November 24, 2017

Secretariat ofThe LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee

Comments on the “Consultation Document on Funds Relationships in the Global LEISystem” issued by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee
Dear Sirs/Madams:
We, the Japanese Bankers Association (“JBA”), would like to express our gratitude forthis opportunity to comment on the “Consultation Document on Funds Relationships in theGlobal LEI System” issued by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) on
September 26, 2017. We believe that the LEI will function more effectively if information isrecorded in accordance with a uniform framework and thus support the ROC’s proposal that
ensures consistency of, and standardizes, on a global level, funds relationships information to
be recorded in the global LEI system (“GLEIS”) as part of Level 2 data. Nonetheless, we also
consider that some areas should be clarified with respect to the definition of funds as there arevarious forms of funds and have commented on this matter below. We respectfully expect thatthe following comments will contribute to your further discussion.

1. Question 1:
Do you have comments on the definition of a “Fund Management Entity” relationship?

(Comments)
The proposed definition should further clarify which entity providing what function isdeemed as a “Fund Management Entity” in fund relationships. If this is difficult to clarify, werequest to allow national authorities to have discretion to specify this.
(Rationale)
The definition of the “Fund Management Entity” proposed in the consultation document
is not considered sufficient to identify which of the following entity will meet the definition:(i) an entity which serves a function to determine a specific investment portfolio of a fund and

The consultation document defines a “Fund Management Entity” as “a legal entity whose regular business is managing one
or more investment funds.”

1

execute transactions with dealers, (ii) an entity which has a function to determine aninvestment policy of a fund and conduct various arrangement-related activities for fundadministration purposes, (iii) an entity which contributes to a fund for investments, or (iv) anentity with other function.
Under the European fund scheme, we understand that investment companies correspondto (i), whereas management companies correspond to (ii). However, how the investment fundscheme is structured may differ depending on national laws and regulations. Furthermore,
there may be cases where entities serving functions in the investment fund scheme may belocated across various jurisdictions. Unless the definition specifies which entity with what
function is the “Fund Management Entity,” it may lead to confusion, such as differences in theinterpretation, and as a consequence, useful data may not be collected.
If an entity with the function described in (i) above is deemed as the “Fund Management
Entity,” we request to clarify whether only a primary investment manager is required to bereported, or all investment managers are required to be done so, as in some fund schemes,multiple investment managers are involved in one fund.

2. Question 14:
Do you have comments on the proposed level of verification of funds relationships? Are
there appropriate sources for verifications in your jurisdiction? Should the LOU verify thestatement by an entity that the entity is a fund? If so, how?

(Comments)
It is preferable that the LOU requires submission of documents necessary that an entity isa fund and verifies the content of such documents. In the first place, it is required to consider
whether there are any benefits for collecting such Level 2 data in light of verification costs.
(Rationale)
Unless verifications are conducted to assess whether the entity is a fund, the accuracy ofLevel 2 data could not be ensured, and thus this practice would become meaningless since
Level 2 data varies depending on whether an entity is a fund or a legal entity. On the other
hand, it is necessary to consider, from a viewpoint of costs and benefits, whether actions willneed to be taken, albeit costs to be incurred, in order to prevent such Level 2 data collection
from becoming meaningless.

23. Question 16:
Do you support excluding at this time the relationships where a fund is simply invested inanother one (as this would be covered by other types of relationships, such as Master-Feeder
above, and would require further work on investment relationships, beyond funds)?

(Comments)
We support this proposal.
(Rationale)
In a case where a fund invests in another fund for investment purposes, the investee fundgenerally changes on a daily basis. Therefore, it will be difficult to capture another fund’s
relationships information. Furthermore, it is considered as unnecessary to collect suchinformation in the light of the purposes of identifying systemic risks.

3