Talk:Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts

General tidy up of original language today. OFR expected to issue LEI standard this summer. Rick (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LEIs can be assigned to a legal person

 * James Whittle, Convenor of ISO/TC 68 working group WG 6, responsible for the LEI standard, explained: “LEIs can be assigned to a legal person or structure that is organized under corporate laws of any jurisdiction. These entities include, but are not limited to, all financial intermediaries, banks and finance companies, all entities listed on an exchange, all entities that trade stock or debt, partnerships and pension funds, all entities under the purview of a financial regulator and their holding companies and supranationals.”

see: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1449

Above is a direct quote from the Convenor of the WG, which is published on ISO's site. The statement is clear where an LEI may be assigned:
 * a legal person, OR
 * and entity organized under corporate law.

Legal Person (Law) 	an individual or group that is allowed by law to take legal action, as plaintiff or defendent. It may include natural persons as well as fictitious persons (such as corporations). - Blackstone. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+person

Examples: 1. Freddy Jones doing business as Jones Auto Recycling (a sole proprietor not organized under ANY corporate law) MAY be assigned an LEI. 2. Freddy Jones and his son Timmy Jones (a general partnership not organized under ANY corporate law) doing business as Jones Auto Recycling MAY be assigned an LEI 3. Carlos Slim, Warren Buffett, George Sorros, Amancio Ortega etc, or any natural person MAY be assigned an LEI.

"May be assigned" doesn't necessarily imply its a good idea to assign LEIs to those entities. And, perhaps under the newer federated structure individual jurisdictions may restrict who may be assigned an LEI within their unique jurisdiction. However the above, as stated, is crystal clear that at the top most entity level, "LEIs can be assigned to a legal person" Rick (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FSB's recommendation 8 (in ref 1 on the Article page) states that the " the term  ‘legal  entity’...excludes  natural  persons"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garibaldi2 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... LEI is a very important emerging, global standard with very broad, and very significant impact. The assertion of copyright infringement should be carefully reviewed, perhaps there is actually no problem to begin with? Has a copyright complaint been received by an official copyright holder? If so immediate correction (vs. deletion) is absolutely warranted. Ultimately, if there is a violation found, only that "infringing" material should be removed, with a reasonable discussion of that on the talk page.

Wikipedia suffers from almost a complete lack of quality publishing in the investments and financial services area. Every effort should be made to improve those content areas, make them valuable, and provide content that is of value to a sophisticated and generally overworked contributor and user base. That will ultimately draw in more subject mater experts, more eyeballs, and its highly likely that the editing and presentation layer may be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.88.74 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to FSB
Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts has been wiped clean twice and has been twice made into a redirect to the Financial Stability Board. This is dead wrong. The LEI initiative was "kicked off" by the G20 (Not FSB). Its very much its own entity, with its own governance, own board, complete freedom from FSB, etc. FSB had some great input into it, but that's about it. LEI is not even discussed in the FSA article. FSA would be appalled to have anyone imply that they individually owned or totally controlled (directly or indirectly) the LEI standard. That would be absolutely counterproductive to the mission (to which they fully buy into) that the standard should be international.
 * Where would you rather redirect it to? bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)