Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/9.V.3.1
9.V.3.1 ESMA key proposals and observations
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS266529:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
ESMA, MiFID II/MiFIR Review Report: on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares, 16 July 2020(ESMA70-156-2682), p. 34-35.
ESMA, Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020 (ESMA70-156-2188), p. 88.
See, for example, Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME), Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020, p. 18.
Art. 12 MiFIR Delegated Regulation 2017/587. A ‘give-up transaction’ or ‘give-in transaction’ refers to a transaction where an investment firm passes a client trade (gives-up) or receives a client trade (gives-in) a client trade from, another investment firm for the purpose of post-trade processing (art. 1(2) MiFIR Delegated Regulation 2017/587). MiFID II exempts investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs from this requirement (art. 13 MiFIR Delegated Regulation 2017/587). For an examination of the rationale behind these post-trade transparency requirements and exemptions, reference is made to sections II-III above.
ESMA, MiFID II/MiFIR Review Report: on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares, 16 July 2020(ESMA70-156-2682), p. 34.
Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME), Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020AFME, Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020, p. 30 and Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME), Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020, p. 18.
RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues are required to publish equity post-trade data as close to real-time as technically possible. MiFID II defines ‘as close to real-time as technically possible’ to be a maximum of one minute after the transaction in question.1 ESMA provides the following statement about the real-time condition in the MiFID II Review:
ESMA believes there is currently no need to change the real-time condition. ESMA believes that the current requirement (i.e. a maximum of one minute) balances between the demand for quick publication and the need of sufficient room for manoeuvre for so-called technical trades (e.g. give-up or give-in trades).2
The ESMA recommendation is the result of the ESMA consultation. During the ESMA consultation, ESMA did not propose to change the real-time condition, but instead asked for input on whether the current regime is appropriate, too stringent, or too lenient.3 Most respondents, in particular RMs and MTFs, believed that for electronic order book systems one minute is too long and that the timeframe could be much shorter.4 At the same time, RMs and MTFs are required to report so-called technical trades (e.g. give-up or give-in transactions)5 and trades subject to the negotiated trade waiver, and for this reason the one minute maximum is considered appropriate (technical trades and negotiated trades take more time to report).6 In addition, considering the level playing field, a speed requirement was only deemed appropriate if the same for RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues.7 The final ESMA view reflects a similar position. ESMA recommends to keep the real-time condition for post-trade data publication the same for RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues.