PFMI implementation database
This is an online data repository of jurisdictions' implementation measures for the Principles for financial market infrastructures and associated CPMI and IOSCO assessment principle ratings. It complements the Level 2 assessment programme on the extent to which jurisdictions' implementation measures are complete and consistent with the international standards for payment systems, central securities depositories, securities settlement systems, central counterparties and trade repositories.
Note that authorities may have updated their rules, regulations and policies since the assessment. For current implementation measures, please contact the relevant authority.
EU-ECB,EuroArea
- Principle ID 9.4
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 29-Oct-2019
Assessment rating date: 29-Oct-2019
Principle
If an FMI conducts money settlements on its own books, it should minimise and strictly control its credit and liquidity risks.
Implementation measures
ECB SIPS Regulation, Article 10.5
EU-ECB,EuroArea
- Principle ID 9.5
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 29-Oct-2019
Assessment rating date: 29-Oct-2019
Principle
An FMI’s legal agreements with any settlement banks should state clearly when transfers on the books of individual settlement banks are expected to occur, that transfers are to be final when effected, and that funds received should be transferable as soon as possible, at a minimum by the end of the day and ideally intraday, in order to enable the FMI and its participants to manage credit and liquidity risks.
Implementation measures
ECB SIPS Regulation, Article 10.6
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: The EU is recommended to implement measures that address the gaps or inconsistencies identified, particularly those related to KC1, KC3, KC4 and KC5. Key conclusion: While EMIR requires that a TR shall establish adequate policies and procedures sufficient to ensure that its activities are conducted in compliance with all of the provisions of EMIR, this is a narrower concept than the requirement that the FMI have an enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities. In particular, there are thus significant gaps in the context of KC 1-regarding the requirement of a legal basis that provides a high degree of certainty for each material aspect of a TR’s activities (a standard that is broader than requiring a high degree of certainty of compliance with EMIR), KC 3-regarding the ability of a TR to articulate the legal basis for its activities in a clear and understandable manner, and KC 5- regarding the identification and mitigation of risks arising from potential conflicts of laws in different jurisdictions. In addition, there is a significant gap in the context of KC 4 which sets out a key element of the headline standard with regard to rules and procedures which allow a TR to provide a high degree of certainty that actions related to its contracts will not be voided, reversed, or subject to stays.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.1
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78(1), 78(3) RTS and ITS on reporting RTS and ITS on TR Registration RTS on Access to Data Technical standards on TR registration
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A significant gap is created by the absence of requirements in the referenced legislations that would provide legal certainty in each material aspect in all jurisdictions.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.2
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78(3) RTS on TR Registration Art 2, 4, 7, 8, and 20
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A minor gap is created by the lack of referenced legislations to fully (and directly) address this KC. Some of the requirements embodied in this KC are only addressed in an indirect manner via the TR registration process.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.3
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78(3) RTS on TR Registration Art 2, 4, 7, 8, and 20
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A significant gap is created by the absence of explicit requirements in referenced legislation for the articulation of legal basis by the FMI.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.4
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 75, 77 and 78(5)
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A significant gap is created by the lack of current regulations to provide a high degree of certainty that contracts would be enforceable in all jurisdictions. Furthermore, referenced legislation does not place any obligation on the TR to ensure consistency with this KC.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 1.5
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each material aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 75(3)
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A significant gap is created by the lack of requirements in the referenced legislations that directly address the requirements of this KC. Furthermore, current legislation does not place any obligation on the TR to ensure consistency with this KC.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 15.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should identify, monitor, and manage its general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that it can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialise. Further, liquid net assets should at all times be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services.
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: The EU is recommended to implement measures that address the gaps or inconsistencies identified, particularly those related to KC1, KC3, and KC5. Key conclusion: There are significant gaps with respect to the requirements for a viable plan for recovery or orderly wind-down (KC 3) and with respect to plans to raise additional equity should that become necessary (KC 5).
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 15.1
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should identify, monitor, and manage its general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that it can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialise. Further, liquid net assets should at all times be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78(1) RTS 150/2013, Art 21 RTS on TR Registration Art 21(a), (b)
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A minor gap is created by the lack of requirements in the referenced legislations that the TR board “have robust management and control systems to identify, monitor, and manage general business risks”.
Description of filters
Jurisdiction
This filter limits the search results to selected jurisdictions. The available jurisdictions represent assessments that have been completed to date. The table below provides also a pdf of key conclusions and recommendations for all Principles of a given jurisdiction.
| Jurisdiction and relevant authorities | Assessments and comments |
|---|---|
Australia RBA: Reserve Bank of Australia | |
Brazil BCB: Central Bank of Brazil | |
Canada | |
European Union ESMA: European Securities and Markets Authority | |
Hong Kong SAR HKMA: Hong Kong Monetary Authority | |
Japan | |
Singapore | |
Switzerland FINMA: Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority | |
Turkey CMB: Capital Markets Board of Türkiye | |
United Kingdom | |
United States CFTC: Commodity Futures Trading Commission |
FMI type
This filter limits the search results to the selected FMI types. FMIs may be subject to different regulatory, supervisory and oversight regimes depending on their organisation, function and design.
PS: Payment system
A set of instruments, procedures and rules for the transfer of funds between or among participants; the system includes the participants and the entity operating the arrangement.
CSD/SSS: Central securities depository / Securities settlement system
CSDs are entities that provide securities accounts, central safekeeping services and asset services, which may include the administration of corporate actions and redemptions, and play an important role in helping to ensure the integrity of securities issues (that securities are not accidentally or fraudulently created or destroyed or their details changed). The precise activities of a CSD vary based on jurisdiction and market practices.
SSS are entities that enable securities to be transferred and settled by book entry according to a set of predetermined multilateral rules. Such systems allow transfers of securities either free of payment or against payment. Typically, a CSD also operates an SSS.
CCP: Central counterparty
An entity that interposes itself between counterparties to contracts traded in one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer and thereby ensuring the performance of open contracts.
TR: Trade repository
An entity that maintains a centralised electronic record (database) of transaction data.
Principle or key consideration ID
This filter limits the search results to selected principles and key considerations. Each principle includes a headline standard and a list of key considerations that further explain the headline standard. The principles are listed below. A detailed list of key considerations is available in the CPMI-IOSCO Principles for financial market infrastructures.
Principle rating
This filter limits the search results to selected principle rating(s) used in the L2 assessments. The ratings reflect conditions at the time of the assessment, and are built on key conclusions that reflect CPMI and IOSCO's collective expert judgment regarding the impact of identified gaps and/or shortcomings. Ratings are determined for each principle after the jurisdiction's legislative and regulatory framework, including policy statements, as relevant, was compared against the corresponding content of the PFMI.
The jurisdiction’s regulatory framework is consistent with the Principle. The assessment has identified no gaps or shortcomings, or only a few gaps and/or shortcomings that have no material impact on completeness and/or consistency.
The jurisdiction’s regulatory framework is broadly consistent with the Principle. The assessment has identified gaps and/or shortcomings that have a minor impact on completeness and/or consistency.
The jurisdiction’s regulatory framework is partly consistent with the Principle. The assessment has identified gaps and/or shortcomings that have a significant impact on completeness and/or consistency.
The jurisdiction’s regulatory framework is not consistent with the Principle. The assessment has identified gaps and/or shortcomings that have a major impact on completeness and/or consistency.
This status corresponds to the case where no relevant FMI exists that is within the scope of the Principles. A rating of “NA” will be indicated only if no relevant regulatory measures are being taken and no such FMI is expected to develop within the jurisdiction.