2015-07-13 Meeting notes

Date

13 Jul 2015

Attendees

Dennis Wisnosky

• Richard Beatch (Unlicensed)

• Elisa Kendall
• Mike Bennett
• Gareth Isaac (Unlicensed)

Decisions

Should any of this stuff be coved back into BE? Our thought is no, as these are talking specifically about financial intermediaries.  If there are concepts which are not financial industry specific, e.g. Co­operative, then these should be moved to BE. Similarly perhaps there are kinds of mutual organizations e.g. thrift companies (US), these would be BE, but as soon as a concept exists only because of financial regulation, it goes in FBC.

Also we need to focus on the axioms ­ it may well be that thrifts and co­ops are the same thing, or subtly distinct sub­classes of a generic thing which is an entity owned by its members for example.  Needs research.

Proceedings

20150713 FIBO-FBC FCT.docx

20150713  FIBO-FBC FCT

Cooperative Bank ­ The US specific definitions differs from (or is narrower than) the

more globally attested usage of the term Co­operative.

Credit Union: is this also a global term, or a US one? It is very similar to a Co­op (perhaps the same axiomatically??)

Strategy: we start with what are known to be US specific kinds of financial service

Provider.  Later, we can identify from these, which of them are specializations or synonyms for more globally attested concepts (or Anglophone concepts).  So later we will identify those abstractions.  Mean while there are some on the list which already are clearly generalizable.  So e.g., something which is chartered by some US government organ, would be a specialization of some kind of entity which is chartered by some government organ generally, in whatever country.  for example a national bank is (at the general level) regulated by the office of the comptroller of the currency, whatever that office happens to be called in a given jurisdiction.

Depositary versus non depository companies ­ look at B of E literature, which suggests some universally applicable distinctions.  Non Depository Trust Company would take the form of a Trust, and may or may not require some extension to the Trust as an Independent Thing, for specific attribute or capabilities it may need, if any.  Similarly for car loan sales finance companies ­ these are clearly relative.

Q:Given you are always going to link this up to a jurisdiction, doesn't this mean that any one of that thing will be covered by a US regulator?  Foreign Branch is a very well defined concept. This is where the legal person is in an other Jurisdiction but a branch is registered (and has its own LEI) for regulatory purpose’s in a given jurisdiction.

Clarification: these jurisdiction­specific definitions, which are framed with reference to a given (individual) jurisdiction, will be descended from general terms in the non jurisdiction specific model, in which reference is made to the general class of things which are a Jurisdiction, a Regulator and so on.

Where we draw the line between classes and individuals: These individuals (Jurisdiction, Regulator, Central Bank etc.) will only be in the jurisdiction specific ontologies and no such individuals should be in the more general ontologies that will sit at a level above these.  These are done by restrictions on the properties, that refer to the relevant individuals.

Note that with the US Fed, there are "districts" at a level in between State and (federal)  Country. so each of the 5 FRBs have a given "District".  This uses the 'hasReach' property that was always intended to allow jurisdictions to have any geopolitical or geophysical reach. This use case validates that usage of the model.  We don't need to actually define the contents of each Fed District, the main thing is we have named them and they are geopolitical things.

The National Information Center (NIC) gives details of regulated entities, along with details like institution type an so on. This can all be represented (as an individual) for e.g. Citi Bank This is stuff about the Bank, not about the registered entity as a registered entity. Elisa has modeled this by defining relationships between the relative entity that is a registered entity, and the independent thing that is the bank as a company.

In the spreadsheet, there are facts bout the independent thing (legal entity) e.g. address, and facts about the bank as a bank, i.e. as a financial firm (functional entity).  The entry for Citibank North America, and the details of the regulated entity (in North Dakota) are different ­ they are distinct companies.  The NIC entry is the one to look at for regulated entity.

Action:  Is there such a thing as the NIC in the UK? Gareth will take a look.

Building Society (UK) has its own unique definition. This would cover its nature as a

functional entity, and also the range of kinds of corporate form that they are allowed to take.

In the US, "Non member bank" is a state chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve and therefore not regulated by that, but is regulated by something else.

Should any of this stuff be coved back into BE? Our thought is no, as these are talking specifically about financial intermediaries.  If there are concepts which are not financial industry specific, e.g. Co­operative, then these should be moved to BE. Similarly perhaps there are kinds of mutual organizations e.g. thrift companies (US), these would be BE, but as soon as a concept exists only because of financial regulation, it goes in FBC.

Also we need to focus on the axioms ­ it may well be that thrifts and co­ops are the same thing, or subtly distinct sub­classes of a generic thing which is an entity owned by its members for example.  Needs research.

Action items

• Gareth Isaac (Unlicensed) Is there such a thing as the NIC in the UK? Gareth will take a look.