Percentage of Rated Entities Assigned an LEI
The rated universe Alacra covers includes those entities/issuers rated by A.M. Best, Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. This totals around 70,000 entities globally. About 15% of these entities have been assigned an LEI, a 1% increase from May of this year.
Percentage of Regulated Entities Assigned an LEI
Alacra tracks the regulatory status of legal entities around the world. We monitor over 50 global regulators that are currently regulating about 85,000 entities. More regulatory mandates are required for the LEI to become more useful.
Top 10 Registration Domiciles for LEIs
The United States continues to be the country with the largest number of LEI entities. The top 4 countries—the US, Germany, Italy and France—are the domicile for over 50% of the entities that have received an LEI.
Percentage of LEI Entities that are Either Funds, Trusts, or SPVs
Similar to our analysis six months ago, about 22% of all the entities that have been assigned an LEI are either a fund, a trust, or an SPV.
Overlap between Alacra Authority File and LEI Universe
Number of LEIs Assigned by LOUThis chart shows the number of LEIs that have been assigned by 17 of the 19 endorsed LOUs. The GMEI has assigned about twice as many LEIs as the rest of the LOUs combined.
Percentage of Listed Entities Assigned an LEIAlacra tracks all entities that have either debt or equity listing on a global exchange. Of the 88,177 entities that are listed, only 15% have been assigned an LEI.
An effective third-party risk management process follows a continuous life cycle for all relationships and incorporates planning, due diligence and third-party selection, contract negotiation, ongoing monitoring, and termination. In addition, throughout the life cycle of the relationship, as part of its risk management process, bank employees have certain responsibilities—oversight and accountability, documentation and reporting, and independent reviews. The OCC depicts this cycle in the figure below. Figure 1: Risk Management Life Cycle In each area, the Bulletin differentiates to some extent between specific references that are expressed as a mandate through the use of strong affirmative language and other somewhat softer “best practices” that are identified through reference to actions a bank should “consider” taking. Planning Before entering into a third-party relationship, a bank’s senior management should develop a management plan for its third-party relationships. This plan should account for, among other things, risks associated with the activity, the strategic purposes, the legal and compliance aspects, the complexity of the relationship, the cost to control the risks, the nature and handling of customer interactions, implications for information security, specific laws and regulations applicable to the third-party activity, how the bank will monitor and assess compliance, and whether the relationship is consistent with the bank’s broader corporate policies. The plan should be presented to and approved by the bank’s board of directors when critical activities are involved. Due Diligence and Third-Party Selection With regard to the conduct of due diligence on potential third parties, a bank should not rely solely on experience with or prior knowledge of the third party as a proxy for an objective, in-depth assessment of the third party’s ability to perform the activity in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in a safe and sound manner. More extensive due diligence is needed when a third-party relationship involves critical activities. Further, on site visits may be useful to understand the third party’s operations and capacity. Senior management should review the results of the due diligence review to determine whether the third party is able to meet the bank’s expectations and whether the bank should proceed with the relationship. For third-party relationships that involve critical activities, management should present the results to the board. During due diligence, banks should consider the third party’s: