8.II.2.4.4 Differences with the MiFID I equity pre-trade transparency regime

CESR examined whether it would be appropriate and feasible to use the same ‘block regime’ (large in scale) regime for all pre- and post-trade MiFID I transparency provisions. In other words, CESR assessed the possibility of aligning the ‘large in scale’ concept for the pre- and post-trade transparency regime. An aligned approach would be consistent and simple, as it would provide similar provisions for both the large in scale-concepts for the pre- and post-trade transparency regime.1 Despite these advantages, in reflecting the criticisms of respondents that the rationale for permitting post-trade deferral (unwind positions) was completely different from the rationale for requiring exceptions to pre-trade transparency (i.e. reduce market impact and volatility),2 CESR took a different final position. Instead of a common regime for all pre- and post-trade transparency provisions, CESR suggested using the same pre-trade transparency ‘block regime’ (i.e. ‘large in scale’ concept for pre-trade transparency purposes), whilst introducing a separate post-trade transparency block regime’. Respondents strongly supported the final CESR position, provided the appropriate methodology applied.3 The latter view was apparent in the final MiFID I text. The term ‘large in scale’ had a different meaning for the post-trade transparency regime than for the pre-trade transparency regime.