MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands

Public consultation on the review of the MiFID II/MiFIR
regulatory framework
Introduction
Background of this public consultation
As stated by President von der Leyen in her political guidelines for the new Commission, “our
people and our business can only thrive if the economy works for them”. To that effect, it is
essential to complete the Capital Markets Union (‘CMU’), to deepen the Economic and Monetary
Union (‘EMU’) and to offer an economic environment where small and medium-sized enterprises
(‘SMEs’) can grow.
In the light of the mission letter to Executive Vice President Dombrovskis, the Commission services
are speeding up the work towards a CMU to diversify sources of finance for companies and tackle
the barriers to the flow of capital. The Action Plan on the Capital Markets Union as announced in
Commission Work Program for 2020 will aim at better integrating national capital markets and
ensuring equal access to investments and funding opportunities for citizens and businesses across
the EU.
In addition, the new Digital Finance Strategy for the EU aims to deepen the Single Market for
digital financial services, promoting a data-driven financial sector in the EU while addressing its
risks and ensuring a true level playing field via enhanced supervisory approaches. And the
revamped Sustainable Finance Strategy will aim to redirect private capital flows to green
investments.
Finally, in the context of the Communication on the International role of the euro, the Commission
has published a recommendations on how to increase the role of the euro in the field of energy.
Furthermore, the Commission consulted market participants to understand better what makes the
euro attractive in the global arena. Based on those consultations, the Commission has produced a
Staff Working Document that provides an update on initiatives, and raises considerations for
specific sectors such as commodity markets.
The Directive and Regulation on Markets in Financial Instruments (respectively MiFID II – Directive
2014/65/EU – and MiFIR – Regulation (EU) No 600/2014) are cornerstones of the EU regulation of
financial markets. They promote financial markets that are fair, transparent, efficient and
integrated, including through strong rules on investor protection. In doing so, MiFID II and MiFIR
support the objectives of the CMU, the Digital Finance agenda, and the Sustainable Finance
agenda.
Responding to this consultation and follow up to the consultation
In this context and in line with the Better Regulation principles, the Commission has decided to
launch an open public consultation to gather stakeholders’ views.
The Commission’s consultation and separate ESMA consultations on the functioning of certain
aspects of the MiFID II/MiFIR framework are complementary and should by no means be
considered mutually exclusive. The Commission and ESMA consult stakeholders with respect to
their specific area of competence and responsibility and with the objective to gather important
guidance for any future course of action on respective sides. Both the ESMA reports and this
consultation will inform the review reports for the European Parliament and the Council (see Article
90 of MiFID II and Article 52 of MiFIR), including legislative proposals where considered necessary.
This consultation document contains three sections.
The first section aims to gather views from all stakeholders (including non-specialists) on the
experience of two years of application of MiFID II/MiFIR. In particular, it will gather feedback from
stakeholders on whether a targeted review of MiFID II/MiFIR with an ambitious timeline would be
appropriate to address the most urgent shortcomings.

Page 1 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
The second section will seek views of stakeholders on technical aspects of the current MiFID
II/MiFIR regime. It will allow the Commission to assess the impact of possible changes to EU
legislation on the basis of proposals already put forward by stakeholders in the context of previous
public consultations and studies (e.g. study on the effects of the unbundling regime on the
availability and quality of research reports on SMEs and study on the digitalisation of the
marketing and distance selling of retail financial service) and in the context of exchanges with
experts (e.g. in the European Securities Committee or in workshops, such as the workshop on the
scope and functioning of the consolidated tape). This second section focuses on a number of welldefined issues.
The third section invites stakeholders to draw the attention of the Commission to any further
regulatory aspects or identified issues not mentioned in the first and second sections.
This consultation is open until 20 April 2020.
Please note: In order to ensure a fair and transparent consultation process only responses
received through our online questionnaire will be taken into account and included in the report
summarising the responses. Should you have a problem completing this questionnaire or if you
require particular assistance, please contact fisma-mifid-r-review@ec.europa.eu.
More information:

on this consultation

on the consultation document

on the protection of personal data regime for this consultation

About you
Language of my contribution
o Dutch
I am giving my contribution as
o Academic/research institution
o Business association
o Company/business organisation
o Consumer organisation
o EU citizen
o Environmental organisation
o Non-EU citizen
o Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
o Public authority
o Trade union
o Other
First name

Surname

Email (this won't be published)

Scope
o International
o Local
o National
o Regional

Page 2 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Organisation name
Ministry of Finance (The Netherlands)
Organisation size
o Micro (1 to 9 employees)
o Small (10 to 49 employees)
o Medium (50 to 249 employees)
o Large (250 or more)
Transparency register number
N.A.
Country of origin
o Netherlands
Field of activity or sector (if applicable):
o Operator of a trading venue (regulated market, MTF, OTF)
o Systematic internaliser
o Data reporting service provider
o Data vendor
o Operator of market infrastructure other than trading venue (clearing house, central security
depositary, etc)
o Investment bank, broker, independent research provider, sell-side firm
o Fund manager (e.g. asset manager, hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds,
money market funds, institutional investors), buy-side entity
o Benchmark administrator
o Corporate, issuer
o Consumer association
o Accounting, auditing, credit rating agency
o Other
o Not applicable
Please specify your activity field(s) or sector(s):
N.A.
Publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you
would like your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.
o Anonymous. Only your type of respondent, country of origin and contribution will be
published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and size,
transparency register number) will not be published.
o Public. Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register
number, country of origin) will be published with your contribution.
o I agree with the personal data protection provisions
Choose your questionnaire
Please indicate whether you wish to respond to the short version (7 questions) or full version (94
questions) of the questionnaire.
The short version only covers the general aspects of the MiFID II/MiFIR regime. The full version
comprises 87 additional questions addressing more technical features. The full questionnaire is
only available in English.
o I want to respond only to the short version of the questionnaire
o I want to respond to the full version of the questionnaire

Page 3 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands

Section 1. General questions on the overall functioning of
the regulatory framework
The EU established a comprehensive set of rules on investment services and activities with the aim
of promoting financial markets that are fair, transparent, efficient and integrated. The first
comprehensive set of rules adopted by the EU (MiFID I - Directive 2004/39/EC.) helped to increase
the competitiveness of financial markets by creating a single market for investment services and
activities. In the wake of the financial crisis, shortcomings were exposed. MiFID II and MiFIR, in
application since 3 January 2018, reinforce the rules applicable to securities markets to increase
transparency and foster competition. They also strengthen the protection of investors by
introducing requirements on the organisation and conduct of actors in these markets.
After two years, the main goal of a MiFID II/MiFIR targeted review is to increase the transparency
of European public markets and, linked thereto, their attractiveness for investors. The Commission
aims to ensure that European Union’s share and bond markets work for the people and businesses
alike. All companies, both small and large, need access to the capital markets. The regulatory
regime for financial markets and financial services needs to be fit for the new digital era and
financial markets need to work to the benefit of everyone, especially retail clients.
Question 1. To what extent are you satisfied with your overall experience with the
implementation of the MiFID II/MiFIR framework?
(very unsatisfied, unsatisfied, neutral, satisfied, very satisfied, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 1.1 Please explain your answer to question 1 and specify in which areas would you
consider the opportunity (or need) for improvements:
De herziening van MiFID en de introductie van MiFIR heeft bijgedragen aan het beter functioneren
van de financiële markten in de Europese Unie. Een belangrijk gevolg hiervan is de toename van
de transparantie bij de handel op financiële markten. Hierdoor is de bescherming van beleggers
beter geborgd. MiFID II en MiFIR vormen daarmee een belangrijke pijler voor het verder
versterken van de Europese kapitaalmarktunie. Ter verdere versterking van de kapitaalmarktunie
is het van belang dat de eventuele hindernissen worden weggenomen die bemoeilijken of
verhinderen dat er binnen de EU grensoverschrijdend beleggingsdiensten en
datarapporteringsdiensten kunnen worden verleend en beleggingsactiviteiten kunnen worden
verricht.
Op enige onderdelen zijn de door MiFID II en MiFIR beoogde doelen nog niet of niet geheel bereikt.
Dit ziet met name op enkele maatregelen die zien op de transparantie vóór de handel (pre-trade
transparency). Meer in het bijzonder zien wij noodzaak om (i) de werking van de double volume
cap (DVC) bij de toepassing van enkele pre trade transparency waivers te bezien, (ii) het ongelijke
speelveld tussen (multilaterale) handelsplatformen en beleggingsondernemingen met
systematische internalisatie (SIs) zoveel mogelijk weg te nemen en (iii) het toepassingsbereik van
de in MiFIR opgenomen handelsverplichting voor aandelen – de share trading obligation (STO) – te
herzien vooral wat betreft (bepaalde) aandelen die zijn toegelaten tot de handel in derde landen.
Enkele andere belangrijke onderwerpen die in het kader van deze MiFID review zouden moeten
worden opgepakt, zijn de (gefaseerde) invoering van een post trade consolidated tape voor
eigenvermogeninstrumenten (equities) en obligaties (bonds) alsmede een aanpassing van het
huidige positielimietenregime voor grondstoffenderivaten teneinde belemmeringen voor de
introductie van nieuwe (nascent) en voor minder liquide grondstoffenderivaten weg te nemen.
Met betrekking tot beleggersbescherming is het belangrijk om de Europese regelgeving omtrent
provisies verder te versterken om transparantie verder te vergroten. In dit kader zijn wij
voorstander van een EU-breed verbod op provisies, zodat de (financiële) prikkels voor
financiëledienstverleners beter in lijn liggen met de belangen van de klant. Voorts merken wij bij
voorbaat op dat wij tegen de introductie van maatregelen zijn die naar ons oordeel afbreuk doen
aan de bescherming van beleggers en in het bijzonder van niet-professionele beleggers,

Page 4 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
waaronder begrepen (eventuele) voorstellen die tot doel hebben om het toepassingsbereik van de
product governance (POG) verplichting te wijzigen, en voorstellen tot introductie van een
semiprofessionele beleggerscategorie.
Question 2. Please specify to what extent you agree with the statements below regarding the
overall experience with the implementation of the MiFID II/MiFIR framework?

The EU intervention has been successful in achieving or progressing towards its MiFID II/MiFIR
objectives (fair, transparent, efficient and integrated markets). - Rather agree (4)

The MiFID II/MiFIR costs and benefits are balanced (in particular regarding the regulatory
burden). - N.A.

The different components of the framework operate well together to achieve the MiFID
II/MiFIR objectives. - Rather agree (4)

The MiFID II/MiFIR objectives correspond with the needs and problems in EU financial
markets. - Fully agree (5)

The MiFID II/MiFIR has provided EU added value. - Fully agree (5)
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 2.1 Please provide qualitative elements to explain your answers to question 2:
Zoals ook aangegeven in het antwoord op vraag 1.1 ziet Nederland een significante verbetering
van het functioneren van kapitaalmarkten in de EU door de introductie en herziening van MiFID II/
MiFIR.
Question 3. Do you see impediments to the effective implementation of MiFID II/MiFIR arising
from national legislation or existing market practices?
(not at all, not really, neutral, partially, totally, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 3.1 Please explain your answer to question 3:
N.A.
Question 4. Do you believe that MiFID II/MiFIR has increased pre- and posttrade transparency for
financial instruments in the EU?
(not at all, not really, neutral, partially, totally, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 4.1 Please explain your answer to question 4:
MiFID II/ MiFIR heeft geleid tot een toename van transparantie voor en na de handel. Echter, die
transparantie is door verschillende oorzaken nog onvoldoende gerealiseerd. Hierbij kan onder
meer worden gedacht aan de werking van de double volume cap (DVC) bij de toepassing van
enkele pre trade transparency waivers, de mogelijkheden om transparantie na de handel op te
schorten (deferral of publication), het ongelijke spelveld wat betreft transparantieverplichtingen
tussen handelsplatformen en SIs en de gebrekkige kwaliteit van de te rapporteren handelsdata.
Question 5. Do you believe that MiFID II/MiFIR has levelled the playing field between different
categories of execution venues such as, in particular, trading venues and investment firms
operating as systematic internalisers?
(not at all, not really, neutral, partially, totally, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 5.1 Please explain your answer to question 5:
Ten aanzien van de door MiFID II en MiFIR gereguleerde (multilaterale) handelsplatformen is er
sprake van een ongelijk speelveld tussen gereglementeerde markten en MTFs respectievelijk OTFs
wat betreft de asset classes die op deze handelsplatformen kunnen worden verhandeld en wat
betreft de uitzondering van de zogenoemde C6-grondstoffenderivaten(contracten) van het begrip
financieel instrument.
Wat betreft het ongelijke speelveld tussen (multilaterale) handelsplatformen en SIs hebben wij
hiervoor reeds opgemerkt dat dit voor zoveel mogelijk moet worden weggenomen. Dit geldt onder
meer voor de verschillen t.a.v. het tick size regime en de transparantieverplichtingen.

Page 5 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 6. Have you identified barriers that would prevent investors from accessing the widest
possible range of financial instruments meeting their investment needs?
(not at all, not really, neutral, partially, totally, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 6.1 If you have identified such barriers, please explain what they would be:
Geen specifieke voorbeelden.
Europese kapitaal- en effectenmarkten zijn nog steeds relatief sterk gefragmenteerd. Een verdere
verdieping van de Europese kapitaalmarktunie draagt bij aan het verbeteren van het aanbod van
verschillende financiële instrumenten aan beleggers in alle lidstaten. Grensoverschrijdende
kapitaalstromen dienen beter te worden gefaciliteerd en meer te worden gestimuleerd.

Page 6 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands

Section 2. Specific questions on the existing regulatory
Framework
PART ONE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR REVIEW
The issues in PART ONE are identified by the Commission services as priority areas for the review
based on the experience gathered in the two years of implementation of MiFID II/MiFIR. Many of
them are listed in the review clauses of MiFID II and MiFIR which means that the Commission
needs input to assess the merit of amending the provisions to make them more effective and
operational. When applicable, references are made to the applicable review clause.
Other topics not listed in the review clauses stem from the many contributions received from
stakeholders, including public authorities, on possible shortcomings of the existing framework. A
number of questions in subsection II on investor protection in particular fall in the latter category.

I. The establishment of an EU consolidated tape
The EU has a competitive trading environment but investors and their intermediaries often lack a
consolidated view of where financial instruments are traded, how much is traded and at what
price. Except for the largest or most sophisticated market players (who can purchase consolidated
data pertaining to the different execution venues from data vendors or build their own aggregated
view of the market), investors have no overall picture of a fragmented trading landscape: while
the trading often used to be concentrated on one national exchange, notably in equities, investors
can now choose between multiple competing trading venues, which results in a more fragmented
and hence more complex trading landscape. At the same time, fragmentation per se should not be
discarded as it is inherent to the introduction of alternative trading systems (MTFs, OTFs) which
has led to a significant increase in competition between trading venues with positive effects on
trading costs and increased execution quality. This section seeks stakeholders’ feedback on how to
improve investors’ visibility in the current trading environment via the establishment of a
consolidated tape.
In order to optimise the trading experience, a single price comparison tool consolidating trading
data across the EU - referred to as the consolidated tape (‘CT’) - would help brokers to locate
liquidity at the best price available in the European markets, and increase investors’ capacity to
evaluate the quality of their broker’s performance in executing an order. A European CT could also
be one major step towards “democratising” access to “market data” so that all investors can see
what the best price is to buy or sell a particular share. A CT may not only prove useful for equities
but also for exchange-traded funds (ETFs), bond or other non-equity instruments. Practical
experience with a consolidated tape is already available in the United States, where a consolidated
tape has been mandated for shares (consolidating pre- and post-trade data) and bonds (posttrade data).
A European CT could, for a reasonable fee, provide a real-time feed of information, not only for
transactions that have taken place (post-trade information), but also for orders resting in the
public markets (pre-trade information). MiFID II /MiFIR already provides for a consolidated tape
framework for equity and non-equity instruments but no consolidated tape has yet emerged, for
various reasons that are explored in this consultation. On 5 December 2019 ESMA submitted to
the Commission a report on the development in prices for pre- and post-trade data and on the
Consolidated tape for equity instruments. This report included recommendations relating to the
provision consolidated tape for equity instruments of market data and the establishment of a posttrade consolidated tape for equities. In the following sections the Commission, taking into account
the conclusions from ESMA, welcomes views on how a European CT should be designed: what
information it should consolidate (e.g. pre- and/or post-trade transparency), what financial
instruments should be included (e.g. shares, bonds, derivatives), what characteristics should be
retained for its optimal functioning (e.g. funding, governance, technical specifications). Finally, the

Page 7 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
last subsection analyses possible amendments to certain MiFID II/MiFIR provisions (share trading
obligation and transparency requirements) with a possible link to the CT.
1. Current state of play
This section discusses the absence of a CT under the current MiFID II/MiFIR framework, the issues
of availability of market data for market participants and the use cases for setting up a CT.
1.1. Reasons why a consolidated tape has not emerged
Article 65 of MIFID II provides for a framework for a post-trade CT in equity and non-equity
instruments further detailed in regulatory technical standards. The framework specifies key
functioning features that a potential CT should adhere to, such as the content of the information
that a CT should consolidate as well as its organisational and governance arrangements.
Since no CT provider has emerged so far, there is a lack of practical experience with the CT
framework under MiFID II/MiFIR. Several reasons have been put forward to explain the absence of
a CT.
Question 7. What are in your view the reasons why an EU consolidated tape has not yet
emerged?

Lack of financial incentives for the running a CT - Rather agree (4)

Overly strict regulatory requirements for providing a CT - N.A.

Competition by non-regulated entities such as data vendors - Rather agree (4)

Lack of sufficient data quality, in particular for OTC transactions and transactions on
systematic internalisers - Rather agree (4)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what are the other reasons why an EU consolidated tape has not yet emerged?
N.A.
Question 7.1 Please explain your answers to question 7:
Wat betreft de consolidated tape (CT) voor eigenvermogensinstrumenten (equities) verwijzen wij
naar het relevante ESMA consultation paper.1 Zie in het bijzonder Hoofdstuk 4.2 van de CP waarin
ESMA naar ons oordeel terecht de hiervoor onder vraag 7 bij de eerste 4 bullets genoemde
factoren aanmerkt als redenen voor het niet van de grond komen van een CTP voor equities.
Question 8. Should an EU consolidated tape be mandated under a new dedicated legal
framework, what parts of the current consolidated tape framework (Article 65 of MiFID II and the
relevant technical standards (Regulation (EU 2017/571)) would you consider appropriate to ion
incorporate in the future consolidated tape framework? Please explain your answer:
Op deze vraag kan pas een adequaat antwoord worden gegeven, indien duidelijk is hoe de CT is
vormgegeven, wie de CT exploiteert en hoe de CT wordt gefinancierd. Op dit moment zien wij
geen noodzaak om een nieuw wettelijk kader te introduceren dat is toegesneden op de nieuwe EU
CT.
1.2. Availability and price of market data
In its report submitted on 5 December 2019 to the Commission, ESMA considers that so far MiFID
II/MiFIR has not delivered on its objective to reduce the price of market data and the Reasonable
Commercial Basis (‘RCB’) provisions have not delivered on their objectives to enable users to
understand market data policies and how the price for market data is set.
ESMA recommends, in addition to working on supervisory guidance on how the RCB requirements
should be complied with, a number of targeted changes to either the Level 1 or Level 2 texts to
strengthen the overall concept that market data should be charged based on the costs of
producing and disseminating the information:

www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70-1561065_cp_mifid_review_report_cost_of_market_data_and_consolidated_tape_equity.pdf
1

Page 8 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands






add a mandate to the Level 1 text empowering ESMA to develop Level 2 measures
specifying the content, format and terminology of the RCB information; and
move the provision to provide market data on the basis of costs (Article 85 of CDR
2017/565 and Article 7 of CDR 2017/567) to the Level 1 text;
add a requirement in the Level 1 text for trading venues, APAs, SIs and CTPs to share
information on the actual costs of producing and disseminating market data as well as on
the margins with CAs and ESMA together with an empowerment to develop Level 2
measures specifying the frequency, content and format of such information;
delete Article 86(2) of CDR 2017/565 and Article 8(2) of CDR 2017/567 allowing trading
venues, APAs, CTPs and SIs to charge for market data proportionate to the value the data
represents to users.

Question 9. Do you agree with the above targeted amendments recommended by ESMA to
address market data concerns? Please explain your answer:
N.A.
1.3. Use cases for a consolidated tape
Question 10. What do you consider to be the use cases for an EU consolidated tape?

Transaction cost analysis (TCA) - Neutral (3)

Ensuring best execution - Fully agree (5)

Documenting best execution - Neutral (3)

Better control of order & execution management - N.A.

Regulatory reporting requirements - Neutral (3)

Market surveillance - N.A.

Liquidity risk management - N.A.

Making market data accessible at a reasonable cost - Fully agree (5)

Identify available liquidity - Rather agree (4)

Portfolio valuation - Rather agree (4)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what are the other use cases for an EU consolidated tape that you identified?
N.A.
Question 10.1 Please explain your answers to question 10 and also indicate to what extent the
use cases would benefit from a CT:
Met het oog op de naleving van de best execution verplichting is de CT van groot belang. De CT
bewerkstelligt dat marktpartijen een beter en breder overzicht van de markt (over meerdere asset
classes) verkrijgen. Dit zou kunnen bijdragen aan een (meer) adequate prijsvorming.
2. General features of the consolidated tape
This section discusses the general features of a future European CT. The specific scope of the CT in
terms of financial instruments (shares, bonds, derivatives) and type of transparency (pre- and/or
post-trade) are addressed in the following section.
During the EC workshop, the ESMA consultation, conferences and stakeholder meetings, it became
clear that a majority of market participants believe that EU financial markets would benefit from
the establishment of a CT. ESMA made the following recommendation2 which appear very
important for the success of an EU consolidated tape: ]

ensuring a high level of data quality (supervisory guidance complemented with
amendments of the Level 1 and 2 texts);

mandatory contributions: trading venues and APAs should provide trading data to the CT
free of charge;

CT to share revenues with contributing entities (on the basis of an allocation key that
rewards price forming trades);

contribution of users to funding of the CT, e.g. via mandatory consumption of the CT by
users to ensure user contributions to the funding of the CT

Page 9 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands




full coverage: The CT should consolidate 100% of the transactions across all asset classes
(with possible targeted exceptions);
operation of the CT on an exclusive basis: ESMA recommends that a CT is appointed for a
period of 5-7 years after a competitive appointment process;
strong governance framework to ensure the neutrality of the CT provider, a high level of
transparency and accountability and include provisions ensuring the continuity of service.

The EC workshop, conferences and stakeholder meetings revealed that opinions remained
divergent on a variety of issues, notably:

Whether pre-trade data should be included in CT: the argument has been made that the
US model for a consolidated quotation tape comprises pre-trade quotes because of the
order protection rule contained in Regulation National Market System (NMS). The order
protection rule eliminated the possibility of orders being executed at a suboptimal price
compared to orders advertised on exchanges and it established the National Best Bid and
Offer (NBBO) requirement that mandates brokers to route orders to venues that offer the
best displayed price. Although some stakeholders strongly support a quotation tape, others
have expressed reservations, either because there is no order protection rule in the
European Union or because they do not support the establishment of such a rule in the EU
which could be encouraged by the establishment of a pretrade tape. Stakeholders also
argue that a quotation tape will be very expensive and that latency issues in collecting,
consolidating and disseminating transaction data from multiple venues will always lead to a
coexistence of the CT and proprietary exchange data feeds.

What should be the latency of the tape: Many stakeholders argue that the tape should be
“real-time”, implying minimum standards on latency such as a dissemination speed of
between 200 and 250 milliseconds (“fast as the eye can see”). Other stakeholders support
an end of day tape.

How to fund the tape and redistribute its revenues: stakeholders have mixed views on the
optimal funding model. They also caution against some aspects of the US model, where
the practice of redistribution of CT revenues has, in their view, provided market
participants with an incentive to provide quotes to certain venues that rebate more tape
revenue, without necessarily contributing to better execution quality.
Question 11. Which of the following features, as described above, do you consider important for
the creation of an EU consolidated tape?

High level of data quality - Fully agree (5)

Mandatory contributions - Fully agree (5)

Mandatory consumption - Disagree (1)

Full coverage - Fully agree (5)

Very high coverage (not lower than 90% of the market) - Fully agree (5)

Real-time (minimum standards on latency) - Fully agree (5)

The existence of an order protection rule - Disagree (1)

Single provider per asset class - Neutral (3)

Strong governance framework - Fully agree (5)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what other feature(s) you consider important for the creation of an EU consolidated
tape?
N.A.
Question 11.1 Please explain your answers to question 11 and provide if possible detailed
suggestions on how the above success factors should be implemented (e.g. how data quality
should be improved; what should be the optimal latency and coverage; what should the
governance framework include; the optimal number of providers):
N.A.
Question 12. If you support mandatory consumption of the tape, how would you recommend to
structure such mandatory consumption?

Page 10 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Please explain your answer and provide if possible detailed suggestions on which users should be
mandated to consume the tape and how this should be organised:
N.A.
Question 13. In your view, what link should there be between the CT and best execution
obligations?
Please explain your answer and provide if possible detailed suggestions (e.g. simplifying the best
execution reporting through the use of an EBBO reference price benchmark):
Met behulp van een CT kunnen beleggers en beleggingsondernemingen beter nagaan of de best
execution verplichtingen worden nageleefd.
Question 14. Do you agree with the following features in relation to the provision, governance
and funding of the consolidated tape?

The CT should be funded on the basis of user fees - Fully agree (5)

Fees should be differentiated according to type of use - Neutral (3)

Revenue should be redistributed among contributing venues - Fully agree (5)

In redistributing revenue, price-forming trades should be compensated at a higher rate than
other trades - Neutral (3)

The position of CTP should be put up for tender every 5-7 years - Fully agree (5)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what other important feature(s) for the funding and governance of the CT you did
identify?
N.A.
Question 14.1 Please explain your answers to question 14 and provide if possible detailed
suggestions on how the above features should be implemented (e.g. according to which
methodology the CT revenues should be redistributed; how price forming trades should be
rewarded, alternative funding models):
De data op de CT zouden onder identieke voorwaarden, waaronder prijs en snelheid, aan alle
deelnemers van de CT moeten worden verstrekt.
3. The scope of the consolidated tape
3.1. Pre- and post-trade transparency and asset class coverage
This section discusses the scope of the CT: what asset classes should be covered and what trade
transparency data it should include. This section also discusses how to delineate, within an asset
class, the exact scope of financial instruments that should be included in the CT.
Question 15. For which asset classes do you consider that an EU consolidated tape should be
created?

Shares pre-trade - Disagree (1)

Shares post-trade - Fully agree (5)

ETFs pre-trade - Disagree (1)

ETFs post-trade - Fully agree (5)

Corporate bonds pre-trade - Disagree (1)

Corporate bonds post-trade - Fully agree (5)

Government bonds pre-trade - Disagree (1)

Government bonds post-trade - Fully agree (5)

Interest rate swaps pre-trade - Disagree (1)

Interest rate swaps post-trade - Rather agree (4)

Credit default swaps pre-trade - Disagree (1)

Credit default swaps post-trade - Rather agree (4)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)

Page 11 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Please specify for which other asset classes you consider that an EU consolidated tape should be
created?

Question 15.1 Please explain your answers to question 15:
Wij pleiten voor het oprichten van een real time post trade CT.
Wat de scope van asset classes betreft, kunnen wij ons voorstellen dat de op te richten real time
post trade CT in eerste instantie uitsluitend ziet op aandelen, ETFs en obligaties. Op een later
moment kunnen interest rate en credit default swaps hieraan worden toegevoegd. Dit vanwege de
complexiteit van het operationeel krijgen van een dergelijke CT.
Another important element in the design of the CT will be to determine the exact content of the
information that a pre- and/ or post-trade CT should consolidate in relation to the information
already disseminated under the MiFIR pre- and post-trade transparency requirements. While
Article 65 of MIFID II and the relevant regulatory technical standards specify the exact content of
the post-trade information a CT should consolidate under the current framework, there is no such
specification for pre-trade information.
Question 16. In your view, what information published under the MiFID II /MiFIR pre- and posttrade transparency should be consolidated in the tape (all information or a subset, any additional
information)?
Please explain your answer, distinguishing if necessary by asset class and pre- and post-trade.
Please also explain, if relevant, how you would identify the relevant types of transactions or
trading interests to be consolidated by a CT:
We laten deze vraag graag aan toezichthouders en marktpartijen om te beantwoorden.
3.2. The Official List of financial instruments in scope of the CT
To provide market participants with legal clarity, a CT would benefit from a list setting out, within
a given asset class, the exact scope of financial instruments that need to be reported to the CT.
This section discusses, for each asset class, how to best create an “Official List” of financial
instruments that would feature in the CT, having regard to the feasibility of producing such a list.
Shares. There are different categories of shares traded on EU trading venues, including: (i) shares
admitted to trading on a Regulated Market (RM) - for which a prospectus is mandatory; (ii) shares
admitted to trading on an Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) (e.g. small cap company listed on the
small cap MTF) with a prospectus approved in an EU Member State; (iii) shares traded on an EU
MTF without a prospectus approved in a EU Member State (e.g. US blue chip company listed on a
US exchange but also traded on a EU MTF). While the first two categories have a clear EU footprint
and should be considered for inclusion in the CT, the inclusion of the latter category is more
questionable because it consists of thousands of international shares for which the admission's
venue or the main centre of liquidity is not in the EU.
Question 17. What shares should in your view be included in the Official List of shares defining
the scope of the EU consolidated tape?

Shares admitted to trading on a RM - Fully Agree (5)

Shares admitted to trading on an MTF with a prospectus approved in an EU Member State Fully Agree (5)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what other shares should in your view be included in the Official List of shares
defining the scope of the EU consolidated tape?
N.A.
Question 17.1 Please explain your answers to question 17:
N.A.

Page 12 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 18. In your view, should the Official List take into account any additional criteria (e.g.
liquidity filter to capture only sufficiently liquid shares) to capture the relevant subset of shares
traded in the EU for inclusion in the consolidated tape? Please explain your answer:
N.A.
Question 19. What flexibility should be provided to permit the inclusion in the EU consolidated
tape of shares not (or not only) admitted to an EU regulated market or EU MTF? Please explain
your answer:
Geen flexibiliteit.
ETFs, Bonds, Derivatives and other financial instruments
Question 20. What do you consider to be the most appropriate way of determining the Official
List of ETFs, bonds and derivatives defining the scope of the EU consolidated tape?
Please explain your answer and provide details by asset class:
TOTV
4. Other MiFID II/MiFIR provisions with a link to the consolidated tape
4.1. Equity trading and price formation
The share trading obligation (‘STO’) requires that EU investment firms only trade shares on eligible
execution venues, unless the trades are non-systematic, ad-hoc, irregular and infrequent (“ ”
exception) or do de minimis not contribute to the price discovery process. The STO can pose an
issue when EU investment firms wish to trade international shares admitted to a stock exchange
outside the EU as not all stock exchanges outside the EU are recognised as equivalent. The
European Commission recognised as equivalent certain stock exchanges located in the United
States, Hong Kong and Australia, with the consequence that those stock exchanges are eligible
execution venues for fulfilling the STO. In addition, ESMA provided, in coordination with the
Commission, further guidance on the scope of the STO.
Question 21. What is your appraisal of the impact of the share trading obligation on the
transparency of share trading and the competitiveness of EU exchanges and market participants?
Please explain your answer:
Wij zijn in beginsel positief over doel en werking van de STO. Echter, het toepassingsbereik van de
STO behoeft enige aanpassing.
Question 22. Do you believe there is sufficient clarity on the scope of the trades included or
exempted from the STO, in particular having regards to shares not (or not only) admitted to an EU
regulated market or EU MTF?
(not at all, not really, neutral, partially, totally, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 22.1 Please explain your answer to question 22:
Buiten het toepassingsbereik van de STO zou moeten vallen aandelen die zijn toegelaten tot de
handel in een derde land en waarvan de liquiditeit voornamelijk of vrijwel volledig in dat derde
land (of enig ander derde land) aanwezig is.
Question 23. What is your evaluation of the general policy options listed below as regards the
future of the STO?

Maintain the STO (status quo) - Rather not agree (2)

Maintain the STO with adjustments (please specify) - Rather agree (4)

Repeal the STO altogether - Disagree (1)
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 23.1 Please explain your answers to question 23:
Zie antwoord op vraag 22.1.

Page 13 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Price formation is an important aspect of equity trading which is recognised with the requirement
under the STO to execute price-forming trades on eligible venues. At the same time, there is a
debate about the status of systematic internalisers (‘SIs’) as eligible venues under the STO.
Question 24. Do you consider that the status of systematic internalisers, which are eligible
venues for compliance with the STO, should be revisited and how?

SIs should keep the same current status under the STO - Rather agree (4)

SIs should no longer be eligible execution venues under the STO - Disagree (1)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please explain in what other way(s) the status of systematic internalisers, which are eligible
venues for compliance with the STO, should be revisited:
N.A.
Question 24.1 Please explain your answers to question 24:
N.A.
Question 25. Do you consider that other aspects of the regulatory framework applying to
systematic internalisers should be revisited and how? Please explain your answer:
Er is nog sprake van een unlevel playing field tussen handelsplatformen (TVs) en SIs op het vlak
van de transparantie (o.m. de pre transparance waivers) en het tick size regime voor SIs is niet
nog volledig in lijn met het voor TVs.
Question 26. What would you consider to be appropriate steps to ensure a level-playing field
between trading venues and systematic internalisers? Please explain your answer:
Zie antwoord op vraag 25.
More generally, there are questions raised as to whether the current MiFID II/MiFIR framework is
sufficiently conducive of the price discovery process in equity trading, in light of various elements
of complexity (e.g. fragmentation of trading, multiplicity of order types, exceptions to
transparency requirements, variety of trading protocols).
Question 27. In your view, what would merit attention to further promote the price discovery
process in equity trading? Please explain your answer:
N.A.
4.2. Aligning the scope of the STO and of the transparency regime with the scope of the
consolidated tape
For shares, in light of the strong parallel between the scope of the STO and the scope of the CT
(see section “Official List”), there may be merit in aligning the two. At the same time, should the
scope of the STO be the same as the scope of the CT, special consideration should be given to the
treatment of international shares.
Question 28. Do you believe that the scope of the STO should be aligned with the scope of the
consolidated tape?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 28.1 Please explain your answer to question 28:
Nee, het toepassingsbereik van CT zou niet alleen moeten zien op asset classes die onder het
toepassingsbereik van de ST vallen, maar tevens asset classes die buiten dat toepassingsbereik
vallen zoals bedrijfsobligaties en staatsobligaties.
Similarly, both for equity and non-equity instruments, there may also be merit in aligning, where
possible, the scope of financial instruments covered by the CT with the scope of financial
instruments subject to the transparency regime.

Page 14 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 29. Do you consider, for asset classes where a consolidated tape would be mandated,
that the scope of financial instruments subject to pre- and post-trade requirements should be
aligned with the list of instruments in scope of the consolidated tape?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 29.1 Please explain your answer to question 29:
N.A.
4.3. Post-trade transparency regime for non-equities
For non-equity instruments, MiFID II/MiFIR currently allows a deferred publication of up to 2 days
for post-trade information (including information on the transaction price), with the possibility of
an extended period of deferral of 4 weeks for the disclosure of the volume of the transaction. In
addition, national competent authorities have exercised their discretion available under Article
11(3) of MiFIR. This resulted in a fragmented post-trade transparency regime within the Union.
Stakeholders raised concerns that the length of deferrals and the complexity of the regime would
hamper the success of a CT.
Question 30. Which of the following measures could in your view be appropriate to ensure the
availability of data of sufficient value and quality to create a consolidated tape for bonds and
derivatives?

Abolition of post-trade transparency deferrals - Disagree (1)

Shortening of the 2-day deferral period for the price information - Fully agree (5)

Shortening of the 4-week deferral period for the volume information - Fully agree (5)

Harmonisation of national deferral regimes - Fully agree (5)

Keeping the current regime - Disagree (1)

Other - N.A.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Please specify what other measures could in your view be appropriate to ensure the availability of
data of sufficient value and quality to create a consolidated tape for bonds and derivatives?
N.A.
Question 30.1 Please explain your answer to question 30:
N.A.

II. Investor protection
Investor protection rules should strike the right balance between boosting participation in capital
markets and ensuring that the interests of investors are safeguarded at all times during the
investment process. Maintaining a high level of transparency is one important element to enhance
the trust of investors into the financial market.
In December 2019, the invited Council conclusions on the Deepening of the Capital Markets Union
the Commission to consider introducing new categories of clients and optimising requirements for
simple financial instruments where this is proportionate and justified, as well as ensuring that the
information available to investors is not excessive or overlapping in quantity and content.
Based on, but not limited to, the review requirements laid down in Article 90 of MiFID II, this
consultation therefore aims at getting a more precise picture of the challenges that different
categories of investors are confronted with when purchasing financial instruments in the EU, in
order to evaluate where adjustments would be needed.
Question 31. Please specify to what extent you agree with the statements below regarding the
experience with the implementation of the investor protection rules?

The EU intervention has been successful in achieving or progressing towards more investor
protection. - Rather agree (4)

Page 15 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands


The MiFID II/MiFIR costs and benefits are balanced (in particular regarding the regulatory
burden). - N.A.

The different components of the framework operate well together to achieve more investor
protection. - Rather agree (4)

More investor protection corresponds with the needs and problems in EU financial markets. Fully agree (5)

The investor protection rules in MiFID II/MiFIR have provided EU added value. - Fully agree
(5)
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 31.1 Please provide both quantitative and qualitative elements to explain your answer
and provide to the extent possible an estimation of the benefits and costs. Where possible, please
provide figures broken down by categories such as IT, organisational arrangements, HR etc.
Kwalitatief: De herziening van MiFID en invoering van MiFIR hebben geleid tot meer transparantie
op de Europese kapitaalmarkten en daarbij gezorgd voor betere bescherming van beleggers.
Gegeven de continue ontwikkelingen, waaronder verdere digitalisering en het
grensoverschrijdende karakter van de dienstverlening in de financiële sector blijft het belangrijk
om te borgen dat adequate beleggersbescherming in regelgeving opgenomen is. Een kwantitatieve
uiteenzetting van kosten en baten kan het ministerie niet bieden.
1. Easier access to simple and transparent products
The CMU is striving to improve the funding of the EU economy and to foster retail investments into
capital markets. The Commission is therefore trying to improve the direct access to simple
investment products (e.g. certain plain-vanilla bonds, index ETFs and UCITS funds). On the other
hand, adequate protection has to be provided to retail investors as regards all products, but in
particular complex products.
Question 32. Which MiFID II/MiFIR requirements should be amended in order to ensure that
simple investment products are more easily accessible to retail clients?

Product and governance requirements - No

Costs and charges requirements - No

Conduct requirements – Yes

Other - Yes
(yes, no, N.A.)
Please specify which other MiFID II/MiFIR requirements should be amended:
Nederland vindt het belangrijk om de Europese regelgeving omtrent provisies verder te
versterken. Een verbod op provisies voor beleggingsdiensten draagt bij aan meer transparantie
over kosten en dienstverlening aan cliënten. Dergelijke transparantie vergroot de toegang tot deze
producten en stimuleert daarmee zogeheten retailparticipatie in Europese kapitaalmarkten, een
van de doelen van de Europese kapitaalmarktunie.
Naast het vergroten van transparantie over kosten en performance van bepaalde producten en
dienstverlening is het toepassen van gedragsinzichten uit de psychologie en gedragseconomie
belangrijk. Enkel (potentiële) cliënten informeren over de prijs, kosten, risico’s en andere aspecten
van een financieel product in een separaat informatiedocument leiden niet per se tot een
geïnformeerde belegger. Psychologische aspecten beïnvloeden de keuzes die een (niet-rationeel
denkende) belegger maakt, en de omgeving waarin keuzes worden gemaakt heeft een
voorspelbaar sturende werking. Bij verdere verbetering van de beleggersbescherming regelgeving
in MiFID II/ MiFIR dient daarom ook goed gekeken te worden naar hoe gedragsinzichten hierin
toegepast kunnen worden.
Question 32.1 Please explain your answer to question 32:
N.A.
Question 33. Do you agree that the MiFID II/MiFIR requirements provide adequate protection for
retail investors regarding complex products?

Page 16 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 33.1 If your answer to question 33 is on the negative side, please indicate in the text
box which amendments you would like to see introduced to ensure that retail investors receive
adequate protection when purchasing products considered as complex under MiFID II/MiFIR:
N.A.
Question 33.1 Please explain your answer to question 33:
N.A.
2. Relevance and accessibility of adequate information
Information should be short, simple, comparable, and thereby easy to understand for investors.
One challenge that has been raised with the Commission are the diverging requirements on the
information documents across sectors.
One aspect is the usefulness of information documents received by professional clients and eligible
counterparties (‘ECPs’) before making a transaction (‘ex-ante cost disclosure’). Currently, the exante cost information on execution services apply to retail, professional and eligible clients alike.
With regard to wholesale transactions a wide range of stakeholders consider certain information
requirements a mere administrative burden as they claim to be aware of the current market and
pricing conditions.
Question 34. Should all clients, namely retail, professional clients per se and on request and ECPs
be allowed to opt-out unilaterally from ex-ante cost information obligations, and if so, under which
conditions?

Professional clients and ECPs should be exempted without specific conditions. - No

Only ECPs should be able to opt-out unilaterally. - No

Professional clients and ECPs should be able to opt-out if specific conditions are met. - Yes

All client categories should be able to opt out if specific conditions are met. - No

Other - No
(yes, no, N.A.)
Please specify what is your other view on whether all clients, namely retail, professional clients per
se and on request and ECPs should be allowed to opt-out unilaterally from ex-ante cost
information obligations?
N.A.
Question 34.1 Please explain your answer to question 34 and in particular the conditions that
should apply
Voor niet-professionele (retail) cliënten moet geen opt-out mogelijkheid gecreëerd worden. Voor
deze categorie beleggers is het belangrijk dat zij vooraf voldoende informatie ontvangen over de
kosten van het product en de dienstverlening. Voor professionele cliënten en in aanmerking
komende tegenpartijen moet een dergelijke opt-out i) alleen op nadrukkelijk verzoek van de cliënt
gegeven kunnen worden, en ii) enkel voor execution only diensten, niet voor portfolio
management diensten en beleggingsadvies.
Another aspect is the need of paper-based information. This relates also to the Commission's
Green Deal, the Sustainable Finance Agenda and the consideration that more and more people use
online tools to access financial markets. Currently, MiFID II/MiFIR requires all information to be
provided in a “durable medium”, which includes electronic formats (e.g. e-mail) but also paperbased information.
Question 35. Would you generally support a phase-out of paper based information?
(do not support, rather not support, neutral, rather support, support completely, don’t know/no
opinion/not relevant)
Question 35.1 Please explain your answer to question 35:

Page 17 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
N.A.
Question 36. How could a phase-out of paper-based information be implemented?

General phase-out within the next 5 years - Yes

General phase out within the next 10 years - N.A.

For retail clients, an explicit opt-out of the client shall be required. - No

For retail clients, a general phase out shall apply only if the retail client did not expressively
require paper based information - Yes

Other - N.A.
(yes, no, N.A.)
Please specify in which other way could a phase-out of paper-based information be implemented?
N.A.
Question 36.1 Please explain your answer to question 36 and indicate the timing for such phaseout, the cost savings potentially generated within your firm and whether operational conditions
should be attached to it:
Het is belangrijk dat marktpartijen tijdig duidelijk richting hun cliënten communiceren, indien zij
voornemens zijn aanpassingen door te voeren in hun informatieverstrekkingsproces, en niet langer
als default optie informatie op papier verstrekken (wanneer dit niet meer verplicht wordt in de
‘general phase out’). Hierbij dienen zij cliënten de optie te bieden voor een opt-in om informatie op
papier te blijven ontvangen.
Some retail investors deplore the lack of comparability of the cost information and the absence of
an EU-wide database to obtain information on existing investment products.
Question 37. Would you support the development of an EU-wide database (e.g. administered by
ESMA) allowing for the comparison between different types of investment products accessible
across the EU?
(do not support, rather not support, neutral, rather support, support completely, don’t know/no
opinion/not relevant)
Question 37.1 Please explain your answer to question 37:
Een database waar de aspecten van verschillende soorten beleggingsproducten in worden
bijgehouden kan bijdragen aan het verbeteren van de transparantie en het stimuleren van
grensoverschrijdende dienstverlening in de Europese kapitaalmarktunie. Het ontwikkelen en
aanbieden van vergelijkingstools vergt een professionele aanpak, waarvoor marktpartijen (zoals
bijvoorbeeld vergelijkingssites en fintech bedrijven) de meest aangewezen partijen lijken. De
Commissie kan kosten en baten in kaart brengen van het aanleggen van een database met
zogeheten open data. Open data is data die, na toestemming van de eigenaar (in dit geval ESMA),
vrij gebruikt kan worden, hergebruikt kan worden en opnieuw verspreid kan worden door
iedereen. Hiermee kunnen derden bijvoorbeeld tooling ontwikkelen waarmee consumenten
verschillende producten kunnen vergelijken, en financieel dienstverleners kunnen de data
gebruiken voor het geven van (robo-)advies.
Question 38. In your view, which products should be prioritised to be included in an EU-wide
database?

All transferable securities - N.A.

All products that have a PRIIPs KID/ UICTS KIID - Fully relevant (5)

Only PRIIPs - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(irrelevant, rather not relevant, neutral, rather relevant, fully relevant, N.A.)
Please specify what other products should be prioritised?
N.A.
Question 38.1 Please explain your answer to question 38:

Page 18 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
N.A.
Question 39. Do you agree that ESMA would be well placed to develop such a tool?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 39.1 Please explain your answer to question 39:
ESMA ontvangt, beheert en analyseert reeds grote datastromen. Data die voor een dergelijke
database relevant is kunnen zij als open data beschikbaar stellen. Derden (marktpartijen) kunnen
deze data gebruiken in tools die de transparantie over deze marktinformatie vergroten. Zie ook het
antwoord op vraag 37.1.
3. Client profiling and classification
MiFID II/MiFIR currently differentiates between retail clients, professional clients and eligible
counterparties. In line with the procedure and conditions laid down in the Annex of MiFID II, retail
clients can already “opt-up” to be treated as professional clients. Some stakeholders indicated that
the creation of an additional client category (‘semi-professional investors’) might be necessary in
order to encourage the participations of wealthy or knowledgeable investors in the capital market.
In addition, other concepts related to this classification of investors can be found in the draft
Crowdfunding Regulation which further developed the concept of sophisticated investors. The
CMU-Next group suggested a new category of experienced High Net Worth (“HNW”) investors with
tailor made investor protection rules.
Question 40. Do you consider that MiFID II/MiFIR can be overly protective for retail clients who
have sufficient experience with financial markets and who could find themselves constrained by
existing client classification rules?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 40.1 Please explain your answer to question 40:
Adequate beleggersbescherming is belangrijk. Gegeven dat sommige beleggingsproducten zeer
complex zijn vinden wij het belangrijk dat ook ervaren (retail) beleggers voldoende bescherming
wordt geboden en dat informatie over kosten en performance van beleggingsproducten en
beleggingsdiensten voldoende transparant is. Het huidige kader met drie categorieën en de
mogelijkheid voor opt-ups bieden voldoende mogelijkheden aan beleggers en
beleggingsondernemingen voor een goede classificering. Introductie van een nieuwe categorie
semiprofessionele beleggers leidt tot verdere complicatie van het huidige kader. Ook neemt het
risico toe dat beleggers worden ingedeeld in een categorie van beleggers dat voor hen – gezien
vanuit het perspectief van beleggersbescherming – niet passend wordt geacht. Daarmee zijn wij
geen voorstander van introductie van een nieuwe categorie van semiprofessionele beleggers.
Question 41. With regards to professional clients on request, should the threshold for the client’s
instrument portfolio of EUR 500 000 (See Annex II of MiFID II) be lowered?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 41.1 Please explain your answer to question 41:
N.A.
Question 42. Would you see benefits in the creation of a new category of semi-professionals
clients that would be subject to lighter rules?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 42.1 Please explain your answer to question 42:

Page 19 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Zie het antwoord op vraag 40.1. Het huidige kader met drie categorieën is volgens ons toereikend.
Een extra categorie leidt tot het verder compliceren van de MiFID regelgeving en is mede daarom
niet wenselijk.
Question 43. What investor protection rules should be mitigated or adjusted for semiprofessionals clients?

Suitability or appropriateness test - N.A.

Information provided on costs and charges - N.A.

Product governance - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(irrelevant, rather not relevant, neutral, rather relevant, fully relevant, N.A.)
Please specify what other investor protection rules should be mitigated or adjusted for semiprofessionals clients?
N.A.
Question 43.1 Please explain your answer to question 43:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 42. Nederland is geen voorstander van de introductie van een vierde
categorie semiprofessionele belegger.
Question 44. How would your answer to question 43 change your current operations, both in
terms of time and resources allocated to the distribution process?
Please specify which changes are one-off and which changes are recurrent:
N.A.
Question 45. What should be the applicable criteria to classify a client as a semi-professional
client?

Semi-professional clients should possess a minimum investable portfolio of a certain amount
(please specify and justify below). - N.A.

Semi-professional clients should be identified by a stricter financial knowledge test. - N.A.

Semi-professional clients should have experience working in the financial sector or in fields
that involve financial expertise. - N.A.

Semi-professional clients should be subject to a one-off in-depth suitability test that would not
need to be repeated at the time of the investment. - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(irrelevant, rather not relevant, neutral, rather relevant, fully relevant, N.A.)
Please specify what other criteria should be the one applicable to classify a client as a semiprofessional client:
N.A.
Question 45.1 Please explain your answer to question 45 and in particular the minimum amount
that a retail client should hold and any other applicable criteria you would find relevant to
delineate between retail and semiprofessional investors:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 42. Nederland is geen voorstander van de introductie van een vierde
categorie semiprofessionele belegger.
4. Product Oversight, Governance and Inducements
The product oversight and governance requirements shall ensure that products are manufactured
and distributed to meet the clients’ needs. Before any product is sold, the target market for that
product needs to be identified. Product manufacturers and distributors should thus be well aware
of all product features and the clients for which they are suited. To do so, distributors should use
the information obtained from manufacturers as well as the information which they have on their
own clients to identify the actual (positive and negative) target market and their distribution
strategy.
There is a debate around the efficiency of these requirements. Some stakeholders criticise that the
necessary information was not available for all products (e.g. funds). Others even argue that this

Page 20 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
approach adds little benefit to the suitability assessment undertaken at individual level. Similar
doubts are mentioned with regards to the review of the target market, in particular for products
that don’t change their payment profile. Concerns are raised that the current application of the
product governance rules might result in a further reduction of the products offered.
Question 46. Do you consider that the product governance requirements prevent retail clients
from accessing products that would in principle be appropriate or suitable for them?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 46.1 Please explain your answer to question 46:
Onze opvatting is niet dat de target markets en distributie strategieën te beperkt worden bepaald,
daarmee belemmeren naar ons inzicht de product governance requirements niet de toegang tot
bepaalde, voor de niet-professionele belegger geschikte, producten.
Question 47. Should the product governance rules under MiFID II/MiFIR be simplified?

It should only apply to products to which retail clients can have access (i.e. not for nonequities securities that are only eligible for qualified investors or that have a minimum
denomination of EUR 100.000). - No

It should apply only to complex products. - No

Other changes should be envisaged – please specify below. - N.A.

Simplification means that MiFID II/MiFIR product governance rules should be extended to
other products. - N.A.

Overall the measures are appropriately calibrated, the main problems lie in the actual
implementation. - N.A.

The regime is adequately calibrated and overall, correctly applied. - N.A.
(yes, no, N.A.)
Question 47.1 Please explain your answer to question 47:
Met betrekking tot het vierde statement van vraag 47 merken we op dat het ons onduidelijk is
welke producten hier bedoeld worden (waarop de product governance regels ook zouden moeten
worden toegepast). Dit zou ons inziens per richtlijn moeten worden bekeken.
Further, even though ESMA clarified in its guidelines that the sale of products outside the actual
target market is possible in so far as this can “be justified by the individual facts of the case”,
distributors seem reluctant to do so even if the client insists. This consultation is therefore
assessing if and how the product governance regime could be improved.
Question 48. In your view, should an investment firm continue to be allowed to sell a product to
a negative target market if the client insists?
o Yes
o Yes, but in that case the firm should provide a written explanation that the client was duly
informed but wished to acquire the product nevertheless.
o No
o Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant
Question 48.1 Please explain your answer to question 48:
Incidenteel zou dit moeten kunnen plaatsvinden. Echter dan dient een beleggingsonderneming wel
duidelijk te kunnen uitleggen waarom een cliënt in een bepaald product kan handelen als hij tot de
negatieve target market behoort.
MiFID II/MiFIR establishes strict rules for investment firms to accept inducements, in particular as
regards the conditions to fulfil the quality enhancement test and as regards disclosures of fees,
commissions and non-monetary benefits.
Question 49. Do you believe that the current rules on inducements are adequately calibrated to
ensure that investment firms act in the best interest of their clients?

Page 21 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 49.1 Please explain your answer to question 49:
Er is met betrekking tot beleggingsadvies in de EU nog steeds een gebrek aan transparantie over
de kosten van dergelijk advies. Daarmee is het wenselijk om EU-breed een verbod op provisies bij
beleggingsadvies in te voeren. Beleggingsondernemingen dienen volledig in het belang van de
klant te handelen. De beleggingsonderneming kan enkel volledig onafhankelijk van de
productaanbieder of andere derden handelen als zij enkel door de cliënt wordt betaald voor haar
diensten. Daarnaast is het wenselijk om de regelgeving omtrent provisies te uniformeren en zo
een gelijk speelveld te creëren waarbij regulatory arbitrage voorkomen wordt.
Some consumer associations have stated that inducement rules inducements under MiFID II/MiFIR
are not sufficiently dissuasive to prevent conflicts of interest in the distribution process. They
consider that financial advisers are incentivised to sell products for which they receive
commissions instead of recommending the most suitable products for their clients. Therefore,
some are calling for a ban on inducements.
Question 50. Would you see merits in establishing an outright ban on inducements to improve
access to independent investment advice?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 50.1 Please explain your answer to question 50:
Ervaringen met een verbod op provisies in Nederland, dat sinds 2014 van kracht is, tonen aan dat
de kwaliteit van beleggingsadvies is verbeterd doordat de (financiële) prikkels beter in lijn zijn met
de relatie tussen cliënt en adviseur. Ook heeft het provisieverbod een positief effect op het
Nederlandse marktlandschap, waar volgens de AFM kosten voor beleggen relatief laag zijn en
innovatieve distributiekanalen zijn geïntroduceerd.2 Deze bevinding wordt bevestigd in de studie in
opdracht van de Europese Commissie naar de distributie van retail beleggingsproducten in de EU. 3
Een EU-breed verbod op provisies kan door het verlagen van de kosten van beleggen en het
verbeteren van de informatiepositie van beleggers bijdragen aan het stimuleren van
retailparticipatie in Europese kapitaalmarkten, waarmee een belangrijke bijdrage wordt geleverd
aan verdere verdieping van de CMU.
As regards the criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence required under Article
25(1) of MiFID II, ESMA established minimum standards promoting greater convergence in the
knowledge and competence’s guidelines of staff providing investment advice or information about
financial instruments and services. Nonetheless, due to the diversified national educational and
professional systems, there are still various options on how to test the relevant knowledge and
competences across Member States.
Question 51. Would you see merit in setting-up a certification requirement for staff providing
investment advice and other relevant information?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 51.1 Please explain your answer to question 51:
MiFID II heeft omvangrijke kwaliteitseisen die zijn geïmplementeerd in nationale
beroepskwalificatiekaders, waar het deel uitmaakt van een uitgebreide reeks relevante wetgeving
op nationaal niveau (bijvoorbeeld fiscale wetgeving) en op EU-niveau. Door deze combinatie van
nationale wetgeving en EU-wetgeving, moet er in het geval van een kwalificatiekader op EU-niveau
altijd een nationaal kader naast bestaan. De verwachting is dat een pragmatische invulling zeer
arbeidsintensief en lastig uitvoerbaar is. Daarbij zijn eventuele risico’s reeds grotendeels

2
3

https://www.afm.nl/~/profmedia/files/publicaties/2020/afm-view-cmu-april-2020.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/180425-retail-investment-products-distribution-systems_en.pdf

Page 22 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
gemitigeerd door de huidige kwaliteitseisen. De voordelen van een EU-kader zullen daarom naar
verwachting beperkt zijn.
Question 52. Would you see merit in setting out an EU-wide framework for such a certification
based on an exam?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 52.1 Please explain your answer to question 52:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 51.1.
5. Distance communication
Provision of investment services via telephone requires ex-ante information on costs and charges
(please consider also ESMA’s guidance on this matter). When a client wants to place an order on
the phone, the service provider is obliged to send the cost details before the transaction is
executed, a requirement which may delay the immediate execution of the order. Further, MiFID
II/MiFIR requires all telephone communications between the investment firm and its clients that
may result in transactions to be recorded. Due to this requirement, several banks argue to have
ceased to provide telephone banking services altogether.
Question 53. To reduce execution delays, should it be stipulated that in case of distant
communication (phone in particular) the cost information can also be provided after the
transaction is executed?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 53.1 Please explain your answer to question 53:
Wij kunnen ons voorstellen dat bij transacties waarvoor de opdracht per telefonisch contact wordt
gegeven de cliënt ervoor kan kiezen (opt-out) om de informatie achteraf te ontvangen. Indien de
klant zelf het initiatief heeft genomen om een financieel instrument af te sluiten via verkoop op
afstand kan de informatie over de kosten alleen later worden gegeven als de klant daarmee heeft
ingestemd en de mogelijkheid is geboden om de transactie uit te stellen teneinde de informatie
vooraf te ontvangen. Voor transacties die via andere (elektronische) communicatiemiddelen
worden gedaan (zoals email, apps) is een dergelijke opt-out van pre-trade informatieverstrekking
niet noodzakelijk.
Question 54. Are taping and record-keeping requirements necessary tools to reduce the risk of
products mis-selling over the phone?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 54.1 Please explain your answer to question 54:
Het vastleggen van gesprekken tussen aanbieder en cliënt kan bijdragen aan het voorkomen van
misselling en zorgt dat er achteraf duidelijkheid is over de communicatie.
6. Reporting on best execution
Investment firms shall execute orders on terms most favourable to the client. The framework
includes reporting obligations on data relating to the quality of execution of transactions whose
content, format and periodicity are detailed in Delegated Regulation 2017/575 (also known as ‘RTS
27’). The best execution framework also includes reporting obligations for investment firms on the
top five execution venues in terms of trading volumes where they executed client orders and
information on the quality of information. Delegated regulation 2017/576 (also known as ‘RTS 28’)
specifies the content and format of that information.
Question 55. Do you believe that the best execution reports are of sufficiently good quality to
provide investors with useful information on the quality of execution of their transactions?

Page 23 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 55.1 Please explain your answer to question 55:
Het Nederlandse ministerie van Financiën heeft geen inzicht in de kwaliteit van dergelijke
rapporten.
Question 56. What could be done to improve the quality of the best execution reports issued by
investment firms?

Comprehensiveness - N.A.

Format of the data - N.A.

Quality of data - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(irrelevant, rather not relevant, neutral, rather relevant, fully relevant, N.A.)
Please specify what else could be done to improve the quality of the best execution reports issued
by investment firms:
N.A.
Question 56.1 Please explain your answer to question 56:
Wij hebben geen inzicht in de kwaliteit van dergelijke rapporten, maar best execution rapporten
dienen in een duidelijke en overzichtelijke manier inzicht te geven op welke wijze de
beleggingsonderneming haar dienstverlening uitvoert. Een goede datakwaliteit, waarbij
vergelijking met andere partijen gefaciliteerd kan worden, draagt hieraan bij.
Question 57. Do you believe there is the right balance in terms of costs between generating
these best execution reports and the benefits for investors?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 57.1 Please explain your answer to question 57:
N.A.

III. Research unbundling rules and SME research coverage
New rules on unbundling of research and execution services have been introduced in MiFID
II/MiFIR, principally to increase the transparency of research prices, prevent conflict of interests
and ensure that research costs are incurred in the best interests of the client. In particular,
unbundling of research rules were put in place to ensure that the cost of research funded by client
is not linked to the volume or value of other services or benefits or used to cover any other
purposes, such as execution services.
Question 58. What is your overall assessment of the effect of unbundling on the quantity, quality
and pricing of research?
Nederland is voorstander van de huidige regelgeving waarbij de kosten van onderzoek en andere
diensten gesplitst dienen te worden, omdat dit bijdraagt aan de transparantie hiervan. Onderzoek
van de FCA toont aan dat de kosten voor beleggers in het VK zijn gedaald.4
Er zijn echter signalen dat deze ontvlechting tot een reductie in onderzoek naar met name mkbondernemingen heeft geleid. Het is daarom belangrijk dat de langere termijn effecten van deze –
relatief nieuwe- regelgeving goed worden onderzocht. Op dit moment is het nog te vroeg om daar
uitspraken over te kunnen doen. Daarbij kan zowel naar de kwantiteit als kwaliteit van het
onderzoek gekeken worden, en andere factoren die hierbij mogelijk een rol spelen. Op basis van
de uitkomsten van dergelijke studies kan worden bepaald of het huidige regime op bepaalde
punten verbeterd kan worden om nadelige (neven)effecten (enigszins) te mitigeren.
https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/implementing-mifid-ii-multi-firm-review-researchunbundling-reforms
4

Page 24 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Over the last years, research coverage relating to Small and Medium-size Enterprises (‘SMEs’)
seems to suffer an overall decline. One alleged reason for this decline is the introduction of the
unbundling rules. Less coverage of SMEs may lead to less SME investments, less secondary trading
liquidity and less IPOs on Union’s financial markets. This sub-section places a strong focus on how
to foster research coverage on SMEs. There is a need to consider what can be done to increase its
production, facilitate its dissemination and improve its quality.
1. Increase the production of research on SMEs
1.1. EU Rules on research
The absence of a harmonised definition of the notion of “research” has led to confusion amongst
market participants. In addition, Article 13 of delegated Directive 2017/593 introduced rules on
inducement in relation to research. Market participants argue that this has led to an overall decline
of research coverage, in particular on SMEs. Several options could be tested: one option would be
to revise the scope of Article 13 by authorising bundling exclusively for providers of SME research.
Alternatively, independent research providers (not providing any execution services to clients)
could be allowed to provide research to investment firms without these firms being subject to the
rules of Article 13 for this research.
Furthermore, several market participants argue that providers price research below costs. If the
actual costs incurred to produce research do not match the price at which the research is sold, it
may have a negative impact on the research ecosystem. Some argue that pricing of research
should be subject to the rules on reasonable commercial basis.
Finally, several market participants also pointed out that rules on free trial periods of research
services are not sufficiently clear (ESMA also drafted a Q&A on trial periods).
Question 59. How would you value the proposals listed below in order to increase the production
of SME research?

Introduce a specific definition of research in MiFID II level 1 - N.A.

Authorise bundling for SME research exclusively - N.A.

Exclude independent research providers’ research from Article 13 of delegated Directive
2017/593 - N.A.

Prevent underpricing in research - N.A.

Amend rules on free trial periods of research - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(irrelevant, rather not relevant, neutral, rather relevant, fully relevant, N.A.)
Please specify what other proposals you would have in order to increase the production of SME
research:
N.A.
Question 59.1 Please explain your answer to question 59 and in particular if you believe
preventing underpricing in research and amending rules on free trial periods of research are
relevant:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 58. Op dit moment is het naar onze mening nog niet mogelijk om
aanbevelingen te doen ten aanzien van het stimuleren van onderzoek naar mkb-ondernemingen.
Hiervoor is eerst een probleemanalyse nodig naar de causaliteit tussen het gebrek aan onderzoek
naar mkb-ondernemingen en het ontvlechten van onderzoek en andere diensten. Het is o.i. niet
wenselijk om voor bepaalde groepen (zoals mkb-ondernemers) weer bundling van
onderzoekskosten toe te staan.
1.2. Alternative ways of financing SMEs research
Alternative ways of financing research could help foster more SME research coverage. Operators of
regulated markets and SME growth markets could be encouraged to set up programs to finance
research on SMEs whose financial instruments are admitted on their markets. Another option
would be to fund, at least partially, SME research with public money.

Page 25 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 60. Do you consider that a program set up by a market operator to finance SME
research would improve research coverage?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 60.1 If you do consider that a program set up by a market operator to finance SME
research would improve research coverage, please specify under which conditions such a program
could be implemented:
N.A.
Question 60.1 Please explain your answer to question 60:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 58 en 59.1.
Question 61. If SME research were to be subsidised through a partially public funding program,
can you please specify which market players (providers, SMEs, etc.) should benefit from such
funding, under which form, and which criteria and conditions should apply to this program:
N.A.
The growing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in financial services can help to
foster the production of research on SMEs. In particular, algorithms can automate collection of
publically available data and deliver it in a format that meets the analysts’ needs. This can make
equity research, including on SMEs, less costly and more relevant.
Question 62. Do you agree that the use of artificial intelligence could help to foster the production
of SME research?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 62.1 If you agree, which recommendations would you make on the form that such use
of artificial intelligence could take and do you see risks associated to the development of AIgenerated research?
N.A.
Question 62.1 Please explain your answer to question 62:
N.A.
1.3. Promote access to research on SMEs and increase quality of research
The lack of access to SME research deprives issuers from visibility and financing opportunities.
However, access to SME research can be improved by creating a EU-wide SME research database.
The creation of an EU database compiling research on SMEs would ensure the widest possible
access to research material. Via this public EU-wide database, anyone could access and download
research on SMEs for free. Such a tool would allow investors to access research in a more efficient
manner and at a lower cost, while improving SMEs visibility.
Question 63. Do you agree that the creation of a public EU-wide SME research database would
facilitate access to research material on SMEs?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 63.1 If you do agree that the creation of a public EU-wide SME research database would
facilitate access to research material on SMEs, please specify under which conditions this database
should operate:
N.A.
Question 63.1 Please explain your answer to question 63:

Page 26 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Naast dat ook eerst onderzoek gedaan dient te worden naar de toegang tot onderzoeken naar
mkb-ondernemingen en de noodzaak om dit te faciliteren, dient bij een dergelijk initiatief tot het
oprichten van een database ook gekeken te worden naar het gevolg hiervan voor de productie van
onderzoek, zeker als deze gratis moet wordt aangeboden via de database. Zie ook het antwoord
op vraag 58.
Question 64. Do you agree that ESMA would be well placed to develop such a database?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 64.1 Please explain your answer to question 64:
N.A.
Where issuer-sponsored research meets the conditions of Article 12 of Delegated Directive (EU)
2017/593, it can qualify as an acceptable minor non-monetary benefit. One condition is that the
relationship between the third party firm and the issuer is clearly disclosed and that the
information is made available at the same time to any investment firm wishing to receive it or to
the general public. However, issuers and providers of investment research consider that the
conditions listed under Article 12 would in most cases not apply to issuer-sponsored research. As a
result, issuer-sponsored research would not qualify as acceptable minor non-monetary benefit.
Question 65. In your opinion, does issuer-sponsored research qualify as acceptable minor nonmonetary benefit as defined by Article 12 of Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 65.1 Please explain your answer to question 65:
N.A.
In addition, Article 37 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 provides rules on conflict of
interests for investment research and marketing communication. Investment research is defined in
Article 36 of delegated regulation 2017/565. However, issuers and providers of investment
research consider that the definition of Article 36 would in most cases not apply to issuersponsored research which as a result, would not qualify as investment research. As a
consequence, the rules on conflict of interests applicable to marketing documentation would apply
to issuer-sponsored research.
Question 66. In your opinion, does issuer-sponsored research qualify as investment research as
defined in Article 36 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 66.1 Please explain your answer to question 66:
N.A.
Question 67. Do you consider that rules applicable to issuer-sponsored research should be
amended?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 67.1 If you do consider that rules applicable to issuer-sponsored research should be
amended, please specify how:
N.A.
Question 67.1 Please explain your answer to question 67:
N.A.

Page 27 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 68. Considering the various policy options tested in questions 59 to 67, which would be
most effective and have most impact to foster SME research?

Introduce a specific definition of research in MiFID level 1 - N.A.

Authorise bundling for SME research exclusively - N.A.

Amend Article 13 of delegated Directive 2017/593 to exclude independent research providers’
research from Article 13 of delegated Directive 2017/593 - N.A.

Prevent underpricing of research - N.A.

Amend rules on free trial periods of research - N.A.

Create a program to finance SME research set up by market operators - N.A.

Fund SME research partially with public money - N.A.

Promote research on SME produced by artificial intelligence - N.A.

Create an EU-wide database on SME research - N.A.

Amend rules on issuer-sponsored research - N.A.

Other - N.A.
(least effective, rather not effective, neutral, rather effective, most effective, N.A.)
Please specify which other policy option would be most needed and have most impact to foster
SME research:
N.A.
Question 68.1 Please explain your answer to question 68:
Zie het antwoord op vraag 58 en 59.1.

IV. Commodity markets
As part of the effort to foster more , commodity derivatives trading denominated in euros rules on
pre-trade transparency and on position limits could be recalibrated (to establish for instance higher
levels of open interest before the limit is triggered) to facilitate nascent euro-denominated
commodity derivatives contracts. For example, Level 1 could contain a specific requirement that a
nascent market must benefit from more relaxed (higher) limits before a positon has to be closed.
Another option would be to allow for trades negotiated over the counter (i.e. not on a trading
venue) to be brought to an electronic exchange in order to gradually familiarise commodity traders
with the beneficial features of “on venue” electronic trading.
ESMA has already conducted a consultation on position limits and position management. The
report will be presented to the Commission at the end of Q1 2020. From a previous ESMA call for
evidence, the commodity markets regime seems to have not had an impact on market abuse
regulation, orderly pricing or settlement conditions. ESMA stresses that the associated position
reporting data, combined with other data sources such as transaction reporting allows competent
authorities to better identify, and sanction, market manipulation. Furthermore, the Commission
has identified in its Staff Working Document on strengthening the International Role of the Euro
that “There is potential to further increase the share of euro-denominated transactions in energy
commodities, in particular in the sector of natural gas”.
The most significant topic seems the current position limit regime for illiquid and nascent
commodity markets. The position limit regime is thought to work well for liquid markets. However,
illiquid and nascent markets are not sufficiently accommodated. ESMA also questioned whether
there should be a position limit exemption for financial counterparties under mandatory liquidity
provision obligations. ESMA would also like to foster convergence in the implementation of position
management controls.
Another aspect mentioned in the Commission consultation on the international role of the euro is a
more finely calibrated system of pre-trade transparency applicable to commodity derivatives. Such
a system would lead to a swifter transition of these markets from the currently prevalent OTC
trading to electronic platforms.

Page 28 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 69. Please specify to what extent you agree with the statements below regarding the
experience with the implementation of the position limit framework and pre-trade transparency?

The EU intervention been successful in achieving or progressing towards improving the
functioning and transparency of commodity markets and address excessive commodity price
volatility. - Rather not agree (2)

The MiFID II/MiFIR costs and benefits with regard to commodity markets are balanced (in
particular regarding the regulatory burden). - N.A.

The different components of the framework operate well together to achieve the improvement
of the functioning and transparency of commodity markets and address excessive commodity
price volatility. - Rather not agree (2)

The improvement of the functioning and transparency of commodity markets and address
excessive commodity price volatility correspond with the needs and problems in EU financial
markets. - Neutral (3)

The position limit framework and pre-trade transparency regime for commodity markets has
provided EU added value. - Rather agree (4)
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 69.1 Please provide both quantitative and qualitative elements to explain your answer
and provide to the extent possible an estimation of the benefits and costs. Where possible, please
provide figures broken down by categories such as IT, organisational arrangements, HR etc.
N.A.
Qualitative elements for question 69.1:
Nederland heeft zorgen wat betreft de impact van het positielimietenregime op (i) de ontwikkeling
van nieuwe grondstoffenderivatencontracten en (ii) de markt voor illiquide
grondstoffenderivatencontracten. Voorkomen moet worden dat te restrictieve positielimieten
innovatie beperken en daardoor een negatieve impact hebben op markten die nog in ontwikkeling
zijn (nascent markets).
1. Position limits for illiquid and nascent commodity markets
The lack of flexibility of the framework for commodity hedging contracts (notably position limit for
new contracts covering natural gas and oil) is a constraint on the emergence euro-denominated
commodity markets that allow hedging the increasing risk resulting from climate change. The
current de minimis threshold of 2,500 lots for those contracts with a total combined open interest
not exceeding 10,000 lots, is seen as too restrictive especially when the open interest in such
contracts approaches the threshold of 10,000 lots.
Question 70. Can you provide examples of the materiality of the above mentioned problem?
o Yes, I can provide 1 or more example(s)
o No, I cannot provide any example
Please provide example(s) of (nascent) contracts where the position limit regime has constrained
the growth of the contract:
Underlying cause of the constraint (A/B/C)*:
Size of the OTC space the contract(s) is/are trying to enter (in €):
Market share the nascent contract(s) is/are expected to gain (in %):
Contract(s) is/are euro denominated?

Question 71. Please indicate the scope you consider most appropriate for the position limit
regime:

Current scope – Most appropriate

A designated list of ‘critical’ contracts similar to the US regime – Neutral

Other – N.A.

Page 29 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
(most appropriate, neutral, least appropriate, N.A.)
Please specify what other scope you consider most appropriate for the position limit regime:
N.A.
Question 71.1 Please explain your answer to question 71:
Er kan worden gekeken naar mogelijkheden m.b.t. uitzonderingen voor nieuwe contracten, om
innovatie en ontwikkeling van nieuwe contracten beter te faciliteren, gegeven de impact van het
positielimieten regime op de ontwikkeling van nieuwe (en nog illiquide) derivaten.
Question 72. If you believe there is a need to change the scope along a designated list of ‘critical’
contracts similar to the US regime, please specify which of the following criteria could be used.
For each of these criteria, please specify the appropriate threshold and how many contracts would
be designated ‘critical’.
o Open interest
o Type and variety of participants
o Other criterion:
o There is no need to change the scope
Open interest:
Threshold for open interest:
Number of affected contracts in the EU for open interest:
Please explain why you consider that the open interest is a criterion that could be used:

Type and variety of participants:
Threshold for the type and variety of participants:
Number of affected contracts in the EU for the type and variety of participants:
Please explain why you consider that the type and variety of participants is a criterion that could
be used:

Other criterion:
Please specify what other criterion could be used and explain your answer:
Threshold for this other criterion:
Number of affected contracts in the EU for this other criterion:
Question 72.1 Please explain your answer to question 72:
N.A.
ESMA has questioned stakeholders on the actual impact of position management controls.
Stakeholder views expressed to the ESMA consultation appear diverse, if not diverging. This may
reflect significant dissimilarities in the way position management systems are understood and
executed by trading venues. This suggests that further clarification on the roles and responsibilities
by trading venues is needed.
Question 73. Do you agree that there is a need to foster convergence in how position
management controls are implemented?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not
relevant)
Question 73.1 Please explain your answer to question 73:
Meer convergentie tussen de wijze waarop de handelsplatformen waarop grondstoffenderivaten
worden verhandeld position management controls implementeren zou de risico’s van
marktmisbruik kunnen mitigeren en (eventuele) unlevel playing fields kunnen wegnemen.

Page 30 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 74. For which contracts would you consider a position limit exemption for a financial
counterparty under mandatory liquidity provision obligations?
This exemption would mirror the exclusion of the related transactions from the ancillary activity
test.

Nascent

Illiquid

Other
(yes, no, N.A.)
Please specify for which other contracts you would consider a position limit exemption for a
financial counterparty under mandatory liquidity provision obligations:

Question 74.1 Please explain your answer to question 74:

Question 75. For which counterparty do you consider a hedging exemption appropriate in relation
to positions which are objectively measurable as reducing risks?

A financial counterparty belonging to a predominantly commercial group that hedges positions
held by a non-financial entity belonging to the same group - Yes

A financial counterparty - No

Other - N.A.
(yes, no, N.A.)
Please specify for other which counterparties you consider a hedging exemption appropriate:

Question 75.1 Please explain your answer to question 75:
N.A.
2. Pre-trade transparency
MiFIR RTS 2 (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2017/583) sets out the large-in-scale
(LIS) levels are based on notional values. In order to translate the notional value into a block
threshold, exchanges have to convert the notional value to lots by dividing it by the price of a
futures or options contract in a certain historical period.
Some stakeholders argue that the current provisions of RTS2 lead to low LIS thresholds for highly
liquid instruments and high LIS thresholds for illiquid contracts. This situation makes it allegedly
hard for trading venues to accommodate markets with significant price volatility. This hinders their
potential to offer niche instruments or develop new and/or fast moving markets.
Question 76. Do you consider that pre-trade transparency for commodity derivatives functions
well?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
If you do not consider that pre-trade transparency for commodity derivatives functions well, please
(1) provide examples of markets where the pre-trade transparency regime has constrained the
offering of niche instruments or the development of new and/or fast moving markets, and (2)
present possible solutions including, where possible, quantitative elements:

Question 76.1 Please explain your answer to question 76:

Page 31 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands

PART TWO: AREAS IDENTIFIED AS NON-PRIORITY FOR THE
REVIEW
This section seeks to gather evidence from market participants on areas for which the Commission
does not identify at this stage any need to review the legislation currently in place. Therefore,
PART TWO does not contain policy options. However, should sufficient evidence demonstrate the
need to introduce certain adjustments, the Commission may decide to put forward proposals also
on the topics listed below. As in the first section, certain questions are directly linked to the review
clauses in MiFID II/MiFIR while others are questions raised independently of the mandatory review
clause.

V. Derivatives Trading Obligation
Based on the G20 commitment, MiFIR article 28 introduced the move of trading in standardised
OTC derivative contracts to be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms. The trading
obligation established for those derivatives (DTO) should allow for efficient competition between
eligible trading venues. ESMA has determined two classes of derivatives (IRS and CDS) subject to
the DTO. These classes are a subset of the EMIR clearing obligation.
The Commission invites market participants to share any issues relevant with regard to the
functioning of the DTO regime, the scope of the obligation and the access to the relevant trading
venues for DTO products.
Question 77. To what extent do you agree with the statements below regarding the experience
with the implementation of the derivatives trading obligation?

The EU intervention been successful in achieving or progressing towards more transparency
and competition in trading of instruments subject to the DTO.

The MiFID II/MiFIR costs and benefits with regard to the DTO are balanced (in particular
regarding the regulatory burden).

The different components of the framework operate well together to achieve more
transparency and competition in trading of instruments subject to the DTO.

More transparency and competition in trading of instruments subject to the DTO corresponds
with the needs and problems in EU financial markets.

The DTO has provided EU added value.
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 77.1 Please provide both quantitative and qualitative elements to explain your answer
and provide to the extent possible an estimation of the benefits and costs. Where possible, please
provide figures broken down by categories such as IT, organisational arrangements, HR etc.
Costs/benefits:
Qualitative elements for question 77.1:

Question 78. Do you believe that some adjustments to the DTO regime should be introduced, in
particular having regards to EU and non-EU market making activities of investment firms?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
If you do believe that some adjustments to the DTO regime should be introduced, please explain
which adjustments would be needed and with which degree of urgency:

Question 78.1 Please explain your answer to question 78:

Question 79. Do you agree that the current scope of the DTO is appropriate?

Page 32 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 79.1 Please explain your answer to question 79:

The introduction of EMIR Refit has not been accompanied by direct amendments to MiFIR, which
leads to a misalignment between the scope of counterparties subject to the clearing obligation
(CO) under EMIR and the derivatives trading obligation (DTO) under MiFIR. ESMA consulted in Q4
2019 on the need for an adjustment of MiFIR, receiving broad support for such an amendment and
ESMA published their report on 7 February 2020.
Question 80. Do you agree that there is a need to adjust the DTO regime to align it with the
EMIR Refit changes with regard to the clearing obligation for small financial counterparties and
non-financial counterparties?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 80.1 Please explain your answer to question 80:

VI. Multilateral systems
According to MiFID II/MiFIR, a ‘multilateral system’ means any system or facility in which multiple
third-party buying and selling trading interests in financial instruments are able to interact in the
system. MiFID II/MiFIR also requires all multilateral systems in financial instruments to operate as
a regulated trading venue - being either a regulated market or a multilateral trading facility (MTF)
or an organised trading facility (OTF) - bringing together multiple third-party buying and selling
interests in a way that results in a contract.
Some trading venues express concerns due to emerging trends which allow alternative type of
electronic platforms to offer very similar functionality to a multilateral system for the matching of
multiple buying and selling interests. These electronic platforms are not authorised as regulated
trading venues, hence they do not have to comply with the associated regulatory requirements,
notably in terms of reporting obligations or business rules to manage clients’ relationships. The
main argument advanced against regulation of these electronic systems is that they match trading
interests on a bilateral basis and not via a multilateral system. However, according to traditional
trading venues, this alternative electronic protocol may cause competitive distortions, effectively
creating a level playing field distortion against the regulated trading venues which are bound by
MIFID II/MiFIR provisions. There is a debate whether MiFID II/MiFIR should therefore take a more
functional approach and define the operation of a trading facility in broader terms than the current
definition of trading venues or multilateral system as to encompass these systems and ensure fair
treatment for market players.
Question 81. Do you consider that the concept of multilateral system under MiFID II/MiFIR is
uniformly understood (at EU or at national level) and ensures a level playing field between the
different categories of market players?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 81.1 If your response to question 81 is rather positive, please also indicate if, in your
opinion, the current definition of multilateral system is adequately reflecting the actual functioning
of the market:

Question 81.1 If your response to question 81 is rather negative, please indicate which
amendments you would suggest and why:

Page 33 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 81.1 Please explain your answer to question 81:

VII. Double Volume Cap
MiFID II/MiFIR introduced a Double Volume Cap (‘DVC’) to curb “dark” trading by limiting, per
platform and at EU level, the use of certain waivers from pre-trade transparency. Some
stakeholders have criticized the DVC as a too complex process failing to reduce off-exchange
trading in the EU. For instance, according to a 2019 Oxera study, the equity market share of
systematic internalisers has risen to 25% since application of the DVC while the share of on venue
trading is declining. For example, the market share of CAC40 shares trading on the primary stock
exchange (Euronext) fell from 75% in 2009 to 62% in 2018 and Oslo Børs’s market share of
trading on OBX-listed shares dropped from 95% in 2009 to 62% in 2018. The proportion of public
order book trading on the primary exchange in major equity indices has declined to between 30%
and 45% of overall on-venue trading. The Commission services are seeking stakeholder’s views on
their experience with the DVC and its impact on the transparency in share trading.
Question 82. Please specify to what extent you agree with the statements below regarding the
experience with the implementation of the Double Volume Cap?

The EU intervention been successful in achieving or progressing towards the objective of more
transparency in share trading.

The MiFID II/MiFIR costs and benefits are balanced (in particular regarding the regulatory
burden).

The different components of the framework operate well together to achieve more
transparency in share trading.

More transparency in share trading correspond with the needs and problems in EU financial
markets.

The DVC has provided EU added value
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, N.A.)
Question 82.1 Please provide both quantitative and qualitative elements to explain your answer
and provide to the extent possible an estimation of the benefits and costs. Where possible, please
provide figures broken down by categories such as IT, organisational arrangements, HR etc.
Costs/benefits:
Qualitative elements for question 82.1:

VIII. Non-discriminatory access
MiFIR introduces an open access regime to trade and clear financial instruments on a nondiscriminatory and transparent basis. The key purpose of MiFIR open access provisions is to
facilitate competition among trading venues and central counterparties and prevent any
discriminatory treatments. It aims at creating more choice for investors, lowering costs for trade
execution, clearing margins and data fees. Open access might therefore bring opportunities for
new entrants in the market to compete with traditional providers. Furthermore, it could potentially
help fostering financial innovation, developing alternative business models which could allow cost
efficiency gains in trading and clearing operational processes compared to the current situation.
MiFIR open access provisions provide safeguards to preserve financial stability without adversely
affecting systemic risk. The relevant competent authority of a trading venue or a central
counterparty shall grant open access requests only under specific conditions, notably that open
access would not threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of the markets. MiFIR open access
rules also added multiple temporary transitions periods and opt-outs (Article 35 and 36 of MiFIR)
for an exemption from the application of access rights, with the majority of opt-outs ending on 3
July 2020.

Page 34 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
The Commission will have to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council reports on the
application and impact of certain open access provisions. With this in mind, the Commission would
like to gather feedback from market stakeholders which could be useful for the preparation of the
reports.
Question 83. Do you see any particular operational or technical issues in applying open access
requirements which should be addressed?
(yes, no, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 83.1 If you do see any particular operational or technical issues in applying open access
requirements which should be addressed, please specify for which financial instrument(s) this
would apply and explain your reasoning:

Question 83.1 Please explain your answer to question 83:

Question 84. Do you think that the open access regime will effectively introduce cost efficiencies
or other benefits in the trading and clearing areas?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 84.1 If you do think that the open access regime will effectively introduce cost
efficiencies or other benefits in the trading and clearing areas, please indicate the specific areas
(such as type of specific financial instruments) where, in your opinion, open access could afford
most cost efficiencies or other benefits when compared to the current situation:

Question 84.1 Please explain your answer to question 84:

Question 85. Are you aware of any market trends or developments (at EU level or at national
level) which are a good or bad example of open access among financial market infrastructures?
Please explain your reasoning and specify which countries:

IX. Digitalisation and new technologies
Technology neutrality is one of the guiding principles of the Commission’s policies and one of the
key objectives of the Commission’s Fintech Action Plan. A technology-neutral approach means that
legislation should not mandate market participants to use a particular type of technology. It is
therefore crucial to address obstacles or identify gaps in existing EU laws which could prevent the
take-up of financial innovation or leave certain of the risks brought by these innovations
unaddressed.
Furthermore, it is evident that digitalisation and new technologies are transforming the financial
industry across sectors, impacting the way financial services are produced and delivered, with
possible emergency of new business models. The digital transformation can bring huge benefits for
the investors as well as efficiencies for industry. To promote digital finance in the EU while
properly addressing the new risks it may bring, the Commission is considering proposing a new
Digital Finance strategy building on the work done in the context of the FinTech action plan and on
horizontal public consultations. The Commission recently published two public consultations
focusing on crypto assets and operational resilience in the financial sector, and may consult later
this year on further topics in the context of the future Digital Finance strategy.
In that context, and to avoid overlapping, this consultation will only focus on targeted aspects,
which are not covered by these horizontal consultations. The Commission will of course take into

Page 35 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
consideration any relevant input received in the horizontal consultations in its future policy work
on the MiFID II/MiFIR framework.
Question 86. Where do you see the main developments in your sector: use of new technologies
to provide or deliver services, emergence of new business models, more decentralised value chain
services delivery involving more cooperation between traditional regulated entities and new
entrants or other? Please explain your answer:

Question 87. Do you think there are particular elements in the existing framework which are not
in accordance with the principle of technology neutrality and which should be addressed? Please
explain your answer:

Question 88. Where do you think digitalisation and new technologies would bring most benefits in
the trading lifecycle (ranging from the issuance to secondary trading)? Please explain your answer:

Question 89. Do you consider that digitalisation and new technologies will significantly impact the
role of EU trading venues in the future (5/10 years time)?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 89.1 Please explain your answer to question 89:

The online environment puts a strong focus on providing products to customers as fast as possible,
with as few barriers as possible. As far as financial services are concerned, this might endanger
retail clients if they do not take enough time to reflect on purchasing complex financial products.
On the other hand, making the product quick and easy to purchase (e.g. speedy or ‘one-click’
products) makes it easier for clients to buy and sell at least simple investment products online.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the Commission would like to gather feedback on
whether certain rules in the MiFID II/MiFIR framework on marketing and provision of information
to clients should be adjusted to better suit the provision of services online.
Question 90. Do you believe that certain product governance and distribution provisions of the
MiFID II/MiFIR framework should be adapted to better suit digital and online offers of investment
services and products?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 90.1 Please explain your answer to question 90:

Question 91. Do you believe that certain provisions on investment services (such as investment
advice) should be adapted to better suit delivering of services through robo-advice or other digital
technologies?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 91.1 Please explain your answer to question 91:

X. Foreign exchange (FX)
Spot FX contract are not financial instruments under MiFID II/MiFIR. Some stakeholders and
competent authorities raised concerns as regards the regulatory gap and requested the
Commission to analyse if policy action would be needed.

Page 36 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands
Question 92. Do you believe that the current regulatory framework is adequately calibrated to
prevent misbehaviours in the area of spot foreign exchange (FX) transactions?
(disagree, rather not agree, neutral, rather agree, fully agree, don’t know/no opinion/not relevant)
Question 92.1 If you do not believe that the current regulatory framework is adequately
calibrated to prevent misbehaviours in the area of spot foreign exchange (FX) transactions, which
recommendations would you make to improve the robustness of the regulatory framework?

Question 92.1 Please explain your answer to question 92:

Question 93. Which supervisory powers do you think national competent authorities should be
granted in the area of spot FX trading to address improper business and trading conduct on that
market? Please explain your answer:

Page 37 of 38

MiFID II/ MiFIR Review | European Commission Public Consultation
Response Ministry of Finance The Netherlands

Section 3. Additional comments
You are kindly invited to make additional comments on this consultation if you consider that some
areas have not been covered above.
Please, where possible, include examples and evidence.

Question 94. Have you detected any issues beyond those raised in previous sections that would
merit further consideration in the context of the review of MiFID II/MiFIR framework, in particular
as regards to the objective of investor protection, financial stability and market integrity? Please
explain your answer:

Should you wish to provide additional information (e.g. a position paper, report) or raise specific
points not covered by the questionnaire, you can upload your additional document(s) here:
The maximum file size is 1 MB. You can upload several files. Only files of the type
pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed.

Page 38 of 38