MiFID II Regulation: Payment Model and Compliance Standards

---

---

MiFID II Regulation: Transforming EU Investment-Research Economics

Context and objectives

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation) came into force on 3 January 2018, ushering in the EU’s most far-reaching market-structure reform in a decade. Its investment-research rules pursue four policy goals:

1. Transparent pricing of research services
2. Reduced conflicts of interest between buy-side and sell-side
3. Higher market efficiency through evidence-based trading decisions
4. Stronger investor protection across asset classes

From “bundling” to explicit pricing

MiFID II outlawed the historic practice of paying for research with execution commissions, forcing investment firms to choose between:

• P&L model – paying directly from their own resources, or
• Research Payment Account (RPA) – a segregated pool funded by pre-agreed research charges to clients.

By unbundling the two services, regulators sought to eliminate opaque cross-subsidies and the incentive to over-trade simply to receive “free” research.

Market impact of the one-size-fits-all approach

While the unbundling mandate advanced investor protection, it also triggered material side-effects:

• Operational friction in setting up and administering RPAs.
• Direct P&L cost for firms electing not to pass on research expenses.
• Sharp fall in overall research volume, although surviving coverage often improved in quality.
• Notable decline in analyst coverage of SMEs, contrary to the EU’s capital-formation agenda.

Iterative regulatory fine-tuning

Consistent with the EU’s “legislate, observe, adjust” pattern, lawmakers responded to feedback:

Year	Legislative action	Key change
2021	Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP)	Targeted exemption allowing bundled payment for issuers < €1 bn market cap to support SME research.
2024–2025	European Listing Act	Broader recalibration of research-payment rules, aimed at balancing transparency with market depth and SME accessibility.

These amendments recognise that the original MiFID II research framework, though sound in principle, proved overly rigid in practice.

Key takeaway: MiFID II Regulation has re-engineered the economics of EU investment research, compelling firms to treat research as a priced service while prompting regulators to refine the rules to preserve SME coverage and market vibrancy.

---

 European Listing Act & MiFID II Regulation: Next-Generation Research Rules

1. Legal framework at a glance

The European Listing Act package, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 14 November 2024, comprises three texts:

Instrument	OJ citation	Core purpose
Regulation (EU) 2024/2809	L-2024-2809	Streamlines listing requirements
Directive (EU) 2024/2810	L-2024-2810	Amends Prospectus & Transparency regimes
Directive (EU) 2024/2811 “Listing Act Directive”	L-2024-2811	Modifies MiFID II research provisions

EU-27 must transpose the Listing Act Directive into national law by 4 June 2026, formally updating the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation).

2. Game-changer for research funding models

The Listing Act Directive abolishes the €1 billion market-cap ceiling introduced by the 2021 Capital Markets Recovery Package. From transposition onward, any investment firm may combine research and execution payments, regardless of the issuer’s size. Key implications:

• Universal joint-payment option → less administrative friction than Research Payment Accounts (RPAs).
• Cost relief for buy-side firms that previously absorbed research expenses via the P&L model.
• Potential rebound in analyst coverage, especially for small- and mid-cap equities previously sidelined by MiFID II’s strict unbundling.

3. Alignment with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) vision

The reform dovetails with the EU’s CMU objectives to:

1. Revitalise SME access to public equity markets by restoring affordable analyst coverage.
2. Deepen liquidity through broader information dissemination.
3. Enhance the competitiveness of EU venues against global peers.

By integrating flexible research-payment mechanics, the European Listing Act supports a more cost-efficient, attractive listing environment—a critical pillar of CMU.

4. International context and competitive neutrality

• United Kingdom: The FCA reinstated a bundled-payment regime in August 2024, prompting concerns about regulatory arbitrage.
• ESMA: Public statements acknowledge the UK shift and the need for “competitive parity” in global research markets.
• Industry feedback: Asset managers and broker-dealers flagged the risk of talent and coverage migrating to less restrictive jurisdictions.

The EU’s revised MiFID II research framework therefore serves a dual purpose: defending investor-protection standards while preserving the EU’s share of global investment-research activity.

Take-away for compliance and strategy

• Legal deadline: plan national-law updates before 4 June 2026.
• Operational impact: review RPAs, client disclosures, and budgeting models in light of the new joint-payment freedom.
• Strategic edge: leverage the broadened rules to re-engage with SME research, strengthen market depth, and align with both MiFID II Regulation and Capital Markets Union goals.

---

MiFID II Regulation: Reviving EU Research Coverage Without Weakening Investor Protection

1. Why the MiFID II amendments matter

The European Listing Act modifies the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation) to serve a dual purpose:

• Stimulate analyst coverage, especially for SMEs, by relaxing the rigid, post-2018 unbundling rules and allowing joint payments for research and execution.
• Preserve core MiFID II safeguards, transparency, conflict-management and client-first principles, so renewed flexibility does not erode market integrity.

2. Primary objective: revitalise the EU research ecosystem

• Flexible payment choices enable investment firms to re-enter segments abandoned under the original unbundling regime, widening research on growth-stage issuers.
• Better SME coverage reduces information asymmetry, supporting CMU goals of innovation, job creation and deeper capital markets.

3. Secondary, but non-negotiable, objective: uphold investor safeguards

Even as research and execution come closer again, the amended MiFID II insists on:

Safeguard	Regulatory requirement	Purpose
Formal agreement with research providers	Written contracts defining scope and deliverables	Demonstrates arm’s-length terms and deters inducements
Transparent remuneration methodology	Documented pricing logic for each research service	Prevents hidden cross-subsidies and over-pricing
Enhanced client disclosure	Clear explanation of how joint costs are allocated	Lets clients judge value for money
Annual research-quality assessment	Evidence-based review of usefulness and impact	Ensures research spend benefits portfolio decisions

Key point: The price paid for research within any joint invoice must not exceed its standalone fair value, a principle aimed at blocking artificial mark-ups that could sway trading behaviour.

4. Operational checklist for compliance under the new MiFID II Regulation

1. Update policies & procedures to reflect joint-payment workflows.
2. Re-train front-office staff on the boundaries between “acceptable service” and “inducement”.
3. Refresh client contracts and disclosures before migrating to bundled models.
4. Build annual review templates that benchmark research quality and cost efficiency.
5. Document supervisory oversight—regulators will scrutinise both process and outcome.

5. Success factors: balancing flexibility with fiduciary duty

The reforms will be judged on whether firms can deploy new payment freedom responsibly while regulators maintain credible, risk-based supervision. If done well, the updated Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II can:

• Boost research production without reigniting conflicts of interest.
• Deliver sharper investment insights to end-investors.
• Strengthen the EU’s competitive position against jurisdictions with looser rules.

---

MiFID II Regulation: Post-Listing Act Research-Payment Toolkit

1. Flexible payment menu under the amended Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation)

The European Listing Act Directive, backed by ESMA’s technical advice, gives EU investment firms three compliant ways to fund third-party investment research:

1. Direct P&L payment: the firm pays from its own resources.
2. Research Payment Account (RPA): a ring-fenced account funded by explicit client research charges.
3. Joint payment for research + execution: a single invoice covering both services.

This shift from the 2018 “one-size-fits-all” unbundling regime lets firms align cost, client preference and compliance complexity with their business model, without breaching MiFID II’s investor-protection ethos.

2. Choosing the right model: feature-by-feature comparison

Feature	Direct P&L (Model 1)	Research Payment Account (Model 2)	Joint Payment (Model 3)
Funding source	Firm’s own capital	Client-specific research levy	Single charge—client-funded or firm-funded
Key MiFID II articles	Art. 24 (9a)(d)(i); Art. 13 (1)(a) Delegated Dir.	Art. 24 (9a)(d)(ii); Art. 13 (1)(b), 13 (1a)–13 (8)	Art. 24 (9a)(a)–(d) (as amended); Art. 13 (10)
Core conditions	Act in the client’s best interest	Budget, client consent, no link to trading volume, audit trail	Written provider contract, fair remuneration method, annual research-quality test, client disclosure
Primary conflict-of-interest risk	Low — firm bears cost	Budget fairness vs. benefit to paying clients	Research spend must not distort execution choices or mask total cost
Operational fit	Simple, but hits margins	High transparency; admin-heavy	Efficiency gains but needs robust COI and best-execution controls

3. Practical selection guidance for compliance teams

• Cost vs. transparency: RPAs spotlight research spend but increase back-office burden; P&L absorbs cost quietly yet erodes margins.
• Client perception: High-touch asset owners may favour RPAs for price clarity, while retail-heavy models may opt for firm-funded or bundled charges.
• Regulatory scrutiny: Joint payments demand the tightest controls, documented pricing logic, annual quality reviews and evidence that research is “not substantially overpriced”.

Bottom line: The Listing Act’s amendments to the MiFID II Regulation empower firms with a three-lane payment highway, but whichever lane you choose, you must still steer by MiFID II’s core compass: best execution, conflict mitigation and full-cost transparency.

---

MiFID II Regulation: ESMA’s Blueprint for the New Research-Payment Era

1. ESMA’s mandate & timeline (2024-2025)

Milestone	Date	Reference	Purpose
Commission request for technical advice	6 Jun 2024	EC letter to ESMA	Align Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation) with the European Listing Act
Consultation Paper (CP) issued	28 Oct 2024	ESMA35-335435667-5979	Draft Level-2 wording; open to public comment
Consultation closed (25 responses)	28 Jan 2025	—	Input from firms, research providers, NCAs, trade bodies
Final Report & Technical Advice published	8 Apr 2025	ESMA35-335435667-6290	Definitive text changes for Article 13 Delegated Directive

Key point: ESMA’s blueprint converts the Listing Act’s high-level flexibility into concrete, harmonised rules, critical for consistent supervision across the EU under the MiFID II research regime.

2. Article 13 – what changes & what stays

2.1 Enduring RPA safeguards

Paragraphs 1(b), 1a, 2-8 largely re-state and refine existing Research Payment Account duties (budgeting, client disclosure, audit trail, no volume linkage, surplus rebates, etc.). The message: when clients pay directly, transparency remains non-negotiable.

2.2 New link to annual quality review

New § 1b: the MiFID II-mandated yearly assessment of research “shall be based on robust quality criteria.”
Take-away: firms must evidence a structured, criteria-driven evaluation of every research provider.

2.3 Joint-payment clause (game-changer)

Brand-new § 10 embeds the joint-payment option with two hard guards:

1. Fair pricing test – research element must not be “substantially more” than a standalone charge.
2. Best-execution neutrality – remuneration method must not impede MiFID II best-execution duties.

2.4 Reinforced execution-cost split

Re-framed § 9: execution brokers must show a separately identifiable execution fee; any other service (e.g., research) requires its own charge, free from cross-subsidy.

3. How the market reacted & ESMA’s final stance

Issue	Stakeholder view	ESMA response in Final Advice
Level of detail	Majority favoured high-level principles; some feared over-prescription	Retained principle-based wording; avoided granular templates
Annual quality assessment – comparator clause	Asset managers flagged cost & feasibility of benchmarking against “alternative providers,” esp. in niche sectors	Dropped explicit comparator line; kept the “robust quality criteria” standard only
“Substantially more” pricing test	Industry wants clarity; fear of subjective enforcement	Kept wording but signalled proportional supervision; firms expected to document reasonable valuation logic
Administrative burden vs. CMU goals	Broad support for flexibility, caution against rules that could negate it	ESMA balanced investor protection with Listing Act’s objective to revitalise research coverage

4. Compliance to-do list before Level-2 law lands

1. Trace & map Article 13 changes against current policies (RPA, P&L, joint).
2. Design valuation models to prove bundled research is fairly priced, benchmark vs. IRP quotes, internal cost curves, peer data.
3. Upgrade best-execution dashboards to show venue choice remains cost-competitive despite bundled research.
4. Refresh research-quality frameworks—scorecards, KPIs, board reporting, to meet the new “robust criteria” mandate.
5. Prepare client comms: clear, plain-language disclosures on whichever payment model you select.

Bottom line: ESMA’s technical package hard-wires the European Listing Act into MiFID II Regulation, preserving investor-protection DNA while giving firms operational latitude. Master the new Article 13 rules now to unlock the benefits of a revitalised, yet compliant, EU investment-research market.

---

IV. MiFID II Regulation: From Rule-Book to Run-Book

The European Listing Act has expanded the ways EU firms can pay for research, but it also tightened the proof-of-value expectations baked into the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation).

A. Crafting a Compliant Remuneration Methodology for Joint Payments

Under Article 24(9a) MiFID II and new Article 13(10) of Delegated Directive 2017/593, every joint-payment contract must embed a pricing method that is:

1. Fair-valued — the research slice cannot be “substantially more” than a stand-alone price.
2. Best-execution neutral — the fee split must never distort broker or venue selection.

Practical blueprint

Step	What to build	Why it matters under MiFID II Regulation
① Shadow-pricing model	Benchmark the research element against IRP quotes, internal cost curves or peer tariffs	Demonstrates the “not substantially more” test
② Provider-level term sheet	Ask brokers for transparent bundled invoices that show cost-allocation logic	Makes inducement checks and client disclosure simpler
③ Over-charge guardrails	Consider tiered rates, fee caps or volume discounts for the research component	Adds hard evidence that you prevent excessive pricing
④ Documentation pack	Store calculations, board approvals and methodology notes in an audit-ready file	Enables NCAs to verify fairness and best-execution neutrality

B. The Mandatory Annual Research-Quality Review

1. Legal trigger

• Article 24(9a)(c) MiFID II → Annual assessment of research quality, usability and value.
• Article 13(1b) Delegated Directive → Review must rest on “robust quality criteria.”

2. Building the framework

Criterion	What to measure	Sample metrics	Internal evidence
Analytical quality	Rigor & originality	Forecast-accuracy scores, peer review notes	Portfolio-manager feedback loops
Usability & timeliness	Fit for strategy; delivery speed	Usage frequency, time-to-market	Research-consumption logs
Value for money	Benefit vs. explicit/allocated cost	Cost-per-idea, IRP price benchmarks	Shadow-pricing spreadsheet
Investment impact	Contribution to returns & risk control	Attribution analysis, case studies	Post-trade reviews
Provider service	Access to analysts & responsiveness	Analyst CVs, query-response SLAs	Internal service surveys

Execution tips

• Define “robust quality criteria” in a board-approved policy; update annually.
• Where feasible, compare current providers with credible alternatives (Level-1 text still cites this benchmark).
• Link outcomes to budget resets — poor scores trigger renegotiation or provider rotation.
• Keep all data points in a central evidence folder for quick NCA access.

V. MiFID II Regulation: Transparency, Conflicts & Best-Execution Controls

C. Client-Facing Disclosure: Turning Rules into Relationship Capital

MiFID II’s transparency spine does not bend under the new flexibility. Whatever payment route you choose, clients must see and understand how research is funded and how conflicts are tackled.

Disclosure theme	What MiFID II / Article 13 demands	What “good” looks like
Payment method	State clearly: P&L, Research Payment Account (RPA), or Joint Payment.	One-page explainer in onboarding pack + web-portal banner whenever method changes.
Research-payment policy	Publish a policy detailing info flows for each model.	Interactive PDF with FAQs, infographic of cost flows, periodic e-mail reminders.
Joint-payment conflicts	Describe how bundled-payment conflicts are prevented/managed.	Visual matrix linking each conflict to a specific control (e.g., segregation of duties, best-execution overrides).
RPA specifics	Up-front budget, per-client charge estimate; annually, total research costs.	Personalised dashboard: budget vs spend, surplus rebates, provider list.

D. Re-Engineering Conflict-of-Interest (COI) Defences

The return of bundled payments revives inducement risk. Firms must prove they separate research value-judgments from execution routing.

1. Policy precision – Update COI and inducement policies to name joint-payment risks and map them to controls.
2. Structural safeguards – Split research-provider selection teams from traders; implement “four-eyes” sign-off on bundled contracts.
3. Process controls – Document provider choice using quality & value criteria, never trade volume.
4. Disclosure & oversight – Make conflict-handling public; task Compliance and Internal Audit with periodic deep dives.

Regulatory anchor: Article 13(10)(b) insists remuneration “shall not impede” best execution, so COI controls must dovetail with best-execution tests.

E. Best Execution: Still the North Star

Best execution remains the unshakeable duty under MiFID II Regulation. Bundling research cannot inflate total consideration or bias venue choice.

Best-execution checkpoint	Practical proof points
Venue selection driven by price, cost, speed, likelihood	Transaction-cost analysis (TCA) reports comparing bundled vs. unbundled brokers.
Fair all-in cost	Shadow-price the research slice; show total cost < or = alternative quotes.
Transparent fee split	Maintain internal ledger reconciling execution fee vs. embedded research value.
Continuous monitoring	Dashboard alerts when total cost per trade deviates from peer benchmark.

Dual-control logic:

• Art. 13(10)(a) – research must not be “substantially more” than a stand-alone price.
• Art. 13(10)(b) – pricing must not hinder best execution.
  Fail either test and the arrangement flunks MiFID II.

Operational call-to-action

1. Embed shadow-pricing engines in your OMS/EMS to flag potential overpricing in real time.
2. Refresh execution-policy training, highlight bundled-payment red-lines for trading staff.
3. Tie annual research reviews to best-execution outcomes: if research does not improve decisions, renegotiate or exit the provider.
4. Package disclosures as a service differentiator, clear dashboards can turn compliance into client-experience value.

Bottom line: The new payment freedom under the MiFID II Regulation is yours to exploit—if you match it with crystal-clear disclosure, next-generation COI controls and data-driven best-execution evidence. Nail these pillars and you transform regulatory duty into competitive edge.

---

 MiFID II Regulation: Building Trust in EU Issuer-Sponsored Research (ISR)

1. Why the Listing Act embraces Issuer-Sponsored Research

Issuer-Sponsored Research (ISR) is analysis commissioned and paid for by the issuer itself. The European Listing Act recognises ISR as a pragmatic tool to:

• Counter the research-coverage gap for SMEs that arose after MiFID II’s 2018 unbundling.
• Boost issuer visibility and, in turn, improve access to public-market capital.

Yet the model is inherently conflicted: the company under review is also the pay-master. The EU therefore couples promotion with strict guard-rails to protect market integrity.

2. Article 24(3c) MiFID II - The EU Code of Conduct for ISR

Pillar	Requirement in the new MiFID II Regulation	Purpose
Regulatory basis	ESMA to draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) creating an EU-wide Code of Conduct	Harmonise ISR rules across the Single Market
Label & distribute	Research branded “issuer-sponsored” may be circulated only if it complies with the Code	Gives investors a trusted badge
Independence & objectivity	Code will prescribe analyst-independence tests, editorial-control limits, and evidence-based methodologies	Curb promotional bias
Conflict-management toolkit	Procedures for identifying, preventing, managing and disclosing ISR conflicts	Preserve credibility of conclusions
Scope of application	MiFID-authorised firms that produce or distribute ISR; ESMA may propose coverage of non-MiFID providers to avoid loopholes	Level playing field
Transparency channel	Likely alignment with the European Single Access Point (ESAP) for public availability	Ensures equal, free access for all investors

3. Practical challenges & policy trade-offs

1. Proving real independence — issuers pay the bill, so providers must show robust editorial firewalls and publish clear methodologies.
2. Contract disclosure — regulators and investors are calling for visibility on ISR fee structures to spot hidden influence.
3. Uniform enforcement — ESMA must ensure that research boutiques outside MiFID scope cannot under-cut standards, or regulatory arbitrage will emerge.
4. Timely updates — stale ISR is risky; the Code is expected to impose refresh triggers when material facts change.
5. Public availability via ESAP — mandatory upload would hard-wire fairness and enable market-wide scrutiny, but issuers warn against added red tape.
6. Avoiding SME overload — rules must stay proportionate so that smaller companies still view ISR as affordable.

Action points for issuers & research providers

Stakeholder	Immediate priority	Why it matters under MiFID II Regulation
Issuers (SMEs especially)	Budget for ISR that meets Code standards; prepare for public fee disclosure	Builds investor confidence and aligns with Capital-Markets-Union goals
Research providers	Draft independence policy, conflict matrix and quality-control checklist ready for RTS	Secures the “trusted label” and access to distribution channels
Investment firms distributing ISR	Update due-diligence workflow to verify Code compliance before circulation	Avoids reclassification as marketing material and potential MiFID breaches

---

VI. Impact Analysis of the MiFID II Regulation Reforms

The European Listing Act rewires the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II Regulation) in ways that ripple across costs, benefits and competitive behaviour.

A. Cost-Benefit Snapshot for Investment Firms & the EU Market

Category	Typical cost drivers	Offset by principal benefits
Implementation	One-off policy rewrites, staff training, IT tweaks for remuneration & COI tracking	Greater payment flexibility (P&L, RPA, joint) can lower admin friction long-term
Annual research-quality review (Art. 24 (9a)(c) MiFID II)	Defining “robust quality criteria”, data collection, documentation	Better insight into value for money, stronger negotiating power with providers
Ongoing monitoring	Proving “not substantially more” pricing & best-execution neutrality	Revitalised research supply—especially for SMEs—improves liquidity & price discovery
Regime complexity	Interpreting concepts such as “substantially more” or “robust quality”	Enhanced investor confidence via transparency & accountability boosts brand equity

Bottom line: ESMA’s own CBA (Final Report ESMA-35-335435667-6290, Annex II) signals that manageable compliance spend should be outweighed by a more vibrant and efficiently funded EU research market.

B. Strategic Shifts You Should Expect

1. Heightened competition among research providers

• Quality as a selling point – Annual assessments keep pressure on analysts to prove actionable insight.
• Evaluation tools proliferate – Expect more free trials, score-carding apps and peer-pricing dashboards.
• Market segmentation – Full-service brokers push bundled “research + execution”; niche IRPs compete on deep sector expertise and price transparency.

2. Prospects for independent research providers (IRPs)

Opportunity lever	Why IRPs can still win under MiFID II Regulation
Superior insight	Mandatory value tests favour providers that demonstrably add alpha
Unconflicted perception	Some asset owners will prefer research without execution ties
Specialist coverage	IRPs excel in frontier, thematic or micro-cap niches
Business-model innovation	Alliances, data-analytics layers, flexible pricing can offset scale gaps

3. Investor-protection dividend

• Richer disclosures on payment methods, COI handling and research budgets.
• Annual quality audits force firms to drop low-value research.
• Fair-price rule (“not substantially more”) caps client cost and backs up best-execution duty.

4. Closing the SME coverage gap

• Joint payments without a market-cap ceiling make small-cap research commercially viable again.
• Issuer-Sponsored Research (ISR)—when Code-compliant—adds another supply channel.
• Public-sector boosters (e.g., potential EU SME-research funds) may complement private uptake.

5. Toward a harmonised, CMU-friendly rulebook

• High-level rules + ESMA Q&As = flexibility with convergence.
• Consistent interpretation across NCAs is vital to avoid competitive distortions inside the Union.
• Alignment with global norms (e.g., UK’s bundling comeback) preserves EU market attractiveness.

---

Action Checklist for MiFID II Compliance Leaders

1. Map costs vs. benefits in a board paper; secure budget for the one-off uplift.
2. Pilot your remuneration methodology on a small broker set; validate “fair-value” logic.
3. Stand up a research-quality dashboard that feeds both annual reviews and provider negotiations.
4. Engage IRPs and full-service brokers in parallel to build a blended, value-optimised coverage universe.
5. Track ESMA Q&As and NCA guidance to fine-tune interpretations of “substantially more” and “robust quality”.

Key takeaway: The Listing-Act amendments transform the MiFID II Regulation from a rigid cost-segregation regime into a value-driven marketplace for EU research, rewarding firms that master transparency, fair pricing and measurable research quality.

---

VII. MiFID II Regulation: Where EU Investment-Research Goes Next

A. What Just Changed, and Why It Matters

Transformative change	Practical meaning for market participants
Three-lane payment highway	Choose P&L, Research Payment Account (RPA) or Joint Payment for third-party research.
Joint payments, uncapped	No issuer market-cap ceiling—bundle research + execution for any listed company.
Conditional safeguards	Formal contracts, fair-value remuneration, conflict governance, client disclosure, best-execution proof.
Annual quality audit	Mandatory review of research quality, usability, value using “robust quality criteria.”
Issuer-Sponsored Research (ISR) code	ESMA to craft an EU Code of Conduct—giving ISR a trusted label under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II.

Key takeaway: The era of rigid unbundling is over; the MiFID II Regulation now prizes flexibility coupled with hard-evidence accountability. Firms must document why research is worth the spend and how client interests stay protected.

B. Roadmap for Adaptation & Long-Term Vision

1. Immediate action items

1. Gap-analyse current payment models against new Article 13 & Article 24(9a) duties.
2. Draft or refine remuneration methodologies—prove the research slice is not substantially more than stand-alone cost.
3. Stand up annual review protocols with scorecards tied to performance, cost and usability.
4. Refresh client communications—plain-language disclosures on payment choice, COI controls, ISR labelling.
5. Engage providers (full-service brokers and IRPs) to renegotiate pricing and quality metrics.

2. Strategic opportunities

• SME coverage renaissance – Joint payments + forthcoming ISR Code can reignite analyst interest in small- and mid-caps.
• Competitive differentiation – Transparent dashboards and rigorous quality reviews become selling points to asset-owner clients.
• IRP resurgence – Independent providers that prove alpha and fair pricing can thrive despite bundled competition.

3. ESMA & NCA oversight

• Expect Q&As and supervisory convergence notes clarifying “substantially more,” “robust quality,” and ISR Code specifics.
• National authorities will assess best-execution data and remuneration evidence—audit-ready records are essential.

4. Long-term vision

The amendments aim to forge an EU research ecosystem that is:

• Resilient – multiple funding models reduce single-point failures.
• Efficient – market-driven pricing and annual audits weed out low-value research.
• Transparent – clients see exactly how research is paid for and how conflicts are neutralised.
• Competitive – alignment with global rules (e.g., UK’s bundling comeback) preserves EU market appeal.

But regulation is never “set-and-forget.” Policymakers will track:

• SME coverage metrics
• Research quality and pricing trends
• Effectiveness of ISR safeguards

Further tweaks to the MiFID II Regulation are likely as the Capital Markets Union project evolves.