London Stock Exchange | Data Quality Report | June 2019 · Data Quality Scores London Stock...
1
Statistics Data Quality Scores London Stock Exchange | Data Quality Report | June 2019 LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score Trend LEI Issuer Data Quality ( ) against LEI Pool Average ( ) The LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score is calculated as the equal weighted average of the 11 ‘Data Quality Criteria’. Progress achieved with regard to the continuous optimization of the data quality based on the LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score. Data Quality in Covered Countries Quality Maturity Level 100% 75% Jun May Apr 99.99 % 99.99 % 99.99 % DISCLAIMER: All figures of this LEI Data Quality Report are derived from these sources: 1) Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) Concatenated end-of-month files for all months mentioned in this report and 2) the Data Quality Reports for the reported month based on the LEI-Data-Quality-Check Specification v2.1.4. While every care has been taken in the compilation of this information, GLEIF will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of inaccuracy or error within the LEI Data Quality Report. The text and graphic content of the LEI Data Quality Report may be used, printed and distributed ONLY with the copyright information displayed (© Copyright Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)). Jun May Apr Mar Dec Jan Nov Feb Aug Sep Jul Oct Jun 100% 0% 99 % 100% <90% May Jun # Checks # Failed Records The Data Quality criteria is expected to contain 12 dimensions. Currently a subset of 11 criteria is implemented, to the detriment of the score, as they are averaged on all of them. This is expected to change, on a nonfixed timeline, to include all 12 dimensions. Data Quality Criteria Active entities managed 1,150 (-10.99 %) Challenges this month Inactive entities managed Managed LEIs 13,344 (+11.38 %) Values LEIs with complete parent information 21 (-12.50 %) 171,822 (+0.36 %) 502 (+1.41 %) Duplicate percentage of managed LEIs < 1 % (+1.04 %) LEIs with LEI parent relationships 2 (-33.33 %) Level 2 Info 179 (+/-0 %) Totals New lapsed LEIs * 168,317 (+0.33 %) 3 (-57.14 %) 3,505 (+1.85 %) Values Values Challenges Covered countries Total LEIs marked as duplicate ** Duplicates found this month ** RegistrationStatus = DUPLICATE 168,245 (+0.34 %) Values Duplicates * Please see our Business Report www.gleif.org/business-reports for detailed information around lapsed LEIs. Updates to entity information this month Files Values 30 / 30 (+3.33 %) No. of days per month with CDF- compliant file uploads L3 Excellent quality L2 Expected quality L1 Required quality C000262 C000282 Relationships’ NextRenewalDate (date portion) is... There is no repetition of the same LEI code with ... # Failed Records 12 The Legal Form in the name, matches the ELF C... C000263 Check description 3 They must be managed by the same LOU that m... C000291 34 Top 5 Failing Checks If the ultimate parent is public: The ultimate par... 2 C000180 7 99.99 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 3 99.99 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 99.99 % Representation 100.00 % 0 (0 %) 100.00 % 37 (0.02 %) Accuracy 1 99.99 % 2 2 Completeness 100.00 % 100.00 % Integrity 0 (0 %) Currency Comprehensiveness 100.00 % Provenance Uniqueness 0 (0 %) 8 12 (< 0.01 %) 15 2 (< 0.01 %) 99.99 % 0 (0 %) Consistency 18 99.99 % 8 (< 0.01 %) 100.00 % 1 2 0 (0 %) 99.99 % Validity 21 99.99 % 99.99 % 100.00 % 100.00 % Accessibility 2 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 100.00 %
Transcript of London Stock Exchange | Data Quality Report | June 2019 · Data Quality Scores London Stock...
Statistics
Data Quality Scores
London Stock Exchange | Data Quality Report | June 2019
LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score Trend
LEI Issuer Data Quality ( ) against LEI Pool Average ( )
The LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score is calculated as the equal weightedaverage of the 11 ‘Data Quality Criteria’.
Progress achieved with regard to the continuous optimization of the dataquality based on the LEI Issuer Total Data Quality Score.
Data Quality in Covered Countries
Quality Maturity Level
100%
75%
JunMayApr
99.99 % 99.99 %99.99 %
DISCLAIMER: All figures of this LEI Data Quality Report are derived from these sources: 1) Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) Concatenated end-of-month files for all months mentionedin this report and 2) the Data Quality Reports for the reported month based on the LEI-Data-Quality-Check Specification v2.1.4. While every care has been taken in the compilation of thisinformation, GLEIF will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of inaccuracy or error within the LEI Data Quality Report. The text and graphic content of theLEI Data Quality Report may be used, printed and distributed ONLY with the copyright information displayed (© Copyright Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)).
JunMayAprMarDec JanNov FebAug SepJul OctJun
100%0%
99 %
100%
<90%
MayJun # Checks # Failed Records
The Data Quality criteria is expected to contain 12 dimensions. Currently a subset of 11criteria is implemented, to the detriment of the score, as they are averaged on all ofthem. This is expected to change, on a nonfixed timeline, to include all 12 dimensions.
Data Quality Criteria
Active entities managed
1,150 (-10.99 %)
Challenges this month
Inactive entities managed
Managed LEIs
13,344 (+11.38 %)
Values
LEIs with complete parent information
21 (-12.50 %)
171,822 (+0.36 %)
502 (+1.41 %)
Duplicate percentage of managed LEIs < 1 % (+1.04 %)
LEIs with LEI parent relationships
2 (-33.33 %)
Level 2 Info
179 (+/-0 %)
Totals
New lapsed LEIs *
168,317 (+0.33 %)
3 (-57.14 %)
3,505 (+1.85 %)
Values
ValuesChallenges
Covered countries
Total LEIs marked as duplicate **
Duplicates found this month
** RegistrationStatus = DUPLICATE
168,245 (+0.34 %)
Values
Duplicates
* Please see our Business Report www.gleif.org/business-reportsfor detailed information around lapsed LEIs.
Updates to entity information this month
Files Values
30 / 30 (+3.33 %)No. of days per month with CDF-compliant file uploads
L3 Excellent qualityL2 Expected qualityL1 Required quality
C000262
C000282
Relationships’ NextRenewalDate (date portion) is...
There is no repetition of the same LEI code with ...
# Failed Records
12 The Legal Form in the name, matches the ELF C...
C000263
Check description
3 They must be managed by the same LOU that m...
C000291 34
Top 5 Failing Checks
If the ultimate parent is public: The ultimate par...
2
C000180 7
99.99 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
3
99.99 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
99.99 %
Representation
100.00 % 0 (0 %)
100.00 %
37 (0.02 %)
Accuracy
1
99.99 % 2
2
Completeness
100.00 %
100.00 %Integrity
0 (0 %)
Currency
Comprehensiveness 100.00 %
Provenance
Uniqueness
0 (0 %)8
12 (< 0.01 %)
15
2 (< 0.01 %)99.99 %
0 (0 %)
Consistency
18
99.99 % 8 (< 0.01 %)
100.00 %
1
2
0 (0 %)
99.99 %
Validity
21
99.99 %
99.99 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
Accessibility
2
0 (0 %)
0 (0 %)
100.00 %
