Advertisement

The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity in Electronic Trading

  • Peter Gomber
  • Benjamin Clapham
  • Jens Lausen
  • Sven PanzEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 345)

Abstract

The new financial market regulation MiFID II/MiFIR will fundamentally change the trading and market infrastructure landscape in Europe. One key aspect is the trading obligation for shares that intends to restrict over-the-counter (OTC) trading to ensure that more trading takes place on regulated trading venues and on platforms of Systematic Internalisers (SIs). In this context, market experts often argue that SIs might have a competitive advantage due to the best execution concept in combination with the possible exemption of SIs from the tick size regime. Applying scenario analysis, we determine the likely migration of OTC trading volume to regulated trading venues and SIs. Based on our data set, we investigate how changes in trading volume influence liquidity on open limit order book markets (lit markets). The results of our scenario analysis indicate that liquidity on lit markets might increase due to additional turnover formerly traded OTC. However, also a negative liquidity effect for lit markets and for the price discovery process is possible because of increased trading via SIs.

Keywords

MiFID II/MiFIR Trading obligation Liquidity Trading volume Electronic trading 

References

  1. 1.
    Acharya, V., Pedersen, L.: Asset pricing with liquidity risk. J. Financ. Econ. 77(2), 375–410 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amihud, Y.: Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. J. Financ. Markets 5(1), 31–56 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brauers, J., Weber, M.: A new method of scenario analysis for strategic planning. J. Forecast. 7(1), 31–47 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CESR: CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID Review - equity markets. CESR/10-394 (2010). https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/10_394.pdf
  5. 5.
    Chordia, T., Roll, R., Subrahmanyam, A.: Co-movements in bid-ask spreads and market depth. Financ. Anal. J. 56(5), 23–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chordia, T., Roll, R., Subrahmanyam, A.: Recent trends in trading activity and market quality. J. Financ. Econ. 101(2), 243–263 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen, H.B., Hail, L., Leuz, C.: Capital-market effects of securities regulation: prior conditions, implementation, and enforcement. Rev. Financ. Stud. 29(11), 2885–2924 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comerton-Forde, C., Malinova, K., Park, A.: Regulating dark trading: Order flow segmentation and market quality. Working Paper (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Degryse, H., de Jong, F., van Kervel, V.: The impact of dark trading and visible fragmentation on market quality. Rev. Financ. 19(4), 1587–1622 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Commission: IP/02/1706 press release: Investment services: Proposed new Directive would protect investors and help investment firms operate EU-wide (2002). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-02-1706_en.htm
  11. 11.
    European Commission: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2011). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/securities/docs/isd/mifid/COM_2011_656_en.pdf
  12. 12.
    European Commission: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) .../... of 28.8.2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 as regards the specification of the definition of systematic internalisers for the purposes of Directive 2014/65/EU (2017). http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/109985/attachment/090166e5b4ac6f24_en
  13. 13.
    European Commission: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/588 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the regulatory technical standards on the tick size regime for shares, depositary receipts and exchange-traded funds (2017). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0588&from=en
  14. 14.
    European Parliament and Council: Directive 2004/39/EC of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (MiFID I) (2004). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004L0039&qid=1494934175734&from=EN
  15. 15.
    European Parliament and Council: Directive 2014/65/EU of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (recast) (MiFID II) (2014). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0065&from=EN
  16. 16.
    European Parliament and Council: Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (MiFIR) (2014). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0600&from=EN
  17. 17.
    Federation of European Securities Exchanges: European equity market report (2017). http://www.fese.eu/statistics-market-research/european-equity-market-report
  18. 18.
    Federation of European Securities Exchanges: Tick size regimes (2017). http://www.fese.eu/statistics-market-research/tick-size-regimes
  19. 19.
    Fidessa: Fidessa fragmentation index: Making sense of global fragmentation (2017). http://fragmentation.fidessa.com/
  20. 20.
    Flannery, M.J., Kwan, S.H., Nimalendran, M.: Market evidence on the opaqueness of banking firms’ assets. J. Financ. Econ. 71(3), 419–460 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomber, P., Clapham, B., Lausen, J., Panz, S.: The impact of MiFID II/MiFIR on european market structure: a survey among market experts. J. Trading 13(2), 35–46 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gomber, P., Jäger, B.: MiFID: Eine systematische Analyse der Zielerreichung. Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft 16(1), 40–53 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gomber, P., Sagade, S., Theissen, E., Weber, M.C., Westheide, C.: The state of play in European over-the-counter equities. J. Trading 10(2), 23–32 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gomber, P., Sagade, S., Theissen, E., Weber, M.C., Westheide, C.: Spoilt for choice: Order routing decisions in fragmented equity markets. Working Paper (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gomber, P., Schweickert, U., Theissen, E.: Liquidity dynamics in an electronic open limit order book: an event study approach. Eur. Financ. Manage. 21(1), 52–78 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gresse, C.: Effects of lit and dark market fragmentation on liquidity. J. Financ. Markets 35, 1–20 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hendershott, T., Charles, J.M., Menkveld, A.J.: Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity? J. Finance 66(11), 1–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hirschman, A.O.: The paternity of an index. Am. Econ. Rev. 54(5), 761–762 (1964)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huss, W.R.: A move toward scenario analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 4(3), 377–388 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lambert, R.A., Leuz, C., Verrecchia, R.E.: Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. J. Account. Res. 45(2), 385–420 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Hara, M., Ye, M.: Is market fragmentation harming market quality? J. Financ. Econ. 100(3), 459–474 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oxera Consutling Ltd.: Monitoring prices, costs and volumes of trading and post-trading services: Report prepared for European Commission DG Internal Market and Services: (MARKT/2007/02/G)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R.F.: Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. J. Polit. Econ. 111(3), 642–685 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Postma, T.J., Liebl, F.: How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72(2), 161–173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosenblatt: Let there be light: Rosenblatt’s monthly dark liquidity tracker (2017). http://rblt.com/lettherebelight_details.aspx?id=715
  36. 36.
    Schoemaker, P.J.H.: Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Manage. Rev. 36(2), 25–40 (1995). https://search.proquest.com/docview/1302991850?accountid=10957

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations