"Over the counter" or "OTC" trading is a method of trading that does not take place on an organised venue such as a regulated market or an MTF.

         
          
                           New           


       

 

 

3 February 2021

 

ESMA updates the Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38 - when a firm submits an order through DEA, which is then executed on-venue, the resulting transaction are considered, from the DEA user perspective, as an on-venue transaction (and not OTC).

 

 

It can take various shapes from bilateral trading to via permanent structures, such as systematic internaliser and broker networks.

 

"Over-the-counter" or "OTC" within the REMIT compliance system means any transaction carried out outside an organised market (this definition has relevance, for example, for REMIT reporting).

 

In turn, pursuant to MiFIR characteristics, OTC trades include transactions which are non-systematic, ad-hoc, irregular and infrequent, are carried out between eligible or professional counterparties, and are part of a business relationship which is itself characterised by dealings above standard market size, and where the deals are carried out outside the systems usually used by the firm concerned for its business as a systematic internaliser.

 

However, the specific notion of "OTC derivatives" should be noted (meaning thereof common to EMIR and MiFIR).

 

 

Deferral regime applicable to investment firms trading OTC 

 

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35

Non-equity transparency

 

Question 2 [Last update: 03/10/2017]

 

a) Which deferral regime applies to investment firms trading OTC?

 

b) Is it relevant in what Member State the relevant instrument is traded or admitted to trading on a trading venue?

 

Answer 2

 

a) The deferral regime applicable to OTC trades is determined by the deferral regime applicable in the Member State where the investment firm that has to make the transaction public is established. The location of the APA through which a transaction is made public is not relevant. Where it is for an EU branch to make a transaction public, the deferral regime applicable in the Member State where that branch is located should apply.

 

b) No, for OTC transactions only the deferral regime applicable to the investment firm that has to make a transaction public is relevant. 

 

 

In the Answer to Question 2 (updated on 3 October 2017, Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35) ESMA underlined that the deferral regime applicable to OTC trades is determined by the deferral regime applicable in the EU Member State where the investment firm that has to make the transaction public is established.

 

The location of the Approved Publication Arrangement (APA) through which a transaction is made public is not relevant.

 

Where it is for an EU branch to make a transaction public, the deferral regime applicable in the Member State where that branch is located should apply.

 

ESMA also explained that as regards deferral regime for OTC transactions it is not relevant in what Member State given instrument is traded or admitted to trading on a trading venue.

 

For the said transactions only the deferral regime applicable to the investment firm that has to make a transaction public is relevant.

  


Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38

Question 32 [Last update: 03/02/2021]

When a firm submits an order through DEA, which is then executed on-venue, should the resulting transaction be considered, from the DEA user perspective, as an on-venue or OTC transaction?

Answer 32

As per Article 4(1)(41) of MiFID II, DEA is a mechanism allowing a client to “electronically transmit orders relating to a financial instrument directly to the trading venue” using the trading code of the DEA provider. Hence, a DEA trade should not be considered as a series of trades (i.e. one trade involving the DEA client and the DEA provider, one trade submitted by the DEA provider and executed on-venue), but rather as one single trade submitted by the DEA user and executed on-venue.

This interpretation is however without prejudice to other specific guidance provided by ESMA for ad hoc regulatory purposes as, for instance, in the Guidelines on “Transaction reporting, order record keeping and clock synchronisation under MiFID II” (ref. ESMA/2016/1452, p.162).
 

 

 

 

 

 

chronicle   Regulatory chronicle

 

 


 

 

3 February 2021

 

ESMA updates the Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38 - when a firm submits an order through DEA, which is then executed on-venue, the resulting transaction are considered, from the DEA user perspective, as an on-venue transaction (and not OTC).

 


 

 

 

IMG 0744

    Documentation    

 

 

 

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR transparency topics, ESMA70-872942901-35

 

Questions and Answers on MiFID II and MiFIR market structures topics, ESMA70-872942901-38

 

 

 

clip2

    Links    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cookies

We use cookies on our website to support technical features that enhance your user experience and help us improve our website. By continuing to use this website you accept our Privacy Policy.