Pomegra Wiki

MiFID II Trading

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) is the European regulatory framework governing financial market structure, adopted in 2018. It requires best execution, fair access to trading venues, detailed pre- and post-trade transparency, and regular market data reporting. MiFID II is the EU’s equivalent to US Reg NMS but features stricter transparency requirements and distinct venue classifications.

This entry is about EU market structure. For US equivalent, see Reg NMS; for broader trading regulation, see stock exchange.

Background and purpose

MiFID II updated the original Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), adopted in 2007. The update aimed to address post-2008 financial crisis concerns:

  • Information asymmetries in dark pools.
  • Unfair execution practices.
  • Insufficient data transparency.

MiFID II tightened rules across all these areas, making EU markets more transparent than US markets in many respects.

Key provisions of MiFID II

Best Execution Rule. Like Reg NMS, brokers must execute orders to obtain the best possible result for clients, considering price, costs, speed, and likelihood of execution.

Transparency requirements. MiFID II requires pre-trade and post-trade transparency stricter than US rules:

  • Pre-trade: Venues must publish bid-ask quotes and volume depth in real time.
  • Post-trade: All trades must be reported within a short timeframe, with limited scope for delayed reporting.

Venue classifications. MiFID II defines specific venue types:

  • Regulated markets (RMs): Traditional exchanges (Euronext, LSE, etc.).
  • Multilateral trading facilities (MTFs): What the US calls alternative trading systems.
  • Organized trading facilities (OTFs): A hybrid category for certain venues.
  • Systematic internalisers (SIs): Brokers that internalize (match internally) customer orders.

Fair access. Rules require that venues provide fair access to participants meeting reasonable financial and technical standards.

Data reporting. Transaction data must be reported to ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) via approved reporting mechanisms.

Comparison with US Reg NMS

Transparency: MiFID II requires stricter pre- and post-trade reporting. US Reg NMS allows 15-minute delays for some dark pool trades; MiFID II limits this.

Dark pools: MiFID II significantly restricts dark pools through volume caps and reduced anonymity. US dark pools are larger and less restricted.

Venue standards: MiFID II defines venues more precisely than Reg NMS; the EU’s OTF category has no direct US equivalent.

Systematic internalizers: MiFID II recognizes SIs (brokers matching orders internally). US treats this differently.

Impact on European markets

MiFID II has:

  • Reduced dark pool activity. EU dark pools are smaller and less dominant than US ones.
  • Increased transparency. More trades are visible to the market.
  • Increased compliance costs. Brokers and venues spend heavily on MiFID II compliance.
  • Fragmented market structure. Like the US, the EU now has multiple venue types and order routing complexity.

Venue classifications in detail

Regulated Markets (RMs) are the most heavily regulated. Examples: Euronext (Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon), London Stock Exchange (LSE), Deutsche Börse.

MTFs are like US alternative trading systems. Examples: Cboe BXE (Cboe Europe), Turquoise, Chi-X.

OTFs are a newer category. They are allowed to internalise orders and operate with more flexibility than MTFs.

Systematic Internalisers (SIs) are investment firms that regularly execute customer orders against their own account (internalize). Examples include large banks trading on their desks.

Data reporting under MiFID II

All transactions must be reported to approved reporting mechanisms. The data includes:

  • Trade price and volume.
  • Time of execution.
  • Identifier of venue.
  • Buyer and seller identities (with some anonymity exceptions).

This data is aggregated by ESMA and published for market surveillance.

Brexit and MiFID II

When the UK left the EU, it adopted its own version of MiFID II called UK MiFIR. UK rules are largely similar to MiFID II but allow for future divergence.

Criticisms of MiFID II

Compliance burden. The extensive reporting and transparency requirements increase costs.

Reduced liquidity in dark pools. Volume caps and transparency requirements have reduced dark pool trading, potentially increasing costs for institutional traders executing large orders.

Complex venue landscape. Multiple venue types (RMs, MTFs, OTFs, SIs) create confusion.

See also

Wider context