The idea of an LEI, first mooted in 2010 by the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research, was subsequently written into law under the US Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and applied to the reporting of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives trades by banks and brokers. It provided regulators with a clearer view of market participants’ swap positions and exposures.
Regulation of the European derivatives market followed shortly after in February 2014 when sell-side and buy-side firms had to begin reporting their OTC and exchange-traded derivatives to European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)-authorised trade repositories, such as the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation’s (DTCC) Derivatives Repository Limited, known as the Global Trade Repository (GTR).
More than one year since the use of LEIs for reporting derivatives trades in Europe began, regulators are now turning their attention to other asset classes and market participants operating in financial markets. As part of the transaction reporting requirements under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II, market participants that purchase and trade securities will be required to source and map LEIs for the issuer of each security instrument.
Worryingly, however, a significant number of corporates who issue securities in order to raise capital are unaware of their legal obligation to obtain an LEI under the Directive.
As a result, many market participants are making efforts to educate the corporate clients that they have direct relationships with about the need to obtain an LEI. However, this becomes more complex when fixed income instruments are sold in the secondary market because, unlike equities, bonds are issued and traded OTC, so there is no direct relationship with the organisation that issued it and a third party is introduced.
What’s more, of the 64 mentions of LEIs in the most recent MiFID II consultation, a number refer to the requirement to identify the ultimate parent of the issuer of a security. The ability to maintain high quality information regarding companies and their ownership structures will not only help firms to view their total exposure to an entity, it would greatly simplify the task of reacting to credit crises and potential losses should an issuer default on any payment obligation. Furthermore, it will provide national competent authorities (NCAs) with the ability to analyse risk on an aggregate firm level.
The financial markets are replete with investment analysts and investors who dedicate their efforts to familiarise themselves with every detail of a particular stock or bond and the variables that are likely to affect its performance in the future. It seems, however, that a lesser number are familiar with the detailed corporate structure and hierarchy of an issuing entity and other entity data attributes that can provide key insights into the risks of providing finance to a particular company.
The same can be said of the lenders and investors themselves; if a company wants to raise capital, it must be fully furnished with accurate legal entity data associated with the investment firm or bank that is providing the financing. For corporate treasurers, this presents the potential to more accurately project future cash flow, as well as conduct due diligence on where market funding is originating from.
MiFID II, set to enter into force in just over 18 months, will capture a much greater number of firms operating in financial markets, not only those providing funding but those in search of it. A recent survey carried out by Avox’s parent company, the DTCC and Aite Group, found that 50 percent of firms viewed MiFID II as one of the most important regulations to affect their data management processes and functions over the next 12 months.
While all of these firms will be affected by the Directive and its accompanying requirements to a lesser or greater extent, their ability to have a clear view of risk associated with each of their counterparty relationships will be an essential component of best practice risk management, and one that will ultimately underpin regulatory efforts to monitor the build-up of risk in the financial system.
We have been witness to a series of significant security events recently around payment execution, from Leoni in Germany through to ABB in South Korea and SWIFT in Bangladesh to name a few of the major headlines.
A decline in the return on capital employed of globally listed companies over the last decade has been noted in recent EY and PWC reports. This is despite businesses taking an increased focus on balance sheets since the financial crisis in 2008.
Europe’s opening banking regulation is finally here. After months of preparation across the continent, the Revised Payment Services Directive comes into effect on January 13.
The revised Payment Services Directive regulation, regarded as one of the most disruptive in Europe’s financial services sector, will begin to make an impact on January 13, 2018.