CPMI and IOSCO published a report that identifies key criteria, functions, and bodies for the governance arrangements for a set of critical data elements for over-the-counter (OTC) derivative transactions reported to trade repositories, excluding the Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI) and the Unique Product Identifier (UPI). Additionally, FSB published a report on the governance arrangements for the globally harmonized UPI. CPMI-IOSCO and FSB concluded that LEI ROC is best positioned to take on the role of the international governance body for critical data elements by mid-2020. The standard-setters also decided that LEI ROC is best positioned to be the single International Governance Body for UTI and UPI, if LEI ROC makes appropriate adjustments to its existing governance to make it fit-for-purpose for these identifiers.
CPMI-IOSCO Report—In this report, CPMI and IOSCO set out governance arrangements for the critical data elements other than the UTI and UPI (CDE Governance Arrangements). CPMI and IOSCO acknowledge that critical data elements need to be implemented globally. They also acknowledge that the definitions, allowable values, and possibly the formats of critical data elements will need maintenance and governance to ensure that they remain up-to-date and evolve to reflect and support market practices and Authorities’ needs. The CDE Governance Arrangements set out in the report address both implementation and maintenance of critical data elements, together with their oversight. FSB published conclusions on governance arrangements and implementation plan for the UTI in December 2017 and for the UPI in October 2019. In coordination with FSB, the report concludes that LEI ROC is best positioned to take on the role of the international governance body for critical data elements by mid-2020, subject to some necessary adjustments to its own governance. In the interim, FSB will perform this role. CPMI and IOSCO also recommend that jurisdictions take steps to implement the governance arrangements across jurisdictions within three years from the publication of the report.
FSB Report—This report sets out the conclusions of FSB on governance arrangements for UPI, along with a recommended implementation plan for those arrangements and next steps to establish an International Governance Body for UPI. The report conditionally identifies the International Governance Body for UPI and UTI. As part of the conclusions of the governance arrangements for UPI, the report sets out the final key criteria for UPI Governance Arrangements,in addition to setting out conclusions on the components of UPI Governance Arrangements and on the allocation of UPI Governance Functions. The report also elaborates on the relationship of the designated UPI Service Provider to other components of the governance arrangements and on the merits of having an International Data Standard for the technical structure and format of the UPI Code and of UPI Reference Data Elements. FSB identifies LEI ROC as best positioned to be the single International Governance Body for UTI and UPI, provided that LEI ROC makes appropriate adjustments to its existing governance to make it fit-for-purpose for these identifiers. FSB took this decision in coordination with the CPMI and IOSCO. FSB also recommends that jurisdictions undertake necessary actions to implement the UPI technical guidance and that these take effect no later than the third quarter of 2022.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, OTC Derivatives, Governance Arrangements, Critical Data Elements, Trade Repository, UPI, UTI, LEIROC, CPMI-IOSCO, FSB
Previous ArticleDubai FSA Invites Applications for Regulatory Sandbox Winter Cohort
Next ArticleECB Publishes Release 4.1 of BIRD Database
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.