With RegNMS in the US and MiFID in the EU, regulators respond to recent years' changes in trading concepts and infrastructures. Both try to catch up with technological advances and intend to create a level playing field between the different types of trading venues and a harmonisation in the order execution process. The paper illustrates and analyses the regulatory environments and the impact of their upcoming changes on ECNs and MTFs with a specific focus on Europe. Scenarios will be developed on how the regulatory overhauls will alter the competitive landscape between Regulated Markets, ECNs/MTFs and order flow internalising entities.
AvgouleasE.DegiannakisS. (2005). The Impact of the EC Financial Instruments Markets Directive on the Trading Volume of EU Equity Markets. Athens University of Economics and Business, Statistics Technical Report No. 219. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=828804.
5.
BarclayM.HendershottT.McCormickD. (2003). Competition among Trading Venues: Information and Trading on Electronic Communication Networks. Journal of Finance, vol. 58, no. 6, 2637–2665.
Competition Commission (2005), Deutsche Börse AG, Euronext NV and London Stock Exchange plc: A report on the proposed acquisition of London Stock Exchange plc by Deutsche Börse AG or Euronext NV, Appendix H – History of entry and expansion in Europe from 1995. http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2005/fulltext/504ah.pdf.
15.
ConradJ.JohnsonK.WahalS. (2003). Institutional Trading and Alternative Trading Systems. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 70, 99–134.
EconomidesN. (1993). Network Economics with Application to Finance. Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, vol. 2, no. 5, 89–97.
19.
EconomidesN.SiowA. (1988). The Division of Markets is Limited by the Extent of Liquidity (Spatial Competition with Externalities). The American Economic Review, vol. 78, no. 1, 108–121.
20.
European Union (2004), Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, released April 21st.
GomberP.GsellM.WranikA. (2005), Algorithmic Trading – Maschinen auf Finanzmärkten. Die Bank, Special issue for the European Banking and Insurance Fair, 40–45.
32.
GresseC. (2006). The Effect of Crossing-Network Trading on Dealer Market's Bid-Ask Spreads. European Financial Management, vol. 12, 143–160.
33.
HasanI.SchmiedelH. (2003). Do networks in the stock exchange industry pay off? European evidence. Bank of Finland Discussion Papers, No. 2/2003.
34.
HendershottT.JonesC. (2005). Island Goes Dark: Transparency, Fragmentation, and Regulation. The Review of Financial Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, 743–793.
35.
KorhonenK. (2001). Securities market ATSs – Concepts, their roles and related policy issues. Bank of Finland Discussion Papers, No. 24/2001.
NguyenV.Van NessB.Van NessR. (2005). Archipelago's Move Towards Exchange Status: An Analysis of Archipelago Trading in NYSE and NASDAQ Stocks, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=720322.
SchwartzR.WoodR. (2003). Best Execution – A candid analysis. Journal of Portfolio Management, vol. 29, issue 4, 37–48.
50.
SEC (1978). Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Communications Linkage Pursuant to Section 11A(c)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14661.
51.
SEC (1998). Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading Systems. Final Rule Release No. 34–40760, December 8th.
52.
SEC (2005). Regulation NMS. Final Rule Release No. 34–51808, June 9th.
53.
SEC (2006). Regulation NMS: Extension of Compliance Dates. Final Rule Release No. 34–53829, May 18th.
VenkataramanK. (2001). Automated versus Floor Trading: An Analysis of Execution Costs on the Paris and New York Exchanges. Journal of Finance, vol. 56, 1445–1485.
