9.IV.5 Concluding remarks

Compared to the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime, there is less operational quality involved in order to ensure the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime can function in practice. The reason is that the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime covers less equity transparency thresholds (e.g. the double volume cap is relevant only for the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime). That being said, the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime is more top-down compared to MiFID I. Whilst MiFID I already covered operational provisions, MiFID II is far more complex in terms of data collection, calculation, and the publication of the results. The top-down approach is the consequence of the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime that requires more data to work in practice, in particular due to: (1) the broader scope of MiFID II and (2) encountered problems under MiFID I (especially concerning data collection). A new challenge is on the rise in case a Hard Brexit takes place. Last, but not least, it is questionable whether the equity post-trade data is sufficiently granular to ensure ESMA has the data required to monitor the EU equity market. Several of these concerns are part of the MiFID II Review. The MiFID II Review is examined below.