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-ESMA
- Principle ID 20.1
- Rating Broadly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI that establishes a link with one or more FMIs should identify, monitor, and manage link-related risks.
Implementation measures
RTS 150/2013 Art 21
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
RTS Art 21 is viewed as addressing a large part of this KC. However, it is not clear how and where the second part of this KC (“Link arrangements should be designed such that….”) is addressed.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 20.2
- Rating Broadly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI that establishes a link with one or more FMIs should identify, monitor, and manage link-related risks.
Implementation measures
RTS 150/2013 Art 21
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
There are no articles in EMIR or RTS that seem to address the requirements of this KC.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 20.9
- Rating Broadly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI that establishes a link with one or more FMIs should identify, monitor, and manage link-related risks.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78 and 79 RTS 150/2013 Art 7, 19 and 21
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
It is not clear whether (and how) the overall risk management framework used by ESMA would cover this KC. This is viewed as a significant gap.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 21.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
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 KC2 and KC3. Key conclusion: The rating for this principle reflects the gaps with respect to a lack of requirement for the regular review of efficiency (KC 3) and a requirement for clearly defined goals and objectives that is limited to business continuity and is thus overly narrow.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 21.1
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
Implementation measures
RTS on TR Registration Art 18, 22 and 23
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 21.2
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 78(4) RTS 150/2013, Art 21
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A minor gap is created by the lack of requirements in the referenced legislations for the TR to have clearly defined goals and objectives that are measurable and achievable.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 21.3
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
Implementation measures
EMIR Art 55(4) RTS 150/2013, Art 8 RTS on TR Registration Art 16 and 21
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
A significant gap is created by the absence of requirements in the referenced legislations for the TR to have established mechanisms for regular reviews.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 22.0
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should use, or at a minimum accommodate, relevant internationally accepted communication procedures and standards in order to facilitate efficient payment, clearing, settlement, and recording.
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 22.1
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should use, or at a minimum accommodate, relevant internationally accepted communication procedures and standards in order to facilitate efficient payment, clearing, settlement, and recording.
Implementation measures
EMIR recital 98EMIR Art 81(5)
EU-ESMA
- Principle ID 23.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have clear and comprehensive rules and procedures and should provide sufficient information to enable participants to have an accurate understanding of the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the FMI. All relevant rules and key procedures should be publicly disclosed.
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: The rating for this principle reflects significant gaps with respect to KC1 (no requirement for the disclosure of rules and procedures other than access criteria), 3 (absence of requirement to provide documentation and training to facilitate participant understanding of the FMI’s rules and procedures (outside of access criteria) and the risks that participants face from participating in the FMI. and 5 (absence of requirement to complete regularly and disclose publically the CPSS-IOSCO Disclosure Framework).
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.