted.

• Post-call notes are reviewed by compliance before any trading decision.

• The expert network provider conducts its own vetting and training on MNPI.

Enforcement context: The FCA and SEC have both pursued cases involving expert networks where consultants disclosed inside information for personal gain. Prevent insider trading controls aren't optional in primary research.

Scenario 5: Algorithmic strategies in thinly traded instruments

Your quant fund runs a momentum strategy in small-cap European equities. The algo places and cancels orders rapidly, adjusting to order book depth.

Risk: In thinly traded financial instruments, these patterns can look like layering or spoofing to exchange surveillance systems. Market manipulation doesn't require intent under MAR if the effect is to give false or misleading signals about supply or demand.

What good looks like:

• Surveillance systems monitor for spoofing and layering indicators in your own order flow.

• Cancel-to-fill ratios are tracked and reviewed.

• Algo parameters are documented, and compliance has access to the logic.

• If an exchange queries order patterns, you can produce documentation showing legitimate market activity, not artificial price manipulation.

Enforcement context: The FCA has taken action against traders placing orders that created false signals of demand. Even without beneficial ownership change, these transactions were treated as market manipulation under Article 12.

Global context and other market abuse regimes

MAR fits into a wider global trend against market abuse and market manipulation. Hedge funds are often subject to multiple regimes simultaneously. European securities regulation is one layer. US, Asian, and Australian rules add more.

US parallels

SEC Rule 10b-5 under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act prohibits insider trading, market manipulation, and fraudulent misstatements. The Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act and the Investment Advisers Act impose additional obligations around MNPI and expert network usage.

The SEC and DOJ have been aggressive on expert network cases, with several high-profile prosecutions of hedge fund managers and expert consultants. US rules don't use the term "market soundings," but equivalent obligations exist around material non-public information.

Asia-Pacific regimes

Comparable provisions exist in:

• Hong Kong: Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), covering insider dealing and market misconduct.

• Singapore: Securities and Futures Act, with civil and criminal sanctions for insider trading and market manipulation.

• Australia: Financial Services Reform Act, with ASIC enforcement of insider trading and market manipulation.

Cross-listed issuers, ADRs, and OTC derivatives referencing European securities can bring trades under both MAR and non-EU/UK regimes. National law in each jurisdiction adds its own requirements.

Comparison table: EU MAR vs UK MAR vs US securities law

Using expert networks and primary research without triggering market abuse issues

Expert calls and custom research are high-yield tools for hedge funds — see how top funds use them in our piece on hedge fund research and edge. They're also the most scrutinised source of potential insider dealing and unlawful disclosure under MAR and US rules.

Where MNPI risk lives in primary research

Common risk points include:

• Discussions of non-public financials (quarterly revenue, margin data, pipeline conversion)

• Unannounced contract wins or losses at a listed company

• Unpublicised regulatory decisions (approval, rejection, delay)

• Precise volume or pricing data in supply chains that relates to a listed producer or buyer

• Management departures or appointments before public announcement

Any of these could constitute inside information if they're precise, non-public, and would likely have a significant effect on price.

Structural protections to demand from any expert network

Not every expert network provides the same compliance infrastructure. Before you engage one, verify that they offer:

1. Expert vetting. Background checks, employment verification, and screening for active NDAs or non-compete obligations.

2. Legal attestations. Experts sign agreements confirming they won't disclose inside information or breach confidentiality obligations.

3. MNPI training. Experts receive training on what constitutes inside information and what they can and can't discuss.

4. Monitored communication. Calls are recorded or monitored where permitted and appropriate.

5. Audit-ready records. Consultation logs, call notes, and compliance records are maintained and available for regulatory review.

Where FieldSignal fits

FieldSignal provides pay-per-use expert consultations and research with compliance controls on par with larger networks like GLG, AlphaSights, Third Bridge, and Guidepoint, but without opaque annual retainers or call-cost markups. Our deeper write-up on expert network compliance standards walks through the vetting questions to ask before you sign with any provider.

FieldSignal's controls relevant to MAR include expert vetting, call moderation options, pre-approved question lists, and clear prohibitions on disclosure of inside information or breaches of confidentiality obligations. Pass-through expert honoraria mean you see exactly what the expert is paid, with no hidden margins.

Lower-quality alternatives create real exposure

Some marketplace-style platforms connect you with experts quickly but don't provide equivalent compliance assurance. No vetting, no MNPI training, no call monitoring, no audit trail.

If your fund uses one of these platforms and an expert discloses inside information during a call, you have a problem. The regulator won't care that the platform was cheap. Your fund bears the regulatory risk.

Questions to ask your expert network before your next MAR-sensitive project

• Does your platform vet experts for active NDAs, confidentiality obligations, and potential MNPI access?

• Do experts receive training on inside information and market abuse before joining the network?

• Can calls be recorded or monitored for compliance purposes?

• Do you maintain audit-ready records of all consultations?

• What's your protocol if an expert inadvertently discloses inside information during a call?

• Will you cooperate with regulatory authorities if asked to produce call records or expert profiles?

• How do you handle situations where an expert is a current or recent employee of a listed company?

These questions protect you. If the network can't answer them clearly, that tells you something.

Building a MAR-ready compliance playbook for hedge funds

This section is a practical reference a COO or CCO can use to tighten market abuse controls without building a heavy retainer-style infrastructure. You don't need a 50-person compliance team. You need the right framework.

Step 1: Risk mapping by strategy

Document where insider dealing, market manipulation, or unlawful disclosure risks arise for each PM and product.

• Long/short equity. Primary risk: expert calls, corporate access, market soundings, and trading ahead of announcements.

• Event-driven / M&A. Primary risk: wall-crossing, selective disclosure, trading during delayed disclosure periods.

• Credit / distressed. Primary risk: cross-asset information flows, restructuring adviser relationships, and covenant breach information.

• Macro / rates. Primary risk: central bank information (central bank policy decisions are inside information in some contexts), sovereign issuer interactions.

• Quant / systematic. Primary risk: market manipulation patterns (spoofing, layering), especially in less liquid instruments.

Step 2: Policy refresh and training

Best-practice training is short, role-specific, and focused on real scenarios:

• PMs and analysts. Inside information identification, wall-crossing procedures, expert call protocols.

• Traders. Spoofing and layering awareness, pre-trade restricted list checks, STOR triggers.

• IR and marketing. What you can and can't say about portfolio positions and performance to external parties.

• Operations. Insider list maintenance, PDMR transaction tracking, managers transactions reporting.

Train annually at minimum. Refresh after any regulatory change or near-miss.

Step 3: Surveillance calibration

Adjust your surveillance scenarios to your fund's instruments and liquidity profile.

• Tune alert thresholds to reduce false positives without missing real issues.

• Monitor for pre-announcement trading in issuers on your restricted list.

• Track cancel-to-fill ratios for algo strategies.

• Surveil cross-asset activity in the same issuer.

• Include commodity derivatives, spot markets, and emission allowances where relevant.

Generic vendor defaults produce noise. Calibrated surveillance produces signal.

Step 4: Expert network and primary research controls

Integrate expert calls into your compliance workflow:

1. Pre-call: compliance reviews the expert's profile, approves the question list, confirms no restricted list conflict.

2. On-call: analyst follows approved topics, avoids probing for non-public information.

3. Post-call: analyst submits notes to compliance for review.

4. If MNPI is inadvertently disclosed: stop trading, escalate, update restricted list, consider whether a STOR is required.

This applies whether you use FieldSignal, a larger network, or direct sourcing. The controls should be the same.

Step 5: Periodic testing and remediation

Review your MAR framework at least annually:

• Test surveillance scenarios against recent enforcement cases.

• Audit insider list accuracy and timeliness.

• Review PDMR transaction notifications for completeness.

• Check that expert call records are complete and retrievable.

• Confirm that wall-crossing and cleansing procedures were followed correctly on recent transactions.

Remediate gaps immediately. Document what you found and what you fixed.

Minimum viable MAR framework checklist

If you're a smaller fund without a large in-house compliance team, here's the baseline:

• [ ] Written market abuse policy covering insider dealing, unlawful disclosure, and market manipulation

• [ ] Restricted list process with real-time updates

• [ ] Insider list template with required fields (names, dates, roles, reason for access)

• [ ] Pre-trade restricted list check process

• [ ] Trade surveillance system calibrated to your strategy and instruments

• [ ] STOR escalation and reporting procedure

• [ ] Expert call compliance protocol (pre-approved questions, post-call review)

• [ ] PDMR and managers transactions tracking (where applicable)

• [ ] Annual compliance training for all investment staff

• [ ] Periodic testing schedule (at least annual)

This framework won't eliminate market abuse risk. No framework can. But it will demonstrate to the FCA or other competent authority that your fund takes MAR seriously and has controls proportionate to its activity. It will improve investor protection, enhance market transparency, and reduce the risk of enforcement action that could damage your fund's reputation and economic growth prospects.

How FieldSignal supports MAR-compliant hedge fund research

FieldSignal is built for funds and firms that need primary research quality on par with GLG, AlphaSights, Third Bridge, Guidepoint, and comparable networks, without opaque retainers or hidden costs.

Pay-per-use, no retainer

FieldSignal's model has no annual commitment, no minimum call volume, and pass-through expert honoraria. You pay for what you use. For funds where research budgets sit under scrutiny, this is the model that makes sense.

This matters for smaller and mid-size funds that are priced out of six-figure annual retainers but still need primary qualitative data to protect investors, improve investor protection, and make better investment decisions.

Compliance alignment with MAR, UK MAR, and US rules

FieldSignal's compliance program aligns with the requirements of market abuse regulation MAR, UK MAR, and US insider trading expectations:

• Expert vetting and onboarding with legal attestations

• NDAs and confidentiality agreements

• MNPI training for all experts

• Call monitoring options

• Audit-ready records of all consultations

Use cases specific to market abuse risk

• Validating short theses without soliciting inside information. You get qualitative insight on competitive dynamics, product quality, or customer satisfaction, not non-public financials.

• Testing product adoption curves using former customers or channel partners who aren't subject to active NDAs with the target company.

• Assessing management quality through conversations with former colleagues and industry peers.

• Understanding regulatory pipelines using former regulatory officials or policy experts.

Why this matters for MAR

• Expert vetting reduces the risk that your fund inadvertently receives inside information from a person who shouldn't be disclosing it.

• MNPI training means experts understand what they can and can't say, reducing unlawful disclosure risk.

• Call monitoring provides an audit trail that demonstrates your fund's controls to regulators.

• Pre-approved question lists prevent conversations from straying into territory that could trigger insider dealing exposure.

• Transparent pricing means you can justify research spending to investors and regulators without hidden cost layers.

MAR compliance isn't optional. It's a structural requirement for any fund trading European securities or derivatives. The cost of getting it wrong, whether through fines, criminal sanctions, trading bans, or reputational damage, always exceeds the cost of getting it right.

If you need primary research that doesn't create MAR exposure, start with the right infrastructure.

See if FieldSignal fits your project → miles@fieldsignalhq.com