4.V.2.4 Background

The publication requirements for NCAs (national level) and CESR (EU level) (i.e. MiFID I Database/SI Register) mainly stem from the MiFID I drafting process on Level 2. ‘Mainly’, because the MiFID I Directive did make explicit that NCAs needed to make the results of the standard market size calculations (relevant for the SI publication obligations) ‘public to all market participants’.1 CESR took a similar approach in drafting the Level 2 measures. CESR advised the Commission to introduce ‘a system that guarantees full access to this information (standard market size for liquid shares) across EU countries’.2 CESR noted that the relevant NCA needed to publish an announcement at least on the NCA webpage to make public the class to which each share belonged. CESR added that, in addition, a consolidated list ‘needed to be made available at a single access, i.e. the CESR website’.3

Along the same lines, the Commission adopted publication requirements for NCAs and CESR in the MiFID I Implementing Regulation for all shares admitted to trading on an RM. As examined above, MiFID I required NCAs to publish results of the MiFID I equity (pre-trade) transparency calculations and estimates, unless CESR had already published the data on behalf of the NCA (the safe harbour-provision). The MiFID I Implementing Regulation also required the NCAs to draw up a list of the SIs apparent in their territory. In addition, CESR was required to publish consolidated and regularly updated data through a single access point. As noted, the consolidated data needed to include both (a) the calculation and estimates and (b) the SIs apparent in the EU. To fulfill the MiFID I obligations, CESR created the two databases mentioned above, namely: (i) the MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM to fulfill the MiFID I obligations4 and (ii) the MiFID I Database for SIs. The overall aim was to provide all market participants in the EU a consolidated view of data relevant for the MiFID I equity pre-trade transparency regime.5

The MiFID I goals of a consolidated view would only be available in practice where the two MiFID I databases would run smoothly, facilitate updates, and ensure a clear presentation of the data for market participants.6 CESR played an important role here. CESR monitored and altered the MiFID I Database where deemed necessary. CESR only changed the way SIs were presented in the MiFID I Database for SIs, in contrast to the more data-driven and tech-savvy MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM. CESR realised that, while a broad range of data assisted market participants, it would also create additional complexity for CESR in operating the database. This was especially true for the MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM. Given the complexity involved, the focus of CESR was mainly on the MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM.7

The data fields and search functions in the MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM were deliberately basic. CESR only expanded the data fields and search functions where deemed necessary, as balanced against the additional complexity it would bring for CESR, as well as the legal requirements laid down in MiFID I.8 CESR stated that including value-added data (e.g. the date of admission to trading on RM) in the database would be useful, but that such data could also be derived from other sources. In addition to the workload of adding such information would bring to CESR, CESR did not consider it to be a core requirement for CESR to provide value added data that could be calculated or received elsewhere.9 To improve the accuracy, CESR published a Protocol for the NCAs regarding how to deal with the MiFID I Database.10 CESR also took into account feedback on (technical) issues where deemed necessary, such as improvements for downloading the content.11