Regulating Through the Back Door at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hester Peirce
Keyword(s):  
Commodity Futures ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Back Door ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Differentiating Centralization and Overlap in Swap Regulation

2019 ◽  
pp. 127-148
Author(s):  
Alejandro E. Camacho ◽  
Robert L. Glicksman
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Commodity Futures ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Securities Markets ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Over Time

This chapter explains how legislative changes to, and the broader commentary on, US derivatives regulation illustrate the value of parsing the overlap/distinct and centralization/decentralization dimensions in assessing the tradeoffs of regulatory allocations. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have been tasked with decentralized authority over securities and futures, respectively. Over time, their jurisdictions have increasingly overlapped as the futures and securities markets converged. Reorganization proposals and legislation to correct perceived problems with the overlapping, decentralized regulatory regime (such as Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act) have usually failed to parse the various tradeoffs between overlap and distinct or between centralized and decentralized authority. By limiting their analysis, policymakers and observers of derivatives regulation may have misdiagnosed problems with the existing allocation or missed potential opportunities to craft different regulatory configurations that might have better accommodated policy tradeoffs or been more politically viable.

Commodity Exchanges and Regulation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry W. Markham
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Currency ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Commodity Futures ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Financial Responsibility ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Futures Options ◽  
Currency Exchange ◽  
Financial Derivative ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) intensively regulates commodity futures, options, and swaps pursuant to the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and federal banking agencies also have some jurisdiction over derivative financial instruments. This chapter describes the CFTC regulations, including registration requirements for designated contract markets, clearinghouses, and various swap market participants. It also describes the financial responsibility requirements imposed on futures commission merchants and safeguards for customer funds in the futures markets. Additionally, the chapter addresses prohibitions against misleading sales activities, deceptive trading practices, and price manipulations. Finally, it reviews the role of the SEC and bank regulators in regulating financial derivative contracts, particularly securities derivatives and foreign currency exchange transactions.

CFTC enforcement trends in 2017 and considerations for 2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Peter Malyshev ◽  
Jennifer Achilles ◽  
Jill Ottenberg ◽  
Jessica Stumacher
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Commodity Futures ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Enforcement Activity

Purpose This paper aims to discuss the types of cases that were brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 2017 and what to expect in 2018. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses the overall statistics regarding enforcement actions brought by the CFTC, as well as the amount of restitution, disgorgement and penalties collected in 2017. These statistics are contrasted with the same statistics from 2016. This paper also discusses the types of enforcement actions brought by the CFTC in 2017 and identifies and analyzes trends. The analysis also includes a discussion of what to expect in 2018. Findings This paper concludes that 2017 was a year filled with personnel changes and vacancies at the CFTC, which resulted in no major policymaking cases being brought by the CFTC. This paper also finds that the CFTC is focused on actively monitoring the markets, and will continue to pursue actions involving reporting violations, fraud, manipulation, cryptocurrencies, and disruptive trade practices while rewarding parties for self-reporting and cooperation. Originality/value This paper contains valuable information from experienced lawyers regarding personnel changes at the CFTC, recent trends in CFTC enforcement activity and what to expect in 2018.

CFTC clarifies and expands relief relating to delegation of commodity pool operator responsibilities

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-73
Author(s):  
Cary Meer ◽  
Lawrence B. Patent
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Commodity Futures ◽  
Investment Management ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose – To explain CFTC No-Action Letter 14-126, issued on October 15, 2014 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, which sets forth a number of conditions with which a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) that delegates its CPO responsibilities (“Delegating CPO”) to a registered CPO (“Designated CPO”) must comply in order to take advantage of no-action relief from the requirement to register as a CPO. Design/methodology/approach – Explains the modified conditions provided by Letter 14-126, including clarification of the permissible activities in which a Delegating CPO seeking to take advantage of registration no-action relief may engage regarding investment management, solicitation, and management of pool property; lists other criteria carried over from Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014; provides analysis and discusses limitations of the relief provided by the CFTC No-Action letter. Findings – The letter makes more liberal several of the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014, with which many Delegating CPOs could not comply. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document