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.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 23.3
- Rating Broadly 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.
Implementation measures
SEC Proposed Rules 13n-5(b)(6); 13n-6; 13n-9(b)(1); 13n-10(b) SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR, Rule 907 SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release Preamble to SEC SDR Proposing Release
US-SEC
- Principle ID 23.4
- Rating Broadly 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.
Implementation measures
SEC Proposed Rule 13n-10(b)
US-SEC
- Principle ID 23.5
- Rating Broadly 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.
Implementation measures
SEC Proposed Rules 13n-8; 13n-10(b) SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR, Rule 902 Exhibits to Proposed Form SDR; SEC SDR Proposing Release
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Although some descriptions in the current and proposed regulations meet the requirements of the CPSS-IOSCO Disclosure framework for financial market infrastructures, the SEC has not implemented, or proposed to implement, measures which require disclosure based on the CPSS-IOSCO Disclosure framework.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 24.0
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
The Securities Exchange Act available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf SEC SDR Proposing Release available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/34-63347.pdf SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/34-69490.pdf SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/34-69490.pdf
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: The SEC is recommended to implement measures which address the gaps or inconsistencies identified, specifically those related to key consideration 3. Key conclusion: The proposed implementation measures of the SEC are consistent with the headline standard in Principle 24; some elements of key consideration 3, however, were not included explicitly in the proposed rulemaking.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 24.1
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Securities Exchange Act Sections 13(m)(1)(D)-(E); 13(n)(5) SEC Proposed Rules 13n-4(a)(5); 13n-4(b) Preamble to SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release
US-SEC
- Principle ID 24.2
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Securities Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(G)-(H) SEC Proposed Rules 13n-4(b)(9)-(10); 13n-8 SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR, Rule 907 Preamble to SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release
US-SEC
- Principle ID 24.3
- Rating Consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
A TR should provide timely and accurate data to relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective needs.
Implementation measures
Securities Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5) SEC Proposed Rules 13n-4(b)(3); 13n-4(b)(7)-(8); 13n-5(b)(3)-(5); 13n-6; 13n-8 SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR Rules 905(b); 906; 909
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
TRs are required to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the transaction data and positions that it maintains are accurate and that data are maintained in a format that is robust. It is proposed that TRs be required to have automated systems for monitoring, screening, and analysing security-based swap data. TRs are required to be capable of accepting data provided in accordance with mandatory trade reporting timeframes. However, a TR is not specifically required to provide data to all relevant authorities in a timely manner and in a format that permits it to be easily analysed.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 3.0
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
The Securities Exchange Act available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf SEC SDR Proposing Release available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/34-63347.pdf SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/34-69490.pdf SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR available at this link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/34-69490.pdf
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
Recommendation: The SEC is recommended to implement measures which address the gaps or inconsistencies identified, specifically those related to key considerations 1, 3 and 4. Key conclusion: The proposed implementation measures of the SEC are partly consistent with Principle 3. The overall rating has been influenced by the absence of measures or proposed measures implementing key considerations 3 and 4, and gaps or shortcomings in the proposed implementation measures for key consideration 1.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 3.1
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Securities Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(E); 13(n)(6); 13n-6(b) SEC Proposed Rule 13n-6(b)(1)-(2); 13n-8; 13n-11 Preamble to Proposed Reg SCI, available at the following link: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/34-69077.pdf Preamble to SEC SDR Proposing Release
Assessment comments (key conclusions and recommendations)
It is proposed that every TR, with respect to those systems that support or are integrally related to the performance of its activities, be required to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that its systems provide adequate levels of capacity, resiliency, and security. While a TR is required to submit its systems and performance to annual review, it is not proposed that the risk management frameworks of a TR specifically be specifically subject to periodic review, which is the PFMI requirement.
US-SEC
- Principle ID 3.2
- Rating Partly consistent
Implementation measure cut-off date: 25-Feb-2015
Assessment rating date: 17-Apr-2014
Principle
An FMI should have a sound risk-management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks.
Implementation measures
Securities Exchange Act Sections 13(m)(1); 13(n)(5) SEC Proposed Rule 13n-4(b)(2)-(3); 13n-4(c)(1); 13n-5(b) SEC Re-Proposed Reg SBSR, Rules 905(b); 906; 907 Preamble to SEC SDR Proposing Release Preamble to SEC Cross-Border Proposing Release
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.