A post relating to this item from Finextra:
27 February 2009 | 8139 views | 0
Loss-making Nyfix is likely to incur further costs in the development of its Euro Millennium dark pool after it was deemed non-compliant with the latest interpretations of the MiFID rulebook by the UK...
Would it be fair to say that the regulators should care about all types of legitimate participants even for market operators? The climate for institutional investors is not extremely warm after MiFID, and we have to look forward for dark liquidity offerings
that will re-establish the balance. The ambiguity of FSA’s position does not help the industry in this respect and puts extra pressure on the platforms already suffering from the market downturn.
We were promised a regime based on principles. Now we have venue by venue probing and private negotiations instead of a clear indication of requirements. I think that the regulations should be more transparent and that FSA should try to make their interpretation
of the rule book public and available for discussion first.
Three and a half moths have passed since the probing for Liquidnet and NYFIX Euro Millennium started. We do not have any definite information besides about 400 words in CESR Q&A, where the term Dark Pool was introduced. Now, we discover the issue from the
NYFIX 2008 annual results report. Same as in the Chi-X case, the authorities decline to comment. Should we not expect a more predictable marketplace from the EU regulators?