GLEIF and the U.S.-based Data Foundation published the report on envisioning comprehensive entity identification for the U.S. federal government. The report explores how Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) adoption by U.S. federal agencies could streamline entity identification and produce benefits in and beyond financial markets. The report presents findings based on the comprehensive research on the entity identification systems currently deployed across the U.S. government.
The joint GLEIF and Data Foundation research report explores the current landscape of U.S. federal agencies’ entity identification needs and describes the entity identification system that each uses. It the compares the Global LEI System to the other systems currently in use in the U.S and identifies how U.S. federal agencies would benefit from replacing proprietary or internal identifiers with the LEI. Finally, it proposes factors that describe the feasibility of a particular U.S. entity identification system to convert to a comprehensive entity identification system built on the LEI or, alternatively, the value of mapping existing identifiers against the LEI.
This research demonstrates that the U.S. federal government uses fifty distinct entity identification systems—all of which are separate and incompatible with one another. Entity identification, therefore, continues to represent a significant challenge for the missions of many federal agencies. Any agency tracking non-federal entities to perform a regulatory, statistical, procurement, or assistance function must either create its own entity identification system or adopt one originally created by another agency. Both approaches present difficulties in matching entities and properly assigning legal responsibility. The findings in this report may serve to inform regulators in any jurisdiction where public authorities continue to rely on a multitude of identification regimes.
Keywords: International, US, Banking, Insurance, Securities, LEI, GLEIS, Data Foundation, GLEIF
Previous ArticleIMF Publishes Report on 2018 Article IV Consultation with Austria
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/763 that lays down implementing technical standards for supervisory reporting and public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL).
EBA published a report that examines the convergence of prudential supervisory practices in 2020 and offers conclusions of the EBA college monitoring activity.
APRA announced the standardization of quarterly reporting due dates for authorized deposit-taking institutions.
The private sector working group of ECB on euro risk-free rates published the recommendations to address events that would trigger fallbacks in the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR)-related contracts, along with the €STR-based EURIBOR fallback rates (rates that could be used if a fallback is triggered).
Bundesbank published a list of "EntryPoints" that are accepted in its reporting system; the list provides taxonomy version and name of the module against each EntryPoint.
EBA published the phase 1 of its reporting framework 3.1, with the technical package covering the new reporting requirements for investment firms (under the implementing technical standards on investment firms reporting).
The Sustainable Finance Taskforce of IOSCO held two roundtables, with global stakeholders, on the IOSCO priorities to enhance the reliability, comparability, and consistency of sustainability-related disclosures and to collect views on the practical implementation of a global system architecture for these disclosures.
Asia Pacific Australia Banking APS 111 Capital Adequacy Regulatory Capital Basel RBNZ APRA
ESMA published the final guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers.
EBA published annual data for two key concepts and indicators in the Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) Directive—available financial means and covered deposits.