Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/4.II.2.2.1
4.II.2.2.1 General
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS266952:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
For an examination of the meaning of the ‘systems’ of an RM or MTF, reference is made to paragraph 1.2.3 above.
CESR, Second Consultation Paper: Draft Technical Advice on Possible Implementing Measures of the Directive 2004/39/EC on Markets in Financial Instruments, March 2005(CESR/05-164)(hereafter: CESR, Second Consultation Paper: MiFID I, March 2005(CESR/05-164)), p. 49. The ECB noted in this context that the negotiated price waiver was of relevance for large pre-agreed trades (ECB, Occasional Paper Series: Dark pools, 2017, p. 14).
CESR, Second Consultation Paper: MiFID I, March 2005(CESR/05-164), p. 49. The ECB noted in this context that the negotiated trade waiver was of relevance for retail trading platforms (ECB, Occasional Paper Series: Dark pools, 2017, p. 14).
CESR, Second Consultation Paper: MiFID I, March 2005(CESR/05-164), p. 49; and CEPS, MiFID 2.0: Casting New Light on Europe’s Capital Markets, 2011, p. 64.
CEPS, MiFID 2.0: Casting New Light on Europe’s Capital Markets, 2011, p. 64.
Art. 19 MiFID I Implementing Regulation. A trade was executed on an RM or MTF when it took place ‘within the systems’ of an RM or MTF. This follows from the MiFID I-definition of RMs and MTFs (art. 4(1)(14-15) MiFID I Directive). For an examination of the term ‘systems’ under MiFID I, reference is made to paragraph 2.1 above.
ESMA notes that ‘the volume weighted spread’ is defined as ‘the volume weighted bid and offer prices of orders on the trading platform’s public order book aggregated to the size of the negotiated transactions (…)’ (CESR positions and ESMA opinions, Waivers from Pre-trade transparency, 20 June 2016(ESMA/2011/241h), p. 20-21).
Art. 18(1)(b)(i) MiFID I Implementing Regulation. The ‘reference price’ referred to should not be confused with the ‘reference price’ as relevant for the reference price waiver (see paragraph above).
Art. 18(1)(b)(ii) MiFID I Implementing Regulation
A ‘portfolio trade’ was a transaction related to an individual share in a portfolio trade, that is - a basket of various financial instruments simultaneously for a single price. A ‘volume weighted average price transaction’ was a trade that was based on a pre-determined benchmark (reference is made to art. 3 MiFID I Implementing Regulation).
See CESR positions and ESMA opinions, ‘Waivers from Pre-trade Transparency’, 20 June 2016(ESMA/2011/241h), p. 20.
CESR positions and ESMA opinions, Waivers from Pre-trade transparency, 20 June 2016(ESMA/2011/241h), p. 20-21. The example of this waiver was ‘well-accepted’, since it was accepted by a qualified majority within CESR (i.e. most NCAs). Dissenting opinions were also apparent among certain NCAs (ibid). The dissenting opinions illustrate the contentious nature of this limb of the negotiated trade waiver. MiFID II addresses the limb of the negotiated trade waiver. For an examination of the negotiated trade waiver under MiFID II, reference is made to chapter 5.
CESR positions and ESMA opinions, Waivers from Pre-trade transparency, 20 June 2016, p. 23(ESMA/2011/241h).
CEPS, MiFID 2.0: Casting New Light on Europe’s Capital Markets, 2011, p. 60.
Another waiver under MiFID I was the negotiated price waiver. The negotiated price waiver was in place for negotiated transactions through the systems of an RM or MTF.1 The negotiated price waiver had several purposes. First of all, the waiver enabled investment firms to achieve best execution for their clients (e.g. when the pre-trade transparent order book could not fill the whole order).2 Secondly, sometimes it was not possible to trade through the pre-trade transparent system due to requirements such as a minimum order size. Negotiated trades could provide a solution to still execute the smaller order.3 Another rationale behind the waiver was that the application of pre-trade transparency to negotiated trades could deceive the price discovery process. Some negotiated trades (not: all) were subject to conditions that did not reflect the current market price, for example, where the price was based on a benchmark.4 Pre-trade data publication about such trades could mislead the price discovery process.5
A transaction needed to comply with MiFID I conditions in order to be considered a ‘negotiated transaction’ (also ‘negotiated trade’). Under MiFID I a negotiated transaction referred to a transaction involving members or participants of an RM or MTF that was: (1) negotiated privately, but (2) executed within the RM or MTF.6 To be eligible as a negotiated transaction the member or participant needed to undertake a pre-set activity as defined by MiFID I. There was only a ‘negotiated trade’ where the member or participant of the RM or MTF undertook one of the following tasks: (a) dealing on own account with another member or participant who acted for the account of the client; (b) dealing with another member or participant, where both were executing orders on own account; (c) acting for the account of both the buyer and seller; (d) acting for the account of the buyer, where another member or participants acts for the account of the seller; or (e) trading for own account against a client order.7
Besides the pre-set activity (elements (a-e)), the MiFID I negotiated price waiver could only be granted where certain conditions were met. Regardless of the size of the order, MiFID I permitted NCAs to grant the negotiated trade waiver if the system satisfied one of the following criteria:
The negotiated transactions were made (a) at or within the current volume weighted spread8 reflected on the order book or the quotes of the market makers of the RM or MTF operating that system. Where the share was not traded continuously, the negotiated trade needed to be made (b) within a percentage of a suitable reference price (a percentage and a reference price set in advance by the system operator);9or
The negotiated transactions were subject to conditions other than the current market price of the share.10 Such transactions were (i) individual shares in a portfolio trade; and (ii) volume weighted average price transactions.11
The foregoing requirements illustrate that the MiFID I negotiated price waiver consisted out of two limbs. The first limb was in place for negotiated transactions subject to the current market price. Different pricing conditions applied depending on whether or not the share concerning the negotiated trade was traded continuously or non-continuously. The trading system of the RM or MTF needed to formalize the negotiated transactions in accordance with the pricing conditions set by MiFID I.12 A well-accepted example of this limb included, among other things, the situation where: (a) the trading system formalized negotiated transactions at or within the volume weighted spread, (b) whereby trading participants individually agreed on the price and volume of the trade (c) before transmitting it to the trading platform (RM or MTF). The system of the RM or MTF would ensure that all negotiated transactions were at or within the volume weighted spread on the public order book of the given trading platform.13
The second limb was in place for negotiated transactions not subject to the current market price. In this situation the trading system was not bound by pricing conditions. An example of the second limb included, among other things, so-called Settlement (Pre-agreed) Block Trades. Settlement (Pre-agreed) Block trades were (and still are) negotiated transactions executed in the pre-agreed trading panel of an RM or MTF. The pre-agreed trading panel is used exclusively for conducting pre-agreed trades outside the lit trading segment of the RM or MTF.14 The second limb of the negotiated trade waiver therewith facilitated, among other things, the ability to negotiate a trade within the systems of an RM or MTF for the purposes of efficient settlement.15