Can An LEI System Work in The Municipal Market?

Author Triet Nguyen contends that any implementation of legal entity identifiers for municipal issuers will have to satisfy a basic market need: the correct identification of obligors for every municipal transaction and their inter-relationships.

by Triet Nguyen
July 25, 2024

The Financial Data Transparency Act (“FDTA”) passed by Congress in December 2022 mandated the use of a common, non-proprietary legal entity identifier for municipal issuers. Although Congress’ legislative intent continues to be a matter of debate, we argue that any implementation of this new mandate will have to satisfy a basic market need: the correct identification of obligors for every municipal transaction and their inter-relationships, as appropriate.

What is the LEI System?

The current Global Legal Entity Identifier System (“LEI”) was created 10 years ago, in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, regulators and private-sector firms found themselves unable to accurately assess market participants’ exposure to Lehman and the inter-connections within the vast network of financial market participants. Thus arose the need for a global system to identify financial connections, so regulators and private sector firms could better understand the true nature of risk exposures across the financial system.

According to ChatGPT, “the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) system is a globally recognized standard for uniquely identifying legal entities involved in financial transactions. The LEI itself is a 20-character, alphanumeric code based on the ISO 17442 standard. It connects to key reference information that allows clear and unique identification of legal entities participating in financial transactions. Here are the main aspects of the LEI system:

Purpose: The primary purpose of the LEI system is to enhance transparency in the global financial system. It helps in the management and assessment of financial risks, and it supports regulatory oversight by enabling clear identification of parties to financial transactions.
Structure: The LEI code itself is composed of 20 characters:
- Characters 1-4: Prefix used to identify the Local Operating Unit (LOU) that issued the LEI.
- Characters 5-18: Entity-specific part generated and assigned by LOUs.
- Characters 19-20: Two check digits used to validate the LEI.
Entities Covered: The LEI system covers any entity that is a party to a financial transaction, including financial institutions, corporations, government bodies, and funds.
Global LEI System (GLEIS): The LEI system is managed by the Global LEI System, which is overseen by the Global LEI Foundation (GLEIF). The GLEIF ensures the operational integrity of the LEI system and maintains a centralized database of LEIs.
Local Operating Units (LOUs): These are organizations accredited by the GLEIF to issue and manage LEIs. They are responsible for registering entities, validating their information, and ensuring that LEIs are regularly updated.
Benefits: The LEI system provides numerous benefits, including improved risk management, reduced financial fraud, increased transparency, and more efficient regulatory reporting.
Registration and Renewal: Entities can obtain an LEI by applying to an accredited LOU. The LEI must be renewed annually to ensure that the information remains accurate and up-to-date.”

Municipal Issuers and LEIs

It should be noted that the current LEI system is already available to public entities, including states, local governments, and other governmental bodies. The LEI application process is the same as for corporations.

For public entities, the advertised benefits of an LEI include: (1) transparency and accountability in financial dealings; and (2) better risk management and compliance with regulatory requirements.

Yet, as of this writing, only a handful of municipal issuers have reportedly applied for an LEI. Why? Because no one has been able to articulate the use case for a public entity to voluntarily apply for this identifier. More importantly, not every obligor in muniland is a “legal” entity that can be registered in the LEI system database.

The Obligor Identification Issue

In the corporate sector, a company like General Motors (“GM”) would only issue GM bonds, not “Chevrolet” or “Cadillac” bonds. There would be very little ambiguity as to who the legal entity / credit obligor is. In contrast, a municipal “obligor” can be any of the following:

The issuer itself, if the issuer is the party directly responsible for repayment of the debt (e.g., the City of Chicago for City of Chicago G.O. bonds)
The enterprise or business-activity fund (i.e., an accounting entity of a primary government), which receives and holds the revenues pledged for debt service (e.g., City of Chicago Water Fund)
A defined source of revenues pledged for debt service, in the case of Dedicated Revenue Bonds (e.g., “NYS Personal Income Tax”)
The “lessee” in the case of a lease transaction involving an issuer, a lessor, and a lessee

As a result, a typical municipal bond issue may involve as many as three or more separate and distinct entities: an issuer, a nominal borrower and, often, another third party whose revenues are pledged to repayment of the bonds.

The DASNY Problem

The prevalence of so-called “conduit issuance” is at the root of this problem. Many different types of entities, even private corporations, can seek tax-exempt financing through the municipal market. In order to do so, many must issue their bonds through a conduit issuer, which usually has no financial obligation related to the bonds.

The poster child for conduit issuance would have to be the Dormitory Authority of The State of New York, aka “DASNY”. As one of the largest issuers in our market, DASNY has issued bonds on its own behalf (i.e., where it is the obligor), as well as on behalf of as many as 408 distinct obligors, spanning such diverse sectors as local school districts, healthcare systems, universities, and continuing care retirement communities (“CCRC”).

In other words, if you invested in a DASNY bond, you have no idea what you own until you figure out who the actual obligor is. A school district would certainly be at the opposite end of the risk spectrum, compared to a CCRC, for example.

Interestingly, the Lehman Bros collapse during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, which ostensibly led to the creation of the current LEI system, also provided a lesson in obligor identification.

Some of you may recall the Main Street Prepaid Gas issue from Georgia, with a complex security structure which was effectively dependent on Lehman’s creditworthiness, even though Lehman‘s name never appeared in the security description. Many holders of the Main Street bonds, who thought they held gas utility bonds, found out, to their dismay, that the actual obligor was Lehman, a financial services company. It was a painful lesson to learn as the Main Street Prepaid Gas bonds traded down to mere cents on the dollar once Lehman went into bankruptcy.

What Is Needed

As the above examples show, an LEI system that strictly deals with legal entities would not adequately capture all the various types of municipal obligors.

What the industry needs, we believe, is a comprehensive relational database linking every single bond issue to its correct “direct obligor,” at the individual cusip-9 level, based on a rigorous and consistent credit-driven methodology. Once identified, the “direct obligor” would be used to classify the bond issue into the correct sector/subsector.

Such a database will have to not only correctly identify the obligated parties for every municipal bond transaction, but also capture relationships between obligors, if any. For instance, enterprise fund obligors can be linked to the appropriate primary government in a parent-child relationship. All such relationships can then be rolled up into the capital structure for every primary government.

This new classification scheme would allow market participants, both on the buy and sell sides, to correctly identify the source and nature of credit risk in their holdings and to aggregate such risk into meaningful sectors that share common risk drivers.

It wouldn’t require much of a stretch of the imagination to see how such a system would enhance the information flow and perhaps even improve liquidity in a market as heterogeneous as the municipal sector.

Obligor Identification and the FDTA

What exactly did legislators have in mind by mandating the use of a common, nonproprietary legal entity identifier? Among market participants and the agencies tasked with implementing the FDTA, confusion reigns. What is clear is that Congress never fully appreciated the complexity of the municipal market. If the intent was to correctly identify all parties in a municipal transaction and their inter-connections, and prevent future systemic risk, then the LEI concept must be expanded to accommodate other non-legal entities in order to be truly useful in our market.

Although no single technology has been explicitly endorsed by the regulators at this time, inline XBRL appears to hold great promise in terms of allowing financial data capture in machine-readable, structured format. The same technology also offers features that can be used to tag and link obligors, a potential solution to our industry’s problem.

Of course, as is the case with any new legislative mandate, basic questions such as “who should pay for this” must be resolved before the industry can move forward with any potential solution.

Seizing The Moment

As the prior discussion shows, the LEI system, as currently implemented in the corporate world, would be of limited usefulness to municipal market participants. Nevertheless, the use of a legal entity identifier mandate from the FDTA could be an opportunity for the tax-exempt market to finally address one of its most egregious data gaps: the lack of a standardized obligor identification system, one based on a transparent credit-based methodology and accessible in machine-readable format. Will market participants and regulators seize this moment and solve this vexing problem once and for all? The next few months will be telling.

Stay informed

Sign up and get the latest news and insights about DPC DATA’s municipal bond credit, disclosure, and compliance data solutions delivered right to your inbox.

Resources