The main point made in this response refers to the quality of trading surveillance on different execution venues. Since the introduction of MiFID, the same instruments can be traded on Regulated Markets (RMs) and Multi-lateral Trading facilities (MTFs) - which are incorporated in several jurisdictions. FESE states that to avoid arbitrary effects and to ensure consistency of regulatory treatment, CAs should require the same level of trading surveillance from all execution venues, regardless of the legal status of the operator. To do so, our members suggest that secondary market provisions (e.g.insider dealing and market manipulation rules) apply to all markets. On the other hand, FESE agrees with the analysis of the Commission that primary market provisions (e.g. disclosure rules, lists of insiders, transaction reporting by managers) would be less suitable for Junior / Specialised markets. The rest of the Response provides comments concerning, among other topics, the possible alignment of the MAD definition of financial instrument with the MiFID one, dissemination of inside information, transaction reporting by managers, reporting of suspicious transactions, Accepted Market Practices, exemption for buy-back programmes and stabilisation activities and short-selling.
FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index:
FESE Response To The Commission On The Review Of The Market Abuse Directive
Date 17/06/2009