9.V.6 Concluding remarks

The ESMA consultation about the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime is simpler and more positive compared to the ESMA consultation on the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime. ‘More positive’, because according to ESMA the amount of equity post-trade transparency displayed on RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues is sufficient (save for ETFs). Some concerns are expressed (in particular about delays for ETFs and data quality of transactions not subject to the MiFID II share trading-obligation), but overall ESMA is relatively positive.1 The latter is in sharp contrast with the ESMA view of the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime. Related to the positive findings of the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency is the relative simplicity of the ESMA MiFID II Review. Whereas ESMA considers all sorts of changes for the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime (i.e. a more pre-trade transparent regime), the ESMA proposals for the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime are quite modest. Besides the positive results, another main factor here is the comparatively simple MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime. Historical evidence from the ISD to MiFID II shows that – in contrast to orders being traded in all sorts of ways before a transaction takes place (i.e. pre-trade) – a completed trade (i.e. post-trade) is fairly straightforward. This idea is also reflected in the ESMA MiFID II Review. The ESMA MiFID II Review on the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime is relatively easy to comprehend (leaving aside whether or not one agrees with the ESMA proposals).