lqdlklg

2.4.Best execution - publication of data by investment firmsBackground/Mandate/EmpowermentArticle 27(10)(b), MiFID IIESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine:(b) the content and the format of information to be published by investment firms in accordance withparagraph 6.ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by ...Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the firstsubparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.1. In December 2009, CESR distributed a questionnaire on Best Execution to investment firms, regulatedmarkets and MTFs across the EEA. 31 The responses identified that firms use a wide variety of criteriawhen selecting execution venues. Therefore, as no one factor was cited more frequently than others,it is difficult to draw generalised conclusions about how investment firms choose execution venues.Analysis2. The investment firm reporting requirement on order flow and on execution quality applies to allMiFID investment firms. ESMA considers that investment firms should report the identity of the topfive venues (including execution venues such as systematic internalisers, market makers, or otherOTC counterparties that qualify as execution venues) to which they direct their order flow.3. Under MiFID, investment firms discharge their duty of best execution to clients that have givenspecific instructions on how to execute an order in respect of the part or aspect of the order to whichthe client instructions relate.4. ESMA considers that it may be beneficial to ensure that orders that arise as a result of clients’ specificinstructions (or ‘directed orders’) are reported in the same way as all other orders. This is to preventinvestment firms from attempting to circumvent the order flow reporting requirement by inducingclients to give specific instructions through standard contractual clauses. It remains an important featureof the best execution requirement that investment firms acting on clients’ behalf should, in theoverwhelming majority of cases, continue to exercise their own judgment on which venues to executeorders. However, it is necessary to separate ‘directed’ and ‘non-directed’ orders in order to clarifythose for which an investment firm remains responsible.5. Another potential driver of order routing behaviour may be the category of the client for whom theinvestment firm is executing. The best execution obligation imposes different requirements on investmentfirms executing orders for different categories of client. For retail clients, the best possibleresult shall be determined by considering the price of the financial instrument and the costs related to31http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/10_1415.pdf.37