8.IV.3 Concluding remarks

MiFID I contained equity post-trade transparency obligations not only for market participants, but also for NCAs and CESR. The reason was that the MiFID I equity post-trade transparency regime relied on a thresholds, namely ‘large in scale transactions’, as relevant for delayed post-trade publication. MiFID I required NCAs to collect data, make calculations and estimates, and publish the results (unless CESR already published the results). CESR was in turn required to consolidate the individual NCA results and publish it in a single place. CESR fulfilled its obligations through setting up and maintaining the MiFID I Database for Shares Admitted to Trading on an RM.

The MiFID I regime was top-down in the sense that it created a new operational regime on the EU level, rather than leaving the calculations and estimates up to national regulation (ISD situation). This was the result of the MiFID I framework that introduced the EU threshold of a ‘large in scale transaction’. The top-down regime consisted out of (i) the MiFID I text and (ii) CESR support, both legal and operational (CESR advised on the MiFID I text, provided informal guidance, and operated the MiFID I Database). The underlying goal of the top-down MiFID I regime was to enable market participants (and NCAs in supervising the rules) in determining ‘large in scale transactions’ for delayed post-trade publication under MiFID I. Another aim was to have the same calculations and estimates across the EU. In other words, through a top-down approach, the EU wanted to establish: (a) a common degree of equity post-trade transparency (similar calculations/estimates in the EU), (b) a related level playing field, and (c) a regime that would work in practice (data collection, calculation, and publication).