CFTC Chairman Gensler Speaks on Swaps Market Reform

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler spoke before the Americans for Financial Reform and Georgetown University Law Center’s Financial Transparency Symposium, reviewing the steps that the government and the CFTC have taken to reform the swaps market. 

Chairman Gensler began with an overview of the debates that Congress and the Administration had when beginning to reform the market: which products to cover, which participants to cover, and what the cross-border scope of reform should be.  According to Gensler, the scope of the current regulatory framework goes beyond swaps products that were most affected during the financial crisis, and now includes interest rate swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, equity swaps, credit default swaps and derivative products.  Gensler also mentioned that there is now a three-tiered system of participant reforms, with swap dealers at the center, then financial institutions and, finally, non-financial institutions or end users.  Additionally, Gensler stated that, during reform, Congress recognized that “risk knows no geographic border,” leading to the current framework’s focus on cross-border regulation. 

Regarding the substance of the swaps market reform, Gensler noted twelve key decisions:

  • transparency to regulators, through means such as putting in place swap data repositories;
  • public market transparency;
  • post-trade transparency, through means such as providing the public and end users with the price and volume of transactions;
  • pre-transaction transparency, through means such as requiring swap execution facilities to provide it as swap trading platforms;
  • central clearing reform, through means such as the mandatory clearing of interest rate and credit index swaps implementation;
  • access reforms, through means such as implementing impartial access to trading venues and straight-through processing;
  • intermediaries reform and requiring registration or licensing for both swaps and futures;
  • customer protection;
  • repealing the “Enron loophole”;
  • employing the enforcement power that Dodd-Frank allowed the CFTC;
  • adhering to the compliance dates that Congress gave the CFTC to complete reform; and
  • reforming benchmark interest rates, such as LIBOR, Euribor and others.  

Moving forward, Gensler pointed out future challenges, such as increasing the number of CFTC staff members, as well as making sure that reforms continue to evolve and “stay abreast of market participants’ practice.” 

Lofchie Comment:  It is hard to see the connection between any of the above items and the financial crisis. In what way would “transparency” as to swaps pricing have had relevance to the financial crisis? It’s not as if the pricing of swaps diverged in some meaningful way from prices in the cash markets. The reality is just the reverse: that swaps prices were consistent with prices in the cash markets.

Here is what the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, had to say about the events leading up to the financial crisis in the current issue of Foreign Affairs (at page 89 of the November 2013 issue):  “In the run-up to the crisis, the Federal Reserve Board’s sophisticated forecasting system did not foresee the major risk to the global economy.  Nor did the model developed by the International Monetary Fund, which concluded as late as the spring of 2007 that ‘global economic risks [had] declined’ . . . .”

The Fed and the IMF had transparency as to interest rate swaps and FX swaps. Now we will have the same information as to swaps. Query: how does that make the economy safer in a way that is worth the enormous cost of this exercise?

See: Chairman Gensler’s Speech.

 

U.S. District Judge Pauley Rules That Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions Do Not Apply Outside the United States

U.S. District Judge William Pauley has dismissed the lawsuit brought against Siemens A.G. by a former compliance officer who claimed that Siemens’ Chinese subsidiary used kickbacks to boost medical equipment sales, ruling that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers do not apply outside the United States. 

Lofchie Comment:  The judge takes a dim view of broad claims of the extra-territorial application of U.S. law, even in a situation in which the court accepts, for the sake of argument, an allegation of wrongdoing.  This obviously has direct significance for whistleblowers, but also raises further questions as to the vulnerability of the CFTC’s broad assertion of global jurisdiction under Dodd-Frank.

See: Meng-Lin Liu v. Siemens A.G., Memorandum and Order.

 

IOSCO Launches First Securities Markets Risk Outlook

IOSCO published the Securities Markets Risk Outlook for 2013 and 2014, which highlights important trends, vulnerabilities and risks in securities markets that may be of concern from a systemic perspective.  The information and data from the Outlook was compiled by the IOSCO Research Department and the Committee on Emerging Risks, and identifies four main risks related to:

  • the low interest rate environment;
  • collateral management; 
  • the derivatives markets; and
  • a reversal of the capital flows of emerging markets. 

See: IOSCO Securities Markets Risk Outlook 2013-14; IOSCO Press Release.

FDIC Issues Financial Institution Letter Regarding Annual Stress-Test Reporting Template and Documentation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued a financial institution letter to describe the reports and information required under Dodd-Frank Section 165(i)(2) (“Enhanced Supervision and Prudential Standards for Nonbank Financial Companies Supervised by the Board of Governors and Certain Bank Holding Companies”) of covered banks with total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $50 billion. The data collected through the stress-test reporting templates will be used to assess how reasonable a covered bank’s stress-test results are, and provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered bank’s capital adequacy.  Covered banks with consolidated assets between $10 billion and $50 billion must report capital and risk-weighted assets for the nine-quarter planning horizon using the regulatory capital rules applicable on the “as of” date of each report for the initial submission.

See: FDIC Financial Institution Letter.

CFTC Commissioner Chilton Reflects on Changing Nature of Financial Industry

CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton delivered a speech, on October 9 before the National Association of Credit Management, which focused on the changing environment of the financial sector and places where improvements should be made. 

Commissioner Chilton spoke about the the financial sector’s “unfortunate state of affairs,” discussing many banks that have violated trading laws in recent years, such as the London Whale case and the LIBOR manipulation cases.  To address these negative developments, Commissioner Chilton suggested updating the penalty regime by imposing greater monetary fines and sending violators to jail, as well as initiating a cultural shift in the financial sector.  Chilton stated that, because it is difficult to regulate business ethics, firms must adopt a more independent culture which promotes transparency, accountability, and customer protection.  To do this, Chilton recommended, credit and risk managers must be incentivized through greater recruitment and better rewards. 

Chilton went on to discuss how the government shutdown impacted the CFTC, pointing out that they were one of the few federal financial regulators that were forced to close.  According to Chilton, the CFTC had the funds to remain open; however, Congress had never approved amendments that allowed the CFTC to access those funds, therefore forcing the CFTC to shut down.

Lofchie Comment:  Commissioner Chilton’s calls for greater regulatory authority to impose sanctions seems disconnected from reports of massive fines, including those imposed by the CFTC.  In many instances where the government imposes a sanction, it is not even clear that a law was broken.  Commissioner Chilton is now advocating for authority to impose a fine that is sufficient to put an alleged wrongdoer out of business for any violation.   That way, the regulator may enter into any “settlement” negotiation with a massive advantage: the ability to offer the accused the choice either of settling or becoming subject to fines that would make them insolvent.

See: Commissioner Chilton’s Speech.
See also: YouTube Video.

SEF Seeks Determination of Mandatory Exchange Trading of Swaps

The CFTC has posted notice on its website that Javelin SEF, LLC (Javelin), a new swap execution facility (“SEF”) whose registration has been granted temporary approval by the CFTC, has certified that a very significant portion of interest rate swap contracts should be “made available to trade”; i.e., required to be traded on a swap execution facility or futures market.  Interested parties may comment, on what the CFTC describes as a “novel or complex issue,” until November 19, 2013. 

The made available to trade determination will apply to fixed to floating swaps, where the floating leg is tied to USD LIBOR, Sterling LIBOR and Euribor, and the currency of the trade is dollars, pounds or Euros, subject to a variety of other conditions such as standard day count conventions and holiday calendars.  The term of the swaps could be up to 51 years.  

Notably, Javelin was not required to say anything about itself, or its ability to handle trading, in order for it to make the determination required by the CFTC’s rules. 

Lofchie Comment:  When the CFTC adopted its “made available to trade” rule, we commented that the CFTC had set the bar for requiring trades to be executed on an exchange at a remarkably low level.  Here is the proof of it.  A new exchange, of whose existence likely most of the market is not even aware, has made the determination that a great amount of the interest rate swaps trading in the United States must be done on an exchange even though (i) the CFTC has not finalized approval of even a single SEF application, (ii) according to CFTC Commissioner O’Malia, the CFTC has not even reviewed the rules of a single SEF, and (iii) even though the SEF rules are still very much in flux.   Or to put this a different way, if the issue of mandatory exchange trading is “novel or complex,” as the CFTC describes it, the CFTC has not allowed sufficient time for the issue to be reviewed. 

Under these conditions, the approval of the SEF’s application seems imprudent.  Yet under the CFTC’s own rules, there would not seem to be any reason to reject or delay the application.  So it would seem that the CFTC must either approve the application or concede that its process for requiring swaps to be traded on an exchange was not well-considered.  Hopefully, the CFTC will take the second course.  Hopefully, the CFTC will also rewrite the relevant rules, so that SEF trading can not become mandatory until the CFTC has reviewed the various SEF applications and finalized the SEF Rules.  This should not be another round of the CFTC allowing a deadline to approach, while the market waits to see if the CFTC will issue a last minute no-action letter.

See:  CFTC Press Release; Javelin Letter to CFTC determining that Certain Swaps are “Made Available to Trade”
See also:  theJavelin.com (the home page for Javelin).

Agencies Propose Rule Change Regarding Credit Risk Retention of Securitized Assets (Fed. Reg.)

Various federal agencies including The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), are seeking comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would implement the credit risk retention requirements pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15G (“Credit Risk Retention”) as added by Dodd-Frank Section 941 (“Regulation of Credit Risk Retention”).  The new rule proposal would replace the original proposal published on April 29, 2011.  Highlights from the new rule proposal include:

  • expand the permissible forms of risk retention from those originally proposed to accommodate additional securitization structures, and replace the Premium Capture Cash Reserve Account approach with a fair value measurement for the risk retention instruments.
  • require securitizers to be the entity that retains the risk; loan originators would only retain risk in limited circumstances and at their option.
  • set the requirements for the qualified residential mortgage (QRM) exemption to be co-extensive with the qualified mortgage safe harbor established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Comments are sought on an alternative that would incorporate additional factors into QRM, such as borrower credit history and a 70 percent loan-to-value (LTV) cap.

Comments are due by October 31, 2013. 

See:  78 FR 57928; OCC Press Release.

FRB Governor Tarullo Delivers Speech Regarding Resolution Regimes

Federal Reserve Governor Daniel K. Tarullo gave a speech discussing the progress that regulators have made in recent years toward developing a credible resolution mechanism for systematically important financial institutions.  His speech focused in particular on the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation, in its Title II, of the Orderly Liquidation Authority, and the subsequent efforts of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to develop that authority.  Governor Tarullo emphasized that developing a credible approach to resolution planning was important for at least two reasons: first, unless creditors and counterparties have well-grounded expectations as to how they will be treated in a resolution setting, they may need to charge a premium for the additional uncertainty associated with the disposition of their claims; second, if such creditors and counterparties do not believe the FDIC can successfully resolve the firm, they may not price in the potential for losses that should be incorporated in their dealings with large firms.

In reviewing the FDIC’s progress in implementing Title II, Governor Tarullo discussed the FDIC’s progress in developing its “single-point-of-entry” approach to resolution of a systemic financial firm, which he characterized as the approach offering the best potential for an orderly resolution under Title II.  Governor Tarullo also noted that another way to enhance the credibility of the FDIC’s approach is to require adequate loss-absorbing capacity within large financial firms; to that end, he noted that the Federal Reserve and FDIC plan to issue a proposal within the next few months that would require the largest banking firms to hold minimum amounts of long-term, unsecured debt at the holding company level.

See:  Governor Tarullo Speech: Toward Building a More Effective Resolution Regime: Progress and Challenges.

Commissioner O’Malia Criticizes CFTC Rule Making and Implementation

CFTC Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia gave the keynote address. which was bluntly critical of the CFTC rulemaking and implementation process, before the Edison Electric Institute CFTC Compliance Forum focusing on industry compliance and on-going rule implementation. 

Commissioner O’Malia further expressed his doubts as to the statutory foundation of many rules and no-action letters, and expressed concern for the rules’ impact on end-users. 

As to the quality of the CFTC’s rules generally, he criticized the CFTC for sacrificing transparency and certainty for speed. He voiced his disappointment at the CFTC’s failure to develop a transparent rulemaking schedule that would enable market participants to plan for compliance with the massive new obligations imposed by these rules. O’Malia stated that this failed approach has compromised the legal soundness and consistency of CFTC, which is evidenced by the large volume of exemptions and staff no-action letters. O’Malia stated that the CFTC has issued over 130 exemptions and staff no-action letters, over two exemptions for every rule passed. He noted that in many cases, the provided relief was for an indefinite period of time, thus rendering them “de facto rulemakings” which are not subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis. In order for a complete cost-benefit analysis to be performed, O’Malia stated his full support for proposed legislation that would require the CFTC to undertake a full cost-benefit analysis of its rulemaking.

As to position limits, he believed that the CFTC was taking inconsistent positions. On the one hand, the CFTC was arguing in court that it need not perform a cost-benefit analysis; and on the other hand, the CFTC was intended to propose a new position limit rule asserting that it had performed a cost benefit analysis, which he implies has not been done.

As to new rules, he said that he was pleased that that the CFTC would be proposing a new rule requiring capital and margin for all otc states However, he cautioned that these requirements would raise the cost of hedging for all market participants, including end users. He further cautioned that all of the CFTC’s rule making with respect to swaps was expensive for the industry, that these expenses might be originally borne by dealers but they were necessarily passed onto customers, and that the CFTC was largely ignoring the costs of its rulemaking.

As to regulatory reporting, he stated that the CFTC was collecting a huge amount of information that it had no ability whatsoever to digest.

Lastly, O’Malia discussed the CFTC’s unpreparedness to properly oversee the new swaps market. He explained that out of the 89 temporarily registered applications for swap dealers, the CFTC has not signed off on a single application as complete or final. A similar situation is happening regarding swap execution facilities, O’Malia stated that the CFTC “didn’t read the rulebooks in order to meet the arbitrary October 2 effective date.” He stated that the CFTC needs to do a better job of understanding the significant compliance challenges facing new market participants as a result of new regulations. He noted that the CFTC needs to take responsibility of fixing the unworkable rules, and focus more on outcomes rather than setting arbitrary timetables tied to an individual agenda.

Lofchie Comment: CFTC Commissioner O’Malia says what all of us working in this industry know: that that CFTC rule making process does not work. While the Commission boasts of how many rules it has adopted it pays no mind to whether its rules are consistent with good public policy or with each other; it ignores cost-benefit analysis by implying that whatever it does can be justified in light of the financial crisis (notwithstanding that the interest rate and currency swaps that are required to be cleared had not the least to do with the financial crisis). On the rule-making front, the CFTC pays lip-service or none to the Administrative Procedures Act, the most egregious instance of this being the CFTC’s adoption of its “rules” on extraterritoriality in the form of “guidance” so as to avoid the APA requirements.

As to the regulatory reporting issues that Commissioner O’Malia highlights, that seems a place where the CFTC’s assertion of its successes in creating a transparent market are open to easy challenge. It would seem a safe assumption that the CFTC is in fact wasting tens of millions of dollars (largely other people’s dollars) in collecting information that the CFTC has no ability whatsoever to use. One example of the waste in this area that seems fairly egregious: why is the CFTC continuing to require the collection of information as to “historical” swaps. There is (a) no possibility that this information could be back-generated in a form that the CFTC would find usable and (b) no use that the CFTC could make of the information that would be remotely worth the cost.

Where is the press in this? Surely there is a story here.

See: Text Commissioner O’Malia Speech.

MFA and AIMA Submit Joint Letter about FSB Consultation on Key Attributes of Resolution Regimes for Non-Bank Financial Institutions

The MFA and AIMA submitted a joint comment letter to IOSCO in response to its consultative document on the “Application of the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes to Non-Bank Financial Institutions.”  In the letter, the MFA and AIMA noted that the most effective regulatory framework to ensure that a central counterparty (“CCP”) is never subject to a resolution regime is one that focuses on preventing CCP failure ex ante. The MFA and AIMA emphasized key assertions that included the following:

  • ex ante measures should be used to address the relatively remote risk of a CCP’s failure;
  • the use of client margin haircutting as a loss allocation tool during the resolution of a CCP is antithetical to the agreed G20 objectives and would place burdens disproportionately upon clients; and
  • maximizing transparency at all stages of a CCP resolution is vital to ensuring predictability for market participants and, therefore, maximizing the orderliness of the CCP’s failure.

See: MFA and AIMA Joint Letter; Press Release.
Related news: CPSS and IOSCO Issue Advisory Document on Quantitative Disclosure by Central Counterparties (October 16, 2013).