When reporting to clients information required under Articles 62(1) and 62(2) of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation, can firms agree with clients to assess the depreciation of the overall value of the client’s portfolio, or of leveraged financial instruments or contingent liability transactions included in a client’s account, on a threshold higher than the “10% and thereafter at multiples of 10%”?

Should an investment firm using direct electronic access (DEA) services provided by an intermediary firm (such as a broker) list the execution venue selected via the DEA arrangement (under the RTS 28 reporting obligation), or the broker providing the DEA service (under the report to be published under Article 65(6) of the Delegated Regulation)?

What is the applicable scope of the record keeping requirements set out in Article 16(7) of MiFID II in terms of products and services?

How do the OTF best execution obligations apply when third-party brokers are clients of the OTF or when these brokers provide Direct Electronic Access (DEA) to the OTF (see Article 4(1)(41) of MiFID II)?

Article 62(2) of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation states “…Reporting under this paragraph should be on an instrument-by-instrument basis, unless otherwise agreed with the client…What kind of flexibility could be allowed by such an agreement with clients?