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.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 23.5
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
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.
Implementation measures
Notice on Financial Market Infrastructure Standards 3.23.5
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 24.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: MAS is recommended to implement/ complete measures that address the gaps identified in relation to KC1. Where there are gaps/inconsistencies in language or requirements between the relevant regulations and the PFMI, MAS should consider providing more clarity to TRs with respect to minimum standards.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 24.1
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Securities and Futures Act, section 46A Securities and Futures Act, section 46ZJ(1)(e) and 46ZK(2)(a)
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
MAS has authority under the SFA to direct a TR to publish information related to the transactions reported to it. As of the cut-off date, however, MAS had not exercised the authority to direct DDRS, the sole LTR operating in Singapore as of the cut-off date, to publish such information. Accordingly, there are currently neither legal/supervisory requirements/expectations for, nor actual practice of, disclosure of the TR data to the public. The referenced regulations articulate specific requirements for a TR to provide data to MAS but do not do so with respect to the data provision to other relevant authorities. However, the AT considers that MAS’ implementation measures are consistent with this respect of PFMI (ie data provision to relevant authorities) on the basis of the Monograph for the following reasons: (1) DDRS is required by MAS as part of its ongoing supervision to submit to MAS all the transaction data reported to DDRS; (2) MAS entered into a MOU with the Australian Securities Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to provide them with access to the data in DDRS; and (3) Only ASIC and RBA are deemed to be such relevant authorities at this juncture. Recommendation: MAS is recommended to implement/complete measures that address the identified gaps. It is acknowledged that MAS is actively considering appropriate requirements for LTRs to publish the data in a manner that will help to achieve the objectives of the public disclosure.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 24.2
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Securities and Futures Act, section 46I(1)(h) Securities and Futures Act, section 46ZJ(1)(e)
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
The referenced regulations do not explicitly establish requirements with respect to the timeliness and appropriateness of the manner of the data provision. In practice, in accordance with the policy statement in the Monograph, MAS sets the requirements that mirror KC2 when exercising its legal power to prescribe the manner of data provision by the TR to relevant authorities.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 24.3
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Notice on Financial Market Infrastructure Standards 3.24.1
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
The referenced regulation refers to timeliness and format of the data only for cases “where the data is disclosed publicly” and does not separately address timeliness and format of data provision to relevant authorities and participants. In practice, in accordance with the policy statement in the Monograph, MAS ensures as part of its licensing and ongoing supervision process that appropriate arrangements are in place for timely data provision and accessible data formatting including with respect to relevant authorities and participants.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 3.0
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: Where there are gaps/inconsistencies in language or requirements between the relevant regulations and the PFMI, MAS should consider providing more clarity to TRs with respect to minimum standards.
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 3.1
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Notice on Financial Market Infrastructure Standards 3.3.1 Securities and Futures Act, section 46J
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 3.2
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Notice on Financial Market Infrastructure Standards 3.3.2
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 3.3
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Notice on Financial Market Infrastructure Standards 3.3.3
SG-MAS
- Principle ID 3.4
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 07-Jul-2017
Assessment rating date: 14-Jul-2016
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Securities and Futures (Trade Repositories) Regulations, section 14 Securities and Futures Act, section 46N MAS Act, section 30AAZK
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
MAS has not explicitly stated in its Securities and Futures (Trade Repositories) Regulations that a TR shall identify scenarios that may potentially prevent [the TR] from being able to provide its critical operations and services as a going concern and assess the effectiveness of a full range of options for recovery or orderly wind-down. In practice, MAS requires each TR to have a recovery and orderly wind-down plan, and it assesses whether the TR has an appropriate and effective plan. As part of this assessment, MAS determines whether the TR identified scenarios that may potentially prevent it from being able to provide its critical operations and services as a going concern, and assessed the effectiveness of a full range of options for recovery or orderly winding-down.
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.