7. Market Data

7. Market Data

Who should read this chapter?

This chapter is relevant to persons who are interested in becoming authorised as a
DRSP in the UK. DRSPs include ARMs, APAs and CTPs.

It may also be of interest to any operator of a UK trading venue seeking verification of its rights to provide data reporting services under regulation 5(b), (c) or (d) of the DRS Regulations[1].

The part of the chapter on transaction reporting will be of interest to managers of collective undertakings and pension funds.


This chapter addresses the new Data Reporting Services Providers (DRSP) category of firms and their responsibilities, and Transaction Reporting.

Title V of MiFID II establishes three types of DRSP: Approved Reporting Mechanism (ARMs)
for submission of transaction reports to competent authorities; Approved Publication
Arrangements (APAs) for publication of OTC trade reports; and Consolidated Tape Providers
(CTPs) for consolidation of trade reports from trading venues and APAs.

The concept of DRSPs is not completely new to the UK; there are ARMs that are currently
approved under MiFID. In addition, Trade Data Monitors (TDMs) in the UK carry out functions
similar to those of the APAs.

Although there are similar requirements under MiFID and MiFID II, the organisational requirements of MiFID II are more detailed. As a result of this new authorisation and supervision framework, Title V of MiFID II does not support the grandfathering of existing entities. This means that existing ARMs and TDMs in the UK will need to submit new applications to be authorised as DRSPs under MiFID II if they wish to offer data reporting services after MiFID II comes into effect.

The detailed regulatory obligations of DRSPs are contained in the Treasury’s legislation, which turns relevant provisions in the recast MiFID into UK law, and technical standards which are directly applicable. We are proposing therefore a new chapter in the Handbook, MAR 9A, dealing only with aspects of the authorisation and supervision of DRSPs. We provide signposts in MAR 9A to the Treasury legislation and the relevant technical standards.

MiFID II expands the scope and depth of transaction reporting, covering a wider range of transactions and requiring more information to be reported on each transaction. The relevant provisions are in regulations. We are consulting therefore on two limited aspects of transaction reporting. First, whether the MiFID II transaction reporting obligations should be applied to  managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds whom we currently require to follow the transaction reporting obligations in MiFID. Second, proposed rules to require certain entities transaction reporting to us or providing reference data to us to have connectivity to our systems.

Data Reporting Service Providers

Content of proposed MAR 9

We propose the addition of a new chapter (MAR 9) to MAR. It will provide entities with directions and guidance about how they can apply to become authorised as a DRSP, or to extend, vary or cancel an authorisation. It will also cover matters such as the FCA’s supervisory approach, and how a DRSP can notify us of important information such as changes to its management body. It will also provide answers to a number of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ including those relating to a trading venue operator seeking verification of its rights to provide data reporting services, and to the process for addressing connectivity requirements for ARMs.

MAR 9 should be read together  with the DRS Regulations, Title V of MiFID II, as well as a number of draft RTSs: RTS 13[2], RTS 1[3], RTS 2[4]  RTS 3[5] and the draft ITS 3[6].

We will in due course publish a MiFID Permissions and Notifications Guide, to share more
specific step-by-step information about how to apply to become a DRSP. We will also provide
further guidance on decision making, procedures and penalties, and enforcement matters for
DRSP applications when we consult on DEPP and EG in 2016.

Please note that there will be one-off and annual fees for becoming authorised and operating a DRSP. This is currently subject to consultation as part of FCA CP 15/34 Regulatory fees and levies: policy proposals for 2016/17 in respect of the FEES (Markets Data Reporting) Instrument 2016. Some key areas that are covered by MAR 9 are highlighted below.

Application forms and notifications

To become authorised as a DRSP, an applicant must submit an application form and a
notification form for the list of members of the management body. Under RTS 13 and the DRS
Regulations, DRSPs must also provide several different types of notifications. These enable us to assess whether the DRSP continues to comply with its obligations. To ensure these notifications
are handled efficiently, MAR 9 will include, in due course, standard forms to be used for
applications and notifications. These are:

  • application form to provide service of ARM and/or APA and/or CTP
  • notification form for list of members of management body
  • application form for extension or variation of authorisation
  • application form for cancellation of authorisation
  • notification form for material change in information provided at time of authorisation
  • notification form for changes to the members of the DRSP’s management body
  • notification form to be used by an APA/CTP for establishing technical connectivity
  • annual notification to FCA form
  • form for ad-hoc notifications, and
  • non-disclosure agreement

Some examples of ad-hoc notifications include: notifying us under article 9 of RTS 13 of any security breaches, notifying us if an ARM has caused an error and/or omission in a transaction report (article 11 of RTS 13); and notifying us where the DRSP is experiencing a service disruption (article 7 of RTS 13).

We are currently considering what notifications DRSPs should make to us each year. We will provide guidance on this at a later stage in 2016. 


MAR 9 outlines our proposed supervisory approach to DRSPs. It makes clear that we expect DRSPs to have an open, constructive and co-operative relationship with us and also sets out the supervisory tools we may use in the supervision of DRSPs.


MAR 9 aims to clarify how the connectivity requirements operate in relation to the different types of DRSPs.

ARMs need to establish technical links with us so that they can successfully send us transaction reports on behalf of clients. ARMs must comply with our technical specification as an express requirement in RTS 13[7] and as a condition of becoming authorised as an ARM. So an applicant that wishes to become an ARM must sign a non-disclosure agreement to obtain the technical specification and then perform testing with us to establish the connection before becoming authorised as an ARM.

The process and requirements are subtly different for APAs and CTPs. As the core activity of an APA or CTP is to publish trade data rather than submitting data to us, they do not need to establish connectivity to us as a condition of authorisation. However, APAs and CTPs are obliged to send us transparency calculation data under article 22 of MiFIR. They will have to establish connectivity to our systems to send us this data, once they have become authorised. So, while APAs and CTPs will still have to send us a signed non-disclosure agreement and undergo testing, they do not have to do so at the same time as applying to become authorised.

Q14: Do you agree with our approach to DRSPs in MAR 9? If not, please give reasons why 

Transaction Reporting

We decided to extend MiFID’s transaction reporting obligations to managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds. Those managers were not directly caught by the provisions in the directive because they were exempt from it under article 2(1)(h) to the extent they acted in their capacity as a manager[8]. We extended the obligations to managers of these firms because the type of activity they are undertaking is very similar to the type of activity being undertaken by MiFID portfolio managers. Therefore, we also brought them within scope to avoid gaps and blind spots in our market abuse monitoring.

For the purposes of MiFID II, we have reviewed the likely costs and benefits of applying the new MiFID II transaction reporting requirements to these managers, who remain exempt from the recast directive. Asa result we have since decided not to apply article 26 MiFIR transaction reporting obligations to managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds at this stage.

Proposed detailed rules on these matters and others have been set out by ESMA in draft RTSs: RTS 13[9] and RTS 22[10].

Content of proposed SUP 17

The SUP 17 instrument reflects our decision not to continue applying transaction reporting for managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds. We recognise that transaction reporting under MiFID II will be significantly more complex and broad in scope than under MiFID. We will still receive the information we need to perform market abuse detection through the transaction reports of the MiFID investment firms that the managers deal with to execute transactions. We will also receive information through the transaction reports provided by trading venues reporting on behalf of non-MiFID investment firms, and also order data from trading venues.

Following the implementation of MiFID II, we may review this decision and re-evaluate whether we should apply the transaction reporting requirements to managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds. We will include a cost-benefit analysis as part of any re-evaluation.

We expect MiFID investment firms, non-RIE trading venues and non-EEA firms required to
transaction report in accordance with article 26 MiFIR or GEN to establish connectivity with our
system. This requirement is reflected in SUP 17.

For reference data, SUP 17 reflects our expectation that systematic internalisers and non-RIE trading venues required to provide reference data in accordance with article 27 MiFIR establish connectivity with our system.

RIEs will also have to provide us with transaction reports and reference data. We will consider consulting next year on rules requiring them to establish connectivity with our systems to do this.

Q15: Do you agree with our proposal not to apply the transaction reporting obligation to managers of collective investment undertakings and pension funds? If not, please give reasons why

Q16: Do you agree with our proposals to require connectivity with our systems for certain entities sending transaction reports and reference data to us? If not, please give reasons why


  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418287/Annex_B_-_Data_Reporting_Services_Regs_-_Consultation_Final.pdf
  2. ^ RTS 13 - Draft regulatory technical standards on authorisation, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers
  3. ^ RTS 1 - Draft regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements in respect of shares, depositary receipts, exchange-traded funds, certificates and other similar financial instruments
  4. ^ RTS 2 - Draft regulatory technical standards on transparency requirements in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives
  5. ^ RTS 3 - Draft regulatory technical standards on the volume cap mechanism and the provision of information for the purposes of transparency and other calculations
  6. ^ ITS 3 – Draft implementing technical standards under Article 61(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU
  7. ^ RTS 13 - Draft regulatory technical standards on authorisation, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers
  8. ^ See PERG 13, Q43 https://www.Handbook.fca.org.uk/Handbook/PERG/13.pdf
  9. ^ RTS 13 -  Draft regulatory technical standards on authorisation, organisational requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers
  10. ^ RTS 22 - Draft regulatory technical standards on reporting obligations under article 26 of MiFIR