Exchange responses to MiFID consultations


November 2001

EU Investment Services Directive consultation

The European Commission is consulting on changes to the Investment Services Directive (ISD) which affect the rules governing the operation of exchanges and investment firms. We have submitted a response highlighting the impact of the proposals and suggesting alternatives where appropriate. We support the overall goal of the proposals to create a single market in European financial services, as this would reduce obstacles to trade and enhance competition between exchanges on a genuine pan-European basis.

 

May 2002
Exchange supports competition in executing trades

The London Stock Exchange today set out its position on the "internalisation" of trading by banks, one of the means by which markets can meet the varied needs of investors.

 

July 2004

Response to CESR's second request for advice on implementing measures on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)

The London Stock Exchange has responded to a consultation by the Committee of European Securities Regulators requesting advice on implementing measures on MiFID.

 

September 2004

Response to CESR's consultation on proposed advice on implementing measures for MiFID
The London Stock Exchange has responded to CESR's consultation on its proposed advice on implementing measures for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ("MiFID"). 

 

December 2004
Response to CESR's consultation on proposed advice on implementing measures for MiFID

The London Stock Exchange has responded to CESR's latest consultation on its proposed advice on implementing measures for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ("MiFID").  This was CESR's second consultation on implementing measures from the Commission's first mandate and dealt with a number of issues including transaction reporting arrangements.

 

February 2005

Response to CESR's consultation on possible implementing measures for article 40 of MiFID 
The London Stock Exchange has responded to CESR’s consultation on proposed implementing measures for article 40 of MiFID (admission of financial instruments to trading on regulated markets).  We welcome steps taken by MiFID to meet our concerns to earlier draft advice on this issue, but we still believe that there is considerable scope to improve the draft advice. 

 

March 2005

Response to CESR's final consultation on possible implementing measures for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ("MiFID")
The London Stock Exchange has responded to CESR's final consultation on proposed level 2 advice for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ("MiFID").  The consultation covered best execution and market transparency.  In its response, the Exchange has called for clarification of the treatment of negotiated trades on regulated markets to avoid an unnecessary and potentially damaging migration of business away from regulated markets, and a more sensitive approach to the transparency arrangements for illiquid shares.

 

August 2005
Response to ESC working paper on MiFID transparency and admission to trading
The London Stock Exchange has responded to the European Securities Committee working paper proposing level 2 implementing measures concerning transparency and admission to trading requirements for regulated markets.  The Exchange has praised the ESC for its open approach to consultation, and for the excellent progress that has been made on the transparency provisions.  However, the Exchange has some residual concerns about some of the detailed post trade transparency and admission to trading requirements, which are detailed in the response. 

 

October 2005

Response to ESC MiFID working paper on conduct of business requirements
The Exchange has responded to the European Securities Committee's most recent working paper on proposed implementing legislation for the MIFID provisions concerning conduct of business.  The Exchange has asked the ESC to remove the provision requiring execution venues to publish execution quality data.  The Exchange believes that there is no value in such a requirement, given the extensive transparency requirements with which all execution venues must comply.