15.III National provisions

The lack of ISD/FESCO rules and guidance, as well as the broad CESR guidance, meant that the EU used a bottom-up approach with respect to data prices. National provisions were overall decisive during the ISD timeframe.1 RMs played a central role in selling and licensing equity pre- and post-trade data during the ISD timeframe.2 RMs sold or licensed the equity pre- and post-trade data indirectly (e.g. through other RMs and/or data vendors like Bloomberg), as well as directly to end-users.3 The consolidation of equity pre- and post-trade data was dominated by a few global data providers (data vendors).4

CESR gave an overview of how RMs and data vendors made equity pre- and post-trade data available across the individual Member States.5 CESR stated that RMs often charged a distribution license fee to each data provider that wished to distribute the RM’s data. Some RMs had multiple license fees they charged according to: (1) the ‘depth of book’ made available; (2) the time delay in making data available; and (3) other factors that affected the market value of data.6 CESR also noted that an additional license fee (a so-called ‘per-terminal fee’) was often charged by RMs per each end-user. The data vendors passed the per-terminal fees on directly to the customer.7 Many RMs made delayed information (typically 15 minutes) available for viewing on their website free of charge. CESR finally noted that, in addition to data fees of RMs, data vendors applied their own fees.8

In sum, during the ISD RMs often charged data prices based on a head count based on per-terminal fees for each end-user. Use restrictions and the type of equity pre- and post-trade data (e.g. depth and latency) were also relevant for how RMs charged data prices.9 Data vendors – in addition to RMs – applied their own fees. Prices of equity pre- and post-trade data were a matter of national law.