Categoría vínculos Esta categoría agrupa a los saberes que establecen

Background/Mandate

Article 11(4) of MiFIR

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

(a) the details of transactions that investment firms, including systematic internalisers, and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make available to the public for each class of financial instrument concerned in accordance with Article 10(1), including identifiers for the different types of transactions published under Article 10(1) and Article 21(1), distinguishing between those determined by factors linked primarily to the valuation of the financial instruments and those determined by other factors;

(b) the time limit that would be deemed in compliance with the obligation to publish as close to real time as possible including when trades are executed outside ordinary trading hours;

[…]

Article 21(5) of MiFIR

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;

[…]

instruments which are traded on a trading venue. The post-trade transparency requirements have been extended, by Article 21(1) of MiFIR, to investment firms, including SIs, which, either on own account or on behalf of clients, conclude transactions outside trading venues (RMs, MTFs and OTFs) in non-equity financial instruments falling under the scope of the transparency regime.

262. Articles 11(4) and 21(5) of MiFIR require ESMA to develop draft RTS specifying information and details to be made public under the new post-trade transparency regime for bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives, as well as the timing of publication.

263. The list of flags in the CP (Annex II, Table 2 of the draft RTS) proposed the substitution of the pre-trade LIS flag with a post-trade LIS flag and the addition of some additional flags: a non-price forming flag and flags for transactions for which the deferred publication of information follow the supplementary deferrals granted by CAs (in accordance with Article 10 of the draft RTS)8_{. Furthermore, the CP consulted on the} detail of transactions to be made available to the public (Table 1 of Annex II of the draft RTS) and asked whether an additional field for the date and time of publication of a transaction should be added.

264. ESMA proposed to set the maximum time limit for publishing post-trade information in compliance with the requirement to publish as close to real time as possible to a maximum delay of 5 minutes. . To allow market participants to adapt to the new regime, ESMA provided for a less strict requirement of 15 minutes for the first 3 years of application. ESMA notes that the maximum permissible delay should only be used for market participants who for technical reasons cannot achieve real-time publication as promptly as in a fully automated process.

Analysis following feedback from stakeholders and proposal

265. Views from respondents on whether to add the date and time of publication were split. However, those opposing this provision did not provide reasons why this field should not be added, and ESMA, together with a significant part of respondents, considers that this information would be valuable both for market participants as well as for CAs. Therefore, the data and time of publication has been added to the details of a transaction to be made public. However, it has to be noted that for OTC transactions the field will have to be filled in by APAs and not by investment firms. The majority of respondents were not in favour of adding other fields to Annex II, Table 1.

266. ESMA did not introduce further new fields. However, the fields previously included and related to the price and quantity of the transaction have been disentangled to take into account the different characteristics of non-equity financial instruments, e.g.

8

commodity derivatives, and as to ensure a consistent application of the information related to the quantity and notional/nominal value of the transaction.

267. As concerns the flags for post-trade transparency the changes that were introduced following feedback from respondents to the consultation are the deletion of the “technical trades” flag - as those transactions were already covered under the category of the non- price forming trades - and the deletion of the “algorithmic trades” flag. Since there is no legal obligation to include an “algorithmic trading flag” for non-equity instruments – contrary to the requirement for CTPs for equity instrument to flag algorithmic transactions, the latter information was deleted, since most respondents considered it not as providing useful information.

268. In line with the special treatment to which certain package transactions, including exchange for physicals (EFP) are entitled to (see below section VIII of chapter 2.2.2) ESMA considered relevant to include a “package transaction” flag and an “exchange for physicals” flag, so as to provide post-trade information on component transactions the reported prices of which would otherwise give misleading information.

269. Last but not least, the flags to be used in the case of transactions executed under the discretionary deferral regime are maintained. However, for each scenario specific flags have to be used so as to identify the transaction at both points in time, i.e. when limited and full transparency to the reporting is applied.

270. The majority of respondents confirmed the proposal for the time limit for publishing post-trade information, and the approach to set more demanding time limits after 3 years of application. Some respondents would have preferred a more flexible regime, allowing for a review of the provision rather than an automatic reduction to 5 minutes after the 3- year period to ensure that the industry is ready for such a reduction. However, ESMA considers that this approach provides market participants with sufficient time to prepare for more demanding time limits while respecting the objective of MiFID to provide for post-trade transparency in real-time.

271. In order to ensure that the information to be made available to the public for the purpose of post-trade transparency is operational and meaningful, a common format for provision of such information needs to be defined. Additionally, since trading venues are not only subject to post-trade transparency requirements, but also (at the same time) obliged to report financial instrument reference data as per the draft RTS 23, alignment of the formats for relevant data has been considered reasonable and beneficial in light of the overlap between the data to be provided under both requirements.

272. The formats to be applied for the post-trade reports are therefore consistent with the ISO 20022, which has been chosen as the most suitable for the purpose of reference data reporting under MiFIR Art. 27. ISO 20022 is a standardisation methodology which sets out guidelines, principles and formats that should be followed in the development of

273. The alignment with the formats used for reference data (and thus, with ISO 20022 methodology) concerns only the way the information is represented, for example the same codes are used to represent the same values. It does not affect the data requirements themselves or the means of their collection or publishing (for example, no specific technical format, like XML, is required for the publication of data). In practical terms it means that the additional burden resulting from the alignment is limited to the transformation of the data so that they are represented in a standard way, thus it can be considered marginal.

V. Application of post trade transparency regime to certain