Community

There was a ESMA questionnaire circulating about the identification codes. Many organisations have commented. It is for me absolutely not clear why ESMA has chosen the ISIN identifier as the only acceptable identifier in the EC territory. ESMA knows well about the issue and the antitrust case against CUSIP/S&P/MGH - I can confirm that NFPO (more than one I am aware of) that have clearly stated that there is an issue with ISIN - based on EC 39592 about CUSIP/USISIN. In April 2017 the agreement will expire and there is no automatic prolongation. NFPO fear the worst. I wonder with what proposal TC 68 (mandated by ROC where ESMA has to my understanding representation) will provide the industry with the solution for derivatives - as mapping with ISIN (IP and Copyright free ones?) need to be established. How do they want to avoid the CUSIP sequence in the USISIN? or do they need to remap all USISIN with a new sequence number. So the same happened with BBUID to be tranformed in FIGI - based on IP issues! So the IP mess is not disappearing  until the National Numbering Agencies change their statutes of ANNA Service Bureau. This will have to result in a free global USISIN usage without any fees and contracts including CSB serviced countries such as CDA - and no NNA may be in a "commercial" position to go against any NNA majority vote (see Oslo guess 2007)

This is only about the American Bankers Association royality deal over 20 years with CSB enabling a US commercial monopoly as a NNA!

Look in LEI you will find no country dominated entity issuing LEI in a monopoly situation - there is global competition - hence no monopoly possible (also due the fact that the LEI is free of charge)

Finally, check www.Gleif.org on the LEI - freely available for everybody without a contract and or sign in on bulk download. Learn something....

The instrument identifier mess should be cleaned up or the standard should be terminated and a new solution should appear in the industry. Derivatives will be a good way to start with the exercise....

The EC's market testing has failed to receive any acceptance of a RIC licence in March 2012. The industry in Europe including Switzerland was overhelmingly against it.

Now the EC Commission might fine under their EC antitrust rules TR ( up to a max of 10% on turnover) and or TR offers a free last minute global usage for the TRRIC to the EC Commission.

So the extended RIC licence (ERL) is off the table implementing 10 years and or more licence fee for different business activities of a financial institute. Btw netting of the RIC accross licence items was forbidden.

A multi billion £ ticket for the European financial industry and the consumer.

This ERL would have come on top of terminal fees, data licence fees for RT data. It would have been just around the corner that the back office area hence non real time data would have been brought under the ERL concept for non real time data by means of TR Business Principles adjustments- including settlement process fees!

Be aware that TRBP are one sided adjustments in favor of TR never the customer! They form part of TRSC. The TRBP are legally not correct and should be abolished immediately.

So one further night mare on the global fight on identification codes cost such as US ISIN has disappeared. And BB has quite cleverly profited on its BBUID initiative to be closer to the consumer.

Lets wait on the EC decision on TR RIC!

@Ketharaman

Your are correct about the application of the EC Comp Case 39.592 ISIN decision with regard to the applicable "territory". Even as SIPUG as a Swiss non profitmaking organisation formed part of the EC complaint McGrawHill/CSB/S&P refused to include Switzerland in the territory.

(please note in the market test on Thomson Reuters RIC licensing proposal - TR included on a voluntary basis Switzerland!)

Therefore and in order to have European political territory coverage another legal antitrust case is necessary. To extend the solution to India and the rest of the Far East local court cases are necessary as CSB/S&P are mantaining their oligolipol for the non EC area. That is the commercial tactic of every monopolist in general!

It has to be mentioned that this EC decision is clearly as stated an antitrust case and S&P would have be fined if they did not agree on the deal. S&P has definitely done something illegal - namely established a monopol in the distribution channel in the applicable territory!

You may take this link

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/antitrust/

item c031 and C 031 2012/C 31/05 Summary of Commission Decision of 15 November 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.592 — Standard & Poor's) (notified under document C(2011) 8209) (1)

for further information.

In the second paragraph i must tell you as a Swiss citizen you are completely wrong with your assumptions

a) S&P cannot countersues Swizerland (being what the government or a local authority for not joining EU)?

Joining the EU is a decision by the entire voting of the Swiss National citicens as individuals and the cantons (local areas such as ZURICH, BERN etc.) Both must agree.

b) yes of course - if S&P does not give it on a voluntary basis you will need to contact your local antitrust organisation and do precisely what the Swiss do.

With the already established EC decision there is ample documentation available to support any local effort.

c) the political environment does not give currently any indication that Switzerland is intending to join the EC as full member - this is not going to happen within the next minimum 10 years.

In summary - you are mixing up political country Switzerland issues with a single antitrust case that is launched by an EFAMA complaint with the US ISIN topic against S&P that deals with improper licencing practice, improper application of ISO bilaws and amongst others also addresses non existing IP and copyrights as claimed by the US NNA.

Should you need further information please contact www.sipug.ch or the complainants directly.