12.II.2.1 Equity post-trade transparency

As examined in chapter 8, MiFID I subjected RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues to equity post-trade transparency requirements. For the purposes of equity post-trade transparency, under MiFID I RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues were responsible for publishing: (a) the trading day; (b) the trading time; (c) the instrument identification; (d) the unit price; (e) the currency; (f) quantity; and (g) venue of execution.1 The content of the MiFID I post-trade reports did not include the identity of the investment firms trading on the venue of execution. Only the identity of the venue of execution was identified (e.g. the RM, MTF, or SI in question) (element g).2 By way of exception, MiFID I gave SIs the right to remove their identity from post-trade reports, provided the SI published quarterly statistical information about the SI business.3 In this case, the SI could publish the post-trade reports with the generic identifier of ‘SI’.4 The rationale here was to protect SIs against position risks.5

MiFID I also covered provisions on so-called flags. MiFID I required to identify (‘flag’) specific trades in post-trade reports, namely where (1) the exchange of shares was determined by factors other than the current valuation of the share; (2) the trade was a negotiated trade; and (3) any amendments to previously disclosed information.6 The rationale here was to enable data-users to identify trades that were not subject to current market conditions. MiFID I provided no rules on the format of the content, such as the structure in which the information is provided (e.g. a date format may be DDMMYY or YYYYMMDD, and so forth).7

The MiFID I-rules for post-trade data publication were supplemented by CESR guidelines and recommendations. CESR encouraged (not: mandated) using the format, and content where relevant, of the so-called International Standards Organisation (ISO) when system changes were made.8 The latter reflected the aim to find a balance. CESR looked for a balance between freedom for RMs, MTFs, and investment firms outside such venues in creating post-trade data reports (innovation and reduced compliance costs) and similar post-trade data reports across the EU (support data comparison), regardless whether or not the entity was old (e.g. RM) or new (e.g. MTF) (fair competition). In addition, CESR recommended a common design for the MiFID I flags, that is – ‘D’ for determined by other factors, ‘N’ for negotiated trade, ‘A’ for amendment and ‘C’ for cancellation.9 The aim in recommending the ISO-format and common flags designs was to ensure common standards across the EU. Common standards could reduce the costs of data collection and consolidation (i.e. data would not have to be ‘mapped’ from one standard to another).10