EFAMA has some concerns with ESMA’s clarifications. In the consultation paper (CP), ESMA seems to have a very broad interpretation of the ‘multilateral systems’ definition under MiFID II and states that ‘systems where trading interests can interact but where the execution of transactions is formally undertaken outside the system still qualify as a multilateral system and should be required to seek authorisation’ (paragraph 36).
MiFID
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive governs how funds (and other financial instruments) can be sold and distributed to investors throughout the EU. It does this by balancing investor protection (governing under what rules and conditions investment advice and portfolio management can be given) with providing the right amount of information about products and services (information about the products’ objectives and costs). In most cases, this type of financial advice, which connects funds with end investors, is provided not by fund managers, but by other financial players, such as banks or financial advisers.
Against this backdrop, EFAMA wants to ensure that these rules are balanced and the information provided to investors is meaningful. While more protection is necessary for retail investors, MiFID should allow other, more professional investors, more freedom in defining what information is necessary to conduct their day-to-day business. Also, MiFID must not make it impossible for ordinary EU citizens to access financial advice to save for their future and retirement.
EFAMA's reply to ESMA's CP on MiFIR Review report on the obligations to report transactions & reference data
We disagree with an extension of its scope to UCITS’ and AIFs’ management companies to the scope of the reporting requirements imposed by MiFIR, Art. 26. This extension would be in breach of the principle of proportionality, as:
EFAMA comments EC CP on a Covid-19 Capital Markets Recovery Package
EFAMA appreciates the Commission's efforts in pursuing an alleviation of certain MiFID II requirements in the interest of promoting a swift recovery from the economic crisis precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic (....).
EFAMA believes however that there are more effective ways to foster SME access to markets and urges the Commission to consider a set of further measures (...)
Market data users have identified important gaps in plans for EU consolidated tape
List of recommendations show what is needed to ensure a successful tape.
EFAMA & EFSA joint letter on FCA wholesale market data study
The FCA’s recent report on the wholesale data market is an important and high-quality study which echoes many long-standing buy-side concerns. It finds evidence of unequal market power in terms of market concentration, highly profitable margins, opaque pricing practices, excessive charging, bundling practices and complex licensing agreements, all of which negatively impact data users. Much of this data is indispensable for users to stay in business and fulfil regulatory obligations.
New rules establishing EU consolidated tape will boost capital markets, but could still go further
Today’s European Parliament vote concludes the MiFID/R review process
3 Questions to Rudolf Siebel on Market Data Costs
Q #1 Have you witnessed an increase in the cost of market data over the last couple of years? If so, how can it be explained?