391. ESMA proposed in the Consultation Paper certain amendments to the mechanics in which the price of a derivative contract is reported. In particular, ESMA proposed to change the fields and their definitions to better align with the CDE guidance and clarified that the field 'Price' should only be populated when the information is not provided in another field (e.g. 'Fixed rate').

392. In general, the respondents were positive about the proposals made by ESMA and there were no serious issues found in the general approach.

393. Some respondents raised questions over ESMA's proposal for the notation of rates reporting (percentage, instead of decimal). One respondent commented that CFTC in the US has proposed to implement the decimal option, and another respondent expressed support for the decimal approach without further arguments. As the majority of respondents seemed to be comfortable with the percentage option, and to maintain the current way of reporting, ESMA will retain the percentage proposal.

394. A few respondents proposed ESMA to clarify further in the table of fields which notation should be used for each field, implement a price notation indicator, or proposed to divide certain fields into multiple fields based on notation. However, ESMA is of the view that the tables are clear enough with respect to notation. Also, ESMA would like to clarify that even though different notations are present in the same field in the annex, the different notations will be implemented as distinct elements in the XML schema. This approach is in line with the MiFIR and SFTR technical standards.