Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/13.III.1.5
13.III.1.5 Accuracy
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS267166:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
ESMA, Cost Benefit Analysis – Annex II: Draft Regulatory and Implementing Technical Standards MiFID II/MiFIR, 28 September 2015 (ESMA/2015/1464), p. 353.
‘Somewhat similar’, since CESR favoured publication of each trade through only one publication arrangement (in order to prevent duplication of trades) (option a under MiFID II), while adding that a unique trade identifier (enabling multiple publication arrangements for one trade) may be reconsidered in the future (option b under MiFID II) (CESR, Feedback Statement: Publication and Consolidation of MiFID Market Transparency Data, February 2007(CESR/07-086), p. 3-4).
MiFID II covers rules to support the accuracy of the equity post-trade information that APAs publish. First, as an organizational requirement, MiFID II obliges APAs to have systems in place that can effectively check trade reports for completeness, identify omissions and obvious errors and request re-transmission of any such erroneous reports.1
Second, MiFID II covers provisions to prevent duplicative trades. MiFID II does not exclude investment firms in making equity post-trade reports public through more than one APA (i.e. more APAs can publish the same equity post-trade data).2 To avoid any misleading publication by APAs, as well as any double consolidation of the same trade by a CTP,3MiFID II obliges each APA to require its clients (i.e. investment firms reporting through the APA) to comply with one of the following conditions:
to certify that the investment firm only reports trades in a particular financial instrument through an APA; or
to use an identification mechanism which flags one report as the original one (‘ORGN’), and all other reports of the same trade as duplicates (‘DUPL’).4
Where an APA publishes an equity post-trade trade report that is a duplicate, MiFID II requires the APA to insert the code ‘DUPL’ in a reprint field to enable recipients of the equity post-trade data. The aim here is to differentiate between the original trade report and any duplicates of that report.5 CESR provided somewhat similar guidance under MiFID I (albeit without reference to APAs that did not yet exist).6MiFID II institutionalizes the CESR guidance for APAs.