Market Data compliance isn't a legal problem — it's a culture problem.

I was advising a major APAC bank on data sourcing for a consumer portal when an MD — a senior executive with decades in financial services — made a suggestion in all seriousness: "Why don't we just scrape equity and FX prices from Yahoo Finance instead of paying a vendor?"

He wasn't joking. He'd simply never needed to understand how market data licensing actually works.

When senior leaders don't know the rules, hierarchy can't save you.
This isn't rare. In thirty years working with financial institutions across Asia Pacific both as an employee and a consultant, I've seen compliance failures that cost millions stem not from bad faith, but from something more basic: the wrong conversation never happened.

The Pattern
A trading desk needs a new data feed. They move fast. The vendor delivers. Usage starts. Meanwhile, the people who understand licensing implications — that "operations" usage isn't covered, that redistribution crosses into material breach territory — find out months later. Sometimes via an exchange audit.

At one institution, a technology team had been redistributing real-time pricing to an internal application for months before discovery. Technically sensible. Legally and financially catastrophic.

Why Culture Beats Contracts
Market data licensing frameworks are genuinely complex. The distinction between "display" and "derived data," whether your agreement covers downstream usage, which exchanges care about redistribution and which don't — these aren't things general compliance teams are equipped to assess.

General compliance handles regulatory conduct. Market data compliance requires specialist knowledge. When institutions assume "someone else checked it," that assumption becomes expensive.

The financial exposure from breaches is significant — exchanges have sophisticated audit processes and strong incentives to recover unpaid fees. But the reputational cost is often underestimated. Exchanges talk. Vendors share intelligence. An institution with a pattern of compliance issues, even inadvertent ones, finds itself in materially weaker negotiating positions at renewal.

What Working Culture Looks Like
Institutions that get this right don't rely on policy documents reviewed annually. They ensure new data usage is consistently routed to people with expertise before it goes live. They invest in shared understanding across technology, trading, operations, and finance.

Not everyone needs to be an expert. Everyone needs to know who to ask.
This can be achieved through dedicated market data management functions, or through fractional models that bring in specialist expertise without full-time overhead. What matters is that the expertise exists, is accessible, and is used.

The Test
If someone on your trading floor connects a new data feed tomorrow, how would your organisation find out about the licensing implications? Before it goes live, or after the audit?

If you're not sure, that's where to start.

───

About the Author: Stuart Roberts has spent three decades working in and advising financial institutions on market data strategy and compliance across Asia Pacific. He is the Founder & Principal Consultant at Sprada Pte. Ltd., Singapore.