9.IV.3.4 Background

MiFID I – CESR and ESMA in particular – already provided a data infrastructure for the purposes of the MiFID I equity (pre- and) post-trade transparency regime (i.e. the MiFID I Database). Whereas MiFID I was already quite data-driven, the MiFID II equity (pre- and) post-trade transparency regime, as well as other MiFID II provisions (i.e. transaction reporting) would take it to the next level. When it became apparent that MiFID II would expand (1) the scope in terms of financial instruments and (2) transparency thresholds, the EU wanted to introduce a new data infrastructure. FIRDS and FITRS (as well as other databases, such as the DVC Database) were designed for these purposes.1 Combined with delegations from NCAs to ESMA, the idea was to set up an EU database in a ‘one-stop shop’.2

The implementation of the technical infrastructure for FIRDS and FITRS (and other databases) proved to be challenging. ESMA would be required to collect data from about 100 trading venues (and another 200 through NCAs) on about 15 million financial instruments (compared to only RMs and with just one tenth of the number of financial instruments in the MiFID I data system).3 Close cooperation between ESMA, NCAs and reporting parties would be required. ESMA informed the Commission that neither the NCAs nor the industry would have the necessary systems ready by 3 January 2017 (the initial starting date of the MiFID II regime). Considering this exceptional situation and in order to avoid any legal uncertainty and potential market disruption, a one-year delay of MiFID II was deemed necessary (i.e. until 3 January 2018).4