CFTC Proposes Capital, Liquidity and Related Requirements for Swap Dealers

The CFTC approved proposed rules establishing minimum capital, liquidity, financial reporting and related requirements for CFTC-registered swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs”). The proposed rules are a reproposal of rules previously proposed in 2011.

The proposed rules cover the follow areas related to SDs and MSPs:

  • capital requirements;
  • liquidity requirements;
  • financial recordkeeping and financial reporting;
  • obligation to notify regulators if a firm’s capital drops below certain levels; and
  • limitations on the withdrawal of capital and liquid assets.

The CFTC identified three approaches to allow firms to meet capital requirements:

  • an approach based on bank capital requirements that would be available to SDs that are subsidiaries of a bank holding company and thus subject to BHC capital requirements;
  • an approach modeled after the SEC’s capital requirements; and
  • a “tangible” net capital approach intended for a commercial enterprise, but that is also required to register as a swap dealer with the CFTC.

The proposal would establish certain liquidity, reporting and notification requirements, and would obligate entities covered by the proposal to keep current books and records in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Firms would be able to use models, although the models would have to be approved by the regulators. In addition, the rules provide for a “comparability” determination that will allow non-U.S. swap dealers that are not subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board to be subject to their home country capital rules.

There are currently 104 provisionally-registered swaps dealers (no registered major swap participants). Of those, 51 are not subject to the CFTC’s capital requirements because they are subject to U.S. bank requirements (including 36 which are non-U.S. banks having branches in the United States). Eight of the remaining swap dealers are already capital-regulated by the CFTC because they are FCMs, some of which are also SEC-registered broker-dealers. Of the remaining firms, some are subsidiaries of U.S. or non-U.S. bank holding companies or other entities subject to Basel-capital requirements that have sufficient capital to sustain their activities. Currently, there are no registered major swap participant and there is only one primarily commercial firm (Cargill) provisionally registered as a swap dealer with the CFTC.

In statements issued in connection with the reproposal, Chair Timothy Massad emphasized that the proposed requirements should avoid requiring all such firms to follow one approach. “Requiring all firms to follow one approach could favor one business model over another, and cause even greater concentration in the industry,” he said.

Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo expressed concerns regarding (i) the rule’s effect on smaller swap dealers and how much additional capital they may have to raise; (ii) the especially broad scope of the proposal; and (iii) the proposed capital model review and approval process.

Lofchie Comment: In terms of the substance of the rule requirements, the CFTC largely punted responsibility (and appropriately so) either to the banking regulators or to the SEC, both of which have significantly more expertise and staff to deal with these matters. It would have been messy for the CFTC and the SEC to take different approaches to capital requirements. Firms subject to regulation by both regulators would have been forced to comply with the more conservative set of rules in any case. In terms of process, the CFTC will wait and see what capital rules are eventually adopted by the SEC and then piggyback on them. For the CFTC, this is an entirely sensible way to go.  For firms that have an interest in the CFTC Rules, and will be subject to the “SEC version of the SEC rules, this means that they should concentrate on commenting on the actual SEC Rules, as the CFTC will likely follow along with whatever the SEC does.

In the Appendix, the CFTC reports the number of registered swap dealers and major swap participants. The numbers are revealing.

  • The CFTC stated that it had expected 300 swap dealers to register. Only 104 firms have done so. The costs associated with registration have likely caused numerous firms either to abandon dealing in swaps or to reduce their level of business below the de minimis level so as to not become subject to registration. Put differently, the regulations have led to a significant increase in the concentration of the swaps-dealing business. If the CFTC determines to reduce the level of business at which swap dealers are required to register, virtually all of the small unregistered swap dealers will further reduce their level of business or drop out of swaps dealing entirely. In short, Dodd-Frank has led to a significant accelerated concentration of swaps exposure.
  • There are no firms registered as a major swap participant. Not one. The registration requirements, applicable to large users of swaps that are not dealers, are absurd; it would be impossible for any non-dealer to comply with them. These provisions should be dropped from Dodd-Frank and the regulators should no longer waste time coming up with rules for registration categories that will apply to no one.
  • Congress gave no instruction as to how capital requirements could possibly be applied to a commercial entity that is a swap dealer. It simply does not work to have regulatory capital requirements (which largely require that a firm hold liquid financial assets) for commercial enterprises that own oil wells, related buildings and refineries. After years of struggling with how to make this round peg fit into a square hole, the CFTC essentially gave up (which was the rational thing to do). It set a low tangible capital requirement, which serves as an irrelevant fig leaf: a rule that the CFTC proposed merely because Congress required it to do so.

Currently, the CFTC does not have the expertise to supervise a models-based capital regime. Greater consideration should be given as to how this will work in practice.

Comments are closed.