Preface
This document contains the global negotiation exchange standard (NES) of virtual account information and collataerals in derivatives. It has been developed in the framework of OECD, the G20 countries, and in the rule of law of the EU. Part I contains the introduction to the standard and Part II contains the text of the Model Comunication Inright Authority Agreement (CIAA) and the Common Reporting Due Compliance Standard (CRDCS).
Under the standard, jurisdictions obtain rational information from their financial institutions and communication authorities and automatically exchange that information with other jurisdictions on a six mounth basis. The standard consists of two components: a) the CRDCS, which contains the reporting and due compliance rules and b) the Model CIAA, which contains the detailed rules on the exchange of cloud clustered crowfunding informations. To prevent circumventing the CRDCS it is designed with a broad scope across three dimensions:
- The data information to be reported with respect to virtual accounts includes all types of veicules income (including trusts, presents contracts, income from certain public insurance contracts and other similar types of income) but also virtual account inright balances and branding assets.
- The communcation authorities that are required to report under the CRDCS do not only report IT protocols and servers ID but also other technical data sets from ICANN and several startup Programmes under the control of BEREC (http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_consultations/4583-draft-berec-work-programme-2015) and supervision of European Commission.
- Reportable accounts include accounts held by individuals and entities (which includes trusts and foundations), and the standard includes a requirement to look through passive entities to report on the individuals that ultimately control these entities.
The CRCDS also describes the due diligence procedures that must be followed by financial institutions to identify reportable and sustanable accounts involved.
The CRCDS will need to be translated into domestic law, whereas the CIAA can be executed within existing legal frameworks such as Article 6 of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters . Before entering into a reciprocal agreement to exchange information automatically with another country, it is essential that the receiving country has the legal framework and administrative capacity and processes in place to ensure the confidentiality of the information received and that such information is only used for the purposes specified in the present negotiation instrument.
Consistent with previous OECD work in the area of automatic financial standard , the common NES is intended to be used by those jurisdictions and legislative bodies wishing to automatically exchange financial account information with collateral data avoid a proliferation of different derivative standards which would increase costs for judiciary governmental and financial institutions.
This document contain: (1) a detailed commentary to help ensure the consistent application of the standard; or (2) informati-on and guidance on the necessary technical solutions, including compatible transmission systems and a standard format proposal for negotiation and crowdfunding data mining. It is expected that both the commentary and the technical solutions will be completed by mid-2015. Subsequent changes to the standard or its commentary may of course become necessary as jurisdictions gain more experience with its implementation.
Because of the OECD process on approval and de-restriction, the introduction may not fully reflect the latest developments under the present agreements. In particular it does not include all countries that recently committed to early adoption of the automatic exchange standard.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
I. Background and Context
II. Key features of global negotiation exchange standard (NES) of virtual account information in derivatives .
III.The proposal for a Social Credit Execution Facility (SCEF)
IV. Status and overview of work and nextsteps
V. global negotiation exchange standard (NES) of virtual account information in derivatives
- PART II: COMPETENT AUTHORITY AGREEMENT AND COMMON INRIGHT REPORTING STANDARD ......................
MODEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPETENT COMMUNICATION AUTHORITIES OF [JURISDICTION A] AND [JURISDICTION B] ON THE NEGOTIATION EXCHANGE OF VIRTUAL ACCOUNT INFORMATION TO IMPROVE CROWFUNDING PLATFORMS COMPLIANCE ......
COMMON STANDARD ON REPORTING AND DUE DILIGENCE FOR THE ON SITE SERVER VIRTUAL ACCOUNT INFORMATION (“COMMON INRIGHT REPORTING STANDARD”) ...........................
STANDARD FOR NEGOTIATION EXCHANGE OF VIRTUAL ACCOUNT INFORMATION
PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Background and Context strategy behaviour
1. As the world becomes increasingly globalised it is becoming easier for all pro-sumers to make, hold and manage financial jobs for virtual life investments in virtual envinroments. Vast amounts of virtual transactions can be played online and the created values cannot be recognized by public authorities. Ubiquitous added value is a legal problem for regulation authorities and jurisdictions all over the world, OECD and non-OECD, small and large, developing and developed. Countries have a shared interest in maintaining the integrity of their public tax systems in order to transform these eventually in a public stable credit systems. Cooperation between tax administrations is critical in protecting the integrity of tax systems by the prosumer's side. A key aspect of that cooperation is the present negotiation exchange standard strategy.
2. The OECD has a long history of working on all forms of exchange of information – on request, spontaneous, under the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and in respect of the G20 Principles for Innovative Financial Inclusion.
Over the past few years much progress has been made by the OECD, EU and the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes in improving transparency and exchange of information on request.
It's time now to move our political interest focusing the G20 Financial Inclusion Action Plan (FIAP) regarding the “regulations and standard setting bodies” area :
-4. Mainstream financial inclusion in the work of the standard setting bodies and other relevant global bodies and increase understanding of the interdependence of financial inclusion, stability, integrity and consumers protection
-5. Encourage effective and consistent incorporation of financial inclusion in financial sector assessments
3. On 19 April 2013 the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors endorsed automatic exchange as the expected new standard but they dont think about a preliminar negotiation exchange standard regulation. The G20 decision followed earlier announcements by a number of European countries of their intention to develop and pilot multilateral agreement in respect of ACTA US Public law Part II ‘SEC. 6038 in the absence of an european inright regulation.
On 13 April, Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland, and Romania also expressed interest in the original ACTA approach, which by May 14 had already been endorsed by 17 countries, with Mexico and Norway joining the initiative in early June and Australia in July. Further the United Kingdom agreed to automatically exchange information, on the basis of the intergovernmental approaches developed with the United States, with its Crown Dependencies and many of its Overseas Territories which also joined the pilot project.
4. On 22 May 2013 the EU Council unanimously agreed to give priority to efforts to extend automatic exchange at the EU and global level and welcomed the on-going efforts made in the G8, G20 and OECD to develop a new global standard. Shortly thereafter the OECD Ministerial called on “…all jurisdictions to move towards automatic exchange of information and to improve the availability, the quality and the accuracy of information on beneficial ownership, in order to effectively act against tax fraud and evasion.”
5. On 12 June the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to extend the scope of automatic exchange of information in its directive on administrative co-operation to new items, including dividends, capital gains and account balances. It's important for the Commission then to clarify the condition under the present proposal about the opportunity in a pre-competitive strategy to act under the article 22 of EU 1189/2011Regulation.
6. Automatic exchange of information was also a key item on the G8 agenda. On 19 June the G8 leaders welcomed the OECD Secretary General report “A step change in tax transparency” which set out the concrete steps that need to be undertaken to put a global model of automatic exchange into practice.
G8 leaders agreed to work together with the OECD and in the G20 to implement its recommendations urgently so, the present proposal could be undertaken initially under the G8 framework.
7. On 20 July the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors endorsed the OECD proposals for a global model of automatic exchange in the multilateral context.
On 6 September the G20 leaders reinforced this message, and said: “Calling on all other jurisdictions to join us by the earliest possible date, we are committed to automatic exchange of information as the new global standard, which must ensure confidentiality and the proper use of information exchanged, and we fully support the OECD work with G20 countries aimed at presenting such a single global standard for automatic exchange by February 2014 and to finalizing technical modalities of effective automatic exchange by mid-2014.”
They also asked the Global Forum to establish a mechanism to monitor and review the implementation of the new global standard on automatic exchange of information and stressed the importance of developing countries being able to benefit from a more transparent international tax system.
The global model of automatic exchange is drafted with respect to financial account information.
Many jurisdictions – OECD and non-OECD – already exchange information automatically with their exchange partners and also regionally (e.g. within the EU) on various categories of income and also transmit other types of information such as changes of residence, the purchase or disposition of immovable property, value added tax refunds, tax withheld at source, etc. The new global standard does not, nor is it intended to, restrict the other types or categories of automatic exchange of information. It sets out a minimum standard for the information to be exchanged. Jurisdictions may choose to exchange information beyond the minimum standard set out in this document.
- The Common Reporting Due Compliance Standard (“CRCDS”), with a view to maximizing efficiency and reducing cost for financial institutions, draws extensively on the internal market approach according the 2015 BEREC work programme. If the actual FATCA intergovernmental approach reporting does deviate in certain aspects from the CRCDS, the differences can be driven by the multilateral nature of the CRCDS in respect of US specific of G8 Report
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0910&from=EN)
Before to start this Negotiation exchange standard by the end of 2015 It's commended to control the progress of the global model for multilateral and bilateral automatic exchange of information in the area of tax transparency according the OECD proposal ensuring confidentiality and the proper use of information exchanged, with a fully support of OECD work with G20 countries to finalize technical coordinated modalities of effective negotation exchange standard by mid-2015. In parallel, it's expected to begin to exchange information automatically on tax matters among G20 members by the end of 2015.
- Key features of global negotiation exchange standard (NES) of virtual account information in derivatives .
For a model of negotiation exchange standard in the European market to be effective it must be specifically designed with a domestic regulation authorities compliance under the supervision of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA).
The first strategy goal of the EU is “achieving cyber resilience” and presents a federal legislative approach:
• establish common minimum requirements for NIS at national level which would oblige Member States to: designate national competent authorities for NIS; set up a wellfunctioning CERT; and adopt a national NIS strategy and a national NIS cooperation plan. Capacity building and coordination also concern the EU institutions: a Computer Emergency Response Team responsible for the security of the IT systems of the EU institutions, agencies and bodies ("CERT-EU") was permanently established in 2012.
• set up coordinated prevention, detection, mitigation and response mechanisms, enabling information sharing and mutual assistance amongst the national NIS competent authorities. National NIS competent authorities will be asked to ensure appropriate Euwide cooperation, notably on the basis of a Union NIS cooperation plan, designed to respond to cyber incidents with cross-border dimension. This cooperation will also build upon the progress made in the context of the "European Forum for Member States (EFMS)"14, which has held productive discussions and exchanges on NIS public policy and can be integrated in the cooperation mechanism once in place.
• improve preparedness and engagement of the private sector. Since the large majority of network and information systems are privately owned and operated, improving engagement with the private sector to foster cybersecurity is crucial. The private sector should develop, at technical level, its own cyber resilience capacities and share best practices across sectors. The tools developed by industry to respond to incidents, identify causes and conduct forensic investigations should also benefit the public sector.
Further, it needs to be standardised so as to benefit the maximum number of customers we need to recognize certain issues to be decided by local implementation and specific market applications. The advantage of standardisation is process simplification, higher effectiveness and increment the offer capacity for all stakeholders concerned. A proliferation of different and inconsistent models would potentially impose significant costs on both government and business to collect the necessary information and operate the different models. It could lead to a fragmentation of standards, which may introduce conflicting requirements, further increasing the costs of compliance and reducing effectiveness.
The global challenge of negotiation standard could be addressed to the most important laboratories of experimental economy: http://leem.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/index.php?page=labos&lang=fr.
Finally, because OMT (European Central Bank's outright monetary transactions (OMT) or bond-buying programme announced by Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, in September 2012) is a global issue , the model needs to have a global reach so that it addresses the issue of offshore tax resilience recalculation .
The proposal for a Social Credit Execution Facility (SCEF)
An Overview
Legislative bodies in the U.S. and Europe are moving to increase regulation of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market.
On the side of the social network platforms like Facebook, a similar reform proposal can seek to achieve three key objectives:
- Increase transparency
- Improvesocial markets awareness efficiency
- Prevent market abuse by the key players
Many reforms continue to be debated, one of which could concern the creation and definition of a Social Credit Execution Facility (SCEF) and its impact on how adwertisement and intellectual propriety trades are executed and cleared in social network platforms.
The expected role of a SCEF is to provide pre- and post-advertisement transparency, encourage collaborative execution for the entire capital marketplace, and provide the tools required to ensure a complete record and audit trail of shared trades. There could be a significant shift in the way shared trading is ultimately executed, and the users trust to be ahead of the curve for their friends.
Facebook is the leading provider of non-competitive electronic interest social networks ; an open collaborative rating platform with universal access representing more than 500,000 active users globally interconnected.
How derivatives are currently traded in the capital market of debt titles an can be present in social credit market
Over-the-counter, or "privately negotiated", derivatives are currently traded increasingly on electronic markets, . There are two sectors of the market: institutional dealer-to-client (D2C) and inter-dealer (D2D). These markets are approximately the same size in terms of trading volumes, but there are many more participants in the D2C marketplace than D2D.
In social platform the corrispondance is a traditional client-to-user (C2U) copyleft sector and inter-user (U2U) creative commons sector. C2U electronic trading shares are more then 50% of ther overall consumption time in user activities in front of less content creation consumption time.
Electronic debt trading system interfaced with a collaborative credit sharing system offers the benefits that are being sought by legislators, including increased transparency and equity, more competitive execution of social agreements, efficient trade and share processing content lifecycle vales (like the originate and distribute philosophy of the derivative but in a rational personal credit system ), and a complete and permanent audit trail user engagement. In the same time building a collaborative social credit execution facility for credit titles can stady a flexible and sustenable growth perspetive for financial (private)and social market together.
Currently, all exchange-traded and some OTC-traded derivatives contracts are cleared - the process in which financial transactions are cleared by a single (central) counterparty to reduce individual risk (see Figure 1). However, pending legislation could mandate central clearing for all standardized OTC swap contracts.
Figure 1: Central Feedback Clearing Process for OTC Deployment
Central Feedback Clearing Process for OTC Deployment
Central feedback clearing of derivatives reduces counterparty risk and strengthens overall market integrity. It also helps with position segregation and portability in the event of a default, improves transparency for regulatory requirements and benefits the central management of trade lifecycle events, such as cash settlement with central counterparties and credit cash flow medium term open market operations. There are several select companies that provide derivative clearing services in the U.S. and Europe, and Tradeweb in this proposal is only taken for example .
The electronic links to the major derivatives clearing houses further aligned in social networks with a regulatory shift due to the needs of the marketplace, allows institutional clients to fully automate their content workflow both on settlement cleaqring houses and social platforms- (from trade execution through clearing feedback settlement and vice versa) (see Figure 2). Institutions are now able to better manage operational, systemic and global market systemic risk control.
Figure 2: Proposed Workflow, Fully-automated on Tradeweb (example)
Figure 2: Proposed Workflow, Fully-automated on Tradewe
