13.III.2.4 Accuracy

MiFID II also provides no explicit rules for RMs and MTFs on how to monitor equity post-trade information, including for potential errors and duplications. The situation is different compared to MiFID I where any arrangement to make MiFID I pre- and post-trade data public – including RMs and MTFs – needed to include all reasonable steps to ensure that the information to be published is reliable, monitored continuously for errors, and corrected as soon as errors were detected.1 The lack of a specific rule (lex specialis) for RMs and MTFs to monitor equity post-trade information does not mean that RMs and MTFs have no obligations concerning the accuracy of the equity post-trade data. MiFID II covers the general obligation for RMs and MTFs (lex generalis) to have rules and procedures in place that provide for ‘fair and orderly trading’.2 This general rule, which was already informally in place under the ISD, includes ‘a price formation process in which market users can have confidence’3 and ‘provide for efficient pricing’4 In other words, RMs and MTFs need to ensure that the equity post-trade data published under MiFID II is correct. Otherwise, the confidence of market users in equity post-trade data (prices for completed transactions) would reduce and the price formation process would not be efficient. The limited regulatory intervention (bottom-up) reflects the traditional overall high quality (accurate) of equity post-trade data as published by RMs and MTFs (i.e. no specific obligation seemed necessary).5