Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/4.III.2.3.1
4.III.2.3.1 General
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS267246:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
N. Moloney, EC Securities Regulation, Oxford EC Law Library, 2008, p. 829; and J. Hatfield and M. Day, ‘The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive – The Principal Issues’, Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Finance, 2004, p. 399-400 and 402.
Reference is made to Linklaters, Response to CESR consultation, 19 January 2005, p. 6 (available at: https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/consultations/consultation-cesrs-draft-advice-second-set-mandates-european-commission).
MiFID I also introduced the transparency threshold of a standard market size for SIs (not apparent under the ISD).1 The standard market size was introduced to balance (a) the MiFID objective of a high transparency degree with (b) risks faced by SIs due to trading on own account.2 The latter objective, that is – protect SI against position risks, is apparent in the MiFID I obligations. MiFID I used the standard market size-concept to protect the provision of liquidity, since for trades above a certain size SIs would not be required to publish binding quotes.3 MiFID I intended to compensate for the lack of pre-trade transparency through requiring SIs to provide firm quotes for sizes up to the standard market size (in case the share had a liquid market).4