GLEIF published the monthly Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) data quality report for May 2019, which analyzes the overall data quality in the Global LEI System. Additionally, GLEIF published the latest quarterly Global LEI System Business Report, which highlights main trends relevant to the adoption of LEI and provides in-depth analysis of the LEI data pool. The report analyzes developments observed in the first quarter of 2019.
Global LEI data quality report. The report for this month highlights that the assessment performed on May 31, 2019 shows that 24 out of the total of 33 LEI issuers (72%) achieve the required data quality. Five LEI issuers (15%) demonstrate excellent data quality. Overall performance improved, in particular, with regard to the quality criteria "provenance" and "consistency." The Total Data Quality Score remains stable above 99%.
Global LEI system business report. The report assesses annual growth and renewal expectations, evaluates the level of competition among the LEI-issuing organizations operating in the Global LEI System, and analyzes LEI renewal rates and reference data corroboration. Since July 2017, as part of this report, GLEIF also delivers statistics on direct and ultimate parent information provided by legal entities. At the end of the first quarter of 2019, the total LEI population neared 1.36 million. Approximately 53,000 LEIs were issued in the first quarter of 2019 compared to approximately 55,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018. This represents a quarterly growth rate of 4.1% in the first quarter (previous quarter: 4.4%). The report identifies the least and most competitive markets of those with more than 1,000 LEIs, based on the number of LEI issuers providing services in the jurisdiction. In the first quarter of 2019, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Finland, and Czech Republic were the five least competitive markets in descending order. Romania, Lithuania, Portugal, Malta, and Bulgaria were the five most competitive markets in descending order. Additionally, during the reporting period, the highest renewal rates were demonstrated by India (95.5%), Finland (93.5%), Japan (91.9%), Liechtenstein (91.1%), and Norway (85.7%). Brazil (54.9%), the United States (53.9%), South Africa (48.3%), the United Kingdom (46.6%), and the Russian Federation (46.3%) were the top five jurisdictions demonstrating the highest non-renewal rates.
- Notification on Data Quality Report
- Notification on Business Report
- Data Quality Report (PDF)
- Business Report (PDF)
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, GLEIS, Data Quality, Reporting, LEI, GLEIF
Previous ArticleRBI Issues Directions on Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets
HKMA, together with the Banking Sector Small and Medium-Size Enterprise (SME) Lending Coordination Mechanism, announced a ninety-day repayment deferment for trade facilities under the Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme.
The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU.
MAS announced several initiatives to support adoption of the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is administered by MAS.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
PRA published the policy statement PS19/20 on the final policy for extending coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) for Temporary High Balance.
EBA published the final draft implementing technical standards for disclosures and reporting on the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements in EU.
EBA published an erratum for the phase 2 of technical package on the reporting framework 2.10.
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2020/1145, which lays down technical information for calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds.
FFIEC, on behalf of its members that include US Agencies such as CFPB, FDIC, FED, NCUA, and OCC, issued a joint statement that sets out prudent risk management and consumer protection principles for financial institutions to consider while working with borrowers.
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).