ICMA’s response to the Commission’s consultation on the MiFID Review highlights:

  • that the Commission should build on the improvements MiFID has brought rather than re-engineering the whole Directive or trying to make it future-proof;
  • the need to take the necessary time to consider the implications of the proposals and not rush the legislative proposal;
  • lack of clarity on what purpose a definition of “admission to trading” would serve and a general observation that many of the proposals do not include an explanation of the underlying regulatory objective behind them;
  • that money market instruments should not come further within MiFID scope;
  • the “unsustainable” idea that bonds with a prospectus or which are admitted to trading are the more liquid or frequently traded market segment;
  • concern that making trading venues provide real-time and continuous updating of available and actionable trading interest would interfere with market operation;
  • that there is no need for an outright ban on title transfer collateral arrangements with retail clients, although some protection measures should be in place; and
  • the importance of assessing the cumulative regulatory impact of all the changes that will come into force at roughly the same time.

 (Source: ICMA response to Public Consultation – Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID))