Refine
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (8)
- Working Paper (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
- MiFID II (12) (remove)
We show that "quasi-dark" trading venues, i.e., markets with somewhat non-transparent trading mechanisms, are important parts of modern equity market structure alongside lit markets and dark pools. Using the European MiFID II regulation as a quasi-natural experiment, we find that dark pool bans lead to (i) volume spill-overs into quasi-dark trading mechanisms including periodic auctions and order internalization systems; (ii) little volume returning to transparent public markets; and consequently, (iii) a negligible impact on market liquidity and short-term price efficiency. These results show that quasi-dark markets serve as close substitutes for dark pools and consequently mitigate the effectiveness of dark pool regulation. Our findings highlight the need for a broader approach to transparency regulation in modern markets that takes into consideration the many alternative forms of quasi-dark trading.
Die Anpassung der EU-Richtlinie über Märkte für Finanzinstrumente (MiFID II) und die Einführung einer begleitenden Verordnung (MiFIR) im Jahr 2014 werden erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die Finanzmärkte in Europa haben und zu einer grundlegenden Neuordnung der Finanzmarktstrukturen führen. Ausgehend von einer Diskussion der Zielerreichung der ursprünglichen Richtlinie (MiFID I) aus dem Jahr 2004 werden im vorliegenden Artikel die Zielsetzungen und Maßnahmen der Neuregelung beleuchtet. Wesentliche Elemente im Hinblick auf Marktstrukturen und den Wertpapierhandel sind die Einführung einer neuen Handelsplatzkategorie, des organisierten Handelssystems („Organised Trading Facility“; OTF), sowie die Ausweitung der bislang für Aktien geltenden Transparenzvorschriften auf weitere Finanzinstrumente. Zudem werden eine Handelsverpflichtung für Aktien und Derivate sowie eine Clearingpflicht für Derivate, die auf geregelten Märkten gehandelt werden, neu eingeführt. Schließlich werden der algorithmische Handel und der Hochfrequenzhandel auf europäischer Ebene reguliert, wobei die Regelungen weitgehend dem 2013 eingeführten deutschen Hochfrequenzhandelsgesetz angelehnt sind. Im Ausblick wird zunächst der weitere Prozess der Regulierung skizziert (insbesondere die sog. Level II-Maßnahmen). Abschließend werden mögliche Auswirkungen von MiFID II und MiFIR auf die Marktstruktur und den Wertpapierhandel aufgezeigt.
This paper describes cash equity markets in Germany and their evolution against the background of technological and regulatory transformation. The development of these secondary markets in the largest economy in Europe is first briefly outlined from a historical perspective. This serves as the basis for the description of the most important trading system for German equities, the Xetra trading system of Deutsche Börse AG. Then, the most important regulatory change for European and German equity markets in the last ten years is illustrated: the introduction of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) in 2007. Its implications on equity trading in Germany are analyzed against the background of the current status of competition in Europe. Recent developments in European equity markets like the emergence of dark pools and algorithmic / high frequency trading are portrayed, before an outlook on new regulations (MiFID II, MiFIR) that will likely come into force in early 2018 will close the paper.
Mis-selling by banks has occurred repeatedly in many nations over the last decade. While clients may benefit from competition – enabling them to choose financial services at lowest costs – economic frictions between banks and clients may give rise to mis-selling. Examples of mis-selling are mis-representation of information, overly complex product design and non-customized advice. European regulators address the problem of mis-selling in the "Markets in Financial Instruments Directive" (MiFID) I and II and the "Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation" (MiFIR), by setting behavioral requirements for banks, regulating the compensation of employees, and imposing re-quirements on offered financial products and disclosure rules.
This paper argues that MiFID II protects clients but is not as effective as it could be. (1) It does not differentiate between client groups with different levels of financial literacy. Effective advice requires different advice for different client groups. (2) MiFID II uses too many rules and too many instruments to achieve identical goals and thereby generates excessive compliance costs. High compliance costs and low revenues would drive banks out of some segments of retail business.