Finansväsen. Bankväsen. Valutasystem. Försäkringsväsen

Kommittébeteckning: SIS/TK 451 (Finansiella system)
Källa: ISO
Svarsdatum: den 3 dec 2018
Se merSe mindre

This document specifies the minimum elements of an unambiguous legal entity identifier (LEI) scheme to identify the legal entities relevant to any financial transaction.

It is applicable to "legal entities", which include, but are not limited to, unique parties that are legally or financially responsible for the performance of financial transactions or have the legal right in their jurisdiction to enter independently into legal contracts, regardless of whether they are incorporated or constituted in some other way (e.g. trust, partnership, contractual). It includes governmental organizations, supranationals and individuals when acting in a business capacity1), but excludes natural persons.

The LEI is designed for automated processing. It can also be conveniently used in other media interchange when appropriate (e.g. paper document exchange).

NOTE Examples of eligible legal entities include, without limitation:

— all financial intermediaries;

— banks and finance companies;

— all entities that issue equity, debt or other securities for other capital structures;

— all entities listed on an exchange;

— all entities that trade stock or debt, investment vehicles, including mutual funds, pension funds and alternative investment vehicles constituted as corporate entities or collective investment agreements (including umbrella funds as well as funds under an umbrella structure, hedge funds, private equity funds, etc.);

— all entities under the purview of a financial regulator and their affiliates, subsidiaries and holding companies;

— sole traders (as an example of individuals acting in a business capacity);

— counterparties to financial transactions.

Kommittébeteckning: SIS/TK 451 (Finansiella system)
Källa: ISO
Svarsdatum: den 30 dec 2018
Se merSe mindre

The development of a Financial Instrument Global Identifier originated out of the recognition that chaos theory has

nothing on the complexity generated everyday by the millions-perhaps billions-of security transactions that cross trading

floors, clearinghouses, and exchanges all over the world. Almost every aspect of securities management is based on

closed systems that use proprietary identifiers that are privately owned and licensed. Closing each deal is as much an

exercise in translation as it is in transaction processing, as traders, investors, and brokers wrestle with multiple proprietary

formats to determine what a security is, who owns it, how much it is worth, and when the deal should be closed. It

introduces a tremendous amount of friction into the trade lifecycle and creates opaqueness where clarity is sought. In

addition, the use of proprietary identifiers adds significant cost and overhead when users wish to integrate data from

disparate sources or migrate to a different market data system.

The evolution of advanced symbologies has helped the securities industry grow, but the limitations and costs imposed by

the closed systems have become more apparent as companies and institutions continue to integrate operations on a global

scale. Proprietary symbology now stands as one of the most significant barriers to increased efficiency and innovation in

an industry that sorely needs it. Moreover, the lack of common identifiers is a key roadblock to achieving the holy grail

of straight-through processing (STP).

Points of Note:

Licensing fees require firms to pay for each symbol system they use. International firms bear an especially heavy burden,

because they often have to license several symbologies in order to manage trading operations in several countries.

Restrictions imposed by proprietary symbologies prevent companies from easily mapping one set of codes to another.

This hinders integration of market data from diverse sources as well as efforts to automate trade and settlement activities.

Market data consumers who adopt proprietary symbols for use in their own systems must not only pay licensing fees, but

such symbols also lead to significant future costs associated with efforts to connect to emerging trading systems.

Proprietary trading environments may have worked well for years; but they are a byproduct of a time when data systems

operated largely as islands that did not have to interoperate with other systems.

Current trends dictate a different approach. Markets, customers, and governments are demanding greater connectivity,

transparency, and efficiency. What’s more, the openness of Internet-based systems has profoundly altered the way

businesses-and individuals-collect, manage, and share information. Thus, in addition to new regulations that demand

clarity and accountability, the move to open symbology is being driven by growing investor and institutional demands.

Adopting an open system of shared symbology establishes the foundation for a tremendous leap forward in the efficient

trade and settlement of securities as well as data management and reporting of financial instruments more generally.

Such a system will allow firms and technology service providers to shift resources from laborious, inefficient processes to

new investments in tools and products that will better serve clients.

An open system answers the call for greater transparency. Eliminating the need to remove proprietary IDs and re-map

financial instruments will greatly simplify the steps needed to migrate between market data platforms and trading

systems. Availability of a central symbology reference will facilitate mapping between users’ internal systems and create

opportunities for integration and automation of the global enterprise. This is to say that this standard represents a novel

solution in the market that is not currently covered by other identifiers currently in circulation.

This specification lays out the details of the Financial Instrument Global Identifier across two dimensions:

1. The specification of the structure of the Global Identifier itself—what is/is not valid as a Global Identifier and how a

Global Identifier is constructed and validated.

2. An ontological model specifying the relationship between the Global Identifier and other closely related information.

This International Standard has been created with the clear understanding that a published interface for creating identifiers

and linking together relevant parties, e.g., Certified Providers or the Registration Authority, through the use of technology

is a critical part of the operationalization of this standard. While high level descriptions of the various types of

organizations that need to be involved as well as high level descriptions of the interactions between such organizations

has been included in this International Standard, they are included on the understanding that there will need to be a

subsequent standard produced that details the necessary technical infrastructures and service level agreements for all

participating organizations. To be clear, the technical specification of those services and service level agreements is out of

scope for this document.

Global Identifier concepts are documented using two forms of definition:

1. A structured ontology specification of the concept, and its relationships to others, represented using the Web

Ontology Language (OWL), in the form of (a) RDF/XML serialized OWL, (b) ODM (Ontology Definition

Metamodel)-compliant ODM XMI, and (c) ODM-compliant UML XMI.

2. Natural language definitions which represent the concepts in natural language using the vocabulary of the finance


Two controlled vocabularies in rdf format, one specifying the list of possible values for security types, one specifying the

list of possible values for pricing sources. These lists are subject to growth over time as new security types are either

invented or incorporated into FIGI and as new pricing sources are taken into account.

This International Standard covers both the content of the models, and the underlying architecture employed for

producing and presenting the model.

This model is developed from a previously existing infrastructure that is currently active and had issued in excess of 150

million FIGI-compliant identifiers to date. The currently issued identifiers are freely available on a web site and through

data files and are delivered upon request in bulk on a daily basis to interested parties. The purpose of this International

Standard, however is to specify the structure of the Identifier itself and its relationship to key information elements rather

than to specify the technology and related interfaces used to generate, access, and manage the identifiers.