LEI and the Profit Motive
LEI and the Profit Motive
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27a6f/27a6fc5345e3eb79806a755b31a1ce11a4ca011a" alt="michael-shashoua-waters michael-shashoua-waters"
As the newly installed editor of Inside Reference Data, I’d like to start by picking up where my predecessor Tine Thoresen left off last month. We expect to keep hearing a lot about legal entity identification (LEI), with the US Office of Financial Research (OFR) preparing to put an LEI standard in place on July 15.
Last month, at its Financial Services Technology Leaders Forum, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Sifma) picked up the mantle that had been set up by other industry leaders concerning LEIs, as an opportunity to make changes for the better in the functioning of the industry. The greatest advantage the new LEI standard could yield, according to executives who spoke at the Sifma forum, is improvement in firms’ risk management (page 16).
Yet, even with a looming deadline, there still seems to be swirling uncertainty around how the new standards will be put in place, confronting the industry with questions about where to store data, how to get a full end-to-end, front- to back-office view of data, and how to evaluate data quality.
One might be well-advised to take a look back nearly 10 years ago, when securities industry technologists were debating about how to handle straight-through processing, a trading initiative that, while not regulation-driven, did spawn two organizations to serve the function, the not-for-profit GSTPA, and the for-profit corporation Omgeo, which began as a joint venture of Thomson Reuters (its pre-merger Thomson half) and DTCC. Omgeo thrived, while the now-defunct GSTPA is little remembered by those with less than five years’ involvement in the industry.
This history holds a lesson for how to serve the industry’s demands for setting and working with LEIs. That lesson is that it could be time to consider setting up a for-profit, or at least “non-non profit” as some put it, company to handle LEIs. Although the changes to LEIs appear to be driven by the US, AFME (the Association for Financial Markets in Europe) and ASIFMA (the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) have joined Sifma in forming the Global Financial Services Trade Associations, which is expected to recommend providers to issue LEIs right around the time this issue goes to press. Will the trade associations point to providers that already exist? Will those providers be ones that are already profitable? Will there be any surprises in what the associations recommend?
The answers to these questions will affect how the new LEIs are implemented and how requirements and mandates are met. The process is expected to last from a year and a half to two years, beyond the July 15 date, as different regions and countries complete their rulemaking. Undoubtedly, the effectiveness of the new LEI standard at improving risk management will depend on who carries it out.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Nasdaq leads push to reform options regulatory fee
A proposed rule change would pare costs for traders, raise them for banks, and defund smaller venues.
The CAT declawed as Citadel’s case reaches end game
The SEC reduced the CAT’s capacity to collect information on investors, in a move that will have knock-on effects for its ongoing funding model case with Citadel.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 305: Cato Institute's Jennifer Schulp
Jennifer joins to discuss what regulatory priorities might look under Paul Atkin's SEC.
Examining Cboe’s lawsuit appealing SEC’s OEMS rule rejection
The Chicago-based exchange has sued the regulator in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the agency blocked a proposed rule that would change how Silexx is classified.
European exchange data prices surge, new study shows
The report analyzed market data prices and fee structures from 2017 to 2024 and found that fee schedules have increased exponentially. Several exchanges say the findings are misleading.
Regis-TR and the Emir Refit blame game
The reporting overhaul was been marred by problems at repositories, prompting calls to stagger future go-live dates.
FCA: Consolidated tape for UK equities won’t happen until 2028
At an event last week, the FCA proposed a new timeline for the CT, which received pushback from participants, according to sources.
Cusip Global Services wants to know, ‘What’s your damage?’
The evidence and discovery phase of the case against the identifier bureau is set to expire in March, bringing an anticipated jury trial one step closer.