May 31, 2019

CPMI and IOSCO published a Level 2 assessment report on the implementation monitoring of PFMI in United States. The assessment concludes that the legal, regulatory, and oversight frameworks for payment systems, central security depositories (CSDs), and securities settlement systems in the U.S. are complete and "consistent" with the Principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI). Minor gaps have been identified in the frameworks for payment systems, CSDs, and securities settlement systems; however, these gaps are judged to have an immaterial impact on the assessment ratings.

  • The information to be provided by a third party seeking authorization to assess the compliance of securitizations with the STS criteria provided for in Securitization Regulation should enable a competent authority to evaluate whether and, to what extent, the applicant meets the conditions of Article 28(1) of the Securitization Regulation. An authorized third party will be able to provide STS assessment services across EU. The application for authorization should, therefore, comprehensively identify that third party, any group to which this third party belongs, and the scope of its activities. With regard to the STS assessment services to be provided, the application should include the envisaged scope of the services to be provided as well as their geographical scope, particularly the following:

    • To facilitate effective use of the authorization resources of a competent authority, each application for authorization should include a table clearly identifying each submitted document and its relevance to the conditions that must be met for authorization.
    • To enable the competent authority to assess whether the fees charged by the third party are non-discriminatory and are sufficient and appropriate to cover the costs for the provision of the STS assessment services, as required by Article 28(1)(a) of Securitization Regulation, the third party should provide comprehensive information on pricing policies, pricing criteria, fee structures, and fee schedules.
    • To enable the competent authority to assess whether the third party is able to ensure the integrity and independence of the STS assessment process, that third party should provide information on the structure of those internal controls. Furthermore, the third party should provide comprehensive information on the composition of the management body and on the qualifications and repute of each of its members.
    • To enable the competent authority to assess whether the third party has sufficient operational safeguards and internal processes to assess STS compliance, the third party should provide information on its procedures relating to the required qualification of its staff. The third party should also demonstrate that its STS assessment methodology is sensitive to the type of securitization and that specifies separate procedures and safeguards for asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) transactions/programs and non-ABCP securitizations.

    The use of outsourcing arrangements and a reliance on the use of external experts can raise concerns about the robustness of operational safeguards and internal processes. The application should, therefore, contain specific information about the nature and scope of any such outsourcing arrangements or use of external experts as well as the third party's governance over those arrangements. Regulation (EU) 2019/885 is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to EC.

     

    Related Links

    Effective Date: June 18, 2019

    Press Release
  • Proposed Rule 1
  • Proposed Rule 2
  • Proposed Rule 3
  • Presentation on Regulatory Framework (PDF)
  • Presentation on Resolution Plan Rules (PDF)
  • The assessment reflects the status of the U.S. legal, regulatory, and oversight framework as of March 30, 2018. The report presents a table that covers the identified gaps and recommendations. The assessment was conducted as a peer review from June 2018 to January 2019. The report complements a February 2015 report on central counterparties and trade repositories. The U.S. has now completed the Level 2 peer assessment process for the implementation of the PFMI. The U.S. authorities for the assessment were FED and SEC because of their role in the regulation, supervision, and oversight of payment systems and CSDs/securities settlement systems. 

    The rating framework used in Level 2 assessments is an adaptation of the approach described in the PFMI Assessment Methodology. The possible rating levels are “Consistent,” “Broadly consistent,” “Partly consistent,” “Not consistent,” and “Not applicable.” CPMI and IOSCO have also launched the PFMI Level 2 implementation database, which is a repository of all assessments completed to date. The database contains relevant implementation measures, ratings, gaps, and recommendations. It complements the assessment reports, which, starting with this U.S. evaluation, will provide descriptions of the principles and key considerations for which any gaps are identified and recommendations made. This database will be updated as new Level 2 assessments are completed.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Securities, PMI, PFMI, Level 2 Assessment, Implementation Monitoring, CSD, CPMI, IOSCO

    Related Articles
    News

    BIS Report Discusses Regulatory Issues Related to Big Techs in Finance

    BIS has pre-released a chapter of the BIS Annual Economic Report; this chapter focuses on the risks and opportunities presented by large technology firms in the financial services sector.

    June 23, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IOSCO Report Examines Liquidity in Corporate Bond Markets

    IOSCO published a report that examines the factors affecting liquidity, under stressed conditions, in the secondary corporate bond markets.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED Publishes Results of the 2019 Stress Tests for Banks

    FED published a report presenting results of the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) exercise for 2019.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS Report Examines Global Pillar 2 Supervisory Review Practices

    BCBS published a report that examines the Pillar 2 supervisory review practices and approaches in Basel member jurisdictions.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IASB Publishes Work Plan and Meeting Updates for June 2019

    IASB published an updated work plan and a summary of its June meeting, which presents preliminary decisions of the Board.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Publishes Banking Exposure Limits Code Under Banking Ordinance

    HKMA issued a circular to all authorized institutions informing that the Banking (Exposure Limits) Code has been published in the Gazette on June 21, 2019.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI Proposes Guideline on Internal Model Oversight for Insurers

    OSFI proposed the draft guideline E-25 on the internal model oversight framework for federally regulated property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Third Update for June 2019

    Under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week, EBA published one answer regarding the calculation of institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer rates.

    June 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS Publishes Summary of the Meeting in June 2019

    BCBS published a summary of its June meeting in Basel.

    June 20, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OCC Bulletin on Risk Management Guidance for Home Mortgage Lending

    OCC published Bulletin 2019-28 on risk management guidance for higher-loan-to-value (LTV) lending activities in communities targeted for revitalization.

    June 19, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 3298