Category Archives: Commodities and Futures

CFTC Chairman Speaks to MFA

Chairman Gary Gensler Discusses Over-the-Counter Derivatives Regulation and Hedge Funds

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has been busy lately testifying before Congress and now speaking to the Managed Futures Association.  His remarks to the MFA, which can be found here and which are reprinted in full below, mirror his earlier statements to the Congress regarding the regulation of OTC derivates and hedge fund registration (see Congress and Regulators Discuss OTC Derivatives).  Gensler’s comments are generally seen as reasonable but aggressive and we are seeing an increase in the political power of the CFTC in general and vis-a-vis the SEC (with respect to certain issues at least).  I am very interested in how these issues will play out in the political process over the next few month.

****

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Office of External Affairs
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5080

Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler Before the Managed Funds Association, Chicago, Illinois

June 24, 2009

Thank you for that introduction, Richard. I greatly appreciate the invitation to speak to the Managed Funds Association at this critical time in our nation’s economy. The last time the two of us were together with a crowd of this size, I was testifying as an Undersecretary at the Department of the Treasury before your Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. Once again, we’re together discussing challenges facing our financial system and possible solutions.

As President Obama announced exactly one week ago, we must urgently enact broad regulatory reforms of our financial system. The President’s proposal offers bold reforms seeking to prevent the financial breakdowns that led to our current crisis. It is sweeping in scope, cutting across the financial system to provide greater oversight, transparency and accountability.

Today I would like to focus on two key areas: regulation of over-the-counter derivatives and hedge funds.

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

We must establish a regulatory regime to cover the entire over-the-counter derivatives marketplace.
This will help the American public by: One – lowering systemic risk. Two – providing transparency and efficiency in markets. Three – ensuring market integrity by preventing fraud, manipulation, and other abuses. And four – protecting the retail public.

This new regime should govern 100% of OTC derivatives no matter who is trading them or what type of derivative is traded, standardized or customized. That includes interest rate swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, equity swaps, credit default swaps or those which cannot yet be foreseen.

I envision this will require two complementary regimes — one for regulation of the dealers and one for regulation of the market functions. Together, with both of these, we will ensure that the entire derivatives marketplace is subject to comprehensive regulation.

The current financial crisis has taught us that the derivatives trading activities of a single firm can threaten the entire financial system. The costs to the public from the failure of these firms has been staggering, $180 Billion of American taxpayer financial support for AIG alone. The AIG subsidiary that dealt in derivatives – AIG Financial Products –was not subject to any effective federal regulation. Nor were the derivatives dealers affiliated with Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and other investment banks. As such, all derivatives dealers need to be subject to robust federal regulation.

Regulation of the dealers should set capital standards and margin requirements to lower risk. We also must set business conduct standards. These standards would guard against fraud, manipulation, and other market abuses. Additionally, they would lower risk by setting important back office standards for timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all transactions. Lastly, we must also mandate recordkeeping and reporting to promote transparency and to allow the CFTC and SEC to vigorously enforce market integrity.

By fully regulating the institutions that trade or hold themselves out to the public as derivative dealers we ensure that all OTC products, both standardized and customized, are subject to robust oversight. Particular care should be given to ensure that no gaps exist between the regulation of standardized and customized products. Customized derivatives, though allowed, would be subject to capital, margin, business conduct and reporting standards. Customized derivatives, however, are by their nature less standard, less liquid and less transparent. Therefore, I believe that higher capital and margin requirements for customized products are justified.

Beyond regulating the dealers, I believe that we must mandate the use of central clearing and exchange venues for all standardized derivatives. Derivatives that can be moved into central clearing should be cleared through regulated central clearing houses and brought onto regulated exchanges or regulated transparent electronic trading systems.

Requiring clearing will promote market integrity and lower risks. Individual firms will become less interconnected as OTC transactions are netted out through centralized clearing. Furthermore, mandated clearing will bring the discipline of daily valuation of transactions and the posting of collateral.

I also would like to highlight three essential features for OTC central clearinghouses:

  • Governance arrangements should be transparent and incorporate a broad range of viewpoints from members and other market participants,
  • Central counterparties should be required to have fair and open access criteria that allow any firm that meets objective, prudent standards to participate regardless of whether it is a dealer or a trading firm, and
  • Finally, in order to promote clearing and achieve market efficiency through competition, OTC derivatives should be fungible and able to be transferred between one exchange or electronic trading system to another.

Market transparency and efficiency would be further improved by requiring the standardized part of the OTC markets onto fully regulated exchanges and fully regulated transparent electronic trading systems. Experience has shown that President Franklin Roosevelt’s approach is correct. To function well, markets must be properly-regulated and transparent. They simply cannot police themselves nor remain in the dark.

Regulated exchanges and regulated transparent trading systems will bring much needed transparency to OTC markets. Market participants should be able to see all of the bids and offers. A complete audit trail of all transactions on the exchanges or trade execution systems should be available to the regulators. Through a trade reporting system there should be timely public posting of the price, volume and key terms of completed transactions.

Market regulators should have authority to impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to police the operations of all exchanges and electronic trading systems to prevent fraud, manipulation and other abuses.

The CFTC should have the ability to impose position limits, including aggregate limits, on all persons trading OTC derivatives that perform or affect a significant price discovery function with respect to regulated markets that the CFTC oversees. Such position limit authority should clearly empower the CFTC to establish aggregate position limits across markets in order to ensure that traders are not able to avoid position limits in a market by moving to a related exchange or market, including international markets.

To fully achieve these objectives, we must enact both of these complementary regimes. Regulating both the traders and the markets will ensure that we cover both the actors and the stages that may create significant risks.

Hedge Funds

The second topic that I would like to discuss is regulation of hedge funds. President Obama has called for advisers to hedge funds and other investment funds to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act. Advisers should be required to report information on the funds they manage that is sufficient to assess whether any fund poses a threat to financial stability.

The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) currently provides that funds trading in the futures markets register as Commodity Pool Operators (CPO) and file annual financials with the CFTC. Over 1300 CPOs, including many of the largest hedge funds, are currently registered with and make annual filings to the CFTC. It will be important that the CFTC be able to maintain its enforcement authority over these entities as the SEC takes on important new responsibilities in this area.

This financial crisis also gave new meaning to the term “run on the bank”. Upon hearing those words, most of us would conjure up the image of the citizens of Bedford Falls standing outside George Bailey’s Savings and Loan in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. Last year, we witnessed the modern version of this in a number of ways. A harsh lesson of the crisis occurred when a significant number of hedge funds sought to pull securities and funds from their prime brokers, contributing to uncertainty and the destabilization of the financial system.

You may be aware of proposals being discussed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) regarding the relationship between hedge funds and their prime brokerages and banks, which will require new oversight and rules of the road. Here at home, we should seriously consider similar principles to best guard against runs on liquidity by hedge funds.

In an effort to harmonize financial market oversight, the President requested the CFTC and SEC to provide a report to Congress by September 30, 2009. We will identify existing differences in statutes and regulations with respect to similar types of financial instruments, explain if differences are still appropriate, and make recommendations for changes. In developing recommendations for harmonization we will seek broad input from the public, other regulators, and market users.

Before closing, I would like to mention Chairman Levin’s report on wheat convergence released today by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Chairman Levin’s report is a significant contribution to discussions regarding the potential effects of index trading in the wheat market and other commodity futures markets. As the Commission continues our own analysis and appropriate regulatory responses, Chairman Levin’s recommendations will be carefully considered.
I would like to thank you again for having me here today, and I am happy to take questions.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

NFA Discusses Recent Forex Regulations

Answers Regarding Prohibition of Hedging Spot Forex Transactions

(www.hedgefundlawblog.com)  The NFA has certainly taken a lot of heat over its controversial rule to ban the practice of “hedging” in a single spot forex account.  Many retail investors have already begun establishing brokerage accounts offshore in order to utilize this trading strategy.  I recently talked with a compliance person at the NFA and they said that they are aware that US persons are going to offshore forex brokers in order to utilize this trading strategy.  We will see if in the future the NFA relents on this issue, but for now the NFA has provided guidance on some of the more technical aspects of the new Compliance Rule 2-43.

The NFA guidance is reprinted in full below and can also be found here.

****

NFA Compliance Rule 2-43 Q & A

NFA has received a number of inquiries regarding the application of new NFA Compliance Rule 2-43. This Q & A answers the most common questions.

CR 2-43(a), Price Adjustments[1]

Q. Section (a)(1)(i) of the rule provides an exception from the prohibition on price adjustments where the adjustment is favorable to the customer and is done as part of the settlement of a customer complaint. Does that mean a Forex Dealer Member (“FDM”) can’t make a favorable adjustment if the customer does not complain?

A. It depends on the circumstances. The intent of this provision is to ensure that FDMs can settle customer complaints before or after they end up in arbitration. It was not meant to prohibit FDMs from adjusting prices on customer orders that were adversely affected by a glitch in the FDM’s platform. A firm may not, however, adjust prices on customer orders that benefited from the error (except as provided in section (a)(1)(ii)). Furthermore, an FDM may not cherry-pick which accounts to adjust.

Q. An FDM operates several trading platforms. Two provide exclusively straight-through processing, but one does not. Can the FDM make section (a)(1)(ii) adjustments for trades placed on the two platforms that provide straight-through processing?

A. No. The Board intended to limit the relief to those firms that exclusively operate a straight-through processing business model, and the submission letter to the CFTC uses this language when explaining the rule’s intent. NFA recognizes, however, that the use of the word “platform” in the rule itself may be confusing, and we intend to ask the Board to eliminate that word at its August meeting.

Q. For price adjustments made under section (a)(1)(ii), the rule requires written notification to customers within fifteen minutes. If the liquidity provider informs an FDM of the price change twenty minutes after the orders are executed, can the FDM still make the adjustment?

A. No. The rule provides that customers must be notified within fifteen minutes after their orders are executed, and it was written that way intentionally. Since a customer’s subsequent trading decisions may be based on the customer’s belief that a particular trade was executed at a particular price, the rule provides a narrow window for price adjustments.

________________________________________
[1] For purposes of this discussion, the term “adjustment” also refers to cancellations.

CR 2-43(b), Offsetting Transactions

Q. CR 2-43(b) states that an FDM cannot carry offsetting positions. If a customer with a long position executes a sell order or a customer with a short position executes a buy order, does the FDM have to close the position immediately or can it wait until the end of the day?

A. The FDM may wait until the end of the day to offset the positions, but it must do so before applying roll fees.

Q. The rule provides that positions must be offset on a first-in-first-out (FIFO) basis. If the customer places a stop order on a newer likesize position and the stop is hit, may the FDM offset the executed stop against that position?

A. No. The only exception to the FIFO rule is where a customer directs the FDM to offset a same-size transaction, but even then the offset must be applied to the oldest transaction of that size.
Related Issues

Related Issues

Q. One of an FDM’s platforms is offered exclusively to eligible contract participants (ECPs). Does Rule 2-43 apply to transactions on that platform?

A. No. Rule 2-43 does not apply to transactions with ECPs.

Q. May an FDM transfer foreign customers to a foreign entity that allows customers to carry offsetting positions in a single account?

A. Yes. If done as a bulk transfer, however, the Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-40 (located at ¶ 9058 of the NFA Manual) requires that the foreign entity must be an authorized counterparty under section 2(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

Q. May an FDM transfer U.S. customers to a foreign entity that allows customers to carry offsetting positions in a single account?

A. Only if the transactions are not off-exchange futures contracts or options. The legal status of “spot” OTC transactions that are continually rolled over and almost always closed through offset rather than delivery is currently unsettled. Therefore, if an FDM chooses to transfer U.S. customers to a foreign entity so they can continue “hedging,” it does so at its own risk. In any event, a bulk transfer can only be made to a counterparty authorized under the CEA.

Q. If the transactions are not futures or options, does that mean none of NFA’s rules apply?

A. Most of NFA’s forex rules do not depend on how the off-exchange transactions are classified. This includes Compliance Rule 2-36(b)(1), which prohibits deceptive behavior, and Compliance Rule 2-36(c), which requires FDMs to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. An FDM that misrepresents the characteristics of “hedging” transactions (e.g., by touting their “benefits”) or NFA’s purpose in banning them or that implies that transferring U.S. customers offshore will make the transactions legal violates those sections of CR 2-36. Furthermore, NFA Compliance Rule 2-39 applies these same requirements to solicitors and account managers.

****

Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in starting a forex hedge fund or a forex managed account.  Other related forex law and regulation articles include:

NFA Proposes New Amendments to Bylaw Governing NFA Membership

Proposes Amendments to Bylaw 301(a)(iii)

On June 9th, 2009, the National Futures Association (NFA)  submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(ii) regarding eligibility for membership.  The proposed addition states that if any member fails to have at least one principal that is registered as an “associated person”, the NFA shall deem that member’s failure to be a request to withdraw from NFA membership and shall notify that member accordingly. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that NFA has jurisdiction over at least one principal of every member, and the proposed amendment calls for an assumption of membership withdrawal for any member that terminates its last associated person or principal.

The full NFA proposal can be viewed below.

****

June 9, 2009

Via Federal Express
Mr. David A. Stawick
Office of the Secretariat
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Re: National Futures Association: Eligibility for Membership: Proposed Amendments to NFA Bylaw 301(a)(iii)

Dear Mr. Stawick:

Pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), as amended, National Futures Association (“NFA”) hereby submits to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(iii) regarding eligibility for membership. This proposal was approved by NFA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on August 21, 2008.

NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and will make this proposal effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposal for approval.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
BYLAWS
CHAPTER 3
BYLAW 301. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. David A. Stawick June 9, 2009

(a) Eligibility for Membership

(iii) No person, unless eligible for membership in the contract market category, shall be eligible to become or remain a Member unless at least one of its principals is registered as an “associated person” under the Act and Commission Rules.

(1) If any Member fails to have at least one principal that is registered as an “associated person” NFA shall deem that Member’s failure to be a request to withdraw from NFA membership and shall notify that Member accordingly.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

NFA Bylaws currently require that each NFA Member must have an associated person who is also a principal (“AP/Principal”). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that NFA has jurisdiction over at least one principal of every Member. However, the Bylaws are silent regarding what should happen if, after NFA membership is granted, the Member no longer has an AP/Principal affiliated with it. To prevent the situation in which an approved Member no longer has a principal over whom NFA has jurisdiction, the proposed amendment to Bylaw 301(a)(iii) provides that any NFA Member that terminates its last AP/Principal will be deemed to have requested withdrawal of its NFA membership.

As mentioned earlier, NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act. NFA intends to make the proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(iii) regarding eligibility for membership effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission, unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposal for approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Sexton
Vice President and General Counsel

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

CFTC Addresses 2010 Budget

CFTC Reports to US Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services – Testimony Provided by Chairman Gary Gensler

On June 2nd, 2009 Gary Gensler of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) addressed the US Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services with a discussion of the issues related to the CFTC’s 2010 Budget.  Gensler stated that the current priorities of the CFTC are to enhance transparency in the marketplace and ensure enforcement of laws governing the financial markets, and that increased funding will be necessary to accomplish these objectives.  Specifically, the CFTC  plans  to grow its professional staff and adopt new technology in order to better monitor the financial markets.  With these goals in mind, the Commission’s FY 2010 budget proposes an increase of $14.6 million,  half of which will be used to maintain FY 2009 level of operations into FY 2010.  In his closing remarks, Gensler stated:

“President Obama has called for action by the end of this year to strengthen market integrity, lower risks, and protect investors. The future of the economy and the welfare of the American people depend on a vibrant Commission to assist in leading the regulatory reform ahead. Additional funding will be necessary to properly implement these reforms.”

The entire text of the testimony is included below and can be found here.

****

Testimony by Gary Gensler, Chairman on behalf of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations

June 2, 2009

Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and other members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to testify on behalf of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues related to the Commission’s 2010 Budget. I am also grateful to have had each of your individual support for my recent confirmation. It is a great honor to serve my country in this capacity.

I come before you today having only served as CFTC Chairman for six calendar days, but with the full knowledge of the failures of our financial regulatory system; failures that affected all Americans and failures that we must ensure never occur again.

The last decade, and particularly the last 21 months, has taught us much about the new realities of our financial markets. We have learned the limits of foresight and the need for candor about the risks we face. We have learned that transparency and accountability are essential and that only through strong, intelligent regulation can we fully protect the American people and keep our economy strong.

As Chairman of the CFTC, I will use every tool and authority available to protect the American people from fraud, manipulation and excessive speculation. I also look forward to working with Congress to establish new authorities to close the gaps in our laws and bring much-needed transparency and regulation to the over-the-counter derivatives market. I firmly believe that doing so will strengthen market integrity, lower risks, protect investors, promote transparency and begin to repair shattered confidence in our financial markets.

I would like to thank the Committee for the $146 million recently appropriated for the CFTC for the 2009 Fiscal Year and special thanks to Chairman Durbin for visiting our Chicago office last year. As a result of this much needed boost in funding, the

Commission has begun to address our alarming staffing levels; levels that recently reached historic lows.

At present, the Commission employs about 500 career staff — roughly equivalent to when the Commission was created in 1975. Three decades later, the futures market has changed in every way: with respect to volume, complexity, risk and locality. What was once a group of regional domestic markets trading a few hours five days a week is now a global market trading 24/7, and what was once just a $500 billion dollar business has exploded to a $22 trillion dollar annual industry.

Ten years ago, the CFTC was near its peak staffing level at 567 employees, but shrunk by 20% over the subsequent eight years before hitting a historic low of 437.

With the increase in FY 2009 funding the CFTC can reach 572 employees.

While this is a start, I believe that merely raising our staffing levels to the same as a decade ago will not be enough to adequately fulfill all of the agency’s missions. In the last ten years, trading volume went up over five fold. The number of actively traded futures and options contracts went up over six fold, and many of these are considerably more complex in nature. We also moved from an environment with open-outcry pit trading to highly sophisticated electronic markets.

In addition to the dramatic evolution of the futures industry, we have experienced the worst financial crisis in 80 years. We also experienced, in my view, an asset bubble in commodity prices. The staff of the CFTC is a talented and dedicated group of public servants, but the significant increase in trade volume and market complexity, as well as rapid globalization, commands additional resources to effectively protect American taxpayers.

For all of these reasons, I feel it is appropriate for our staffing levels and our technology to be further bolstered to more closely match the new financial realities of the day.

In short, despite the recent increase in funding, the Commission remains an underfunded agency. The President’s Budget recommendation of $160.6 million dollars is recognition of this need. Specifically, the Commission needs more resources to hire and retain professional staff and develop and maintain technological capabilities as sophisticated as the markets we regulate.

I’d like to identify some of my priorities and provide some illustrations of how resource limitations have constrained the Commission. Among my priorities will be to:

  • Ensure robust enforcement of our laws. Currently, the Commission’s enforcement program consists of 122 employees — the lowest level since 1984. Though FY 2009 funding will get us back to 141 enforcement employees, this is still below the agency’s peak of 167 and well below what we need given the current financial turmoil. Any financial downturn reveals schemes that could only stay afloat during periods of rising asset values. Our current, and much larger, downturn is exposing more leads than the Commission can thoroughly and effectively investigate. This is true both as it relates to fraud and Ponzi schemes as well as staff intensive manipulation investigations. The regulations we enact to protect the American people are meaningless if we do not have the resources to enforce them;
  • Ensure greater transparency of the marketplace. Also, I believe that commodity index funds and other financial investors participated in the commodity asset bubble. Notably, though, no reliable data about the size or effect of these influential investor groups has been readily accessible to market participants. The CFTC could promote greater transparency and market integrity by providing further breakdowns of non-commercial open interests on weekly “Commitments of Traders” reports. The American public deserves a better depiction of the marketplace. The temporary relief from higher prices does not negate this need, especially given that a rebounding of the overall economy could lead to higher commodity prices;
  • Ensure position limits are consistently applied. The CFTC has begun a review of all outstanding hedge exemptions to position limits. This review will consider the appropriateness of these exemptions and look for ways to institute regular review and increased reporting by exemption-holders. The Commission also has begun a review of the process and standards through which no-action letters are issued. As part of these reviews, CFTC staff will consider the extent to which swap dealers should continue to be granted exemptions from position limits;
  • Ensure the Commission has the tools to fully monitor the markets. We must upgrade the Commission’s mission critical IT systems for the surveillance of positions and trading practices. Neither is robust enough nor have they been upgraded to reflect the vast increase in volume and complexity. Our systems must begin to produce the surveillance reports needed to meet the analytical needs of our professional staff and the transparency needs of the public; and finally,
  • Ensure timely reviews of the many new products and rule change filings of the futures markets. These have lagged due to the growth and complexity of markets and the added responsibilities extended to the Commission in the 2008 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill requires staff to review all contracts listed on Exempt Commercial Markets (ECMs) to determine if they are significant price discovery contracts — if they are, then any ECM that lists such a contract must also be reviewed to determine compliance with a stringent set of core principles under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Other examples that I believe are illustrative of the difficult tradeoffs caused by resource constraints are:

  • The Commission does not conduct annual compliance audits of every Designated Contract Market (DCM)– rather only periodic reviews on average, every three years;
  • The Commission does not conduct annual compliance audits of every Derivatives Clearing Organization (DCO) — rather periodic reviews are conducted of selected core principles that are rotated and completed every three years; and,
  • The Commission does not conduct routine examinations of Commodity Pool Operators, Commodity Trade Advisors, and Futures Commission Merchants – a function currently performed by Self Regulatory Organizations. If the Commission were to perform direct periodic audits our staff would better understand the operations of brokers and managed funds and could better assess compliance with the law and regulations.

These are only a few of our important funding priorities and the workload challenges imposed by resource limitations. There are, of course, others. I hope that this helps the Committee to understand, in a tangible way, the challenges the Commission faces in regulating the futures markets the way the Nation requires.

Although the work of the Commission can be highly technical in nature, the mission of the agency is quite straightforward. The CFTC is charged with:

  1. Protecting the public and market users from manipulation, fraud, and abusive practices and
  2. Promoting open, competitive and financially sound futures markets.

With that context, I would like to address the specifics of the FY 2010 Budget request. The FY 2010 Budget proposes an increase of $14.6 million. Approximately half of the increase is needed to maintain our FY 2009 level of operations into FY 2010. The balance would fund an additional 38 positions.

Twenty-six of the 38 staff would be allocated to principal program areas. Specifically, we would allocate eleven positions to Enforcement, eight to Market Oversight, six to Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, and one to the Chief Economist’s office. The remaining twelve positions will provide critical mission support in the areas of legal analysis and counsel, technology support, international coordination, legislative and public outreach, and human capital and management support.

The additional 38 positions are essential to addressing some of the limitations I mentioned earlier. This increase, however, will not provide the Commission with the critical mass of professional and technical expertise needed to ensure that the growing markets remain free of manipulation and fraud.

For example, our enforcement staff needs to be significantly expanded to:

  • Ensure that crimes are punished to the fullest extent of the law;
  • Develop strategies aimed at quickly identifying and eradicating fraudulent schemes, such as Ponzi and foreign exchange “boiler rooms”; and
  • Importantly, pursue resource-intensive investigations and litigations involving manipulation, including energy-related market abuses, so wrongdoers will not believe they are immune from enforcement simply due to the complexity of an enforcement action.

Insufficient resources in the enforcement division force it to be too selective in the matters it investigates.

Our market oversight operation needs additional highly-skilled economists, investigators, attorneys and statisticians to:

  • Analyze trading reports quickly and thoroughly, indentify potential market problems or trader violations promptly, and avoid market disruptions and pricing anomalies;
  • Conduct timely and complete reviews of regulated entities to ensure compliance with all core principles;
  • Examine exchange self-regulatory programs on an on-going and routine basis with regard to trade practice and market surveillance; and
  • Ensure their compliance with disciplinary, audit trail, record-keeping and governance obligations.

Our clearing and intermediary oversight program needs additional auditors, analysts, and attorneys. This would allow us to:

  • Ensure clearing systems protect against a single market becoming a systemic crisis;
  • Protect investors’ funds from being misused or exposed to inappropriate risks of loss; and
  • Guard against abusive sales practices that harm customers and undermine market integrity.

Our economic research program needs more economists to review and analyze new market structures and off-exchange derivative instruments, especially in light of novel and complex products and practices that call for state-of-the-art economic analysis. Further, additional resources would enhance our economic and statistical analysis, improving transparency of markets and better supporting the Commission’s enforcement and surveillance programs.

We also need to transform the current legacy information technology systems into robust systems capable of efficiently receiving and managing massive amounts of raw data as well as transforming them in to useful analytical and research tools.

The Commission has made a substantial investment in technology over the past two years – focusing first on upgrading obsolete computer hardware to industry standards. We need technology, however, that is as modern and dynamic as the technology-driven markets we are charged with overseeing. Our investment in technology must be more than just periodic equipment upgrades and maintenance. The Commission must leverage resources by employing 21st century technology to protect the American people.

As the Commission informed this Committee in February of this year, the agency believes it needs $177.7 million for FY 2010 to perform its present duties. I look forward to working with this Committee to secure the funding necessary to meet our current regulatory responsibilities.

Before I close, I would like to briefly highlight funding needs that might go along with much needed regulatory reform. The CFTC along with the Administration and other financial regulators is committed to working with Congress on broad regulatory reform. This is particularly true for the markets that the CFTC currently regulates and the markets that may soon come under our regulation.

Specifically, we must urgently move to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market and address excessive speculation through aggregated position limits.

President Obama has called for action by the end of this year to strengthen market integrity, lower risks, and protect investors. The future of the economy and the welfare of the American people depend on a vibrant Commission to assist in leading the regulatory reform ahead. Additional funding will be necessary to properly implement these reforms.

I look forward to working with the Members here today and others in Congress to accomplish this goal.

Thank you very much. I would be happy answer any questions you may have.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund.  Other related hedge fund articles include:

NFA Takes Regulatory Aim at Spot Commodities Markets

Asks Congress to Increase Scope of Regulation for CFTC and NFA

Last week various employees of the CFTC and the NFA talked with members of Congress regarding certain aspects of the markets regulated by these groups.  Below is testimony from the Chief Operating Officer of the NFA, Daniel Discroll.  In the testimony, Mr. Discoll actually asks Congress to allow the CFTC and the NFA to regulate MORE markets – specifically the off exchange spot metals and energy markets.  While it is commendable that the NFA wants more power to help protect the investors, there are many reasons why this is not a good idea including:

  • The CFTC is underfunded already underfunded (see remarks by Commissioner Gary Gensley, “Specifically, the Commission [CFTC] needs more resources to hire and retain professional staff and develop and maintain technological capabilities as sophisticated as the markets we regulate.”)
  • In 2008 the CFTC was charged with promulgating proposed regulations to require forex managers to register with the CFTC.  This was supposed to be complete by late 2008 – we have yet to see any proposed regulations.  Are we likely to see any quick movements by the CFTC in the spot commodities markets?  Probably not.
  • The CFTC is likely to play a large role in reforming the regulatory framework for the OTC dervitives markets.  See our post on this issue.
  • The NFA, which must be commended for having staff who are generally cheerful and easy to deal with, is nonetheless a slow organization.  Managers who are registered with the CFTC and who have to interact with the NFA face long start-up times because of the overly onerous NFA review requirements.
  • Much of what the NFA does is ineffective – we probably see the most scams from CFTC/NFA regulated entities than we do from SEC/FINRA regulated entities.  Of note was another Ponzi scheme by a CFTC registered FCM, CPO and CTA (see press release).

I am not saying that the CFTC and the NFA should not have the power to regulate these markets.  I am saying that the CFTC and the NFA need to be pursuing the most egregious offenses and that Congress needs to ensure that the CFTC has the funding it needs in order to do its job propoerly.  If Congress does decide to grant jurisdiction over these markets to the CFTC then Congress should also make sure that a funding grant is included in any such rulemaking bill.

****

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL A. DRISCOLL
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION & FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE

JUNE 4, 2009

My name is Daniel Driscoll, and I am Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of National Futures Association. Thank you Chairman Harkin and members of the Committee for this opportunity to appear here today to present our views on closing a regulatory gap that allows fraudsters to sell unregulated OTC derivatives to retail customers.

Since 1982, NFA has been the industry-wide self-regulatory organization for the U.S. futures industry, and in 2002 it extended its regulatory programs to include retail over-the-counter forex contracts. NFA is first and foremost a customer protection organization, and we take our mission very seriously.

Congress is currently expending significant time and resources to deal with systemic risk and to create greater transparency in the OTC derivatives markets. Those are important economic issues, and we support Congress’ efforts to address them. Understandably, most of the debate centers around instruments offered to and traded by large, sophisticated institutions. However, there is a burgeoning OTC derivatives market aimed at unsophisticated retail customers, who are being victimized in a completely unregulated environment.

For years, retail customers that invested in futures had all of the regulatory protections of the Commodity Exchange Act. Their trades were executed on transparent exchanges and cleared by centralized clearing organizations, their brokers had to meet the fitness standards set forth in the Act, and their brokers were regulated by the CFTC and NFA. Today, for too many customers, none of those protections apply. A number of bad court decisions have created loopholes a mile wide, and retail customers are on their own in unregulated, non-transparent OTC futures-type markets.

The main problem stems from a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a forex fraud case brought by the CFTC. In the Zelener case, the District court found that retail customers had, in fact, been defrauded but that the CFTC had no jurisdiction because the contracts at issue were not futures, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed that decision. The “rolling spot” contracts in Zelener were marketed to retail customers for purposes of speculation; they were sold on margin; they were routinely rolled over and over and held for long periods of time; and they were regularly offset so that delivery rarely, if ever, occurred. In Zelener, though, the Seventh Circuit ignored these characteristics and based its decision on the terms of the written contract between the dealer and its customers. Because the written contract in Zelener did not include a guaranteed right of offset, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the contracts at issue were not futures. As a result, the CFTC was unable to stop the fraud.

Zelener created the distinct possibility that, through clever draftsmanship, completely unregulated firms and individuals could sell retail customers forex contracts that looked like futures, acted like futures, and were sold like futures and could do so outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction. For a short period of time, Zelener was just a single case addressing this issue. Since 2004, however, various Courts have continued to follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach in Zelener, which caused the CFTC to lose enforcement cases relating to forex fraud.

A year ago, Congress closed the loophole for forex contracts. Unfortunately, the rationale of the Zelener decision is not limited to foreign currency products. Customers trading other commodities-such as gold and silver-are still stuck in an unregulated mine field. It’s time to restore regulatory protections to all retail customers.

Back in 2007, NFA predicted that if Congress plugged the Zelener loophole for forex but left it open for other products, the fraudsters would simply move to Zelener-type contracts in other commodities. That’s just what has happened. We cannot give you exact numbers, of course, because these firms are not registered. Nobody knows how widespread the fraud is, but we are aware of dozens of firms that offer Zelener contracts in metals or energy. Recently, we received a call from a man who had lost over $600,000, substantially all of his savings, investing with one of these firms. We have seen a sharp increase in customer complaints and mounting customer losses involving these products since Congress closed the loophole for forex.

NFA and the exchanges have previously proposed a fix that would close the Zelener loophole for these non-forex products. Our proposal codifies the approach the Ninth Circuit took in CFTC v. Co-Petro, which was the accepted and workable state of the law until Zelener. In particular, our approach would create a statutory presumption that leveraged or margined transactions offered to retail customers are futures contracts unless delivery is made within seven days or the retail customer has a commercial use for the commodity. This presumption is flexible and could be overcome by showing that delivery actually occurred or that the transactions were not primarily marketed to retail customers or were not marketed to those customers as a way to speculate on price movements in the underlying commodity.

This statutory presumption would not affect the interbank currency market dominated by institutional players, nor would it affect regulated instruments like securities and banking products. It would also not apply to those retail forex contracts that are already covered (or exempt) under Section 2(c). It would, however, effectively prohibit leveraged non-forex OTC contracts with retail customers when those contracts are used for price speculation and do not result in delivery.

I should note that NFA’s proposal does not invalidate the 1985 interpretive letter issued by the CFTC’s Office of General Counsel, which Monex International and similar entities rely on when selling gold and silver to their customers. That letter responded to a factual situation where the dealer purchased the physical metals from an unaffiliated bank for the full purchase price and left the metals in the bank’s vault. The dealer then turned around and sold the gold or silver to a customer, who financed the purchase by borrowing money from the bank. Within two to seven days the dealer received the full purchase price and the customer received title to the metals. In these circumstances the metals were actually delivered within seven days, so the transactions would not be futures contracts under NFA’s proposal.

In conclusion, while NFA supports Congress’ efforts to deal with systemic risk and create greater transparency in the OTC markets, Congress should not lose sight of the very real threat to retail customers participating in another segment of these markets. This Committee can play a leading role in protecting customers from the unregulated boiler rooms that are currently taking advantage of the Zelener loophole for metals and energy products. We look forward to further reviewing our proposal with Committee members and staff and working with you in this important endeavor.

NFA Cracks Down on CPO Fraud with New Compliance Rule

Proposes Amendments to Compliance Rule 2-45

The National Futures Association (NFA) proposed new amendments to Compliance Rule 2-45 regarding prohibition of loans by pools to commodity pool operators and related parties.  The amendment states that no Member CPO may permit a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.  The amendment is proposed in response to a recent NFA investigation which revealed that CPOs  had misappropriated pool funds through improper loans from pools to the CPOs or related entities.  The full NFA proposal can be viewed below.

****

May 27, 2009
Via Federal Express

Mr. David Stawick
Office of the Secretariat
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Re: National Futures Association: Prohibition of Loans by Pools to Commodity Pool Operators and Related Parties – Proposed Adoption of Compliance Rule 2-45

Dear Mr. Stawick:

Pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, National Futures Association (“NFA”) hereby submits to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 regarding prohibition of loans by pools to commodity pool operators and related parties. This proposal was approved by NFA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on May 21, 2009. NFA respectfully requests Commission review and approval.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

(additions are underscored)

COMPLIANCE RULES

* * *

PART 2 – RULES GOVERNING THE BUSINESS CONDUCT OF MEMBERS REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION

* * *

RULE 2-45. PROHIBITION OF LOANS BY COMMODITY POOLS TO CPOS AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

No Member CPO may permit a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

In February, NFA took two Member Responsibility Actions (“MRAs”) against three NFA Member commodity pool operators (“CPOs”). Although the basis of both MRAs was the CPOs’ failure to cooperate with NFA in an investigation, the limited investigation that NFA was able to perform revealed that the CPOs had misappropriated pool funds through improper loans from pools to the CPOs or related entities. The CFTC charged all three of the CPOs with misappropriating pool assets through improper loans, and all three were charged criminally with fraud.

These two matters are not the first instances of CPOs misappropriating pool participant funds through direct or indirect loans from a pool to the CPO or a related entity. Over the years, there have been a number of regulatory actions involving this type of fraud. Given the significant losses suffered by pool participants as a result of these improper loans, NFA is proposing to prohibit direct or indirect loans from commodity pools to the CPO or any affiliated person or entity.

NFA staff discussed this matter with NFA’s CPO/CTA Advisory Committee, which supported prohibiting loans because it believes that absent extraordinary circumstances there is no legitimate reason for a pool to make a direct or indirect loan to its CPO or a related party. The Committee indicated, however, that participants, including a CPO’s principal, should not be prevented from borrowing against their equity interest in the pool.

NFA Compliance Rule 2-45 provides for a complete prohibition of direct or indirect loans or any advance of pool assets between a pool and its CPO or any other affiliated person or entity. NFA recognizes that there may be circumstances where a carve out to this prohibition may be appropriate, such as where a CPO permits participants, including a pool’s general partner, to borrow against their equity interest in the pool in lieu of a withdrawal, provided that the loan is collateralized by the participant’s interest in the pool. NFA believes that these types of situations are best handled on a case by case basis, with the CPO seeking a no-action letter from NFA.

NFA respectfully requests that the Commission review and approve proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 regarding prohibition of loans by pools to commodity pool operators and related parties.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Sexton
Senior Vice President and General Counsel

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund.  Other related hedge fund law articles include: