18.IV.3.2.2 MiFID I Review

The hybrid EU strategy, comprised of (1) the MiFID I text and (2) CESR’s soft-law, was in hindsight too limited. During the MiFID I-review, the final EU view – although controversial – was that data costs under MiFID I had become too high, in particular in the area of post-trade data. A main reason was the degree of fragmentation of equity data, in particular in the area of post-trade data. Since MiFID I a substantial amount of venues were required to publish post-trade data and accordingly a consolidated view of post-trade data became in particular more costly. A consolidated view of post-trade data was available, but only at a high cost. Experience with MiFID I shows that the competitive trading landscape of MiFID I, as complemented by limited harmonisation (limited scope, broad rules, and soft-law), was in the end deemed insufficient by the EU. The final EU view was that the hybrid MiFID I strategy did not result in ‘reasonable’ equity pre-trade, and especially post-trade, data prices. The result is a stricter MiFID II regime for data prices. The situation under MiFID II is examined below.