Article Index

 

 

Approved publication arrangement (APA) is a person authorised under the provisions established in the MIFID II Directive to provide the service of publishing trade reports on behalf of investment firms (Article (4)(1)(52) MiFID II).

 

APAs are designed to provide services to an investment firm in order for it to meet its obligations under Articles 20 and 21 MiFIR. 

 

APAs, Approved Reporting Mechanisms (ARMs) and Consolidated Tape Providers (CTPs) are new categories of Data Reporting Services Providers (DRSPs) that did not exist under MiFID I.

 

Article 20 of MiFIR states that, "investment firms which, either on own account or on behalf of clients, conclude transactions in shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments traded on a trading venue, shall make public the volume and price of those transactions and the time at which they were concluded. That information shall be made public through an APA".

 

A similar obligation is placed by Article 21 of MiFIR on investment firms in relation to bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue.

 

The APA is required to have adequate policies and arrangement in place to make public the information required under Articles 20 and 21 MiFIR as close to real time as is "technically possible" on a "reasonable commercial basis" (the latter term clarified by Article 6 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/567 of 18 May 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to definitions, transparency, portfolio compression and supervisory measures on product intervention and positions and Articles 84-89 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive).

 

The information shall be made available free of charge 15 minutes after the APA has published it.

 

The home Member State must require the APA to be able to efficiently and consistently disseminate such information in a way that ensures fast access to the information, on a non-discriminatory basis and in a format that facilitates the consolidation of the information with similar data from other sources.

 

 

Authorisation and organisational requirements for APA's

 

 

There are separate but similar authorisation and organisational requirements for providers of data services (APAs, ARMs, and CTPs).

 

The rules focus on ensuring the integrity and security of the data these entities will handle.

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the authorisation, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers specifies the data publication requirements applicable to APAs (and CTPs), and in particular:

 

- rules on authorisation, including the information on organisation and corporate governance;

 

- organisational requirements, including conflict-of-interest rules, outsourcing, and business continuity, testing and capacity, security and management of incomplete or potentially erroneous data;

 

- as regards provisions on publication arrangements, the provisions cover machine readability, provisions on scope of data and rules to avoid data duplication and non-discriminatory publication.

 

According to Article 59(3) of MiFID II ESMA is required to publish and keep up to date a list of all APAs in the European Union on its website (the register contains also data related to European Economic Area (EEA) / European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States).

 

The register, as visited on 9 January 2018, was populated with data regarding 4 APAs:
- BME Regulatory Services,
- Deutsche Börse Aktiengesellschaft,
- Euronext Paris SA,
- Oslo Børs APA.

 

It is noteworthy, the European Commission proposes to transfer the powers to authorise and supervise the APAs from the national competent authorities to ESMA by introducing new Articles 27a-27h in MiFIR and deleting Articles 59-66 in MiFID II (Working document on on the proposals to amend the European System of Financial Supervisions, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, 23.01.2018 (COM(2017/0536 - C8- 0319/2017 - 2017/0230(COD), COM(2017/0537 - C8-0318/2017 - 2017/0231(COD), COM(2017/0538 - C8-0317/2017 - 2017/0232(COD)).

 

 

APAs/ARMs

 

 

What is the difference between APAs and ARMs? APAs are firms who make public the details of transactions in financial instruments, while ARMs stand for firms who report the details of transactions to regulators for the purposes of market abuse surveillance.

 

In other words, both business vehicles: APAs as well as ARMs are designed to provide services to an investment firm in order for it to meet its obligations under MiFIR, but the respective MiFIR obligations for APAs are Articles 20 and 21, whereas the purpose of ARMs is to provide services enabling reporting obligations under Article 26 MiFIR.

 

There are also operational differences: whereas APAs and ARMs both are required to check investment firms' submissions for errors as well as to request resubmission if there are any issues, it appears that delegation to APAs takes responsibility away from investment firms while delegation to ARM does not (see: Norton Rose, MiFID II / MiFIR: Your Survival Guide Market Structures – Tying it All Together, p. 21).

 

Another difference is that APAs are under the obligation to disseminate information efficiently and consistently in a way that ensures fast access on a non-discriminatory basis in a format that facilitates consolidation from other sources, while ARMs have no regulatory duties to facilitate consolidation of data from other sources.

 

Among the first Data Reporting Services Providers authorised by the UK FCA as from 3 January 2018 having simultaneous an APA/ARM functionalities were London Stock Exchange plc, Bloomberg Data Reporting Services Limited, Abide Financial DRSP Limited and Xtrakter Limited APA/ARM while the sole APA’s authorisation have Bats Trading Limited and Tradeweb Europe Limited.

 

 

Investment firms making public their transactions through more than one APA

 

 

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the authorization, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers

 

Recital 22

  

(22) With respect to equity and equity-like instruments, Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 does not exclude that investment firms make public their transactions through more than one APA. However, a specific arrangement should be in place to enable interested parties consolidating the trade information from various APAs, in particular CTPs, to identify such potential duplicate trades as otherwise the same trade might be consolidated several times, and published repeatedly by the CTPs. This would undermine the quality and usefulness of the consolidated tape.

  

 

 

 

Details to be published by APAs

 

 

The information made public by an APA is required to include, at least, the following details (Article 64(2) MiFID):

 

(a) the identifier of the financial instrument;

 

(b) the price at which the transaction was concluded;

 

(c) the volume of the transaction;

 

(d) the time of the transaction;

 

(e) the time the transaction was reported;

 

(f) the price notation of the transaction;

 

(g) the code for the trading venue the transaction was executed on, or where the transaction was executed via a systematic internaliser the code 'SI' or otherwise the code 'OTC';

 

(h) if applicable, an indicator that the transaction was subject to specific conditions.

 

Details to be published by APAs are further specified in Article 18 of the aforementioned Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016.

 

Pursuant to the said provision an APA shall make public:

 

(a) for transactions executed in respect of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments, the details of a transaction specified in Table 2 of Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/587 of 14.7.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of shares, depositary receipts, exchange-traded funds, certificates and other similar financial instruments and on transaction execution obligations in respect of certain shares on a trading venue or by a systematic internaliser and use the appropriate flags listed in Table 3 of Annex I to the said Regulation;

 

(b) for transactions executed in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives the details of a transaction specified in Table 1 of Annex II to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 of 14.7.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives and use the appropriate flags listed in Table 2 of Annex II to the said Regulation.

 

Where publishing information on when the transaction was reported, an APA must include the date and time, up to the second, it publishes the transaction.

 

An APA that publishes information regarding a transaction executed on an electronic system must include the date and time, up to the millisecond, of the publication of that transaction in its trade report.

 

An 'electronic system' is understood in this context as a system where orders are electronically tradable or where orders are tradable outside the system provided that they are advertised through the given system.

 

Timestamps referred to above must, respectively, not diverge by more than one second or millisecond from the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) issued and maintained by one of the timing centres listed in the latest Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) Annual Report on Time Activities.

 

APA must ensure that the information, which has to be made public, is sent through all distribution channels at the same time, including when the information is made public as close to real time as technically possible or 15 minutes after the first publication.

 

 

Publication of transactions concluded on third country trading venues and OTC bilateral transactions concluded by EU investment firms with non-EU firm

 

 

As was said above, the post-trade transparency requirements in Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR require EU investment firms to make information on transactions in financial instruments traded on a trading venue public through APAs, however, these provisions do not clarify whether this obligation applies also to transactions concluded on a third-country trading venue.

 

According to the ESMA Opinions on determining third-country trading venues for the purpose of transparency under MiFID II / MiFIR:

 

- of 31 May 2017 (ESMA70-154-165), and 

 

- of 15 December 2017 (ESMA70-154-467),

 

third-country information made public in the European Union through an APA include:

 

a. OTC bilateral transactions concluded by EU investment firms with non-EU firms, and

 

b. transactions that are concluded on third country trading venues that are not subject to a certain level of post-trade transparency (intended to be indicated in the Annex to the said ESMA's Opinions).


In order to avoid duplicative reports, transactions concluded by the EU firms on third-country trading venues named in Annex to the ESMA's Opinion, which are included in the list of trading venues considered to have transparency provisions similar to those applicable to EU trading venues under the MiFID II/MiFIR framework, are not required to be made public in the EU through an APA.

 

The aforementioned criteria for identification of third-country trading venues, which are subject to similar post-trade transparency requirements as EU trading venues cover the following metrics:

 

- operating a multilateral system, i.e. a system or facility in which multiple third-party buying and selling interests in financial instruments are able to interact;


- being subject to authorisation in accordance with the legal and supervisory framework of the third-country;


- being subject to supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis in accordance with the legal and supervisory framework of the third-country by a competent authority that is a full signatory to the IOSCO Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information (MMoU); and,


- having a post-trade transparency regime in place which ensures that transactions concluded on that trading venue are published as soon as possible after the transaction was executed or, in clearly defined situations, after a deferral period.

 

ESMA intends to publish a list of trading venues that meet the criteria stated above as well as the list of those not fulfilling the above conditions.

 

Both lists will be published in an Annex to the ESMA's Opinion and will be updated on an ongoing basis.

 

In the Opinion of 15 December 2017 (ESMA70-154-467) ESMA added that in order to contribute to the smooth implementation of MiFIDII/MiFIR as of 3 January 2018 and to maintain a level playing field between third country trading venues, transactions on third country trading venues should not be required to be made post-trade transparent under Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR pending an ESMA assessment of more than 200 third-country trading venues and the publication of the results.

 

Any identification of trading venues for the purposes of the consistent application of the post-trade transparency requirements set out in MiFIR as set out above does not in any way prejudice an equivalence assessment performed by the European Commission under MiFID II/MiFIR and, in particular, any equivalence assessment of third-country trading venues for the purposes of the trading obligations for shares and derivatives, in accordance with Article 25(4)(a) of MiFID II and Article 28(4) of MiFIR.

 

In the Answer to Question 2 (updated on 3 October 2017, Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35) ESMA underlined that with respect to the deferral regime applicable to OTC trades the location of the APA through which a transaction is made public is not relevant (according to the ESMA, the respective deferral regime applicable to OTC trades is determined by the deferral regime applicable in the EU Member State where the investment firm that has to make the transaction public is established).

 

 

 

ESMA Public Statement, Impact of no-deal Brexit on the application of MiFID II/MiFIR and the Benchmark Regulation (BMR), ESMA70-155-850, 7 October 2019

 

Post-trade transparency for OTC transactions between EU investment firms and UK counterparties

 

The obligations under Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR for EU investment firms to publish transactions in instruments that are traded on a trading venue (TOTV) via an APA applies also to OTC-transactions involving an EU investment firm and a counterparty established in a third- country.


In case of a no-deal Brexit investment firms established in the UK will no longer be considered EU investment firms but will fall into the category of counterparties established in a third country. In consequence, EU investment firms are required to make public transactions concluded OTC with UK counterparties via an APA established in the EU27. This approach ensures that all transactions where at least one counterparty is an EU investment firm will be made post-trade transparent in the EU27.

 

 

 

 

Cancellation and amendments in trade reports

 

 

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the authorization, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers

 

Recital 16

 

(16) APAs and CTPs should be able to delete and amend the information which they receive from an entity providing them with information to deal with situations where in exceptional circumstances the reporting entity is experiencing technical difficulties and cannot delete or amend the information itself. However, APAs and CTPs should not otherwise be responsible for correcting information contained in published reports where the error or omission was attributable to the entity providing the information. This is due to the fact that APAs and CTPs cannot know with certainty whether a perceived error or omission is indeed incorrect since they were not party to the executed trade.

 

Article 10 


Management of incomplete or potentially erroneous information by APAs and CTPs

 

1. APAs and CTPs shall set up and maintain appropriate arrangements to ensure that they accurately publish the trade reports received from investment firms and, in the case of CTPs, from trading venues and APAs, without themselves introducing any errors or omitting information and shall correct information where they have themselves caused the error or omission.

 

2. APAs and CTPs shall continuously monitor in real-time the performance of their IT systems ensuring that the trade reports they have received have been successfully published.

 

3. APAs and CTPs shall perform periodic reconciliations between the trade reports they receive and the trade reports that they publish, verifying the correct publication of the information.

 

4. An APA shall confirm the receipt of a trade report to the reporting investment firm, including the transaction identification code assigned by the APA. An APA shall refer to the transaction identification code in any subsequent communication with the reporting firm in relation to a specific trade report.

 

5. An APA shall set up and maintain appropriate arrangements to identify on receipt trade reports that are incomplete or contain information that is likely to be erroneous.
These arrangements shall include automated price and volume alerts, taking into account:
(a) the sector and the segment in which the financial instrument is traded;
(b) liquidity levels, including historical trading levels;
(c) appropriate price and volume benchmarks;
(d) if needed, other parameters according to the characteristics of the financial instrument.

 

6. Where an APA determines that a trade report it receives is incomplete or contains information that is likely to be erroneous, it shall not publish that trade report and shall promptly alert the investment firm submitting the trade report.

 

7. In exceptional circumstances APAs and CTPs shall delete and amend information in a trade report upon request from the entity providing the information when that entity cannot delete or amend its own information for technical reasons.

 

8. APAs shall publish non-discretionary policies on information cancellation and amendments in trade reports which set out the penalties that APAs may impose on investment firms providing trade reports where the incomplete or erroneous information has led to the cancellation or amendment of trade reports.

 

 

An APA is required to set up and maintain appropriate arrangements to identify on receipt trade reports that are incomplete or contain information that is likely to be erroneous.


The EU Regulation 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 envisions that the said arrangements must include automated price and volume alerts, taking into account:


(a) the sector and the segment in which the financial instrument is traded;


(b) liquidity levels, including historical trading levels;


(c) appropriate price and volume benchmarks;


(d) if needed, other parameters according to the characteristics of the financial instrument.


Where an APA determines that a trade report it receives is incomplete or contains information that is likely to be erroneous, it must not publish that trade report and is required to promptly alert the investment firm submitting the trade report.


APAs is authorised to delete and amend information in a trade report in exceptional circumstances only and always upon request from the entity providing the information when that entity cannot delete or amend its own information for technical reasons.


APAs is required to publish non-discretionary policies on information cancellation and amendments in trade reports, which set out the penalties that APAs may impose on investment firms providing trade reports where the incomplete or erroneous information has led to the cancellation or amendment of trade reports.

 

 

APA's participation in the portfolio compression process

 

 

APAs are also envisioned to play a role in the portfolio compression.

 

It is the matter of Article 18 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) of 18.5.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to definitions, transparency, portfolio compression and supervisory measures on product intervention and positions, which provides for some publication requirements for each portfolio compression cycle performed by investment firms and market operators.

 

Information to be made public through the APA (as close to real-time as is technically possible and no later than the close of the following business day after a compression proposal becomes legally binding) includes:

 

(a) a list of derivatives submitted for inclusion in the portfolio compression,

 

(b) a list of derivatives replacing the terminated derivatives,

 

(c) a list of derivatives changed or terminated as a result of the portfolio compression,

 

(d) the number of derivatives and their value expressed in terms of notional amount.

 

The information referred to above must be disaggregated per type of derivative and per currency.

 

 

APA's quote streaming and order execution services to systematic internalisers and their clients

 

 

In the in Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics of 7 July 2017 (ESMA70-872942901-38) ESMA referred to a situation where APAs proposed setting up arrangements which, on top of their APA services, provide a suite of quote streaming and order execution services to systematic internalisers (SIs )and their clients (in this set-up clients could not interact with more than one SI via a single message but could send multiple messages to multiple SIs participating in the service provided).

 

This was in the context of Articles 14(1) and 18(1) of MIFIR, which require SIs to make public firm quotes, which may be published through an APA.

 

In the ESMA opinion, a system that provides quote streaming and order execution services for multiple SIs is a multilateral system and is required to seek authorisation as a regulated market, MTF or OTF in accordance with Article 1(7) of MiFID II.

 

 

Market impact

 

 

Steven Maijoor, ESMA Chair, while referring to APAs on 21 June 2018 (ESMA70-156-427) said that following the application of MiFID II, ESMA was made aware of substantial increases in the costs of market data, reaching at times up to 400% compared to prices charged prior to 3 January 2018.

 

In addition, ESMA received complaints from stakeholders that not all trading venues and APAs publish the required information in accordance with the reasonable commercial basis principles in MiFID II.

 

The ESMA’s Chair has remarked that ESMA is gathering information on this issue and, should it be necessary, may provide further guidance on how those rules should be applied.

 

 

Post-trade transparency for OTC transactions between EU investment firms and UK counterparties

 

 

According to ESMA’s public statement of 7 March 2019 (ESMA70-155-7253):

 

- the obligations under Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR for EU investment firms to publish transactions in instruments that are traded on a trading venue (TOTV) via an APA applies also to OTC-transactions involving an EU investment firm and a counterparty established in a third- country,


- in case of a no-deal Brexit investment firms established in the UK will no longer be considered EU investment firms but will fall into the category of counterparties established in a third country,


- in consequence, EU investment firms are required to make public transactions concluded OTC with UK counterparties via an APA established in the EU27,


- this approach ensures that all transactions where at least one counterparty is an EU investment firm will be made post-trade transparent in the EU27.

 

 

 


 

 

 

MiFIR Article 20

Post-trade disclosure by investment firms, including systematic internalisers, in respect of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments

 

1. Investment firms which, either on own account or on behalf of clients, conclude transactions in shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments traded on a trading venue, shall make public the volume and price of those transactions and the time at which they were concluded. That information shall be made public through an APA.

 

2. The information which is made public in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and the time-limits within which it is published shall comply with the requirements adopted pursuant to Article 6, including the regulatory technical standards adopted in accordance with Article 7(2)(a). Where the measures adopted pursuant to Article 7 provide for deferred publication for certain categories of transaction in shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments traded on a trading venue, that possibility shall also apply to those transactions when undertaken outside trading venues.

 

3. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following:

(a) identifiers for the different types of transactions published under this Article, distinguishing between those determined by factors linked primarily to the valuation of the financial instruments and those determined by other factors;

(b) the application of the obligation under paragraph 1 to transactions involving the use of those financial instruments for collateral, lending or other purposes where the exchange of financial instruments is determined by factors other than the current market valuation of the financial instrument;

(c) the party to a transaction that has to make the transaction public in accordance with paragraph 1 if both parties to the transaction are investment firms.

 

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015.

 

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

 

MiFIR Article 21
Post-trade disclosure by investment firms, including systematic internalisers, in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives

 

1. Investment firms which, either on own account or on behalf of clients, conclude transactions in bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue shall make public the volume and price of those transactions and the time at which they were concluded. That information shall be made public through an APA.

 

2. Each individual transaction shall be made public once through a single APA.

 

3. The information which is made public in accordance with paragraph 1 and the time-limits within which it is published shall comply with the requirements adopted pursuant to Article 10, including the regulatory technical standards adopted in accordance with Article 11(4)(a) and (b).

 

4. Competent authorities shall be able to authorise investment firms to provide for deferred publication, or may request the publication of limited details of a transaction or details of several transactions in an aggregated form, or a combination thereof, during the time period of the deferral or may allow the omission of the publication of the volume individual transactions during an extended time period of deferral, or in the case of non-equity financial instruments that are not sovereign debt, may allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form during an extended time period of deferral, or in the case of sovereign debt instruments may allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form for an indefinite period of time, and may temporarily suspend the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 on the same conditions as laid down in Article 11.

 

Where the measures adopted pursuant to Article 11 provide for deferred publication and publication of limited details or details in an aggregated form, or a combination thereof, or for omission of the publication of the volume for certain categories of transactions in bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue, that possibility shall also apply to those transactions when undertaken outside trading venues.

 

5. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards in such a way as to enable the publication of information required under Article 64 of Directive 2014/65/EU to specify the following:

(a) the identifiers for the different types of transactions published in accordance with this Article, distinguishing between those determined by factors linked primarily to the valuation of the financial instruments and those determined by other factors;

(b) the application of the obligation under paragraph 1 to transactions involving the use of those financial instruments for collateral, lending or other purposes where the exchange of financial instruments is determined by factors other than the current market valuation of the financial instrument;

(c) the party to a transaction that has to make the transaction public in accordance with paragraph 1 if both parties to the transaction are investment firms.

 

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015.

 

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

 

 

 

 

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 of 14 July 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives

 

Article 7
Post-trade transparency obligations

(Article 10(1) and Article 21(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014)


1. Investment firms trading outside the rules of a trading venue and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public by reference to each transaction the details set out in Tables 1 and 2 of Annex II and use each applicable flag listed in Table 3 of Annex II.


2. Where a previously published trade report is cancelled, investment firms trading outside a trading venue and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public a new trade report which contains all the details of the original trade report and the cancellation flag specified in Table 3 of Annex II.


3. Where a previously published trade report is amended, investment firms trading outside a trading venue and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make the following information public:


(a) a new trade report that contains all the details of the original trade report and the cancellation flag specified in Table 3 of Annex II;


(b) a new trade report that contains all the details of the original trade report with all necessary details corrected and the amendment flag as specified in Table 3 of Annex II.


4. Post-trade information shall be made available as close to real time as is technically possible and in any case:


(a) for the first three years of application of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, within 15 minutes after the execution of the relevant transaction;


(b) thereafter, within 5 minutes after the execution of the relevant transaction.


5. Where a transaction between two investment firms is concluded outside the rules of a trading venue, either on own account or on behalf of clients, only the investment firm that sells the financial instrument concerned shall make the transaction public through an APA.


6. By way of derogation from paragraph 5, where only one of the investment firms party to the transaction is a systematic internaliser in the given financial instrument and it is acting as the buying firm, only that firm shall make the transaction public through an APA, informing the seller of the action taken.


7. Investment firms shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the transaction is made public as a single transaction. For that purpose, two matching trades entered at the same time and for the same price with a single party interposed shall be considered to be a single transaction.


8. Information relating to a package transaction shall be made available with respect to each component as close to real-time as is technically possible, having regard to the need to allocate prices to particular financial instruments and shall include the package transaction flag or the exchange for physicals transaction flag as specified in Table 3 of Annex II. Where the package transaction is eligible for deferred publication pursuant to Article 8, information on all components shall be made available after the deferral period for the transaction has lapsed.

 

 

 

 

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) of 18.5.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to definitions, transparency, portfolio compression and supervisory measures on product intervention and positions

 

Article 18

Publication requirements for Portfolio compression

(Article 31(4) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014)

 

1. For the purposes of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 investment firms and market operators shall make the following information public through an APA for each portfolio compression cycle:

 

(a) a list of derivatives submitted for inclusion in the portfolio compression,


(b) a list of derivatives replacing the terminated derivatives,


(c) a list of derivatives changed or terminated as a result of the portfolio compression,


(d) the number of derivatives and their value expressed in terms of notional amount.


The information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be disaggregated per type of derivative and per currency.

 

2. Investment firms and market operators shall make public the information referred to in paragraph 1 as close to real-time as is technically possible and no later than the close of the following business day after a compression proposal becomes legally binding in accordance with the agreement referred to in Article 17(2).

 

 

 

 

 

Conditions for APAs

 

MiFID II Article 64

Organisational requirements

 

1. The home Member State shall require an APA to have adequate policies and arrangements in place to make public the information required under Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as close to real time as is technically possible, on a reasonable commercial basis. The information shall be made available free of charge 15 minutes after the APA has published it. The home Member State shall require the APA to be able to efficiently and consistently disseminate such information in a way that ensures fast access to the information, on a non-discriminatory basis and in a format that facilitates the consolidation of the information with similar data from other sources.

 

2. The information made public by an APA in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include, at least, the following details:
(a) the identifier of the financial instrument;
(b) the price at which the transaction was concluded;
(c) the volume of the transaction;
(d) the time of the transaction;
(e) the time the transaction was reported;
(f) the price notation of the transaction;

(g) the code for the trading venue the transaction was executed on, or where the transaction was executed via a systematic internaliser the code 'SI' or otherwise the code 'OTC';

(h) if applicable, an indicator that the transaction was subject to specific conditions.

 

3. The home Member State shall require the APA to operate and maintain effective administrative arrangements designed to prevent conflicts of interest with its clients. In particular, an APA who is also a market operator or investment firm shall treat all information collected in a non-discriminatory fashion and shall operate and maintain appropriate arrangements to separate different business functions.

 

4. The home Member State shall require the APA to have sound security mechanisms in place designed to guarantee the security of the means of transfer of information, minimise the risk of data corruption and unauthorised access and to prevent information leakage before publication. The APA shall maintain adequate resources and have back-up facilities in place in order to offer and maintain its services at all times.

 

5. The home Member State shall require the APA to have systems in place that can effectively check trade reports for completeness, identify omissions and obvious errors and request re-transmission of any such erroneous reports.

 

6. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine common formats, data standards and technical arrangements facilitating the consolidation of information as referred to in paragraph 1.

 

ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by 3 July 2015.

 

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

 

7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 89 clarifying what constitutes a reasonable commercial basis to make information public as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

 

8. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:

(a) the means by which an APA may comply with the information obligation referred to in paragraph 1;

(b) the content of the information published under paragraph 1, including at least the information referred to in paragraph 2 in such a way as to enable the publication of information required under Article 64;

(c) the concrete organisational requirements laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

 

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015.

 

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

 

MiFID II Recitals 115 - 119

 

(115) The provision of core market data services which are pivotal for users to be able to obtain a desired overview of trading activity across Union financial markets and for competent authorities to receive accurate and compre­hensive information on relevant transactions should be subject to authorisation and regulation to ensure the necessary level of quality.

 

(116) The introduction of approved publication arrangements (APAs) should improve the quality of trade transparency information published in the OTC space and contribute significantly to ensuring that such data is published in a way facilitating its consolidation with data published by trading venues.

 

(117) Now that a market structure is in place which allows for competition between multiple trading venues it is essential that an effective and comprehensive consolidated tape is in operation as soon as possible. The intro­duction of a commercial solution for a consolidated tape for equities and equity-like financial instruments should contribute to creating a more integrated European market and make it easier for market participants to gain access to a consolidated view of trade transparency information that is available. The envisaged solution is based on an authorisation of providers working along pre-defined and supervised parameters which are in competition with each other in order to achieve technically highly sophisticated and innovative solutions, serving the market to the greatest extent possible and ensuring that consistent and accurate market data is made available. By requiring all consolidated tape providers (CTPs) to consolidate data from all APAs and trading venues it will be assured that competition will take place on the basis of quality of service to clients rather than breadth of data covered. Nevertheless it is appropriate to make provision now for a consolidated tape to be put in place through a public procurement process if the mechanism envisaged does not lead to the timely delivery of an effective and compre­hensive consolidated tape for equities and equity-like financial instruments.

 

(118) The establishment of a consolidated tape for non-equity financial instruments is deemed to be more difficult to implement than the consolidated tape for equity financial instruments and potential providers should be able to gain experience with the latter before constructing it. In order to facilitate the proper establishment of the consolidated tape for non-equity financial instruments, it is therefore appropriate to provide for an extended date of application of the national measures transposing the relevant provision. Nevertheless it is appropriate to make provision now for a consolidated tape to be put in place through a public procurement process if the mechanism envisaged does not lead to the timely delivery of an effective and comprehensive consolidated tape for non-equity financial instruments.

 

(119) When determining, as regards non-equity financial instruments, the trading venues and APAs which need to be included in the post-trade information to be disseminated by CTPs, ESMA should ensure that the objective of the establishment of an integrated Union market for those financial instruments will be achieved and should ensure non-discriminatory treatment of APAs and trading venues.

 

 

 

  

 

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive

 

Article 84

Obligation to provide market data on a reasonable commercial basis
(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. For the purposes of making market data containing the information set out in Articles 6, 20 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 available to the public on a reasonable commercial basis in accordance with Articles 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, approved publication arrangements (APAs) and consolidated tape providers (CTPs) shall comply with the obligations set out in Articles 85 to 89.

2. Articles 85, 86(2), 87, 88(2) and 89 shall not apply to APAs or CTPs that make market data available to the public free of charge.

 

Article 85
Provision of market data on the basis of cost
(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. The price of market data shall be based on the cost of producing and disseminating such data and may include a reasonable margin.
2. The costs of producing and disseminating market data may include an appropriate share of joint costs for other service provided by APAs and CTPs. 


 

Article 86 


Obligation to provide market data on a non-discriminatory basis


(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. APAs and CTPs shall make market data available at the same price and on the same terms and conditions to all customers falling within the same category in accordance with published objective criteria.
2. Any differentials in prices charged to different categories of customers shall be proportionate to the value which the market data represent to those customers, taking into account:
(a) the scope and scale of the market data including the number of financial instruments covered and trading volume;
(b) the use made by the customer of the market data, including whether it is used for the customer's own trading activities, for resale or for data aggregation.
3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, APAs and CTPs shall have scalable capacities in place to ensure that customers can obtain timely access to market data at all times on a non-discriminatory basis. 


 

Article 87 


Per user fees


(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. APAs and CTPs shall charge for the use of market data on the basis of the use made by individual end-users of the market data ('per user basis'). APAs and CTPs shall have arrangements in place to ensure that each individual use of market data is charged only once.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, APAs and CTPs may decide not to make market data available on a per user basis where to charge on a per user basis is disproportionate to the cost of making market data available, having regard to the scale and scope of the market data.
3. APAs or CTPs shall provide grounds for the refusal to make market data available on a per user basis and shall publish those grounds on their webpage.


Article 88
Unbundling and disaggregating market data
(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. APAs and CTPs shall make market data available without being bundled with other services.
2. Prices for market data shall be charged on the basis of the level of market data disaggregation provided for in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as further specified in Articles [Delegated regulation reference to RTS on data disaggregation]. 


 

Article 89 


Transparency obligation


(Article 64(1) and 65(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU)

1. APAs and CTPs shall disclose and make easily available to the public the price and other terms and conditions for the provision of the market data in a manner which is easily accessible.
2. The disclosure shall include the following:
(a) current price lists, including the following information:
(i) fees per display user;
(ii) non-display fees;
(iii) discount policies;
(iv) fees associated with licence conditions;
(v) fees for pre-trade and for post-trade market data;
(vi) fees for other subsets of information, including those required in accordance with the regulatory technical standards pursuant to Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014;
(vii) other contractual terms and conditions;


(b) advance disclosure with a minimum of 90 days' notice of future price changes;


(c) information on the content of the market data including the following information:
(i) the number of instruments covered;
(ii) the total turnover of instruments covered;
(iii) pre-trade and post-trade market data ratio;
(iv) information on any data provided in addition to market data;
(v) the date of the last licence fee adaption for market data provided;


(d) revenue obtained from making market data available and the proportion of that revenue compared to total revenue of the APA or CTP;


(e) information on how the price was set, including the cost accounting methodologies used and information about the specific principles according to which direct and variable joint costs are allocated and fixed joint costs are apportioned, between the production and dissemination of market data and other services provided by APAs and CTPs.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

info

  

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, 5 April 2017, ESMA70-872942901-355


Question 3 [Last update: 03/04/2017]

 

a) Clarification on which investment firm has to report a transaction and on who is in charge of reporting back-to-back trades (Article 12(4), (5) and (6) of RTS 1 and Article 7(5), (6) and (7) of RTS 2)


b) In the case of OTC transactions that are reported to an APA by the investment firm selling the financial instrument, is it possible for the investment firm to outsource the post- transparency reporting requirement?

 


Answer 3

 

a) MiFIR requires investment firms to make public, through an APA, post-trade information in relation to financial instruments traded on a trading venue. When a transaction is executed between an investment firm and a client of the firm that is not an investment firm, the obligation rests only on the investment firm.

 

However, when a transaction is executed between two MiFID investment firms outside the rules of a trading venue, Article 12(4) of RTS 1 and Article 7(5) of RTS 2 clarify that only the investment firm that sells the financial instrument concerned makes the transaction public trough an APA.

 

In addition, according to Article 12(5) of RTS 1 and Article 7(6) of RTS 2 if only one of the investment firms is a systematic internaliser in the given financial instrument and it is acting as the buying firm, only that firm should make the transaction public trough an APA.

 

The following table presents the possible constellations and clarifies who is in charge of making the transaction public via an APA:

 

 

IMG 0728

 

 

According to Article 12(6) of RTS 1 and Article7(7) of RTS 2 two matching trades entered at the same time and for the same price with a single party interposed should be published as a single transaction. Following the general rule, the seller should report the transaction. The party that interposes its own account should not report the trade, except if the seller is not an investment firm. The following table clarifies who is in charge of making the transaction public through an APA:

 

 

IMG 0732 

 

 

- Case 1: IF A is interposing its own account with no difference in prices. Trade 1 and 2 should be reported as a single transaction by IF B.


- Case 2: IF A is interposing its own account with no difference in price. Trade 1 and 2 should be reported as a single trade by IF A.


- Case 3: The price in trade 1 and 2 is not the same. The conditions for a matched trade are therefore not met and both transactions should be reported by the seller.


There are cases where the determination of the seller needs to be clarified. For the purposes of reporting the transaction to an APA the seller should be the same as specified in field 16 of Table 2 of Annex I of RTS 22 (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 of 28 July 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the reporting of transactions to competent authorities (OJ L 87, 31.3.2017, p. 449–478). ). Therefore:


i. In case of options and swaptions, the buyer shall be the counterparty that holds the right to exercise the option and the seller should be the counterparty that sells the option and receives a premium.


ii. In case of futures, forwards and CFDs other than futures and forwards relating to currencies, the buyer should be the counterparty buying the instrument and the seller the counterparty selling the instrument.


iii. In the case of swaps relating to securities, the buyer should be the counterparty that gets the risk of price movement of the underlying security and receives the security amount. The seller should be the counterparty paying the security amount.


iv. In the case of swaps related to interest rates or inflation indices, the buyer shall be the counterparty paying the fixed rate. The seller should be the counterparty receiving the fixed rate. In case of basis swaps (float-to-float interest rate swaps), the buyer should be the counterparty that pays the spread and the seller the counterparty that receives the spread.


v. In the case of swaps and futures and forwards related to currencies and of cross currency swaps, the buyer should be the counterparty receiving the currency which is first when sorted alphabetically by ISO 4217 standard and the seller should be the counterparty delivering this currency.


vi. In the case of swap related to dividends, the buyer should be the counterparty receiving the equivalent actual dividend payments. The seller is the counterparty paying the dividend and receiving the fixed rate.


vii. In the case of derivative instruments for the transfer of credit risk except options and swaptions, the buyer should be the counterparty buying the protection. The seller is the counterparty selling the protection.

 

viii.In case of derivative contracts related to commodities, the buyer should be the counterparty that receives the commodity specified in the report and the seller the counterparty delivering this commodity.

 

ix. In case of forward rate agreements, the buyer should be the counterparty paying the fixed rate and the seller the counterparty receiving the fixed rate.

 

b) Yes, the investment firm can outsource the reporting of OTC transactions to an APA to a third party. However, the investment firm will remain fully responsible for discharging its obligations under MiFID II/MiFIR. Moreover, in case of outsourcing the reporting of OTC transactions to a third party, the investment firm has to ensure that the third party informs the APA of the transparency regime applicable to the investment firm subject to the reporting obligation. This ensures that the APA is in a position to make the transaction public using the transparency regime applicable to the investment firm subject to the reporting obligation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35

 

General Q&As on transparency topics

 

Question 10 [Last update: 14/11/2018]


How should trading venues, APAs and CTPs make data (pre- and/or post-trade data) available free of charge 15 minutes after publication and ensure non-discriminatory access to the information? What practices are not compatible with the requirement to make data available free of charge and ensure non-discriminatory access to the information?

 

Answer 10

 

ESMA expects trading venues, APAs and CTPs to make post-trade data, as well as pre-trade data, available free of charge 15 minutes after publication in an easily accessible manner for all potential users using a format that can be easily read, used and copied. This is without prejudice to Q&A 9(b) which allows, in certain cases, to charge fees or other similar restrictions on data. Furthermore, trading venues, APAs and CTPs are required to ensure the non- discriminatory access to pre- and post-trade data, including for data made available free of charge.

 

Article 14 of RTS 13 requires APAs and CTPs to publish data in a machine readable way. In order to ensure that the information published by APAs and trading venues can be effectively and efficiently used by the public, ESMA expects that trading venues follow similar publication standards and publish data in a machine-readable way. In , APAs, CTPs and trading venues should also provide the data in a format that can be understood by an average reader.

 

ESMA considers that any practice designed to circumvent the provisions in Article 13(1) of MiFIR and Articles 64(1) and 65(1) and (2) of MiFID II is not compatible with the requirement to make data available free of charge 15 minutes after publication and ensure non- discriminatory access to the information. This includes, but is not limited to, the following practices:

 

- Imposing restrictions on access to the published data


In order to ensure that all potential users can access the information made available free of charge 15 minutes after publication, trading venues, APAs and CTPs should make clear instructions to the public on their website on how and where to access the data. The post-trade data should be available to anybody free of charge and in a format which can be understood by the average reader.

ESMA considers that publishing information on a website that is not accessible to everybody imposes restrictions on access to the data and does not meet the requirement for making information available free of charge. Similarly, the publication of data through third parties that do not charge specific fees for the relevant data but raise regular, for instance monthly or yearly, fees for subscribing to their services, does not meet the requirement to make information available free of charge. Furthermore, ESMA is of the view that allowing access to the data via a human interface only from ex ante registered IP addresses does not meet the requirement to make information available to the public free of charge. However, such a restriction is acceptable for data provided in a machine readable way.


- Publishing information in a format that prevents users to read, use and copy the information


Trading venues, APAs and CTPs should publish information in an electronic format that can be directly and automatically read by a computer, and that can be accessed, read, used and copied by any potential user through computer software that is free of charge and publicly available.
ESMA does not consider that publishing data as an image (i.e. in such a way that the user cannot copy the data in a format that can be read by a computer) or requiring the purchase of a specific software for downloading, processing or reading the information meets the requirement of making data available free of charge.


- Requiring market participants to submit search queries in order to access data


The data made available free of charge should be published in a similar format as real-time data published on a reasonable commercial basis.
ESMA does not consider that offering only publication arrangements whereby market participants are required to submit search queries in order to access limited portions of the data (e.g. ISIN-by-ISIN searches, limited time periods) meet the requirement of making data available free of charge, but such search queries could exist in addition.


- Deleting data shortly after publication


The data made available free of charge should replicate the information published on a reasonable commercial basis but with a 15 minutes delay. ESMA is of the view that the information should be available for any party to initiate a retrieval of the data for a period of at least 24 hours from the publication. It is not reasonable to have the data available for a period that is not long enough for it to be downloaded reliably either on an ad-hoc or in a repeatable manner


- No publication of post-trade data on transactions benefitting from a deferral


ESMA recalls that the obligation to make available post-trade data free of charge 15 minutes after publication applies also to transactions benefitting from a deferral. ESMA therefore expects that information on those transactions is made available on the same conditions as information on transactions not subject to deferred publication.

 

Data reporting services providers

 

Question 1 [Last update: 31/05/2017]


What is the time limit for investment firms to report post-trade information to APAs, in particular should information be delayed in case of deferral? Who decides on the applicable deferral period given the possibility of disagreement between the APA and the investment Firm?


Answer 1


According to Articles 7 and 20 (equity instruments) and 11 and 21 (non-equity instruments) of MiFIR, NCAs may authorise market operators and investment firms to provide for a deferred publication of certain transactions. Since the authorisation for granting the deferred publication is addressed to market operators and investment firms, it is the investment firm’s responsibility to ensure that the APA is informed thereof and publishes the information no later than after the lapse of the deferral.


The investment firm should report the transaction to the APA as soon as technically possible after the execution, regardless of the application of any deferrals. The APA should be in charge of publishing the transaction in due time, according to the deferral period that applies to the specific transaction.

 

Question 2 [Last update: 31/05/2017]

 

Who will assign the identifier for the APA?

 

Answer 2


According to table 3 of Annex I of RTS 1 and table 2 of Annex II of RTS 2, APAs will be identified by either a MIC or a 4-character code. ESMA considers that the best way to ensure a harmonised and unequivocal identification of APAs and trading venues is to provide for a harmonised allocation of the identifier, such as MICs. While there is no legal obligation for APAs to use MICs, ESMA recommends that APAs request the MIC code from the ISO 10383 Registration Authority (SWIFT). The creation, maintenance and deactivation of MICs is free of charge.

 

Non-equity transparency

 

Question 2 [Last update: 03/10/2017]

 

a) Which deferral regime applies to investment firms trading OTC?

 

b) Is it relevant in what Member State the relevant instrument is traded or admitted to trading on a trading venue?

 

Answer 2

 

a) The deferral regime applicable to OTC trades is determined by the deferral regime applicable in the Member State where the investment firm that has to make the transaction public is established. The location of the APA through which a transaction is made public is not relevant. Where it is for an EU branch to make a transaction public, the deferral regime applicable in the Member State where that branch is located should apply.

 

b) No, for OTC transactions only the deferral regime applicable to the investment firm that has to make a transaction public is relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38

 

Question 19 [Last update: 07/07/2017]

 

Should a system providing quote streaming and order execution services to multiple SIs be authorised as a multilateral system?

 

Answer 19

 

Articles 14(1) and 18(1) of MIFIR require SIs to make public firm quotes, which may be published through an APA. Some prospective APAs propose setting up arrangements which, on top of their APA services, provide a suite of quote streaming and order execution services to SIs and their clients. Clients cannot interact with more than one SI via a single message but can send multiple messages to multiple SIs participating in the service provided.

 

Article 4(19) of MiFID II defines a multilateral system as” [...] any system or facility in which multiple third-party buying and selling trading interests in financial instruments are able to interact in the system”. Article 1(7) of MiFID II requires all multilateral systems to operate as either a RM, an MTF or an OTF.


In line with the criteria set out in Q&A 3 on OTFs published on 3 April 2017 for identifying multilateral trading systems, ESMA notes that:


a)  If a system allows multiple SIs to send quotes to multiple clients and allows clients to request execution against multiple SIs, then this meets the interaction test foreseen in Article 4(1)(19) even if there is no aggregation across individual SI quote streams;


b)  The arrangements described above have the characteristics of a system as they are embedded in an automated facility; and,


c)  Those arrangements are not limited to pooling potential buying and selling interests from SIs but also cater for the direct execution of the selected SI quotes. Genuine trade execution would be taking place on the system provided.


Accordingly, a system that provides quote streaming and order execution services for multiple SIs should be considered a multilateral system and would be required to seek authorisation as a regulated market, MTF or OTF in accordance with Article 1(7) of MiFID II.


ESMA reminds that if a firm were to arrange transactions on one system and provide for the execution of the transactions on another system, the disconnection between arranging and executing would not waive the obligation for the firm operating those systems to seek authorisation as a trading venue.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

chronicle   Regulatory chronicle

 

 

7 October 2019


ESMA Public Statement, Impact of no-deal Brexit on the application of MiFID II/MiFIR and the Benchmark Regulation (BMR), ESMA70-155-8500

 

12 July 2019

 

ESMA Consultation Paper, MiFID II/MiFIR review report on the development in prices for pre- and post- trade data and on the consolidated tape for equity instruments, ESMA70-156-1065

 

14 November 2018

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35

General Q&As on transparency topics, Question 10 updated on 14 November 2018

 

15 December 2017

 

ESMA Opinion, Determining third-country trading venues for the purpose of transparency under MiFID II / MiFIR, 15 December 2017, ESMA70-154-467 

In the Opinion of 15 December 2017 ESMA decided that:

- pending an ESMA’s assessment of third-country trading venues and the publication of the results, transactions on third-country trading venues should not be required to be made post-trade transparent under Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR,

- the ESMA’s publication will include both lists of third-country trading venues: meeting and not meeting a set of stipulated criteria.

 

7 July 2017

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, 7 July 2017, ESMA70-872942901-38, Question 19

 

 

 

 

IMG 0744   Documentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESMA Opinion, Determining third-country trading venues for the purpose of transparency under MiFID II / MiFIR, 15 December 2017, ESMA70-154-467 

 

In the Opinion of 15 December 2017 ESMA decided that:

 

- pending an ESMA’s assessment of third-country trading venues and the publication of the results, transactions on third-country trading venues should not be required to be made post-trade transparent under Articles 20 and 21 of MiFIR,

 

- the ESMA’s publication will include both lists of third-country trading venues: meeting and not meeting a set of stipulated criteria.

 

ESMA Opinion, Determining third-country trading venues for the purpose of transparency under MiFID II / MiFIR, 31 May 2017, ESMA70-154-165

 

MiFID II Article 64

 

MiFIR Article 20, 21

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the authorisation, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers, OJ L 87, 31.3.2017, p. 126–141

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, Articles 84 - 89

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/567 of 18 May 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to definitions, transparency, portfolio compression and supervisory measures on product intervention and positions, OJ L 87, 31.3.2017, p. 90–116, Article 6, Article 18

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 of 14 July 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives, Article 7

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/587 of 14 July 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of shares, depositary receipts, exchange-traded funds, certificates and other similar financial instruments and on transaction execution obligations in respect of certain shares on a trading venue or by a systematic internaliser

 

Working document on on the proposals to amend the European System of Financial Supervisions, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, 23.01.2018 (COM(2017/0536 - C8- 0319/2017 - 2017/0230(COD), COM(2017/0537 - C8-0318/2017 - 2017/0231(COD), COM(2017/0538 - C8-0317/2017 - 2017/0232(COD)

 

Legislative process

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) of 14.7.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives, C(2016) 4301 final and Annexes

 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) of 14.7.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments with regard to regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of shares, depositary receipts, exchange-traded funds, certificates and other similar financial instruments and on transaction execution obligations in respect of certain shares on a trading venue or by a systematic internaliser, C(2016) 4390 and Annexes

 

Opinion (Annex) Amended draft Regulatory Technical Standards on transparency requirements in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives under MiFIR, 2 May 2016, ESMA/2016/666

 

Guidelines on specific notions under MiFID II related to the management body of market operators and data reporting services providers, 5 October 2016, ESMA/2016/1437

 

Consultation Paper RTS specifying the scope of the consolidated tape for non-equity financial instruments 03 October 2016, ESMA/2016/1422

 

 

 

 

 

clip2   Links

  

 

 

 

Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) Register

 

FCA website on Data Reporting Services Providers

 

FCA grants APA status to firms ahead of MiFID II

 

Financial Instruments Reference Data System (FIRDS)