The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Questionable Motives?

I’ve spent a lot of the first two months of this year discussing the Office of Financial Research (OFR) with various industry participants, but a recent conversation brought to light something that hasn’t yet been fully explored in my previous blogs: the US government’s real motivation for standardising legal entity identification, beyond tracking systemic risk. As we all know, there’s often a less obvious motivation for governments to act in the manner they do and this often comes down to the issue of revenue, and this case could be no exception.

After all, the US government is facing a well publicised funding crisis in the wake of the financial crisis and measures such as the introduction of the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP), which was used to bail out firms in trouble. TARP allowed the US Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult to value assets from banks and other financial institutions and now those loans must be “repaid” to US taxpayers. In order to track the TARP repayments, the government needs to be able to keep a close eye on the financial institutions to which it lent funds; not an easy proposition when you do not have a fully comprehensive handle on which entities are linked to each other.

Moreover, if, as it seems wont to do, the government is aiming to crack down on tax dodgers to fill its funding gaps, what better way than to ensure that every firm active in the US market is identified by a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)? As the US moves from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) over the next five years, this move makes even more sense. The introduction of cost basis accounting, the concept of revaluation and an emphasis on fair value as part of IFRS are likely to compel the US government to take the next step of validating an entity’s cost basis revenues, noted my interviewee.

The task of tracking revenue and tax more accurately and overall transparency (a new tenet of the post-crisis world) could be improved by the addition of more detailed parent/child hierarchy data linked into the taxpayer identification system. Legal entity identification standards could therefore equal a revenue generation opportunity: by nailing down entity structures, the government could ensure that every penny is taken into account and can be rolled up to the ultimate parent.

In fact, one of the responses to the OFR even suggests the TIN as a suitable entity identifier for the purposes of tracking this data. The response by law firm Schwartz & Ballen, which purports to represent a range of financial institutions with which it works, promotes the idea of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) TIN in its rather US centric response. It says that the benefits of this would include that it is a system of identification that already exists and that it covers all firms in the US or those that deal with the US.

Obviously, the danger of this approach would be its US centricity, given the majority’s desire for a more global approach. However, if the US government’s real intention is to use the TIN to this end, it is likely that very little can be done to change its course. It will certainly be interesting to see whether this potential is openly discussed by government and industry participants in the coming months, as we move towards the July deadline for setting an entity ID standard.

In other news, this month should also see political fireworks fly, as the US regulators are forced to justify their funding requests related to the implementation of the Dodd Frank requirements. A hearing has been tentatively scheduled for 30 March, during which the SEC and CFTC will need to testify on the subject before representatives from Congress.

High profile Republicans have already been questioning the cost-benefit analysis of introducing all of the new requirements of Dodd Frank in light of the current economic climate. Congressman Randy Neugebauer, chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, this week said regulators would need to prove that they are not “over-reaching” in terms of their oversight capabilities. It seems likely that the topic of the OFR could crop up, if Republicans that have already spoken out against the new agency are involved in the meeting.

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Managing LIBOR transition

The clock is ticking on the decommissioning of LIBOR towards the end of this year, leaving financial institutions with little time to identify where LIBOR is embedded in their processes, assess alternative benchmarks and reference rates, and ensure a smooth transition. Some will be ahead of others, but the challenges are significant for all as...

BLOG

Surveillance 2.0 – Turn Up the Signal, Wipe Out the Noise

By Joseph Schifano, Global Head of Regulatory Affairs, Eventus Systems. Trade surveillance is a complex discipline, dependent on the processing and filtering of masses of data. Its mandate is constantly increasing too, with the relentless iterations of regulatory and market change demanding the monitoring of more asset classes across more business lines and against an...

EVENT

Data Management Summit Virtual

The Data Management Summit Virtual brings together the global data management community to share lessons learned, best practice guidance and latest innovations to emerge from the recent crisis. Hear from leading data practitioners and innovators from the UK, US and Europe who will share insights into how they are pushing the boundaries with data to deliver value with flexible but resilient data driven strategies.

GUIDE

FRTB Special Report

FRTB is one of the most sweeping and transformative pieces of regulation to hit the financial markets in the last two decades. With the deadline confirmed as January 2022, this Special Report provides a detailed insight into exactly what the data requirements are for FRTB in its latest (and final) incarnation, and explores what needs to be done in order to meet these needs on a cost-effective and company-wide basis.