In a draft report published on 16 March 2012, the European Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs expresses a broad support of the European Commission’s proposals extending the scope of MiFID and limiting the current MiFID exemptions
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and implementing measures (“MiFID”) hit the European markets in November 2007. MiFID further harmonised the regulatory framework for the provision of “investment services” in “financial instruments” and introduced new types of regulated trading platform (in addition to “regulated markets”), effectively putting an end to the “concentration rule”.
In October 2011, the European Commission published its proposals for an amended MiFID directive and a new markets in financial instruments regulation (together: “MiFID II”). On the one hand, MiFID II builds on the existing MiFID Directive, dealing with current and new authorisation requirements (such as that for “Organised Trading Facilities”), restricting the scope of the current MiFID exemptions, amending the organisational and conduct of business requirements for trading venues and investment firms and establishing new rules applicable to third-country firms operating via a branch in the European Economic Area. On the other hand, in a new regulation, MiFID II sets out the requirements in relation to the disclosure of trade transparency data to the public and transaction data to competent authorities, removing barriers to non-discriminatory access to clearing facilities, the mandatory trading of (standardised) derivatives on organised venues, specific supervisory actions regarding financial instruments and positions in derivatives, and the provision of services by third-country firms without a branch in the European Union.
In a draft report published on 16 March 2012, the European Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (“ECON”) expresses its broad support of the Commission’s proposals, but proposes certain material amendments. Notably, ECON proposes to limit the scope of “Organised Trading Facilities” to non-equities trading venues. ECON also proposes a less strict approach in relation to independent investment advisers (no ban on “inducements” and more neutral definition of “independent investment adviser”).