18.IV.2.3.3 MiFID II Review: equity post-trade data

Experience with MiFID II shows that the comparison of post-trade transparency is still considered to be insufficient.1 The main issue is that, despite its aspirations, MiFID II has so far not yet brought a CTP. APAs are in place, but no CTP has been authorised. Reasons for the situation include too limited post-trade data quality (in particular from APAs) and it is currently uneconomical for a commercial organisation to undertake the required data processing and cleaning in becoming a CTP.2 The MiFID II Review of ESMA shows that until this point in time the market-driven approach has not worked. Whilst the ESMA Review shows a division between respondents, there is great support to enhance post-trade data quality, being the first precondition for a CTP. There is no consensus on the right approach, but the ESMA Review shows that the further harmonization of post-trade data standards – in combination with harmonised enforcement across the EU – is a next step to enhance MiFID II (i.e. a more top-down approach).3 ESMA also proposes new preconditions for the establishment of a CTP, among other things, mandatory contribution of equity post-trade data by RMs, MTFs, and APAs to the CTP,4 being recommendations that are controversial in nature.5