9.II.3 Concluding remarks

MiFID II introduces a more top-down equity post-trade transparency regime for RMs and MTFs compared to MiFID I. First, MiFID II expands the scope of the equity post-trade transparency regime from (a) shares admitted to trading on an RM to (b) equity instruments traded on an RM or MTF.1 Second, the equity post-trade transparency rules are all laid down in the directly applicable framework regulation (MiFIR), as supported by maximum harmonising delegated regulations. Third, MiFID II tightens several elements of the equity post-trade transparency regime, in particular the timing limits. Under MiFID II equity post-trade data needs to be published faster compared to MiFID I. Fourth, and finally, MiFID II requires ESMA to monitor the deferral arrangements and to report to the Commission through an annual report. Where an NCA disagrees with a deferral authorisation, the matter can be referred to ESMA for binding mediation. The intention here is ensure supervisory convergence in relation to deferral arrangements as authorised across the Member States.

Despite the top-down approach, MiFID II still leaves some flexibility when it comes to equity post-trade data publication by RMs and MTFs. To start, NCAs remain legally responsible for authorising deferral arrangements. No legal exemptions directly applicable to RMs and MTFs are in place. Although MiFID II tightens the deferral process through involving ESMA, NCAs officially remain in charge.