A divided Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Thursday voted out a final rule establishing internal business conduct standards to shield customers from the risks associated with swap dealers (SD), as well as a new proposal on block trades. During the meeting, commissioners vented their growing dissatisfaction both with the pace of the rulemaking process and the content of some of the rules being adopted.
The final rule on business conduct standards cleared the Commission by 3-2, with, as has come to be expected, Republican Commissioners Jill Sommers and Scott O’Malia dissenting. The proposed block rule, which passed by a similar margin, seeks to establish minimum block sizes for large notional off-facility swaps and block trades, while protecting the identities of parties to swap transactions.
The conduct standards rule is a collection of five CFTC proposals that establish:
This “sets up a sort of ‘Good Housekeeping’ standard for everybody to operate by,” said Commissioner Bart Chilton.
O’Malia said he planned to send a letter to the Office of Management and Budget commissioner requesting an independent review of the rule to determine whether it fully complies with President Obama’s executive order, which called on agencies to clean house of costly regulations.
Sommers questioned the soundness of the rules being adopted by the CFTC. “I have been hopeful over the past year that things would change when we started finalizing rules, and especially the rules that are so integral to the new regulatory framework, but things have not changed. I am no longer optimistic; I do not believe that these rules have a chance of withstanding the test of time, and instead believe that this Commission will be consumed over the next few years using our valuable resources to rewrite rules that we knew, or should have known, would not work when we issued them,” she said.
“I am most disturbed…by the walls we are erecting on communications between the trading and clearing units of swap dealers and affiliated FCMs…Rather than protecting customers, I fear the rules will increase their costs and create needless inefficiencies for those looking for full-service options.”
While supporting both rules, Chilton urged the agency to move quickly on implementing the position limit rule, which seeks to curb market speculation by restricting the number of contracts that a trader can hold (see Daily GPI, Oct. 19, 2011).
“I’m sorely disappointed that it has been five months [in October] since the Commission voted on the rule, and nothing — nothing — has moved forward to begin to impose position limits and address excessive speculation. I understand all the arguments about needing data [on position limits], but I’m tired — and the American public is tired — of waiting for a swaps definition rule to be promulgated in order for position limits to be effective. There are things we can and should do now, and today I’m calling for them to be done,” at least for futures and options, he said.
“Specifically, in addition to imposition of spot month limits in the 28 referenced contracts in the futures and options on DCMs [demand contract markets], I am calling for a rule withdrawing the [existing] ability of exchanges to utilize position accountability levels in non-spot months for these contracts, and effectively seeking limits in non-spot months,” Chilton said.
Progress on implementation of the Commission’s rule on position limits has been stalled until the agency can agree to a definition for “swaps” and definitions for SDs and MSPs (see Daily GPI, April 28, 2011). “I know there may be intractable issues. If that remains the case…put those issues on a separate track and get out the main rule now. I am requesting that the agency move on one of these two paths in order to get position limits in place.”
CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler indicated that the CFTC will address the swaps definition in April, and the definitions for SD and MSP entities “very shortly.” But he added, “We’re only going to do them when we get it right.”
The Commission had expected to take up a final rule on SD and MSP definitions at the meeting, but the Securities and Exchange Commission “wasn’t ready” to move forward on the final joint rule (see Daily GPI, Feb. 22).
Energy trade groups are concerned that the CFTC is moving toward a broad definition of SDs that could subject end-users and hedge funds to greater scrutiny under the Dodd-Frank law.
Â©Copyright 2012Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.
© 2021 Natural Gas Intelligence. All rights reserved.
ISSN © 1532-1231 | ISSN © 2577-9877 |