9.II.1.3.1 General

The general equity post-trade transparency obligations are laid down in MiFIR. MiFIR requires RMs and MTFs to make public: (1) the price; (2) volume; and (3) time of the equity transactions traded on the RM or MTF.1 A difference with MiFID I is that MiFIR does not refer to any terms, such as ‘at least’.2 This means that under MiFID II Member States cannot require RMs and MTFs to publish more post-trade data than required by the MiFID II-regime.3 Another difference with MiFID I is that the general MiFID II are laid down in a regulation (MiFIR) instead of in a directive (MiFID I Directive). The MiFIR requirements apply directly to the individual Member States. The MiFID II regime in effect aims to ensure a similar degree of equity post-trade transparency is available across the Member States.4

MiFID II applies the equity post-trade transparency obligations without calibration to the underlying trading model, such as whether the RM or MTF is order-driven or quote-driven. This contrasts with the MiFID II pre-trade transparency regime. The MiFID II pre-trade transparency regime adapts the pre-trade transparency obligations depending on the underlying trading model. Similar to MiFID I, the MiFID II regime does not deem calibration in the context of post-trade data publication necessary.5 In addition, and also similar to MiFID I, MiFID II does not require the publication of the identity of the parties to a transaction concluded on an RM or MTF. Instead, MiFID II ‘only’ requires the RM or MTF to publish the market identifier code (MIC) of the RM or MTF in question.6 The rationale here is to protect individual investors trading on the RM or MTF. Similar to MiFID I, MiFID II suffices with enabling to use post-trade data to follow market trends on RMs and MTFs, rather than tracking individual investor behavior.7