Minimum data reporting requirements

5.1.1 Minimum reporting to TRs

The Task Force recommends that, at a minimum, transaction-level data be reported to TRs and that such data should include, at least, transaction economics (primary economic terms), counterparty information, underlier information, operational data and event data. Examples of potential standardised data formats for reporting different types of OTC derivatives to TRs are presented in Annex 2.

5.1.2 Additional reporting to TRs

For furthering the objectives/mandates of the authorities, additional data that may be useful for assessing systemic risk and financial stability could be data on collateral, netting arrangements, market values of transactions, and reference data on affected parties in the event of a counterparty’s default. Effective market surveillance and enforcement would be furthered by authorities having access to data on affiliate relationships of the various transacting entities (which could be reflected in the design of LEIs). For conducting resolution activities, information on collateral and information on priority of claims on collateral would be beneficial. The FSB’s October progress report advocated the setting-up of a small ad hoc experts group to define from the “demand side” what data are needed to bridge data gaps for: (i) assessing systemic risk and financial stability; (ii) supervising market participants; and (iii) conducting resolution activities.87 _{The CPSS and IOSCO also note that the G20 Final}

Declaration following the 2011 Cannes Summit called on the CPSS and IOSCO to work with the FSB to carry forward work on identifying data that could be provided by and to TRs.

5.1.3 Authorities’ access to data

Public authorities with an interest in OTC derivatives data should benefit from effective and practical access to TR information as necessary to carry out the authorities’ respective regulatory mandates.

The Task Force notes that defining general principles or guidance on whether a type of authority (eg market regulators, central banks, prudential supervisors and resolution

87 _{FSB, OTC derivatives market reforms – progress report on implementation, October 2011, available at}

authorities) should have access to the relevant part or the whole range of data reported to TRs, in accordance with the authority’s mandate, would be a significant step towards facilitating authorities’ effective and practical access to data but is beyond the assigned scope of the report. The Task Force recommended in its Consultative Data Report that this responsibility be assigned by the FSB to an appropriate body or group for timely resolution. The Task Force also recommends that TRs implement the two types of methods identified for providing operational access for authorities to the data stored by TRs. First, routine access should provide authorities with information that will allow them to perform adequate monitoring of the OTC derivatives markets. This access, granted by a dedicated environment (eg web portal), should include macro data, in the form of aggregated data, and individual data, in accordance with authorities’ mandates. Second, authorities should also have the option to submit specific ad hoc requests to TRs. This non-routine access should allow authorities to assess specific issues within their mandates beyond their routine information needs.

The Task Force recommends that data formats used to make data available to authorities should be consistent with routine and non-routine access to data. The recourse to predefined templates could help provide authorities with standardised information related to routine reports. However, authorities should have the option to obtain raw data rather than information in the form of templates, raw data being especially relevant in the case of non- routine requests.

The FSB’s October progress report advocates that the CPSS and IOSCO, coordinating with relevant authorities, take forward work on authorities’ access to TR data, taking into account data security and building on work that has been done by the ODRF.

5.1.4 Reporting entities and counterparties’ access to data

Reporting entities and counterparties should have appropriate access to their own data stored with TRs, as this information will help reporting entities and counterparties (to the extent that they differ) check the accuracy of data collected and stored by TRs. Such access should be governed by appropriate confidentiality requirements and should meet applicable laws and regulations.

As such, the Task Force recommends that this access should be limited to enabling reporting entities and counterparties to check their own data or data they have reported, in raw format. The reporting entity should also have transaction-level access to deals reported by its counterparty on transactions to which both sides are a party.

5.1.5 Public dissemination of data

As pointed out by the FSB Report, public dissemination of a TR’s data would improve transparency of OTC derivatives markets, and thus promote understanding of the functioning of OTC derivatives markets and facilitate the exercise of market discipline and investor protection. Public dissemination of a TR’s data could be done in an aggregated form. Some jurisdictions may decide, as an alternative, to require a TR to disseminate to the public information about OTC derivatives trades in a more granular form.

The Task Force recommends that information disclosed to the public, when released in an aggregated way, should cover two main aspects:

 aggregate information on the market activity that should enable an appropriate assessment of the geographical and currency distribution of activities and notional positions, including by types of counterparty; and

 aggregate state information (ie “snapshot”) that provides views of concentration of the market.

The Task Force recommends that, if publicly disseminated in a more granular way (such as on a trade by trade basis), information should be released in a format that allows easy aggregation of data by the users.

The Task Force also recommends that, whichever the method of public dissemination chosen by a jurisdiction for TRs (ie an aggregate or more granular form), due regard must be taken to preserve the confidentiality of reporting firms and counterparties, and public dissemination of data should not allow the identification of counterparties to the contracts represented by such data.