Trade Reporting vs Transaction Reporting under MiFID
Trade reporting is different from transaction reporting in many ways. To start with, the purpose of trade reporting is to increase post-trade transparency for the purpose of enforcing Best Execution rules, while the purpose of transaction reporting is to prevent market abuse and reduce systemic risk. While transaction reporting is present in most countries, trade reporting is, currently, applicable in European Economic Area (EEA) under MiFID rules.
The following table shows the differences between these two reporting requirements under MiFID.
||For price formation and operation of best execution obligations
||To prevent market abuse and reduce systemic risk
||Timing of reporting
||Submission of reports
||To Approved Publication Arrangements (APA)
||To Approved Reporting Mechanism (ARM)
||The data is reported via trade reporting venues from where they are disseminated to the market
||The data is not available to other market participants
||Trade reporting falls under MiFID II, which can be different from country to country
||Transaction reporting falls under MiFID II but form a part of the MiFIR regulations. They are the same for every jurisdiction
|| Generally, a few a basic details of the trade are required to be reported. Counterparty details are not required.
- The trading date and time
- Financial instrument identification code
- Price currency
- Venue of execution (OTC, SI and on-exchange off-book business)
- Transaction identification code
|A lot of information is required to be reported, including counterparty details. The following are the reporting heads. Total number of fields is 64 currently.
- General fields
- Buyer details
- Buyer decision maker details
- Seller details
- Seller decision maker details
- Transmission details
- Instrument details
- Investment decision maker and executor
END OF MY NOTES