Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/9.V.5.1
9.V.5.1 ESMA key proposals and observations
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS266898:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
ESMA, Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020 (ESMA70-156-2188), p. 88.
ESMA, MiFID II/MiFIR Review Report: on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares, 16 July 2020(ESMA70-156-2682), p. 49.
ESMA, MiFID II/MiFIR Review Report: on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares, 16 July 2020(ESMA70-156-2682), p. 34.
Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME), Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020. AFME, Consultation Paper: MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares 4 February 2020, p. 30
ESMA, MiFID II/MiFIR Review Report: on the transparency regime for equity and equity-like instruments, the double volume cap mechanism and the trading obligations for shares, 16 July 2020(ESMA70-156-2682), p. 49.
ESMA observes that the percentage of trading outside RMs and MTFs for shares is quite high considering the MiFID II share trading-obligation. To investigate the matter further, ESMA requires data.1 ESMA proposes the following in the MiFID II Review to change the situation:
Report and flag transactions that are not subject to the MiFID II share trading-obligation, but that are subject to the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime to FITRS.2 In other words, ESMA proposes that (1) transactions not subject to the trading obligation, but subject to MiFID II equity post-trade transparency should (2) be flagged (as not subject to the trading obligation) and reported to FITRS.
The ESMA proposal should be read in conjunction with the perceived lack of data quality from investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs (as published through APAs). ESMA intends to improve the data quality by introducing additional reporting and flagging requirements.3 Respondents to the ESMA consultation expressed different opinions about the ESMA proposal. Some agreed to introduce the flags and reporting to FITRS in order to ensure ESMA has sufficient data.4 Others argued that the data is already available under the current MiFID II transaction reporting regime (i.e. ‘transactions not contributing to the price discovery process for the purposes of Article 23 of Regulation EU No 600/2014 (MiFIR)’).5 ESMA has replied by stating that ESMA can only better understand the data quality issues on the post-trading flow if accessible through FITRS. Hence, ESMA considers it important to change the MiFID II text. ESMA recommends reporting and flagging of transactions not subject to the MiFID II share-trading obligation, but subject to the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency regime to FITRS.6