8.III.1.6.5 Difference 3: Anonymous publication

In contrast to RMs and MTFs, investment firms operating outside such venues are not required to display their identity. Instead, investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs could suffice with the general (anonymous) ‘OTC’ code. The rationale here was to protect investment firms against position risks.1 The situation was in effect the same as for investment firms trading on an RM or MTF, which were also able to trade anonymously on the RM or MTF (see section II above). The complexity was the situation with SIs. On the one hand, SIs were formally a ‘trading venue’ under MiFID I. Accordingly, the level playing field between trading venues, i.e. RMs, MTFs, and SIs, would also require SIs – alongside RMs and MTFs – to publish the SI identity.2 On the other hand, SIs always trade on own account (while executing a client order) and SIs accordingly face position risks, in contrast to RMs and MTFs. The final MiFID I text reflected a compromise. SIs were in principle required to publish their market identifier code in the SI post-trade data. ‘In principle’, because SIs were permitted to publish general ‘SI’ codes (anonymous) in case the SI published quarterly aggregated data. The rationale of the exception was to protect SIs against position risks following identity exposure.3