About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Regulatory Oversight Committee of the LEI Revises Policy on Level 2 Data Reporting

Subscribe to our newsletter

The Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC) of the Global LEI System (GLEIS) has revised two elements of policy covering the reporting of LEI parent relationship data, also known as Level 2 data.

To improve the usability of Level 2 data, the ROC has revised the list of opt-out reasons that can be used by an entity to decline providing information on its parents. The aim of the revision was to consolidate opt-out reasons to facilitate best use of them while retaining the most valuable and used information.

The decision to streamline the list of opt-outs was made at the ROC’s June 2021 meeting and based on statistics from the Global LEI Foundation (GLEIF) that highlighted the most used opt-outs. It resulted in the consolidation of five opt-outs in the ‘non-public’ category into a single opt-out, also called ‘non-public’. The five consolidated opt-outs are binding legal constraint, legal obstacles, disclosure detrimental, detriment not excluded, and consent not obtained.

The resulting ‘non-public’ opt-out joins existing and lasting opt-out categories of natural person(s), no LEI, no known person, and non-consolidating.

The ROC has also decided to discontinue collection of Provisional Node Identifier (PNI) data for parents without LEIs. This decision resulted from a pilot programme that collected metadata on parents without LEIs and assigned these parent entities PNIs as identifiers to supplement Level 2 data collection. The extended Level 2 information was internal to the GLEIS and made available to ROC members for evaluation purposes only.

The ROC recently undertook an analysis of the usefulness of the PNI data for ROC members. It showed that PNI data roughly doubled the information on the parents of LEI registrants available to regulators, but concluded that PNI data collection should be discontinued as the added value of continuing PNI data collection would be outweighed by the cost of cleaning the data to remove duplicates and address other data quality issues.

Instead, the ROC recommends that efforts and resources dedicated to PNI data collection should be redirected to improving the collection and validation of LEI registrants data on their parents, which is a key component of the quality of the LEI data.

You can read more detail about the ROC revisions to reporting LEI parent relationship data here. And we will be back soon with a review of the LEI’s progress through 2021 and the GLEIF’s plans for the identifier through 2022.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Navigating a Complex World: Best Data Practices in Sanctions Screening

As rising geopolitical uncertainty prompts an intensification in the complexity and volume of global economic and financial sanctions, banks and financial institutions are faced with a daunting set of new compliance challenges. The risk of inadvertently engaging with sanctioned securities has never been higher and the penalties for doing so are harsh. Traditional sanctions screening...

BLOG

Record Debt Issuance Is Exposing The Bond Market’s Information Gap

By Swati Bhatia, head of fixed income, financial information at SIX. Sovereign bond issuance across the OECD’s member countries is predicted to have reach a record US$17 trillion at the end of last year, a scale of borrowing that would have seemed mind-boggling only a few years ago. On the corporate debt side, the total...

EVENT

RepRisk Sustainability Breakfast Roundtable London

The London sustainability breakfast is part of the global roundtable thought leadership event series hosted by RepRisk in key markets, including, New York, Toronto, London, Frankfurt, Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hong Kong and Singapore in 2026.

GUIDE

Enterprise Data Management

The current financial crisis has highlighted that financial institutions do not have a sufficient handle on their data and has prompted many of these institutions to re-evaluate their approaches to data management. Moreover, the increased regulatory scrutiny of the financial services community during the past year has meant that data management has become a key...