DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITYIDENTIFIERS

DATE OF ISSUE: 19 NOVEMBER 2018

Table of Contents
THE PROCESS.................................................................................................................... 2

Making a submission .................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLEIS GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK ........................... 1

1.3

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENTS .......................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE GLEIS ................................. 3
2.1

DIRECT AND ULTIMATE PARENTS OF LEGAL ENTITIES ....................................... 3

2.2

INFORMATION ON INTERNATIONAL BRANCHES .................................................... 4

CHAPTER 3: POLICY STANDARDS UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY THE LEI ROC .................. 7
3.1.

CORPORATE ACTION AND DATA HISTORY ............................................................ 7

3.2.

IMPROVING RELATIONSHIP DATA FOR INVESTMENT FUNDS .............................. 7

3.3.

STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF INCORPORATING SECTOR INFORMATION IN
THE LEI REFERENCE DATA ...................................................................................... 9

3.4.

INDIVIDUALS ..............................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 4: OTHER POTENTIAL USES OF THE LEI ............................................................11
4

EXAMPLES OF OTHER POTENTIAL REGULATORY USES .....................................11

4.1.

RISK MANAGEMENT BY BANKS ..............................................................................11

4.1.1.

Customer identification ...............................................................................11

4.1.2.

Data aggregation ........................................................................................11

4.2.

STATISTICAL USES OF THE LEI...............................................................................124.2.1.

The LEI as a tool to support the use of more granular data .........................124.2.2.

Improving the data on cross-border exposures of non-bank corporations ....13

4.3.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTERING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM(AML/CFT) ...................................................................................................................144.3.1.

Correspondent banking ..............................................................................15

ANNEXURE A...................................................................................................................17

ANNEXURE B...................................................................................................................18

ANNEXURE C ..........................................................................................................................26
ANNEXURE D ..........................................................................................................................28

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

THE PROCESSThe aim of the consultation paper is to promote awareness of the global use of Legal Entity
Identifiers (LEIs) and to seek feedback from the market on the proposals for the implementationof LEIs.
Your comments will help the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (“the Authority’) to develop
and implement the most appropriate regulatory framework for the implementation of LEIs within
the financial sector.
Making a submission
The discussion paper is available on the FSCA website (www.fsca.co.za).
Enquiries may be directed to Ms Elmarie Hamman (elmarie.hamman@fsca.co.za or direct
telephone line: 012-428 8019). Comments should be sent, not later than 15 January 2019, tothe following e-mail address: LEI@fsca.co.za; or
By physical address: 41 Matroosberg Road, Ashlea Gardens, Pretoria, 0002; or
By postal address: PO Box 35655, Menlo Park, 0102.

2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1

INTRODUCTION
Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) were introduced following the global financial crisis of 2008, sothat all participants and financial institutions/ legal entities in the financial system would be
easily identifiable in order to facilitate assessment and monitoring of financial stability. The LEI
is a 20-digit, alpha-numeric code, used to uniquely identify legally distinct institutions thatengage in financial transactions. LEIs are issued by “Local Operating Units” (LOUs) andaccredited by the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF). The GLEIF is tasked tosupport the implementation and use of LEIs. The foundation is backed and overseen by the LEI
Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), representing public authorities from around the globe
that have come together to jointly drive forward transparency within the global financial markets.
The global LEI initiative is driven by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Group of Twenty(G20) which aims to develop universal LEI applicable to any legal entity that engages infinancial transactions.

1.2

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLEIS GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKThe Global LEI System (GLEIS), launched by the FSB, for counterparties to financialtransactions was created in order to, inter alia:
meet the G-20 objectives of improved transparency, mitigation of systemic risk andprotection against market abuse;

assist regulatory authorities in conducting market surveillance and enforcement,
supervision of market participants and resolution activities in preparing high quality
financial data for regulatory purposes;facilitate Over the Counter (OTC) derivatives central reporting to Trade Repositories (TR)by market participants ;and

support improved risk management, increased operational efficiency, and accurate
calculations of exposure.

The GLEIS comprises a three-tier federated structure made up of –

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERSAn upper-level regulatory oversight body, the ROC designed to oversee the system(http://www.leiroc.org/);

A middle-level Central Operating Unit governed by a foundation, the Global LEI
Foundation (“GLEIF”) that operationally co-ordinates the system; andA lower-level of registers, called Local Operating Units (“LOUs”) that assign LEIs.

Since its establishment in 2013, the ROC assumed certain tasks of operational oversight andcoordination of the GLEIS, during a start-up period when there was no central operating unit
able to assume its functions. Most of these tasks were handed over to the GLEIF in October
2015. With the completion of the accreditation of pre-LOUs, the GLEIS has entirely exited theinterim phase and the GLEIF has the contractual basis to fully play its role towards LOUs.
1.3

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENTS
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) serves on the LEI ROC Plenary and Executive
Committee and acted as a Sponsoring Authority, (in the interim before the establishment of the
GLEIF) responsible for the submission of applications by pre-LOUs to the ROC and provided
confirmation to the ROC that all pre-LOU endorsement requirements have been complied with,both at the time of the application and on an on-going basis.
The following developments should be noted with regards to the implementation of LEI’s inSouth Africa:

On 18 December 2015 the ROC endorsed Strate (Pty) Ltd (Strate) as a pre-Local
Operating Unit (pre-LOU). As of the date of this endorsement, all certified codes issued by
Strate are globally recognised by the ROC for reporting purposes.



In South Africa the use of LEI’s by OTC Derivatives Providers to report transactions to a
Trade

RepositorywasmandatedintheConduct

Standard

3

of

2018:

Reporting obligations in respect of transactions in over-the counter derivatives which was
published on 11 October 2018. Strate (as a pre- LOU) went live with the LEI application
program in February 2016. Effective the 31st May 2018, Strate was fully accredited as an
LOU by the GLEIF Accreditation Team.
Strate has been issuing LEIs since 2014 in its role as an endorsed pre-LOU, and to date,has issued 388 LEIs.

2

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

CHAPTER 2: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE GLEIS
2.1

DIRECT AND ULTIMATE PARENTS OF LEGAL ENTITIESThe G20-endorsed a report by the FSB “A Global Legal Entity Identifier for Financial Markets”
which called for the GLEIS to include the “Level 1” “business card” information on entities (e.g.,
official name of the legal entity, address of its headquarters)1and , followed later by “Level 2”
data on relationships among entities2. The FSB report also underlined that this information wasessential for risk aggregation, which is a key objective for setting up the GLEIS.
Recommendation 12 of the report specifically called for the development of proposals for
additional reference data on the direct and ultimate parent(s) of legal entities and relationship orownership data.
The LEI ROC published on 10 March 2016 the final version of its report on “Collecting data on
direct and ultimate parents of legal entities in the Global LEI System - Phase 13”. After the public
consultation, the ROC decided that certain information on parents should be part of theinformation required by the GLEIS for validating an LEI record, but with the option to decline
providing this information for reasons such as legal obstacles preventing the provision or
publication of this information and cases where the disclosure of this information would be
detrimental to the legal entity or the relevant parent.
Entities that have or acquire an LEI have to report their “ultimate accounting consolidating
parent” (hereafter “ultimate parent”), defined as the highest level legal entity preparing
consolidated financial statements, as well as their “direct accounting consolidating parent”(hereafter, “direct parents”). In both cases, the identification of the parent is based on theaccounting definition of consolidation applying to this parent. Accounting definitions werechosen as a starting point as the ROC concluded that their practical characteristics outweighed
limitations caused by the fact that they are designed for a different purpose, i.e., to report
relationships to investors on a going concern basis. These practical characteristics are that:1

As defined in the ISO 17442:2012 standard.

2

See https://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_120608.pdf (8 June 2012)3

http://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/lou_20161003-1.pdf

3

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS(i)accounting definitions are applicable to both financial and non-financial companies;(ii)

their international comparability has increased, following greater convergence
between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the United States(US) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) on the scope of
consolidation; and(iii)

they are widely used, publicly available and their implementation is periodicallyreviewed by external auditors

As part of Phase 1 of the collection of parent information, LOUs as a pilot are also collecting
information for parents that do not have an LEI, including the name, legal address, headquarters
address and business registry identification (identification of the registry and registry number, if
applicable), as provided by the child (hereafter “parent metadata”).

The ROC has determined that additional time is needed for a more thorough review of theparent metadata. The parent metadata are complex, and more time is needed, in particular, toanalyse observed anomalies and idiosyncrasies in the collected data to determine whether
there are any data quality concerns that could cause reputational harm to the GLEIS andwhether the proposed data validation model is sustainable

2.2

INFORMATION ON INTERNATIONAL BRANCHESThe LEI ROC defined the policy standards for including data on international/foreign branches in
the GLEIS on 11 July 20164and the technical requirements were published in November 2016
by the GLEIF as part of the revised LEI Common Data File format CDF 2.05. The format was
fully rolled out in October 2017.

Both public sector and private sector needs motivated the ROC to propose the inclusion of dataon international branches in the GLEIS. First, the responsibilities for prudential supervision ofinternational branches are generally split between the supervisory authority where the entity is4

http://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/roc_20160711-1.pdf

5

The latest format is now CDF 2.1 published in May 2017, which is currently being rolled out:
https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/lei-cdf-format/lei-cdf-format-version-2-1.

4

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

headquartered and the regulatory authority of the host jurisdiction in which the branch islocated. This construct frequently results in multiple specific reporting requirements ortransparency obligations for international branches, for which a separate identifier is alreadynecessary. Furthermore, a number of regulatory reporting requirements envisage some form ofreporting on branch activities, and a branch LEI could support a common approach acrossjurisdictions. Data on international branches may also be necessary for micro- as well as macro
prudential supervision.

Secondly, assigning LEIs to international branches will help to facilitate orderly resolution for
entities that have cross-border business activities, in the event of a failure. International
branches that may not have a separate status from their head office during normal times may
be treated as separate and distinct legal entities during times of financial distress. Different
resolution or insolvency regimes may apply to the international branch, which may result indifferent priorities among creditor claims for the branch’s assets compared to its head office’s
assets, and specific measures such as “ring fencing” may be applied to the branch. Further,
deposits placed in an international branch may be covered by deposit insurance rules that differ
from the rules applicable to its head office. These conditions require the ability to easily identify,
even in normal times, the international branches of a foreign bank.

Finally, LEIs for international branches may be relevant for cooperation in the tax area, market
structure analysis, and statistical reporting, where it could offer similar benefits. Facilitating
identification of international branch activities could in addition help market participants tomeasure, monitor, and mitigate their risks, by supporting a more granular tracking of theirrelationships with different branches of the same counterparty in several countries, while
preserving the capacity to aggregate risk positions and financial data of all international
branches with those of the head office, given the condition that the LEI of the head office entity
should always be associated with the LEI of the international branch.

The introduction of international branches into the GLEIS is, however, not meant to influence
regulatory reporting policies or market monitoring goals and policies, especially where the focus
is on the legal entity as a whole (home office activity plus its international branches). Consistent
with the mandate of the ROC, the adopted policy only set the conditions under whichinternational branches are eligible to obtain an LEI from the GLEIS and does not in any way
compel international branches to obtain LEIs or head office entities to register their international

5

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

branches into the GLEIS. As it is the case for all LEIs, it is within the purview of national
authorities to define any requirement for international branches to be registered into the GLEIS.

6

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

CHAPTER 3: POLICY STANDARDS UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY THE LEI ROC
C
3.1.

CORPORATE ACTION AND DATA HISTORY
The LEI ROC has initiated a review of how some corporate actions and events, such as
mergers and acquisitions, affect LEI records. One of the objectives is to determine whether
there is a need to improve the way information on such actions is recorded and retrieved. The
relationship and reference data within the GLEIS should be granular and enable analysis andvisualisation of changes to an entity and its relationships with other entities, from the date of anentity’s entry into the GLEIS A public consultation seeking input on possible improvements
explored, among other things, the possibility to(i)provide a history of data record changes due to corporate events and actions thatcan easily be searched by end-users of the GLEIS and(ii)

add to the LEI reference data the effective date of the change (as opposed to when
the change is recorded in the system) for events such as changes in names, legal
address, headquarter address, as well transformation of an international branch into
a subsidiary (and conversely).

The public consultation also inquired into other corporate actions such as mergers on which the
GLEIS currently provides easy access to information on the successor of a merged entity, (andit is proposed to facilitate the retrieval of predecessor entities) and reverse takeovers (about
which views were sought on which LEI should survive). Concerning corporate actions that resultin the disappearance of the registered entity (merger, dissolution) and therefore may not bereported by the entity, it was proposed to implement alternative sources and methods to update
the information, such as corporate action data feeds.

The LEI ROC is currently analysing the response to the consultation and plans to further
deliberate on this issue in the course of 2018.
3.2.

IMPROVING RELATIONSHIP DATA FOR INVESTMENT FUNDSThe LEI ROC published on 26 September 2017 a consultation document which proposes alimited update to the way relationships affecting funds are recorded in the GLEIS, with theobjectives of making sure that the implementation of relationship data is consistent throughout
the GLEIS and provide a means to facilitate a standardized collection of fund relationshipinformation at the global level. This proposal is designed to meet these objectives:

7

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS(i)

providing definition of fund relationships and(ii)aligning the cases where the information is necessary to what will be done for direct andultimate accounting parent entities as defined in the LEI ROC report of March 20166.

The proposed collection is also designed to help ensure that relationships affecting an important
proportion of entities that have LEIs are appropriately covered.
The consultation document proposed to replace the current optional reporting of a single “fundfamily” relationship as part of Level 1 (reference data of the entity) with the following
relationships, as part of “Level 2” data (relationship data):“Fund Management Entity”, proposed to be defined as a legal entity whose regularbusiness is managing one or more investment funds (possibly distinguishing a main
Fund Management Entity from other Fund Management Entities involved in the
management of the same fund). Funds would have to provide this information in order toreceive or renew an LEI. An entity would report if it is a fund, and this information would
be recorded as part of the public reference data of the entity, subject to challenge by
third parties. Views were sought in this consultation on the scope of possible exceptions
for reporting the relationship with a Fund Management Entity to the GLEIS, beyond theabsence of such relationship, in particular whether there are examples where a FundManagement Entity’s identity would not be public for registered funds.

“Umbrella Funds” relationship, proposed to be defined as a situation where an
investment fund has one or more than one sub-funds/compartments where all sub
funds/compartments have a common (Main) Fund Management Entity and each sub
fund/compartment has its own investment objectives, separate investment policies andstrategies, segregation of assets, separate investors and where an investment fund has
segregated liability between sub-funds/compartments. There would be no opt out from
reporting the existence of an umbrella fund where the sub-fund does not itself have legal
personality and is a sub-set of another legal person, consistent with the decision made6

See LEI ROC publication “Collecting data on direct and ultimate parents of legal entities in the Global LEI
System – Phase 1”, March 2016, https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/lou_20161003-1.pdf.

8

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

by the ROC for international branches. In other cases, reporting of the umbrella fundcould either(i)be optional or(ii)

be part of the information that must be provided in order for an LEI to be issued
or renewed to a sub-fund/compartment, with the same opt outs as for thereporting of Fund Management Entities.

“Master-Feeder” relationship, proposed to be defined as a relationship, where a
Feeder Fund is exclusively, or almost exclusively, invested in a single other fund, orseveral funds that have identical investment strategies referred to as a Master Fund (orMaster Funds). Reporting this relationship could either (i) be optional or (ii) be part of theinformation that must be provided in order for an LEI to be issued or renewed to the
Master Fund (or possibly Feeder Fund) with the same opt-outs as for the reporting ofFund Management Entities.

“Other Fund Family”: reporting this relationship, which would capture other family
relationships not captured above (such as those specific to a jurisdiction), would be
optional.

The LEI ROC is analysing the responses received to the public consultation.

3.3.

STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF INCORPORATING SECTOR INFORMATION IN THE LEIREFERENCE DATAA LEI ROC Study Group is currently gathering preliminary information on the feasibility ofincorporating information on the sector of activity of participants in financial markets within the
LEI reference data. Based on user needs ascertained so far, adding this information in the
GLEIS might prove beneficial to comply with regulatory requirements in the financial sector but
also for other purposes (e.g., risk management). Costs and other challenges related to theinclusion of this information in the GLEIS may be, however, sizable. The current work aims tocollect comprehensive information on users’ needs on sectoral classification(s), review existingsources for such classification(s) and gather additional elements needed for a preliminary
analysis of costs and benefits associated to the competing options for including sector
information in the LEI reference data. The information collected will support a recommendation
for the LEI ROC in the course of 2018 on whether to create a subsequent work stream to focus

9

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

more concretely on competing options for associating sector information to the LEI, either insideor outside the GLEIS, or to take no specific actions.
3.4.

INDIVIDUALSOn 30 September 2015, the LEI ROC published a statement clarifying the conditions underwhich individuals acting in a business capacity are eligible to obtain LEIs. As envisaged in thisdocument, the ROC is considering whether LEI eligibility could be extended to other types ofindividuals, such as those licensed or authorised by a financial regulator.

10

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

CHAPTER 4: OTHER POTENTIAL USES OF THE LEI
4EXAMPLES OF OTHER POTENTIAL REGULATORY USES
While not necessarily an endorsement of the ROC for a particular use or approach, this section
is intended to raise awareness of potential uses for the LEI which have been identified, in linewith the objective given to the ROC in its Charter to promote the use and scope of the GLEIS
and ROC members’ commitment to support the introduction of the LEI for official or international
identification purposes. Any requirement to use the LEI is a matter of a jurisdiction’s laws andregulations.

4.1.

RISK MANAGEMENT BY BANKS

4.1.1. Customer identification
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published in February 2016 a revised
version of its General guide to account opening,7 which focuses on effective customer
identification and verification programmes and emphasizes a risk-based approach to an
institution’s account opening process. It recommends that banks could potentially collect, on thebasis of risks, the LEI, if the customer is eligible, when identifying legal persons and legal
arrangements, and that the bank should “[validate] the LEI and associated data in the publicaccess service”. The BCBS notes that, “Subject to developments in the LEI project, thisinformation may become required in the future”. This document applies to account opening
defined as any formal banking or business relationship established by a bank to provide orengage in products, services, dealings, or other financial transactions. This includes demand
deposits, savings deposits, or other transaction or asset accounts, or credit accounts or otherextension of credit, but not the conducting of occasional transactions.
4.1.2. Data aggregation
In its Principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting8 published in January
2013, the BCBS also stated that “The LEI system will identify unique parties to financial
7

http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d353.htm, Annex IV; a new version of the guidelines were published since then in
June 2017 http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d405.htm, but the LEI-related text in Annex IV is unchanged.
8

https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs239.pdf

11

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

transactions across the globe and is designed to be a key building block for improvements in thequality of financial data across the globe”. Higher data aggregation capabilities are also one of
the additional requirements applying to all Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs).9In March 2017, the BCBS published a report on progress in adopting the Principles for effective
risk data aggregation and risk reporting, where it notes that, out of the seven banking
supervisors in charge of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs), two are promoting theuse of the LEI as a way to foster compliance with the Principles. The report also observes that“LEI availability could enhance banks’ management of information across legal entities, facilitate
a comprehensive assessment of risk exposures at the global consolidated level and improve thespeed at which information is available internally and to supervisors, especially after a merger
and acquisition”. The report highlighted the unsatisfactory results where only one G-SIB had
attained full compliance with the Principles by the January 2016 deadline and with another bankexpected to achieve full compliance in March 2017. While the LEI initiative is not targeted
specifically at the G-SIBs, and the LEI is not required as part of the Principles, the reportmentions the use of industry taxonomy such as the LEI to effectively manage customer
information among the examples of effective data architecture and IT infrastructure
demonstrated by banks that were rated as fully or largely compliant for this principle.
4.2.

STATISTICAL USES OF THE LEI

4.2.1. The LEI as a tool to support the use of more granular data
In September 2015, a second phase of the Data Gaps Initiative (DGI-2) was launched, basedon the recognition that data coming out of the DGI were increasingly being used to support
analysis and policy-making decision at national, regional and international organisation levels. It
was also acknowledged that more granular data were increasingly being required by policy
makers to meet users’ needs, bridging the divide between micro and macro analysis anddelivering a global view of markets where needed. A recommendation in the DGI-210
encouraged G20 economies to increase the sharing and accessibility of granular data

9

See Policy Measures to Address Systemically Important Financial Institutions, FSB, November 2011.

10

See the Sixth Progress Report on the Implementation of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative (September 2015) that
presents the launch of the second phase of the Initiative, http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/The-FinancialCrisis-and-InformationGaps.pdf

12

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

As common identifiers are essential to fully take advantage of granular data and allow thelinking of different datasets, another recommendation is about promoting the use of common
statistical identifiers and encourage economies and international organizations, as appropriate,
to foster the use of common identifiers to help aggregating, linking and managing data. The LEI
figures prominently in this recommendation as authorities are invited to “consider including the
LEI in their data disseminations and data collections, mandating its use, as appropriate. In thiscontext, economies and relevant international organisations, the Global LEI Foundation and the
LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee should continue working together to further investigate all
ways to promote wider use of the LEI, enabling a better coverage of the non-financial sector andlinking to existing identifier systems that already have very wide coverage, such as the Legal
Entity Identifier Number (LEID Number) of Eurostat, the Bank Identifier Code (BIC) -Code ofSociety for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) and the International
Securities Identification Number (ISIN).

4.2.2. Improving the data on cross-border exposures of non-bank corporations
On 14 October 2015, theInter-Agency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics (IAG)

published a report entitled Consolidation and corporate groups: an overview ofmethodological and practical issues11, which stated that the G20 initiative to promote an LEI
for all corporations, especially with the collection of data on direct and ultimate parent of legal
entities, is of particular interest for improving the data on cross-border exposures of non-bankcorporations, as it would represent a key step in facilitating the identification of individual
institutional units and their control relationships across the world. In particular, “the combinationof individual transaction reporting with a unique entity identifier and the incremental introductionof different types of data on the relationships between entities into the Global LEI System could
offer new perspectives for consolidating or aggregating data using different perimeters.”11

http://www.bis.org/ifc/publ/iagrefdoc-oct15.pdf. The report was prepared by a dedicated task force of the IAG
chaired by the BIS and also comprising representatives of other bodies (IAIS, BCBS, FSB).

13

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

The report observed that the residency-based approach, used for instance for the balance of
payments and international investment position statistics, could be usefully complemented by a“corporate group” approach as it is already implemented in the business accounting and thefinancial supervisory frameworks, but that it is currently impossible to reconcile aggregated datacompiled on a residency basis and those constructed under the corporate group approach (onewould have to split a corporate group into the various subgroups residing in each of the relevant
countries). The report identified, among the areas in which further work could be carried out:

“Further improve the “infrastructure” for an easier consolidation of statistical data at a
granular corporate level, in particular by (i) promoting the reporting of “relationships”
amongst individual firms through the development of registers that draw on the LEI
initiative to facilitate the identification of foreign subsidiaries and the approach of grouplevel information; and (ii) enhancing the standardisation of the identification of financial
instruments.”

“Encourage international and supranational initiatives to identify and regularly review thestructure and nationality of corporations included in groups operating at global level, by
mobilising existing information (e.g., business registers, supervisory public information,and consolidated balance sheet) and conducting reconciliation exercises. The disclosureof reconciled and updated reference lists should be supported to improve theconsistency of consolidated statistics and remove double-counting. The inclusion ofrelationship data in the Global LEI System could be a way to record and compare morecost-effectively the lists of entities included in different perimeters of consolidation.”

Consistent with several of these suggestions, and taking advantage of the inclusion ofrelationship data in the GLEIS since May 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) has started to develop an analytical database of individual
multinational enterprises (MNEs) and their affiliates relying on a variety of sources, including LEI
relationship data.

4.3.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTERING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM(AML/CFT)The ROC, at the request of some of its members and other authorities, explored potential usesof the LEI in the area of AML/CFT and contributed to the work of the Committee on Payments

14

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) on correspondent banking. The CPM12I published in July
2016 its final report on correspondent banking, which includes several sections on the LEI,
related to facilitating AML/CFT due diligence.

The CPMI observes that the LEI, as a tool to reliably identify parties to financial transactions,
could assist in the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing and theimplementation of sanction regimes in several ways, such as:Assisting financial institutions to identify specific entities unambiguously and improve theeffectiveness of automatic screening packages, particularly for identifying sanctioned
entities (e.g., reducing the number of “false positive” when screening names andaddresses that only partially match the data of a given entity).



Facilitating the consolidation of information reported to financial intelligence units, byidentifying more easily transactions of the same entity reported by different financial
institutions.



Improve the effectiveness of other tools and mechanisms currently under development,
especially if it were used as an identifier for legal entities in databases outside the GLEIS(such as Know-Your-Customer – KYC – utilities or in the databases on beneficial
ownership that are being established in some jurisdictions or other information sharing
mechanisms).

4.3.1. Correspondent banking
The FSB launched in November 2015 a four-point action plan to assess and address thedecline in correspondent banking13. A decline in the number of correspondent banking
relationships remains a source of concern for the international community because, in affectedjurisdictions, it may affect the ability to send and receive international payments, or drive some12

https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d147.pdf

13

http://www.fsb.org/2015/11/report-to-the-g20-on-actions-taken-to-assess-and-address-the-decline-incorrespondentbanking/ of 6 November 2015.

15

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

payment flows underground, with potential adverse consequences on international trade,growth, financial inclusion, as well as the stability and integrity of the financial system.

This action plan, which was encouraged by the G20 on several occasions, includes two
recommendations concerning the use of the LEI in correspondent banking, as part of a packageof measures recommended by CPMI that could help improve the efficiency of due diligenceprocedures and reduce compliance costs.

Another example of the use of the LEI in correspondent banking is the revised BCBS guidanceon correspondent banking. The BCBS notes that information on the group structure available in
the LEI system may be a way to access information on the jurisdictions in which subsidiaries
and branches of the respondent bank corporate group are located, to support their risk
assessment, provided respondents make sure the information is comprehensive and up-to-date.

4.3.2

Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA) and the Global Legal Entity
Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)On 4 September 2018 the Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA) and the Global
Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) announced the signing of a new initiative to link
International Securities Identification Numbers (ISINs) and Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs). The
initiative has been created to help improve transparency of exposure by linking the issuer andissuance of securities.

16

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

ANNEXURE ASUBMISSION – IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS
DATE

DD/MM/YYYY

NAME OF ORGANISATIONTYPE OF ORGANISATIONCONTACT DETAILSQuestion

Response

Q1: What are your views on the use of LEIs as unique identification codes forsupervisory purposes for credit and financial institution in South-Africa?
Q2: For which entities, in your view, should LEIs be requested?
Q3: Do you agree with the list of planned LEI Projects in South-Africa
provided in Annexure C? If not, provide reasons
Q4: Do you have any other suggestions for projects to be considered? If yes,kindly list them and motivate the reason for inclusion.
Q5: Kindly provide inputs/comments regarding the costs and benefits of the
proposed implementation?

17

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

ANNEXURE B
LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIER (LEI) FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
1.

What is a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)?
The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is a 20-character reference code to uniquely identify legallydistinct entities that engage in financial transactions and associated reference data.

Two fundamental principles of the LEI code are:

Uniqueness: an LEI is assigned to a unique entity. Once assigned to an entity, and even
if this entity has for instance ceased to exist, a code should never be assigned toanother entity.

Exclusivity: a legal entity that has obtained an LEI cannot obtain another one. Entities
may port the maintenance of their LEI from one operator to another. The LEI remains
unchanged in the process.

The LEI definition currently relies on a standard published by the International Organisation forStandardisation (ISO) on 30 May 2012 (ISO 17442:2012, Financial Services - LEI. The LEI
number itself has no embedded meaning. The two last characters are check digits, contributing
for instance to avoid typing errors.

The reference data (LEI) currently associated in the database with each entity includes:The official name of the legal entity;

The address of the headquarters of the legal entity;

The address of legal formation;

The date of the first LEI assignment;The date of last update of the LEI;The date of expiry, if applicable;For entities with a date of expiry, the reason for the expiry should be recorded, and if
applicable, the LEI of the entity that acquired the expired entity;

18

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERSThe official business registry where the foundation of the legal entity is mandated to berecorded on formation of the entity, where applicable; andThe reference in the official business registry to the registered entity, where applicable.

Additional information may be registered as agreed between the legal entity and its LEI issuingorganisation. Below is an example that demonstrates the various parts that make an LEI code.

2.

What entities are required to have an LEI?
ISO standard 17442 specifies the elements of an unambiguous LEI scheme to identify the legal
entities relevant to any financial transaction.
The term "legal entities" includes, but is not limited to, unique parties that are legally or
financially responsible for the performance of financial transactions or have the legal right intheir jurisdiction to enter independently into legal contracts, regardless of whether they areincorporated or constituted in some other way (e.g., trust, partnership, contractual).
It excludes natural persons, but includes individuals acting in a business capacity. It also
includes governmental organisations and supranational14.

14

Supranational institutions are those owned or established by governments of two or more countries. They are usually
established by international treaties to pursue specified policy objectives and are generally not subject to commercial law.

19

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

It is important to distinguish between being eligible for an LEI and being required to haveone. As defined in ISO standard 17442, any legal entity that enters into a financial transaction iseligible for an LEI. Any legal requirement to have an LEI will come from national financial
regulators.

The use of an LEI is already required under a number of EU regulations and directives such as:European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) – counterparties to derivatives
contracts as well as beneficiaries, brokers, CCPs and clearing members3;Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) – issuers of financial instruments; entities involved orreporting in suspicious transactions4;Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) – credit and financial institutions5;

Alternative Investment Funds Directive (AIFMD) – funds and fund managers6;

Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (CRAR) – credit rating agencies and rated entities7;

Solvency II – pension funds and insurance companies8;

Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) – CSDs, CSDs’ participants9;

Transparency Directive – issuers of financial instruments listed on Regulated Markets10;

Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR) – parties involved in securities
financing transactions and the beneficiaries of the rights and obligations arising from

these11;Prospectus Regulation – issuers of securities offered to the public or admitted to trading
on a regulated market situated or operating within a EU member state12; andMarkets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II)/Markets in Financial Instruments
Regulation (MiFIR).

A detailed list of regulatory initiatives relevant to LEI adoption is provided in Annexure C.
3.

What is the process for obtaining an LEI?
The legal entity is responsible for applying and maintaining their LEI code. LEI’s are allocated by
Local Operation Units (LOU)’s. Strate Limited is endorsed by the GLEIF and sponsored by
FSCA as an LOU.

20

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

4.

How long does an LEI remain valid?
An LEI is valid for one year. All LEI’s must be renewed every year to remain active and valid
and to ensure that all data is accurate. Any LEI that is not actively renewed within one year of its
creation will cause the LEI to lapse, which will lead to disruptions with trading in financial
instruments.

5.

What is the purpose and benefits of an LEI?
The Global LEI system (GLIES) was set up by regulatory authorities (including G20 and theFSB) in response to the global financial crisis. The LEI is designed to enable the identificationand linking of legal entities. It will also assist in managing counterparty risk by enhancing theeffectiveness of tools risk managers use in aggregating financial institutions’ exposures acrossthe globe. The main aim of the LEI is to help improve the measuring and monitoring of systemicrisk and support more cost-effective compliance with regulatory reporting requirements. The LEI
is effectively a ‘proof of identity’ for legal entities dealing in financial transactions
Also, without a comprehensive LEI system it will be extremely difficult for regulatory authorities
across the globe to discharge their supervisory function effectively. The adoption andimplementation of universal LEIs will enable regulators to more accurately and rapidly
aggregate data across different jurisdictions to better understand the total exposure of acorporate or financial entity and to facilitate monitoring of systemic risk.

6.

Why do Legal Entities need to obtain an LEI now?
The Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) obliges European Union (EU)investment firms to identify their clients that are legal persons, with LEIs for the purpose ofMarkets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) transaction reporting. In effect, this requires
all relevant counterparties to have LEIs no matter where they are located. Trading venues
equally are obliged to identify each issuer of a financial instrument traded on their systems withan LEI code when making daily data submission to the Financial Instruments Reference data
System (FIRDS).
The Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA) also added an obligation under ISIN
guidelines to all NNAs to request LEI from any Issuer upon requesting an ISIN.

21

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

7.

What kind of information is identifiable with an LEI?
The LEI connects to key reference information that enables clear and unique identification oflegal entities participating in financial transactions. Simply put, the publicly available LEI datapool can be regarded as a global directory, which greatly enhances transparency in the global
marketplace.

8.

Is the LEI data publicly available?
Yes. The GLEIF has published the Global LEI Index. It provides information, updated daily, on
all LEIs issued to date. Any interested party can easily access and search the complete LEI
data pool free of charge on the GLEIF website using the web-based LEI search tool developedby GLEIF.

9.

Can individuals obtain an LEI?
Principally no individual can obtain an LEI. It should be noted however, that on 30 September
2015, the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee published a statement clarifying the conditions
under which individuals acting in a business capacity are eligible to obtain LEIs.

10

Will an LEI be the same for all classes of assets (bonds, mortgages, etc.)?
Yes. The LEI is a unique identifier for any given legal entity. It is not an identifier for instruments.
As a result, that legal entity will use its LEI for reporting of any type of financial transaction it
enters into regardless of the asset class or when the particular asset was issued. Note thatwithin a group of different legal entities may be used to issue equity instruments and debt
instruments but the legal entities may have the same parent or ultimate parent LEI.

11.

Is the registration fee for an LEI a one-time fee or is it renewed?
There are both an initial registration fee and an annual maintenance fee.

12

What if there is an error in an LEI data record?
The content of the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) data record is referred to as the legal entity
reference data. LEI owners are responsible for keeping the LEI issuing organization aware of
updates to the legal entity reference data. Also, any LEI data user may challenge an LEI and/or

22

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

its legal entity reference data. A challenge triggers a review of the record by the respective LEI
issuing organization to determine the validity of the updated information being submitted.
Verification and updates of the LEI and/or its legal entity reference data resulting fromchallenges are processed free of charge by the managing LEI issuer.
The Global GLEIF is responsible for monitoring LEI data quality. The GLEIF data quality
management program ensures that the LEI maintains the industry standard, best suited toproviding open and reliable data for unique legal entity identification management.
13

Why did/how could the collapse of Lehman Brothers trigger the legislative initiative on
LEI?
The global financial crisis of 2008 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in particular, focused
regulatory attention on the stability of the financial system. Key to understanding the health of
the financial system is the ability to measure the exposures which are being built up throughfinancial activity, and to unambiguously identify the parties involved in associated financialtransactions. Therefore, identification of legal entities is recognized as a critical element to aid
regulators and financial market participants alike in measuring and managing risk.

Following the crisis, legislators began a process to gather and analyze increasing amounts ofdata from the financial community on the financial transactions to which they are party. To makethis data more meaningful, standard identifiers for the legal entities involved in the reported
transactions were seen as being essential.

14

What is the scope of LEI for the future?
The initial priority for the allocation of LEIs is to cover the legal parties involved in derivatives
transactions. It is anticipated that any legal entity that enters into a financial transaction will be
eligible for an LEI. Other participants in financial transactions as deemed necessary in the future(including exchanges) will also be eligible.

15

Which financial institutions need to be concerned with LEIs?
LEIs will become relevant over time to all financial institutions, who will be expected to have an
LEI themselves and to ensure that any of their clients that are legal persons also have an LEI.

16

What about incorrect data, who is responsible?

23

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

The legal entity that is identified with an LEI is responsible for correcting inaccurate data. The
LEI providers should always be pro-active in seeking to remove inaccurate data as soon as
possible.
17

Is there a cost attached to checking an LEI?
Access to the database will be free of charge without restrictions on use or redistribution. Only
registration/certification by an entity and annual data maintenance will be chargeable.

18.

For the buy side, would each product (fund) issued need to get its own LEI? Where an
asset manager trades in an undisclosed fashion on behalf of a pension fund, would thepension fund require an LEI?
Each individual fund which is active in transactions that need to be reported using an LEI would
need to obtain an LEI. Funds would have their own LEI, which would be constant across any
asset managers they deal with.

19.

Will there be a mapping of securities issued by an entity back to the LEI? Is that mappinga goal of the standard?
The LEI database itself will not have a mapping of LEIs to securities. It is expected that firms
and regulators will map the LEI to other existing codes, like CUSIPs, in their internal systems.
The LEI only identifies entities and therefore, does not overlap with instrument ids such as
CUSIPs. 15Note that at some point, an instrument record would ideally carry both a CUSIP and
the LEI of the issuer. Also, third party vendors may undertake to perform such mappings forfirms as a valued added service.

20.

Is LEI a replacement for ISIN, Stock Exchange Daily Official List, (SEDOLS)16, Cusips thatexist today? If not, could you please explain how these may co-exist and the relationshipbetween them?

15

CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number
identifies most financial instruments, including: stocks of all registered U.S. and Canadian companies,
commercial paper, and U.S. government and municipal bonds
16

A list of security identifiers used in the United Kingdom and Ireland for clearing purposes. SEDOLs
serve as the National Securities Identifying Number for all securities issued in the United Kingdom andare therefore part of the security’s ISIN as well.

24

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

The LEI is not intended to replace any instrument codes nor any other existing entity codes,
such as the BIC. It will be a global reference data standard used for the authoritative
identification of legal entities. Firms and regulators will then map the LEI to other existing codesin their internal systems. The LEI only identifies entities and therefore, does not currently
overlap with instrument ids such as CUSIPs. Note that at some point, an instrument record
would ideally carry both a CUSIP and the LEI of the issuer as mandated by Dodd-Frank inattempt to help identify issuers engaging in financial transactions, in different markets both
domestically and abroad. .

As mentioned above itshould be noted that the Association of National Numbering Agencies(ANNA) and the GLEIF have also taken initiative to link International Securities Identification
Numbers ISINs LEIs in attempt to help improve transparency of exposure by linking the issuer
and issuance of securities.

21

If an entity goes through a rename corporate action, will a new LEI be issued?
The LEI is persistent, and should follow a legal entity through its life regardless of corporate
actions or other business or structural changes.

25

ANNEXURE C
PLANNED LEI PROJECTS IN SOUTH-AFRICA

PROJECTDESCRIPTIONInternational
Securities

The new, global initiative of linking ISINs and LEIs will map new and legacy ISINs to

Identification their corresponding LEIs. By linking the two ISO standards together, firms will be able
Numberto aggregate the data required to gain a clear view of their securities exposure within a17given issuer and its related entities. Once implemented, the ISIN-to-LEI mapping table(ISIN)

will be made freely available to all without restriction on both the GLEIF and ANNA
websites.

The purpose of ISIN-LEI is to create the largest collection of confirmed ISIN to LEI
matches and associated reference data.
Securities

As part of the policies identified by the FSB to increase transparency across Securities

FinanceFinancing Transactions (SFTs), the FSCA is in the process of drafting conduct

Transactions standards for the SFT market in South Africa(SFT)
The proposed standards includes a number of new rules for market participants,
including a requirement for counterparties to SFT’s to report the details of any SFT
they have concluded, as well as any modification or termination thereof to the
Authority, as will be prescribed by the Authority. It is required that details must bereported no later than the working day following the conclusion (T+1), modification or
termination of the transaction.
It is envisaged that in the reporting of SFT transactions an LEI will be required.
Reporting of It is envisaged that a reporting and disclosure framework for short sale transactions for
shortsale will be implemented in due course. The use of an LEI when reporting short-saletransactionstransactions to the exchanges as well as to the FSCA is currently being considered.

Reporting of In South Africa the use of LEI’s by OTC Derivatives Providers to report transactions to

17

An International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) uniquely identifies a security. Its structure is defined in ISO
6166. Securities for which ISINs are issued include bonds, notes, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, stocks andwarrants. The ISIN code is a 12-character alpha-numerical code that does not contain information characterizing
financial instruments but serves for uniform identification of a security at trading and settlement.

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

PROJECTDESCRIPTIONOTCa Trade Repository was mandated in Conduct Standard 3 of 2018: Reporting

Derivatives

Obligations in respect of transactions in OTC Derivatives which was finalised andTransactions published in October 2018.
to a Trade
Repository27

ANNEXURE D
REGULATORY USE OF THE LEI
In addition to the use of the LEI for derivatives reporting, which has entered into force in major
markets, authorities are extending reporting requirements for the LEI, where appropriate, to thebanking sector, securities issuance, investment holdings for insurance and funds, and other uses
such as identification of firms in credit registers.
The table below contains examples of laws and regulations in several jurisdictions using the LEI:

Regulatory Use of the LEI18

Jurisdiction Rule1

Argentina

2

Australia

3

Australia

4Australia

5

Canada18

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

Central Bank ofAugustArgentina
2015
Announcements A
5642 and B 11029
Australian Securities Corporations
Octoberand Investments
Act
2013
Commission (ASIC)OTC Derivative
Transaction Rules(Reporting) 2013
Guidance on
Corporations
March
Australian Securities Act
2014
and Investments
Commission (ASIC)
Market Integrity Rules
for Competition in
Exchange Markets(Australia)
Australian Securities Corporations Act 2015
and Investments
Commission (ASIC)
Derivative Transaction
Rules (Clearing) 2015
Ontario Securities
Derivatives Act OctoberCommission (OSC);
2014
Manitoba Securities
Commission (MSC);

Required

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed
Approved Link

Requested

Approved Link

Requested

Approved Link

Requested

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Source: GLEIF as of 2018-08-23: https://www.gleif.org/en/lei-solutions/regulatory-use-of-the-lei

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

6

Canada7

Canada8

Canada

9

EU

10

EU

11

EU

12

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Autorité des marchés
financiers (AMF)[Quebec]; Alberta
Securities Commission(ASC); British
Columbia Securities
Commission (BSCS);
Nova Scotia Securities
Commission
Investment Industry
Derivatives Act
Regulatory
Organization of
Canada (IIROC)
Canada Debt
Securities Transaction
ReportingAlberta Securities
Derivatives Act
Commission (ASC);
96-101 - Trade
Repositories andDerivatives Data
Reporting [MI]CSA Notice ofAmendments to
National Instrument45-106 Prospectus
Exemptions relating toReports of Exempt
Distribution
European Banking CRR (Capital
Authority (EBA)
Requirements
Regulation (EU) No
Regulation)
575/2013 Capital
Requirements
Regulation (CRR)
European Insurance
and Occupational
Pensions Authority(EIOPA)
BoS-14-026
Guidelines on the useof LEI
European Security EMIR
and Markets
Authority (ESMA)
Market Trading Data
Reports
Regulation (EU) No EMIR
648/2012 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council of 429

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

November Requested
2015

Approved Link

January
2016

Required

Approved Link

July 2016

Requested

Approved Link

March 2014 Requested

Approved Link

June 2015 Required

Approved Link

October
2014

Required

Approved Link

February
2014

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

13

EU

14

EU

15

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

July 2012 on OTC
derivatives, central
counterparties andtrade repositories(EMIR)
Commission
EMIR
Implementing
Regulation (EU) No
1247/2012 of 19
December 2012 laying
down implementing
technical standards
with regard to theformat and frequencyof trade reports totrade repositories
according toRegulation (EU) No
648/2012 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council on
OTC derivatives,
central counterparties
and trade repositories
Commission
EMIR
Implementing
Regulation (EU)No 1249/2012 of 19
December 2012 laying
down implementing
technical standards
with regard to theformat of the records
to be maintained bycentral counterparties
according toRegulation (EU) No
648/2012 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council on
OTC derivatives,
central counterparties
and trade repositories
European Security
EMIR
and Markets
Authority (ESMA)
Questions andAnswers
Implementation of theRegulation (EU) No
648/2012 on OTC
derivatives, central

30

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

February
2014

Required

Approved Link

January2013

Required

Approved Link

February
2016

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

16

EU

17

EU

18

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

counterparties andtrade repositories(EMIR)
European Security AIFMD
and Markets
Authority (ESMA)
Guidelines onreporting obligations
under Articles 3(3)(d)and 24(1), (2) and (4)of the Alternative
Investment FundManagers Directive(AIFMD)
Commission
CRA I (Credit
Delegated Regulation Rating(EU) 2015/1 ofAgencies)
30 September 2014
supplementing
Regulation (EC)No 1060/2009 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe periodic reportingon fees charged bycredit rating agencies
for the purpose ofongoing supervisionby the European
Securities and Markets
Authority Text with
EEA relevanceCommission
CRA I (Credit
Delegated Regulation Rating(EU) 2015/2 ofAgencies)
30 September 2014
supplementing
Regulation (EC)No 1060/2009 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe presentation of theinformation that credit
rating agencies makeavailable to theEuropean Securities
and Markets Authority
Text with EEA

31

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

August2014

Requested

Approved Link

2016

Required

Approved Link

March 2016 Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

19

EU

20

EU

21

EU

22

EU

23

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

relevance
Commission
CRA I (Credit
January
Required
Delegated Regulation Rating
2017(EU) 2015/3 ofAgencies)
30 September 2014
supplementing
Regulation (EC)No 1060/2009 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards on
disclosure
requirements forstructured financeinstruments Text with
EEA relevance
European Banking
2014
Required
Authority (EBA)
Recommendation On
the use of the Legal
Entity Identifier (LEI)
Commission delegated FICOD
2015
Requested
Regulation (EU)(Supervision of
2015/2303 of
Financial28.7.2015
Conglomerates)
supplementing
Directive 2002/87/EC
of the European
Parliament and of theCouncil with regard toregulatory technicalstandards specifying
the definitions andcoordinating the
supplementarysupervision of risk
concentration andintra-grouptransactions
European Banking
XBRL Filing
March 2014 Required
Authority (EBA)
Rules
Directive 2009/138/EC Solvency II
January
Requiredof the European
2016
Parliament and of theCouncil of 25
November 2009 on thetaking-up and pursuitof the business of
Insurance andReinsurance

32

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed
Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link
Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

24

EU

25

EU

26

EU

27

EU

Master/BaseRegulation(Solvency II)
Regulation (EU)SFTR
2015/2365 of the(Securities
European Parliament Financing
and of the Council of Transactions
25 November 2015 on Regulation)transparency of
securities financing
transactions and ofreuse and amending
Regulation (EU) No
648/2012
Commission
Solvency II
implementing
Regulation (EU)2015/2452 of 2
December 2015 laying
down implementing
technical standards
with regard to theprocedures, formats
and templates of thesolvency and financial
condition report inaccordance with
Directive 2009/138/EC
of the European
Parliament and of theCouncilCommission
REMIT
implementing
Regulation (EU) No
1348/2014 of 17
December 2014 ondata reporting
implementing Article
8(2) and Article 8(6) ofRegulation (EU) No
1227/2011 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council onwholesale energy
market integrity andtransparency
Commission
MAR (Market
Implementing
Abuse)
Regulation (EU)2016/378 of 11 March
2016 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard

33

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Approved Link

2016

Required

Approved Link

2015

Requested

Approved Link

2016

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

28

EU

29

EU

30

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

to the timing, format
and template of thesubmission of
notifications tocompetent authorities
according toRegulation (EU) No
596/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
Commission
MAR (Market
Implementing
Abuse)
Regulation (EU)2016/523 of 10 March
2016 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard
to the format andtemplate for
notification and public
disclosure ofmanagers'
transactions inaccordance with
Regulation (EU) No
596/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
Commission
MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2016/2022 of 14
July 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards
concerning theinformation forregistration of thirdcountry firms and theformat of information
to be provided to theclients
Commission
MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/590 of 28
July 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No

34

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

July 2016

Required

Approved Link

August2016

Required

Approved Link

September Required2016

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

31

32

33
34

Master/BaseRegulation

600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe reporting oftransactions tocompetent authorities
EU
Commission delegated BRRD (BankRegulation (EU)
Recovery and2016/1712 of 7 June
Resolution)2016 supplementing
Directive 2014/59/EUof the European
Parliament and of theCouncil establishing aframework for therecovery andresolution of credit
institutions andinvestment firms withregard to regulatory
technical standards
specifying a minimum
set of the information
on financial contracts
that should becontained in thedetailed records andthe circumstances inwhich the requirement
should be imposed
EU
European Security and MiFID II
Markets Authority(ESMA) Guidelines ontransaction reporting,order record keeping
and clocksynchronisation under
MiFID II
Hong Kong Hong Kong Monetary OTC Trade
Authority (HKMA)
Repository
IsraelBank of Israel Order(Information
RegardingTransactions in
Foreign Currency
Derivatives, Index
Derivatives, andInterest Rate
Derivatives), 5776–

35

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

October2016

Requested

Approved Link

October2016

Required

Approved Link

August2013
January
2017

Requested

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

35

Mexico36

Russia37

Russia38

Singapore

39

UK

40

US

41

US

42

US

43

US

Master/BaseRegulation

2016
Central Bank of
Mexico Circular
14/2015
Central Bank of
Russia OTC
Derivative transaction
reporting, counterparty
identification
Central Bank of
Russia Financial
market regulation
Identification of
securities owners thatare entities that
perform the record
keeping of securities
ownership (nominee
holders, depositories,
including foreign
entities)
Monetary Authorityof Singapore (MAS)OTC Derivatives
Trade Reporting Securities and Futures
Bank of England
Prudential Regulation
Authority (PRA)
Recommendation to
Obtain Legal Entity
Identifier
Commodity Futures
CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) 17 CFR Parts Exchange Act)3, 32, and 33
Commodity Options
Commodity Futures
CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) Form TO
Exchange Act)
Commodity Futures
CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) Form 102
Exchange Act)
Identification of"Special Accounts" forfutures commissions
merchants, clearing
members and advisors
Commodity Futures
CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) Ownership
Exchange Act)36

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Required

Approved Link

2015

Required

Approved Link

August2014

Required

Approved Link

April 2014 Required

Approved Link

December Required2014

Approved Link

March
2014

Requested

Approved Link

March
2014

Requested

Approved Link

February
2014

Required

Approved Link

October2015

Requested

Approved Link

Effective
Date

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

44

US

45

US

46

US

47

US

48

US

Master/BaseRegulation

and Control Reports,
Forms 102/102S,
40/40S, and 71; Final
Rule
Securities andInvestment
Exchange
Advisers Act
Commission (SEC) 17
CFR Parts 275 and279 Rules
Implementing
Amendments to theInvestment Advisers
Act of 1940
Securities andInvestment
Exchange
Advisers Act
Commission (SEC)
Form ADV uniform
application forinvestment adviser
registration and reportby exempt reporting
advisers
Commodity Futures
Investment
Trading Commission Advisers Act(CFTC), Securities
and Exchange
Commission (SEC) 17
CFR Parts 4, 275 and279 Reporting by
Investment Advisers to
Private Funds andCertain Commodity
Pool Operators andCommodity Trading
Advisors on Form PF;
Final Rule
Securities andInvestment
Exchange
Advisers Act
Commission (SEC)
Form PF Reporting
Form for Investment
Advisers to Private
Funds and Certain
Commodity Pool
Operators andCommodity Trading
Advisors
Commodity Futures
CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) Swap Data
Exchange Act)
Record Keeping and37

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

March
2012

Requested

Approved Link

March
2015

Requested

Approved Link

March
2013

Requested

Approved Link

March
2013

Requested

Approved Link

August2012

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

49

US

50

US

51

US

52

US

53

US

54

US

55

US

56

US

Master/BaseRegulation

Reporting Rule (Parts
45 46)
Federal Reserve
Announcement ofBoard Approval Under
Delegated Authority
and Submission to
OMB
Federal Reserve
Annual Report ofHolding Companies FR Y-6
Federal Reserve
Annual Report ofForeign Banking
Organizations - FR Y7
Federal Reserve
Annual Report ofChanges in
Organizational
Structure – FR Y-10
Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board(MSRB) Registration
Form A-12
National Association of
Insurance
Commissioners(NAIC) 2013 NAIC
Annual Statement and2014
Quarterly Statement
Filing Guidance forthe Legal Entity
Identifier(LEI) Electronic Only
Column in theInvestment Schedules
Securities andExchange
Commission (SEC) 17
CFR Part 242
Consolidated Audit
Trail; Final Rule
Securities andExchange
Commission (SEC)
Nationally RecognizedStatistical Rating
Organization

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

December Requested
2015

Approved Link

November Requested
2014

Approved Link

December Required2014

Approved Link

December Required2012

Approved Link

October
2014

Required

Approved Link

2013

Requested

Approved Link

2012

Optional

Approved Link

November Requested
2014

38

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

57

US

58

US

59

US

60

US

61

US

Master/BaseRegulation(NRSRO)
Securities andExchange
Commission (SEC)
FORM N-MFP Monthly
Schedule Of Portfolio
Holdings Of Money
Market Funds
Securities andInvestment
Exchange
Company Act
Commission (SEC)
Money Market Fund
Reform Amendments
to Form N-MFP
Securities andSecurities
Exchange
Exchange Act
Commission (SEC)
Regulation SBSR –Reporting andDisclosure
Dissemination of
Security-Based Swap
Information
Department of the
Securities
Treasury 12 CFR Part Exchange Act
43, Federal Reserve
System 12 CFR Part
244, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Part 373,
Federal Housing
Finance Agency 12
CFR Part 1234,
Securities andExchange
Commission 17 CFRPart 246, Departmentof Housing and Urban
Development 24 CFRPart 267, Credit Risk
Retention; Rule
Securities andInvestment
Exchange
Company Act
Commission (SEC) 17
CFR Parts 200, 210,
232, 239, 240, 249,
270, 274 [ReleaseNos. 33-10231; 3479095; IC-32314; FileNo. S7-08-15] RIN
3235-AL42 Investment

39

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

October2014

Requested

Approved Link

July 2015

Requested

Approved Link

March 2015 Required

Approved Link

December Requested
2016

Approved Link

2016

Approved Link

RequiredDISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

62

US

63

Canada64

Canada65

Canada

66

EU

67

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Company Reporting
Modernization
Department of the
Dodd-Frank Act December Required
Treasury 31 CFR Part2016
148 RIN 1505–AC46
Qualified Financial
Contracts
Recordkeeping
Related to Orderly
Liquidation Authority
Autorité des marchés Derivatives Act July 2016 Requested
financiers (AMF)
Québec Regulation
91-507 respecting
trade repositories andderivatives datareportingOntario Securities
Derivatives Act August
Requested
Commission Rule 912016
507 Trade
Repositories andDerivatives Data
Reporting
CSA Multilateral
Derivatives Act September Requested
Notice of Approval
2016
Instrument 91-101
Derivatives: Product
Determination andMultilateral Instrument
96-101 Trade
Repositories andDerivatives Data
Reporting andChanges to Related
Companion Policies
European Security and MiFID II/MiFIR January
Requested
Markets Authority
2018(ESMA) Final Report
MiFID II/MiFIR draft
Technical Standards
on authorisation,
passporting,registration of third
country firms andcooperation between
competent authorities
European Security and MiFID II/MiFIR January
RequiredMarkets Authority
2017(ESMA) MiFID
II/MiFIR - Regulatory
technical and40

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

68

EU

69

EU

70

EU

71

EU

72

EU

73

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

implementing
standards–Annex I
European Security and MiFID II/MiFIR November
Markets Authority
2017(ESMA) Consultation
Paper–Annex B
Regulatory technicalstandards on MiFID II/
MiFIREuropean Security and MiFID II
2016
Markets Authority(ESMA) Final Report
Draft implementing
technical standards
under MiFID II
European Security and MAR (Market July 2016
Markets Authority
Abuse)(ESMA) Final Report
Draft technicalstandards on theMarket Abuse
Regulation
European Security andJanuary
Markets Authority
2017(ESMA) Final Report
Draft Regulatory
Technical Standards
on European
Electronic Access
Point (EEAP)
ESMA Final Report
CRA III (Credit January
Draft Regulatory
Rating2017
Technical Standards
Agencies)
for CRA 3
European Security and CSDR (Central 2018
Markets Authority
Securities(ESMA) Final Report Repositories)
Draft regulatory
technical standards on
settlement discipline
under the Regulation
No 909/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council of
23 July 2014 on
improving securities
settlement in theEuropean Union andon central securities
depositories andamending Directives

41

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Required

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

Required

Approved Link

Required

Proposed Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

Master/BaseRegulation

98/26/EC and2014/65/EU andregulation (EU) No
236/2012 (CSDR)EUEuropean Banking
Authority (EBA) new
DPM and XBRL
taxonomy 2.5 forremittance ofsupervisory reporting
Switzerland Federal Council Partial
Revision of theFederal Law (UID) andRegulation (UID) on
the Company's
Identification Number
US
Home Mortgage
HMDA (HomeDisclosure (Regulation Mortgage
C)
Disclosure Act)
Commodities
US
CEA
Futures Trading(Commodity
Commission (CFTC) Exchange Act)
17 CFR Part 45
Amendments to Swap
Data Recordkeeping
and Reporting
Requirements for
Cleared Swaps
Financial Stability
GlobalBoard (FSB)
Standards andProcesses for Global
Securities Financing
Data Collection andAggregation
GlobalFinancial Stability
Board (FSB) Report to
the G20 on actions
taken to assess andaddress the decline incorrespondent banking
Basel Committee on
GlobalBanking
Supervision,
Consultative
Document, Guidelines,
Revised Annex oncorrespondent banking
Commission
EU
CRR (Capital
Implementing
Requirements
Regulation (EU)Regulation)

42

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2016

Requested

Proposed Link

2018

Required

Approved Link

2017

Required

Proposed Link

February
2015

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

2016

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

2017

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

82

EU

83

EU

84

US

Master/BaseRegulation

2016/2070 of 14
September 2016
laying down
implementing technicalstandards fortemplates, definitions
and IT-solutions to be
used by institutions
when reporting to theEuropean Banking
Authority and tocompetent authorities
in accordance with
Article 78(2) ofDirective 2013/36/EUof the European
Parliament and of theCouncilCommission
Transparency
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2016/1437 of 19
May 2016
supplementing
Directive 2004/109/EC
of the European
Parliament and of theCouncil with regard toregulatory technicalstandards on accessto regulated
information at Unionlevel (Text with EEA
relevance)
European Banking
PSD II
Authority (EBA) final(Payment
draft on the framework Services)for cooperation andexchange of
information between
competent authorities
for passport
notifications underDirective (EU)2015/2366
Commodities Futures CEA
Trading Commission (Commodity(CFTC) 17 CFR Part Exchange Act)
49 RIN 3038-AE44
Proposed
Amendments to the
Swap Data Access
Provisions of Part 49

43

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

85

US

86

EU

87

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

and Certain Other
Matters
Securities andSecurities
2018
Exchange
Exchange Act
Commission (SEC)
Proposed Rule
Change Relating to
Adopt the FINRA Rule
6800 Series(Consolidated Audit
Trail Compliance Rule)
Commission
CSDR (Central 2017
Implementing
Securities
Regulation (EU)
Repositories)
2017/394 of 11
November 2016 laying
down implementing
technical standards
with regard to
standard forms,
templates andprocedures for
authorisation, review
and evaluation ofcentral securities
depositories, for thecooperation between
authorities of the home
Member State and thehost Member State, forthe consultation of
authorities involved in
the authorisation toprovide banking-type
ancillary services, foraccess involving
central securities
depositories, and withregard to the format of
the records to be
maintained by central
securities depositories
in accordance with
Regulation (EU) No
909/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
Commission
CSDR (Central 2017
Implementing
Securities
Regulation (EU)
Repositories)
2017/393 of 11
November 2016 laying

44

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Required

Proposed Link

Required

Approved Link

Required

Approved
Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

88

89

90

91

EU

EU

EU

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

down implementing
technical standards
with regard to thetemplates andprocedures for thereporting andtransmission of
information oninternalised
settlements inaccordance with
Regulation (EU) No
909/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
European Security and CSDR (Central
Markets Authority
Securities(ESMA) Questions and Repositories)
Answers
Implementation of theRegulation (EU) No
909/2014 on improving
securities settlement in
the EU and on central
securities depositories
European Security and SFTR
Markets Authority(Securities(ESMA) Final Report Financing
Technical standards
Transactions
under SFTR and
Regulation)certain amendments to
EMIR
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/576 of 8June 2016supplementing
Directive 2014/65/EUof the European
Parliament and of theCouncil with regard toregulatory technicalstandards for theannual publication by
investment firms of
information on theidentity of execution
venues and on thequality of execution
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation

45

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Approved

Link

2017

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved

Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

92

93

94

EU

EU

EU

Master/BaseRegulation(EU) 2017/575 of 8June 2016supplementing
Directive 2014/65/EUof the European
Parliament and of theCouncil on markets infinancial instrumentswith regard toregulatory technicalstandards concerning
the data to be
published by execution
venues on the qualityof execution oftransactions
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/580 of 24
June 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe maintenance of
relevant data relating
to orders in financial
instruments
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/590 of 28
July 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe reporting oftransactions tocompetent authorities
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/589 of 19
July 2016supplementing
Directive 2014/65/EUof the European

46

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2018

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved

Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

95

96

EU

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Parliament and of theCouncil with regard toregulatory technicalstandards specifying
the organisational
requirements ofinvestment firms
engaged in algorithmic
trading
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/583 of 14
July 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council onmarkets in financial
instruments withregard to regulatory
technical standards ontransparency
requirements for
trading venues andinvestment firms in
respect of bonds,
structured financeproducts, emission
allowances andderivatives
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Delegated Regulation(EU) 2017/585 of 14
July 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
600/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe data standards andformats for financial
instrument reference
data and technicalmeasures in relation toarrangements to bemade by the European
Securities and Markets
Authority andcompetent authorities

47

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2018

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved

Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule
97

98

99

100

EU

GlobalEU

IND

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Date

Proposal for a
EMIR
Regulation of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
amending Regulation(EU) No 648/2012 asregards the clearing
obligation, thesuspension of theclearing obligation, thereportingrequirements, the riskmitigation techniques
for OTC derivatives
contracts not cleared
by a central
counterparty, theregistration andsupervision of traderepositories and therequirements for traderepositories
Committee on
Feb-17
Payments and Market
Infrastructures, Boardof the International
Organization of
Securities
Commissions,Technical Guidance:
Harmonisation of theUnique Transaction
Identifier
Regulation (EU)Prospectus
2017
2017/1129 of theRegulation
European Parliamentand of the Council on
the prospectus to be
published whensecurities are offeredto the public oradmitted to trading ona regulated market,
and repealing Directive
2003/71/EC
Reserve Bank of India RBI 19342017
Notification RBI/2016- (Reserve Bank
17/314 FMRD.FMID
of India Act)
No.14/11.01.007/201617 Introduction of
Legal Entity Identifierfor OTC derivatives

48

LEI Required
vs. Requested
Required

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed
Proposed

Link

Recommended Proposedatnational/regional
level
Link

Required

Approved

Link

Required

Approved

Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

101

EU

102

EU

103

EU

104

US

Master/BaseRegulation

markets
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Implementing
Regulation (EU)2017/1005 of 15 June2017 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard
to the format andtiming of thecommunications andthe publication of thesuspension andremoval of financial
instruments pursuant
to Directive
2014/65/EU of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council onmarkets in financial
instruments
Commission
MiFID II/MiFIR
Implementing
Regulation (EU)2017/1093 of 20 June2017 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard
to the format of
position reports byinvestment firms andmarket operators
Commission
CRR (Capital
Implementing
Requirements
Regulation (EU)Regulation)
2017/1443 of 29 June2017 amending
Implementing
Regulation (EU) No
680/2014 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regards
to supervisory
reporting of institutions
according toRegulation (EU) No
575/2013 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
United States ofFederal Power
America Federal
Act (FPA)

49

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Approved

Link

2018

Required

Approved Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

2017

Required

Proposed Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

105

EU

106

EU

107

EU

108

CanadaMaster/BaseRegulation

Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)
18 CFR Part 35 Noticeof Proposed
Rulemaking Data
Collection for Analytics
and Surveillance andMarket-Based Rate
Purposes
European Security and EMIR
Markets Authority(ESMA) Final Report
Draft technicalstandards on data to
be made publicly
available by TRs under
Article 81 of EMIR
European Insurance
Solvency II
and Occupational
Pensions Authority(EIOPA) Final Reporton Public Consultation
No. 14-037 on the
Proposal for
Guidelines on the useof the Legal Entity
Identifier (LEI)
Commission
CSDR (Central
Delegated Regulation Securities(EU) 2017/392 of 11
Repositories)
November 2016supplementing
Regulation (EU) No
909/2014 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards on
authorisation,
supervisory andoperational
requirements forcentral securities
depositories
CSA Notice of National Derivatives Act
Instrument 94-102
Derivatives: Customer
Clearing andProtection of Customer
Collateral andPositions and Related

50

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Proposed Link

December
2014

Approved Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

January
2017

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

109

110

111

112

113

114

Master/BaseRegulation

Companion Policy
Province of British
Derivatives Act
Columbia Rule of the
British Columbia
Securities Commission
Securities Act
Multilateral Instrument
96-101 Trade
Repositories andDerivatives Data
Reporting
Switzerland Swiss Financial
FinancialMarket Supervisory
MarketAuthority FINMA
Infrastructure
Circular 2018/2 Duty to Act (FMIA)
report securities
transaction
EU
Commission
CRR (Capital
Implementing
Requirements
Regulation (EU)Regulation)
2017/1486 of 10 July
2017 amending
Implementing
Regulation (EU)2016/2070 as regards
benchmarking
portfolios and reporting
instructions
GlobalInternational Monetary
Fund (IMF) and
Financial Stability
Board (FSB) The
Financial Crisis andInformation Gaps,
Second Phase of the
G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative (DGI-2)
Second Progress
ReportGlobalGovernancearrangements for theunique transaction
identifier (UTI)
Conclusions andimplementation plan
Malaysia
Financial Markets
RENTAS
Committee (FMC) andBank Negara Malaysia(Central Bank of
Malaysia) Real-timeElectronic Transfer ofCanada51

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

July 2016

Required

Approved Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

2017

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

2018

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

2018

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

115

EU

116

EU

117

EU

118

EU

119

EU

Master/BaseRegulation

Funds and Securities
System (RENTAS)
European Security
EMIR
and Markets Authority(ESMA) Questions andAnswers
Implementation of theRegulation (EU) No
648/2012 on OTC
derivatives, central
counterparties andtrade repositories(EMIR)
European Security
MiFID II/MiFIRand Markets Authority(ESMA) Questions andAnswers On MiFID II
and MiFIR commodity
derivatives topics
Commission
PSD II
Delegated Regulation (Payment(EU) 2017/2055 of 23 Services)
June 2017supplementing
Directive (EU)2015/2366 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council withregard to regulatory
technical standards forthe cooperation andexchange of
information between
competent authorities
relating to the exerciseof the right ofestablishment and thefreedom to provide
services of payment
institutions
European Security and MiFID II/MiFIRMarkets Authority(ESMA) Questions andAnswers on MiFIR
data reporting
European Security
CSDR (Central
and Markets Authority Securities(ESMA) Questions and Repositories)
Answers
Implementation of theRegulation (EU) No

52

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2017

Required

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

120

EU

121

EU

122

Brazil

123

EU

124

JPN

125

JPN

126

South

Master/BaseRegulation

909/2014 on improving
securities settlement in
the EU and on central
securities depositories
Regulation (EU)Ana Credit
2016/867 of theEuropean Central
Bank of 18 May 2016
on the collection of
granular credit andcredit risk data
(ECB/2016/13)
Guideline (EU)Ana Credit
2017/2335 of theEuropean Central
Bank of 23 November
2017 on theprocedures for thecollection of granularcredit and credit risk
data (ECB/2017/38)
Federal Revenue ofCorporate
Brazil (RFB) Instrução Taxpayers
Normativa RFB
Registrynº 1634 (RFB
Normative Instruction
No. 1,634)
Commission
Implementing
Regulation (EU) No
680/2014 of 16 April
2014 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard
to supervisory reportingof institutions according
to Regulation (EU) No
575/2013 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
Financial
Financial Instruments Instruments
and Exchange Act
and Exchange
Act
Cabinet OfficeFinancial
Ordinance No.48 ofInstruments
July 11, 2012 on theand Exchange
Regulation of Over-the- Act
Counter Derivatives
Transactions
Proposed Central
Financial

53

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Requested

Approved Link

2014

Requested

Approved Link

2015

Requested

Approved Link

2015

Requested

Approved Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule
Africa

127

EU

128

Mexico

129

Hong
Kong

Master/BaseRegulation

ReportingMarkets Act
Requirements for Over
the Counter Derivatives
Trade Reporting
Obligations Board
Notice in terms ofsection 58 of the
Financial Markets Act(Act 19 of 2012)
European Security
MAR (Market
and Markets Authority Abuse)(ESMA) Draft
Implementing TechnicalStandards on forms
and procedures forcooperation under
Article 24 and 25 ofRegulation (EU) No
596/2014 on market
abuse
CIRCULAR 25/2017
dirigida a lasinstituciones de crédito,
casas de bolsa, fondos
de inversión,
sociedades financieras
de objeto múltiple que
tengan vínculos
patrimoniales con una
institución de banca
múltiple, almacenes
generales de depósito ya la financiera, relativa
a las modificaciones ala Circular 4/2012(Operaciones
Derivadas).
Hong Kong Monetary OTC
Authority (HKMA) and derivatives
Securites and Futures regulatory
Commission (SFC)
regimeJoint consultation paperon enhancements to
the OTC derivatives
regime for Hong Kong
to – (1) mandate theuse of Legal Entity
Identifiers for thereporting obligation, (2)expand the clearing
obligation and (3) adopt
a trading determination

54

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2018

Required

Proposed Link

2017

Required

Approved Link

2018

Required

Proposed Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

130

Global

131

US

132

US

133

IND

134

CHN

Master/BaseRegulation

Effective
Dateprocess for introducing
a platform trading
obligation, March 2018
Committee on
2018
Payments and Market
Infrastructures andthe Board of theInternational
Organization of
Securities
Commissions’Technical GuidanceHarmonisation ofcritical OTC derivatives
data elements (otherthan UTI and UPI)
Reporting Forms Dodd-Frank Act 2018
FFIEC 016 Annual
Dodd-Frank Act
Company-Run Stress
Test Report for
Depository Institutionsand Holding
Companies with $10$50 Billion in Total
Consolidated Assets
Securities and
Fixing2018
Exchange Commission America's(SEC) 17 CFR Parts
Surface229, 230, 232, 239,
Transportation
240, 249, 270, 274 and Act ("FAST
275 [Release No. 33Act")
10425; 34-81851; IA4791; IC-32858; FileNo. S7-08-17] RIN
3235-AM02 FAST Act
Modernization and
Simplification ofRegulation S-K
Statement on
2018
Developmental andRegulatory Policies
Reserve Bank of India,
October 04, 2017
Order of the People’s
2017Bank of China (No. 3[2017] The Measures
for the Registration of
Pledged receivables asamended and issued by
the People’s Bank of55

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed

Recommended Proposed Linkatnational/regional
level

Requested

Approved Link

Requested

Proposed Link

Requested

Approved Link

Requested

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

135

136

137

138

139

Master/BaseRegulation

China
Questions and
CSDR (Central
Answers
Securities
Implementation of the Repositories)
Regulation (EU) No
909/2014 on improving
securities settlement in
the EU and on central
securities depositories
EU
Commission
UCITS
Implementing
Regulation (EU)2018/708 of 17 April
2018 laying down
implementing technicalstandards with regard
to the template to be
used by managers ofmoney market funds
when reporting tocompetent authorities
as stipulated by Article
37 of Regulation (EU)2017/1131 of theEuropean Parliamentand of the Council
Financial Markets
Malaysia
RENTAS
Committee (FMC)
and Bank Negara
Malaysia (Central
Bank of Malaysia)
RENTAS Segregated
Securities Account
IND
Draft Directions on
RBI 1934
requirement of Legal (Reserve Bank
Entity Identifier Code of India Act)for participation in nonderivative markets
Hong Kong Hong Kong Monetary OTC
Authority (HKMA)
derivatives
and Securities andregulatory
Futures Commission regime(SFC) Joint
consultation
conclusions paper onenhancements to the
OTC derivatives
regime for Hong Kong
to – (1) mandate theuse of Legal Entity
Identifiers for theEU

56

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2018

Required

Approved Link

2018

Required

Approved Link

2018

Required

Approved Link

2018

Required

Proposed Link

2019

Required

Approved Link

DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIERS

Jurisdiction Rule

140 EU141 EU

Master/BaseRegulation

reporting obligation,(2) expand theclearing obligation and(3) adopt a trading
determination process
for introducing aplatform trading
obligation, June 2018
European Security
Prospectus
and Markets
Regulation
Authority (ESMA)
Consultation Paper Draft technical advice
on minimum
information content forprospectus exemption
European Security
PSD IIand Markets(Payment
Authority (ESMA)
Services)
Final Report Draft
Regulatory TechnicalStandards oncooperation between
competent authorities
in home and host
Member States in the
supervision of
payment institutions
operating on a crossborder basis under
Article 29(6) of PSD2

Effective
Date

LEI Required
vs. Requested

Approved
Vs.
Link
Proposed2019

Required

Proposed Link

2018

Required

Approved Link

In addition McKinsey & Company and GLEIF in their white paper identifies three new use
cases for LEI:

In capital markets: The primary value of the LEI is derived from reducing the cost of on
boarding clients and of middle-and back office activities related to the processing of stocks,
bonds and other securities trades. All such activities could be simplified and streamlined if
LEI usage was more broadly adopted throughout the lifecycle of the client relationship. The
use of the LEI would also reduce the time spent on data correction and reconciliationnecessitated by inconsistent identification of legal entities.



In commercial transactions: LEIs would enable faster processing of letters of credit andbetter identification of sellers on e-invoicing networks.

In the extension of commercial credit: LEIs would allow for more robust and efficient KYC
diligence on borrowers, as well as better traceability of information on borrowers frommultiple sources.

57