Purpose

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II directive was enforced in the EU in January 2018. While EU-member states implemented this directive in their national legislation, investment firms are still enforcing compliance. With the purpose of “investor protection”, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of transparency, suitability, warning and information requirements. How do investment advisers view and embrace these MiFID II requirements? Are differences evident within this group of professionals?

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 267 Dutch investment advisors serving non-professional investors daily completed structured surveys on their opinion of the acceptance and effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements. The findings are compared with existing literature to examine similarities with other legislation.

Findings

The results demonstrated differences depending on the investment firms’ size and investment advisors’ seniority and gender. Professionals should be critical of new legislation and regulations, as it limits their autonomy. However, female investment advisors and those with up to ten years’ experience are less critical of the effectiveness of the MiFID II requirements, embracing them without discussion. Investment advisors in large investment firms believe that MiFID II contributes to investors’ interests, whereas those in small and medium-sized investment firms often do not share this opinion. For example, respondents considered cost transparency an effective requirement to achieve better investment services and protect investors’ interests.

Originality/value

The effectiveness and applicability of legislation are often viewed from a legal perspective, and enforcement is essential. However, this study explores legislation from the perspective of professionals under supervision.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰投资顾问对MiFID II指令的看法

目的

《金融工具市场指令》（MiFID）II指令于2018年1月在欧盟实施。尽管欧盟成员国在其国家立法中实施了该指令，但投资公司仍在强制执行该指令。出于“保护投资者”的目的，本研究的目的是调查透明度，适用性，警告和信息要求的有效性。投资顾问如何看待并接受这些MiFID II要求？在这组专业人员中是否存在明显差异？

设计/方法/方法

总共有267位服务于非专业投资者的荷兰投资顾问每天根据他们对MiFID II要求的接受程度和有效性的意见完成结构化调查。将调查结果与现有文献进行比较，以检查与其他立法的相似性。

发现

结果表明，取决于投资公司的规模以及投资顾问的资历和性别，存在差异。专业人士应该对新的法律法规提出批评，因为它限制了他们的自主权。但是，女性投资顾问和具有十年以上经验的女性对MiFID II要求的有效性并不那么批评，因此不加讨论就拥抱他们。大型投资公司的投资顾问认为，MiFID II有助于投资者的利益，而中小型投资公司的投资顾问通常不同意这一观点。例如，受访者认为成本透明度是实现更好的投资服务和保护投资者利益的有效要求。

创意/价值

立法的有效性和适用性通常是从法律的角度来看的，执行是必不可少的。但是，本研究从受监督的专业人员的角度探讨了立法。