9.III.3 Concluding remarks

The MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime for investment firms trading outside an RM or MTF has the same aims as was the case under MiFID I. MiFID II intends to ensure a high degree of equity post-trade transparency, regardless whether the trade takes place on an RM, MTF, or investment firm trading outside such a venue.1 A similar aim was in place under MiFID I.2 What changed from MiFID I to MiFID II is the increase in top-down regulation. Under MiFID I problems emerged as to the quality, timing and comparability of post-trade information, especially in relation to investment firms trading outside an RM or MTF. To solve the situation, MiFID II has introduced further harmonisation.

First, the equity post-trade transparency regime is laid down in a directly applicable regulation (MiFIR), as supported by delegated regulations. The regime is maximum harmonised (no terms like ‘at least’ are used). Second, MiFID II leaves no flexibility as to the publication responsibility of the post-trade reports. Third, post-trade data publication needs to occur faster compared to MiFID I and the length of deferral in relation to share transactions has been reduced. Through the increase in top-down regulation, MiFID II intends to enhance the amount of post-trade transparency available in the European equity markets, while levelling the playing field with RMs and MTFs. The level playing field between RMs/MTFs and investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs is not entirely the same. To accommodate the distinct nature of investment firms operating outside an RM or MTF, some specific provisions are in place. Examples include exceptions to the post-trade transparency obligations and the anonymous nature of equity post-trade reports, including of SIs.

As noted in relation to RMs and MTFs, half a year after MiFID II entered into force, ESMA noted that the MiFID II (post-trade) transparency regime seemed ‘by-and-large (…) to be calibrated correctly’.3 While many market participants were concerned that the MiFID II transparency provisions could disrupt financial markets and reduce available liquidity, ESMA did not observe any of these within the half a year that MiFID II entered into force.4 The MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime is part of the MiFID II Review. Compared to the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime, there are relatively little concerns about the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime (save for the lack of a CTP and particular concerns, such as a lack of APA data quality). The MiFID II Review is examined in section V below.