5.VI.5 Concluding remarks

MiFID II is top-down in ensuring the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime functions in practice. Whilst MiFID I already covered some provisions in this area, MiFID II is far more complex when it comes to data collection, calculation, and the publication of the results. The top-down approach of MiFID II is the consequence of MiFID II requiring more data to work in practice, since: (1) the scope of the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime extended, (2) MiFID II covers more equity pre-trade transparency thresholds, and (3) MiFID I encountered operational problems (especially concerning data collection). The increase in operational requirements is logical against the background of these three factors, but one can question whether the EU has gone too far. The current MiFID II regime requires significant effort from market participants, such as RMs, MTFs, SIs, and APAs, as well as from NCAs and ESMA. A balance needs to be found between having sufficient data and the burdens in complying with the MiFID II rules. The balance is part of the MiFID II Review (section VII below). Finally, there is Brexit. A new operational challenge for the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency constitute a Hard Brexit. Although the solution is not perfect, ESMA guidance is in place to ensure the MiFID II equity pre-trade transparency regime can still function in practice in case of a Hard Brexit.