CFTC Chair J. Christopher Giancarlo assessed the challenges facing the CFTC and the United States in the global competition as a center for the derivatives markets. In an address at the West Texas Legislative Summit, Mr. Giancarlo warned that the CFTC must be proactive if the United States is to retain its preeminent position in the global financial markets.
Mr. Giancarlo described the significance of the commodity derivatives market and its impact on pricing. He pointed out that even those who do not participate in such markets are still affected and that 90 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 use derivatives to hedge. He highlighted the challenge of global competition, particularly China’s domestic futures market, specifically alluding to the country’s recent opening to international participation, which has “competitive implications” for the United States. To maintain “world leadership,” he said, it is urgent that derivatives markets in the United States maintain “openness, orderliness, and liquidity” to sustain global economic leadership.
Mr. Giancarlo emphasized the importance of establishing a regulatory framework that is “ahead of the curve,” and advocated for the “SMART-REG” approach he first outlined in 2014. This approach, he said, is intended to “solve problems – real problems, not invented ones.”
Mr. Giancarlo asserted that under his leadership, the CFTC has “emphasized greater care and precision in rule drafting, more thorough econometric analysis, and a reduced docket of new rules and regulations to be absorbed by market participants.”
Lofchie Comment: Chairman Giancarlo went beyond a discussion of the derivatives markets to discuss the underlying commodities markets. In explaining the success of the shale revolution in the United States, he described a “combination of American technological innovation, North American geology, U.S. property law, the skilled and entrepreneurial American workforce and our dynamic capitalist economy.” Chairman Giancarlo continues to be a voice of clarity and an educator in an often confused debate about the value of markets and the limits of governments as providers of services and products.
It is not so long ago that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in economic failure. That collapse seemed as if it would put an end to any debate as to the benefits of government ownership of the means of production. But today that debate is revived, or at least there are new advocates for it. To the extent that these advocates are taken seriously, it is important that advocates for private enterprise and for market competition not be shy to point out successes, face criticisms and to make comparisons as to the successes of different systems.