7.III.3.2 Factor 2: national regulation

The second factor was national regulation. Many Member States (a) required investment firms executing trades outside RMs (b) to send the trade to an RM for post-trade publication purposes. As noted above, in the majority of Member States transparency requirements not only applied to trades that took place through the technical systems of an RMs, but also to those trades that took place under the rules of an RM.1 As a result, these trades were subject to post-trade transparency obligations for RMs. The ISD and national post-trade transparency obligations for RMs both applied in this situation. CESR noted that for this reason:

The quote of CESR illustrates that national regulation reduced post-trade data publication by investment firms, including ATSs and order internalising systems. RMs were in charge of post-trade data publication (in addition to data vendors), as long as the completed trade took place on the RM in question. This was in some Member States also true where the technical system of an RM was not used, as long as the transaction fell under the RM rules.3 And what about trades executed outside the rules of an RM? CESR noted in this context that certain Member States (e.g. Germany and the United Kingdom) had no post-trade transparency obligations concerning trades executed outside the rules of an RM.4 That being said, CESR added that in other Member States (e.g. France and Italy) trades executed as exemptions to the ISD concentration-rule did fall under the rules of an RM. These trades were reported to the RM. Subsequently, the RM published the completed trade.5