Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Showing posts with label CFTC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CFTC. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR ORDERED TO PAY OVER $470,000 TO SETTLE FRAUD CHARGES

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Orders David R. Lynch to Pay More than $470,000 in Restitution and a Civil Monetary Penalty to Settle Charges of Fraudulent Misappropriation, Fraudulent Solicitations, and False Statements

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it entered an Order requiring David R. Lynch of Stuart, Florida, to make restitution of $171,297 to defrauded customers and pay a $300,000 civil monetary penalty, among other sanctions, for fraudulent misappropriation, fraudulent solicitations, and false statements in connection with a commodity pool trading leveraged or margined off-exchange foreign currency contracts (forex). Lynch has never been registered with the CFTC.

According to the CFTC’s Order, from about December 2008 through July 4, 2013, Lynch operated a commodity pool and fraudulently solicited at least $348,450 from at least 14 pool participants. Lynch falsely told pool participants that he had earned as much as 7 percent per month trading forex, that they could never lose their principal, and that they could get their funds back at any time. However, Lynch deposited only a portion of his pool participants’ funds in forex trading accounts and the trading he did was unprofitable, the Order finds.

The CFTC’s Order also finds that Lynch misappropriated over $126,000 of his pool participants’ funds by using part of those funds to pay his personal expenses and the remainder to pay false profits or purported returns of capital to some pool participants in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. Further, to conceal his trading losses and misappropriations, Lynch issued monthly account statements to pool participants that falsely showed that pool participants were earning consistent profits.

In addition to ordering restitution to be made and imposing a civil monetary penalty, the CFTC Order also requires Lynch to cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC regulation, as charged, and imposes permanent bans on trading, registration, and certain other commodity related activities.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Glenn I. Chernigoff, Alison B. Wilson, Kara L. Mucha, and Gretchen L. Lowe.


Monday, December 16, 2013

CFTC HAS NEW ACTING CHIEF ECONOMISTS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
December 16, 2013
CFTC Announces Sayee Srinivasan as the Acting Chief Economist

Washington, DC — U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) Chairman Gary Gensler today announced that Sayee Srinivasan has been named Acting Chief Economist.

“I am very pleased that such a talented economist as Sayee will lead the Office of the Chief Economist,” said Chairman Gensler. “Sayee’s work has been critical to bringing much-needed transparency to the swaps marketplace. His experience and market acumen will be very valuable as the Commission continues working to promote transparency in the derivatives markets.”

In his new role, Mr. Srinivasan will be responsible for leading the Commission’s efforts drafting policy and rule-making; advising the Chairman, Commission and senior staff on industry practices and CFTC policy implications; assisting the Commission in developing capacity to analyze swaps data; publishing the Weekly Swaps Reports and guiding research as it relates to market structure for futures and swap markets.”

“The derivatives markets are in a critical stage of transition from over-the-counter to regulated platforms,” said Mr. Srinivasan. “I am excited for the opportunity to work with the talented CFTC staff and with other agencies to leverage new data sources to track and improve our understanding of these markets.”

Mr. Srinivasan joined the Commission in 2012 in the Office of the Chief Economist. He has already made critical contributions on policy and rule development on issues pertaining to the market structure of futures and swaps markets. Prior to joining the Commission, he worked with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Bombay Stock Exchange, the National Stock Exchange of India, and OptiMark Technologies focusing on market and product design, trading rules, and business development across a broad range of asset classes, and both cash and derivatives markets. His research interest includes regulatory policy development on issues related to pre-trade, trade, and post trade technology, systems, processes and risk management.

Mr. Srinivasan has a Ph.D. and an M.A. in Economics from the University of Texas at Austin. He has a B.A. in Accounting and an M.A. in Finance from University of Bombay (now University of Mumbai).

Sunday, December 15, 2013

CFTC CHAIRMAN GENSLER MAKES REMARKS ON " A TRANSFORMED MARKETPLACE"

FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler at a D.C. Bar Event - "A Transformed Marketplace"

December 11, 2013

Thank you, Alice and Peter, for your kind introductions. I also want to thank the DC Bar for inviting me here to speak today.

Five years ago, when President-elect Obama asked me to serve, the U.S. economy was in a free fall.

Five years ago, the financial system and the financial regulatory system failed the American public.

Five years ago, the unregulated swaps market was at the center of the crisis.

Five years ago, when Tim Geithner, Mary Schapiro and I sat down in the presidential transition offices with yellow pads to contemplate our upcoming confirmation hearings, we knew that modernizing the financial system wouldn’t be easy. We knew that ever since our founding, democracy is noisy and messy.

We knew, though, that we had to come together to bring common-sense rules of the road to the markets.

With 94 percent of private sector jobs outside of finance, President Obama was looking for solutions to ensure finance better serves the rest of the economy.

I was honored to be asked to join the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), our nation’s futures market regulator.

The reforms of the 1930s had tasked the CFTC to swim in a very important lane – derivatives. The futures market has allowed farmers, ranchers and producers to lock in the price of a commodity since the 1860s. The derivatives lane, though, got a lot deeper a century later with the emergency of the vast swaps market. Both futures and swaps are essential to our economy and the way that businesses and investors manage risk.

The President placed great confidence in the CFTC when he asked the agency to help bring much-needed transparency and oversight to the dark, closed swaps market.

This confidence in the CFTC was well placed. As we’ve seen time and again in our nation’s history, when faced with real challenges, we Americans from different walks of life and perspectives find a way to come together to solve them.

The talented CFTC staff and my fellow Commissioners – Mike Dunn, Jill Sommers, Bart Chilton, Scott O’Malia and Mark Wetjen – really have delivered for the American public.

The CFTC has finalized 68 rules, orders and guidances. We have completed nearly all of the agency’s rulemakings, and the initial major compliance dates are behind us.

These reforms took into account nearly 60,000 public comments and input from more than 2,200 meetings and 21 public roundtables.

During this process, the Commission largely found consensus. In fact, two-thirds of our final actions have been unanimous, and nearly 85 percent have been bipartisan. Even when we disagreed, I believe that we did so agreeably.

Now, bright lights of transparency are shining on the $380 trillion swaps market.

Now, a majority of the swaps market is being centrally cleared – lowering risk and bringing access to anyone wishing to compete.

Now, 91 swap dealers have registered and – for the first time – are being overseen for their swaps activity.

Five years after the financial crisis, the swaps marketplace truly has been transformed.

Transparency

Foremost, the swaps marketplace has been transformed with transparency.

First, the public can see the price and volume of each swap transaction as it occurs.

This information is available, free of charge, to everyone in the public. The data is listed in real time – like a modern-day tickertape – on the websites of the three swap data repositories (SDRs).

Second, building on the CFTC’s long tradition of promoting transparency, we recently began publishing a Weekly Swaps Report to provide the public with a detailed view of the swaps marketplace.

Third, regulators also have gained transparency into the details on each of the 1.8 million transactions and positions in the SDRs.

Fourth, starting this fall, the public – for the first time –is benefitting from new transparency, impartial access and competition on regulated swap trading platforms.

We now have 19 temporarily registered swap execution facilities where more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in swaps trading is occurring on average per day.

This pre-trade transparency lowers costs for investors, businesses and consumers, as it shifts information from dealers to the broader public.

Fifth, I anticipate that by mid-February, the congressionally mandated trade execution requirement will become effective for a significant portion of the interest rate and credit index swap markets.

Clearing

The swaps market also has been transformed with mandated central clearing for financial entities as well as dealers.

Central clearing lowers risk and fosters competition by allowing customers ready access to the market.

Clearinghouses have operated successfully at the center of the futures market for over 100 years – through two world wars, the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis.

Reforms have taken us from only 21 percent of the interest rate swaps market being cleared five years ago to more than 70 percent of the market this fall. More than 60 percent of new credit index swaps are being cleared.

Further, we no longer have the significant time delays that were once associated with swaps clearing.

Five years ago, swaps clearing happened either at the end of the day or even just once a week. This left a significant period of bilateral credit risk in the market, undermining a key benefit of central clearing.

Now reforms require pre-trade credit checks and straight-through processing for swaps trades intended for clearing.

With 99 percent of swaps clearing occurring within 10 seconds, market participants no longer have to worry about credit risk when entering into swap trades intended to be cleared.

Swap Dealers

The market also has been transformed for swap dealers.

Five years ago, swap dealers had no specific requirements with regard to their swap dealing activity. AIG’s downfall was a clear example of what happens with no registration or licensing requirement for such dealers.

Today, all of the world’s largest financial institutions in the global swaps market are coming under reforms.

These reforms include new business conduct standards for risk management, documentation of swap transactions, confirmations, sales practices, recordkeeping and reporting.

With the approval of the Volcker Rule yesterday, swap dealers associated with banking entities will have to comply with new risk-reducing requirements prohibiting proprietary trading.

Further, the transformed marketplace covers the far-flung operations of U.S. enterprises, including their offshore branches and guaranteed affiliates.

The President and Congress were clear in financial reform that we had to learn the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis.

AIG nearly brought down the U.S. economy through its guaranteed affiliate operating under a French bank license in London.

Lehman Brothers had 3,300 legal entities when it failed. Its main overseas affiliate was guaranteed here in the United States, and it had 130,000 outstanding swap transactions.

The lessons of modern finance are clear. If reform does not cover the far flung operations of U.S. enterprises, trades inevitably would just be booked in offshore branches or affiliates. If reform does not cover these far-flung operations, rather than reforming the financial system, we simply would be providing a significant loophole.

Benchmark Interest Rates

Five years ago, as the public now knows, multiple banks were pervasively rigging the world’s most important benchmark interest rates.

The public trust has been violated through bad actors readily manipulating these benchmark interest rates.

I wish I could say that this won’t happen again, but I can’t.

As LIBOR and Euribor are not anchored in observable transactions, they are more akin to fiction than fact.

That’s the fundamental challenge that the CFTC and law enforcement agencies around the globe have so dramatically revealed.

We’ve made progress addressing governance and conflicts of interest regarding such benchmarks. But this alone will not resolve the fundamental vulnerability of these benchmarks – the lack of transactions in the interbank market underlying them.

That is why the work of the Financial Stability Board to find replacements for LIBOR and to recommend a means to transition to such alternatives is so critical. The CFTC looks forward to continuing work with the international community on these much-needed reforms.

Customer Protection

Market events in the last five years highlighted the need to further ensure for the protection of customer funds. Segregation and the protection of customer funds is the core foundation of the futures and swaps markets.

The CFTC went through a two-year process with market participants – and six sets of finalized rules – to comprehensively reform the customer protection regime for futures and swaps.

Resources

One of the most remarkable things about the CFTC is that today, it’s only five percent larger than it was 20 years ago.

Since then, though, this small, effective agency has taken on the job of overseeing the $380 trillion swaps market, which is a dozen times the size of the futures market we have historically overseen. Further, the futures market itself has grown fivefold since the 1990s.

Due to the budget challenges in Washington, not only has the CFTC been shrinking, but we had to notify employees of administrative furloughs.

Though the agency has yet to secure necessary funding from Congress, I continue to have faith that one day the CFTC will be funded at levels aligned with its vastly expanded mission.

The Journey Ahead

Though the CFTC has completed nearly all the rules of the road for the swaps market, reform is an ongoing journey.

Just as our nation has come together on financial reform these last five years, our regulations will continuously need to evolve. We always need to be open to changes in the markets and how best to promote transparency, competition and protect the public.

The journey is not over in transitioning to a replacement for LIBOR or in adequately funding the CFTC.

Further, as Tim, Mary and I understood five years ago, democracy – and reform – can be noisy and messy.

As market participants look to maximize their revenues and customer support, they, at times, may look to arbitrage our rules versus other rules around the globe.

I think that we’re in very firm setting on clearing, data reporting, real-time reporting, and business conduct reforms -- all of which have been implemented. There are bound to be further challenges, however, from the financial community with regard to the appropriate level of pre-trade transparency on trading platforms, as well as the scope of the cross-border application of reform.

Conclusion

I’d like to close by saying I couldn’t be more proud of the dedicated group of public servants at the CFTC. I am honored to have served along with them during such a remarkable time in the history of the agency.

Our nation benefits from free market capitalism, but it’s critical that we have common-sense rules of road to ensure that finance best serves the public at large.

On a personal note, as this is my last public speech as Chairman of the CFTC, I want to thank both Stephanie Allen and her predecessor Scott Schneider, the speechwriters whose cleverness and agility with words, not to mention the willingness to work with me, has allowed me these last five years to bring transparency to what we’re doing at the CFTC.

I also want to extend my appreciation to all the members of the media who have reported on us and followed us during this remarkable journey these last five years. As always, I’ll do one more press avail after taking questions from the audience.

Thank you.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

CFTC COMMISSIONER WETJEN'S STATEMENT ON THE VOLCKER RULE

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Statement of Commissioner Mark Wetjen on the Volcker Rule

December 10, 2013

Thank you Chairman Gensler, and my thanks to the professional staff for the hard work they put into the rulemaking before us today.

The Volcker Rule, like many of the commission’s rules, is focused on the policy objective of compelling banks to limit or better manage risk in a way that lowers the odds of a taxpayer-financed bailout, or, short of that, a failure of one of those firms. Dodd-Frank tasked the prudential and market regulators with implementing that objective, and I believe the release before us today will do so appropriately.

Congress also sensibly required that the prudential regulators adopt a joint Volcker rule, and that the market regulators coordinate with the prudential regulators in their rulemaking efforts. One of the true hallmarks of today’s rule is that the market regulators involved went beyond the congressional requirement to simply coordinate. In fact, the rule before us today reflects the same substantive text as that adopted by the other agencies, and contains no substantive differences in the preamble language.

Building a consensus among five different government agencies is no easy task, and the level of coordination on a complicated rulemaking such as this is remarkable. Commission staff and the staffs of the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities Exchange Commission deserve special recognition for this feat alone.

I also believe Secretary Lew, Under Secretary Miller and other officials at the Treasury department deserve enormous credit for their role in helping coordinate the rulemaking effort. And finally, the heads of the involved agencies, including Chairman Gensler, deserve credit as well for their work in bringing today’s releases over the finish line.

The Volcker Rule is one of the last remaining CFTC rulemakings required by Dodd-Frank. Beyond this effort, almost all of the commission’s Dodd-Frank rules have been, or are in the process of being, implemented.

For this we can thank Chairman Gensler’s leadership. Today there is transparency in the swaps market where virtually none existed before. Swap dealers and major swap participants are registered. Swaps are promptly reported to swap data repositories. Most liquid swaps are now cleared. And soon many will be traded on a regulated platform for the first time. For his efforts on the Volcker Rule and the rest of his work in leading the CFTC to implement Title VII of Dodd-Frank, Chairman Gensler has done a tremendous service to the American public and the markets this agency regulates.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

CFTC CHILTON'S STATEMENT ON VOTE FOR FINAL VOLKER RULE

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
"High Roller's Room"

Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton

December 10, 2013

I’m pleased to be voting on a final Volcker Rule. Frankly, two-and-a-half weeks ago, I had grave doubts about getting this done in a meaningful fashion. It had become weaker than the original proposal. But, thankfully, and I thank the Chairman for his tireless efforts, we have a rigorous and robust rule before us.

If you’ve ever been to a casino, many of them have a high roller’s room. There’s usually a sign about a $1000 minimum bet. Many have ornate gaming tables and heavy draperies. If you walk around, you can catch a glimpse inside. But other than betting a lot of money, I’m not sure what goes on in there. And, that’s fine...some high rollers lose and some win.

But, what if what the high rollers did in that room impacted all of us? What if it impacted consumers, our economy and our country? What if what the high rollers did in that room cost us $417 billion dollars (in a big bank bailout) because the games they were playing were tanking the economy?

That’s why we need a strong Volcker Rule. We should never again be put in a circumstance where too big to fail high rollers play games of chance with our nation. This rule takes a heavy velvet rope with brass ends across the doorway and closes the high roller's room. (Maybe they'll put in more Blazing 7s or Wheel of Fortunes.)

The dilemma in drafting the final rule has been that there are certain permitted forms of trading that have been difficult to define. Fortunately, the language has been solidified tightly to avoid loopholes.

First, the key parts of the law, and what I have focused on for a very long time, are the words surrounding hedging. Proprietary hedging is allowed under the law, but speculative trading--risky gambles for the house--are exactly what Volcker sought to end. This rule does that by requiring hedges be designed to mitigate and reduce actual risk, and not just by an accidental or collateral effect of the trade. We also have better correlation language in the rule, correlation that shows that the hedging “activity demonstrably reduces or otherwise significantly mitigates the specific, identifiable risk(s) being hedged.” This is key--the risk has to be specific and identifiable. You can’t just say, “Ah, oh, that? Hmm, it was a hedge.” Nope, we aren't going to let ya play that game. The position needs to be correlated with the risk.

Furthermore, there is now an ongoing requirement to recalibrate the position, the hedge, in order to ensure that the position remains a hedge and does not become speculative. When people say this version of the Volcker Rule will stop circumstances like the London Whale, this ongoing recalibration provision is exactly what will help avoid similar debacles.

Second, the same goes for market making. Yes, market making is allowed, but only for the benefit of the banks’ customers – for their customers and not in order to collect market maker fees provided by the exchange or for any speculative reason. The market making is only permitted when a bank is hedging a legitimate business risk for a customer. Full stop.

Third, on portfolio hedging: One of the changes that has been made is that we have defined what a portfolio is NOT – it can’t be some amorphous set of excuses for doing a trade. You can’t call deuces and one-eyed jacks wild after the hand has been dealt. You can’t do an after-the-fact extract of a set of trades as a rationale for a hedge.

Fourth, I’ve spoken many times about perverse bonus structures that reward the macho macho men traders. The idea, and it is contained in actual rule text language, is that big bonuses and rewards in banking should not be tied to flyer bets. Our first proposal was fairly poorly drafted on this. It didn’t differentiate between prohibited proprietary trading and permitted proprietary trading very well. My view of the language that compensation should be “designed” not to reward or incentivize prohibited trading is that this is a sufficiently narrow test. One of the ways we will determine if something is designed in this way is how, in fact, traders are paid. So we will look after-the-fact at the payouts.

Finally, the Volcker Rule won’t be implemented until July of 2015. That’s ages in these morphing markets where new games seem to be played all the time. I guarantee there will be efforts to find loopholes, figure out ways around what has been written. That’s the way of the world. So, my final thought is that this rule must not be static. Regulators need to continue to monitor what is taking place. We need our regulatory eyes in the sky, but also to look around the corner for what’s coming next, and be nimble and quick, to ensure that what we do today holds up and that the high roller's room isn’t re-opened.

While this may be the end of part of the rulemaking process, it is, and must be, the beginning of a process, that continues.

Thank you.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

AUSTRALIAN DEFENDANTS ORDERED TO PAY $192 MILLION RESTITUTION RELATED TO FOREX FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
December 9, 2013
Federal Court in Austin, Texas Orders Australian Defendants to Pay over $192 Million in Restitution and Fines for Forex Fraud

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained a federal court default judgment Order awarding restitution for defrauded customers and civil monetary penalties of more than $192 million against Defendants Senen Pousa and Investment Intelligence Corporation (IIC) (d/b/a ProphetMax Managed FX) in connection with an off-exchange foreign currency (forex) fraud scheme in which Pousa and IIC defrauded over 960 clients in the United States and abroad of over $32 million.

Judge Lee Yeakel of the U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas entered the final default judgment and permanent injunction Order on November 27, 2013, requiring Pousa and IIC to pay restitution, plus prejudgment interest, totaling $33,299,821 to defrauded customers and Pousa and IIC each to pay a $79.5 million civil monetary penalty. The Order also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Pousa and prohibits him from further violating the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and a CFTC regulation, as charged. The Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on September 18, 2012, that charged Pousa and IIC with fraud, misappropriation, and other CEA violations (see CFTC Press Release 6353-12).

The Order finds that, from at least January 1, 2012, IIC, through Pousa and its other agents, utilized “wealth creation” webcasts, webinars, podcasts, emails, and other online seminars via the Internet to directly and indirectly fraudulently solicit actual and prospective clients worldwide to open forex trading accounts at IIC. The Order further enters findings of fact and conclusions of law finding Pousa and IIC liable as to all violations, as alleged in the CFTC complaint.

The CFTC’s litigation in this action continues against Defendants Michael Dillard, Joel Friant, and Elevation Group, Inc.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority, Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, Financial Markets Authority of New Zealand, and the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office.

Further, the CFTC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which filed a companion case, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Kyong Koh, Michael Amakor, JonMarc Buffa, Mary Lutz, Timothy J. Mulreany, and Paul Hayeck.

Friday, December 6, 2013

COURT ORDERS COMPANY AND PRINCIPALS TO PAY OVER $22 MILLION FOR ROLES IN COMMODITY POOL FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
December 4, 2013

Federal Court Orders Defendants Arista LLC, Abdul Sultan Walji, and Reniero Francisco, All of Southern California, to Pay over $22 Million in Restitution and Fines for Commodity Pool Fraud and Making False Statements to the CFTC

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction Order against Arista LLC (Arista), a registered Commodity Pool Operator with its principal place of business in Newport Coast, California, and against Arista’s principals, Abdul Sultan Walji (a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji) of San Juan Capistrano, California, and Reniero Francisco of Coastal Oak, California, for carrying out a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate millions of dollars from investors in commodity futures and options, making false statements to the CFTC, and filing false quarterly reports with the National Futures Association (NFA).

The Order, entered on December 3, 2013, requires the Defendants to pay more than $8.25 million in restitution for the losses of defrauded investors.  In addition, the Order imposes civil monetary penalties of $6.45 million on Walji, $5.925 million on Francisco, and $1.54 million on Arista.  The Order further imposes permanent trading and registration bans on the Defendants and prohibits them from violating provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and a CFTC regulation, as charged.

The Court’s Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on December 12, 2012 and amended on May 28, 2013 (Complaint), which charged the Defendants with violating anti-fraud provisions of the CEA, making false statements to the CFTC, and filing false reports with the NFA (see CFTC Press Releases 6460-12 and 6600-13).

In the Order, the Defendants admit to all of the Order’s findings and all of the allegations in the CFTC’s Complaint.  The Order finds that, from at least February 2010 through January 2012, the Defendants collected funds from 39 investors totaling more than $9.5 million, of which the Defendants paid themselves $4.125 million in purported fees and lost more than $4.8 million trading in futures and options.  The Defendants also provided false quarterly statements to the investors, violated the CEA’s registration requirements, and, after subsequently registering, provided false reports to the NFA.  Further, in September 2011, the Defendants misrepresented certain account balances, asset values, and fee calculations in a letter sent in response to requests for information from the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement.  The Order enforces the false statements provision of the CEA, which was added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

In a related criminal proceeding, Walji and Francisco each pled guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges and were sentenced, respectively, to 151 months and 97 months of imprisonment.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the NFA.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Michael P. Geiser, Laura A. Martin, Douglas K. Yatter, Philip D. Rix, Lenel Hickson, and Manal M. Sultan.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

MAN ORDERED TO PAY RESTITUTION AND PENALTY FOR OFF-EXCHANGE FOREIGN CURRENCY POOL FRAUD

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
November 19, 2013
Federal Court Sanctions David Prescott for Forex Pool Fraud
Prescott Ordered to Pay Restitution and a Civil Monetary Penalty Totaling More than $1.8 Million

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained $455,098 in restitution for defrauded off-exchange foreign currency (forex) customers and a $1,365,294 civil monetary penalty in a federal court default judgment Order against Defendant David Prescott, individually and doing business as Cambridge Currency Partners (Cambridge). The court’s Order stems from a CFTC civil Complaint filed on April 30, 2013, charging Prescott with fraudulently soliciting individuals to invest in Cambridge’s forex pool and then misappropriating their monies (see CFTC Press Release 6581-13).

The Order, entered by the Honorable Charles N. Clevert, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 31, 2013, requires Prescott to pay the restitution and civil monetary penalties, and permanently bars Prescott from engaging in any commodity-related activity, including trading, and from registering or seeking exemption from registration with the CFTC.

Specifically, the Order finds that, from at least June 2010 through April 2013, Prescott fraudulently solicited individuals to invest in Cambridge’s off-exchange forex pool and misappropriated $455,098 of pool participants’ monies, using some of those funds for air travel, hotel accommodations, and gambling. According to the Order, Prescott defrauded pool participants and prospective pool participants by misrepresenting the risks involved in forex trading and executing demand promissory notes in their favor that promised the repayment of the note amount and monthly interest payments, knowing or recklessly disregarding that he could not make those payments by his forex trading.

The Order also finds that Prescott failed to inform participants and prospective participants that, under the name of David Weeks, he previously had been convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, and perjury, had been ordered to pay restitution of over $1 million to defrauded investors, and was permanently enjoined from violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Diane M. Romaniuk, Ava M. Gould, Mary Beth Spear, Scott R. Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard B. Wagner.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

CFTC GENSLER'S REMARKS AT SWAP EXECUTION FACILITY CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler at Swap Execution Facility Conference: Bringing Transparency and Access to Markets
November 18, 2013

Thank you, Shawn, for that kind introduction. I’m pleased to be back for my third Swap Execution Facility (SEF) Conference. I’m particularly pleased to be here now that SEFs are up and running.

For the first time, all swaps market participants have access to compete. For the first time, all – and that means dealers and non-dealers alike – benefit from transparency.

Since the time of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations, economists have consistently written that transparency and open access to markets benefits the broad public and the overall economy.

When markets are open and transparent, markets are more efficient, competitive, and liquid, and costs are lowered for companies and their customers.

President Roosevelt understood this when he asked Congress during the Great Depression to bring transparency, access and competition to the commodities and securities markets.

The reforms of the 1930s transformed markets. They helped establish the foundation for the U.S. economic growth engine for decades.

The swaps market emerged nearly 50 years later, but remained dark and closed until just last year. Lacking transparency and common-sense rules of the road, the swaps market contributed to the 2008 crisis.

Thus, just as President Roosevelt did in the 1930s, President Obama and Congress passed comprehensive financial reform. They brought the $400 trillion swaps market out of the shadows and opened access to all participants.

With the completion of nearly all of the agency’s rulemaking and the initial major compliance dates behind us, the marketplace has been transformed.

Bright lights now are shining on the swaps market. Transparency is shining both prior to and after a trade.

Real-time clearing also is now a reality with 99 percent of swaps clearing within 10 seconds and 93 percent actually doing so within three seconds. Approximately 70 percent of newly entered interest rate swaps and over 60 percent of credit index swaps are being cleared.

The playing field has been leveled through transparency, impartial access, central clearing and straight-through processing. Asset managers, pension funds, insurance companies, community banks and all market participants are gaining benefits that until recently only swap dealers had.

It’s been a remarkable journey these past five years – and all of you have been part of this. Your hundreds of comments, meetings and questions have been critical to CFTC’s efforts. You worked hard – with real costs and against deadlines – to implement these reforms to bring us to a new marketplace.

Open Access

With 18 temporarily registered SEFs, we now have more than a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars in swaps trading occurring on average per day. That is a big number by any measure.

Congress said that SEFs are to provide market participants with impartial access to the market.

Consistent with Congress’ direction, the Commission’s final SEF rules, completed six months ago, are clear. Impartial access is about allowing market participants to “compete on a level playing field.”

Last week, CFTC staff issued guidance reminding SEFs of this core responsibility: the Commission’s regulations require SEFs to provide all its market participants – dealers and non-dealers alike – with the ability to fully interact on order books or request-for-quote (RFQ) systems.

SEFs are required to provide dealers and non-dealers alike the ability to view, place or respond to all indicative or firm bids and offers, as well as to place, receive, and respond to RFQs.

All market participants should feel confident that their bids or offers are being communicated to the rest of the market.

Further, SEFs must provide to all eligible contract participants (ECPs) market services, including quote screens and similar pricing data displays.

Last week’s guidance, spoke directly to some questions that market participants had brought to our attention as contrary to impartial access.

First, any discriminatory treatment for swaps intended to be cleared, such as “enablement mechanisms,” that prevents market participants from viewing bids or offers on a SEF is inconsistent with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) and the Commission’s regulations.

Second, requiring swaps traded on a SEF that are intended to be cleared to have pre-execution agreements, such as breakage agreements, is inconsistent with the Dodd-Frank Act and the Commission’s regulations.

Third, requiring a market participant to be a swap dealer or a clearing member to respond to an RFQ is inconsistent with the Dodd-Frank Act and the Commission’s regulations.

Dodd-Frank reforms truly are about bringing greater access to these markets. Reforms really are about allowing multiple market participants to meet and transact with multiple market participants.

This does mean a paradigm shift from the business models of the past.

Thus, SEF registration was not meant to be just business as usual.

Bringing access to the entire marketplace means platforms will no longer be just dealer to dealer or dealer to customer.

Through reform, all market participants who meet the standard of an ECP must be given impartial access.

Transparency

Congress was also clear that transparency must shine on the swaps market both before and after a trade.

When light shines on a market, the economy and public benefit.

Post-Trade Transparency

With reform, post-trade transparency has become a reality in the swaps market.

The price and volume of each swap transaction can be seen as it occurs. This post-trade transparency spans the entire market, regardless of product, counterparty, or whether it’s a standardized or customized transaction.

This information is available, free of charge, to everyone in the public. The data is listed in real time – like a modern-day tickertape – on the websites of each of the three swap data repositories.

Regulators also gained transparency into the details on each of the 1.8 million transactions and positions now in data repositories. The data repositories, swap dealers and SEFs, though, need to do more to ensure that the data flowing into the data repositories is accurate; consistent; and able to be readily sorted, filtered, and aggregated.

Pre-Trade Transparency

Reform also is about shining light before a trade happens.

Such pre-trade transparency gives anyone looking to compete in the swaps market the ability to see prices of available bids and offers prior to making a decision on a transaction.

This lowers costs for investors, businesses and consumers, as it shifts information from dealers to the broader public.

Our final rules provided significant flexibility in achieving this pre-trade transparency.

All SEFs are required to provide for an order book to all its market participants. In addition, SEFs have the flexibility to offer trading through RFQs.

Further, as long as certain minimum functionality is met, SEFs can conduct business through any means of interstate commerce, such as the Internet, telephone, and the mail – or, if one chooses, carrier pigeons.

The final rules were technology neutral.

Trade Execution Requirement

To benefit the public, broaden competition, and promote transparency, Congress required that certain standardized swaps must be executed on a SEF or designated contract market (DCM). The trade execution requirement covers all swaps that are subject to mandatory clearing and made available to trade.

Four SEFs already have made filings for a wide range of interest rate and credit index swaps to be determined made available for trading.

With 90 registered swap dealers, including the world’s largest financial institutions, I believe sufficient liquidity exists across the entire interest rate swap curve to support SEFs making these swaps available for trading.

The major dealers already quote markets across the entire curves, including for so-called benchmarks as well as non-benchmarks.

I anticipate that by next February there will be a trade execution requirement for a significant portion of the interest rate and credit index swap markets. The significant flexibility built into SEFs’ minimum trading protocols – including order books, RFQs and crossing rules – will enable the markets to adjust to this new mandatory trading environment.

Futures Block Rule

Earlier this year, the Commission finalized a block rule for swaps. To preserve the pre-trade transparency that has been a longstanding hallmark of the futures market, I believe that it is critical do so for futures as well.

This is important so that we do not allow for arbitrage between the swaps market that now has a block rule and the futures market that does not have a formal block rule. Thus, it is my hope that the CFTC staff’s recommendation to publish a futures block rule for public comment be on the agenda for our next open Commission meeting in December.

SEF Registration

Requiring trading platforms to be registered and overseen by regulators was central to the swaps market reform President Obama and Congress included in the Dodd-Frank Act. They expressly repealed exemptions, such as the so-called “Enron Loophole,” for unregistered, multilateral swap trading platforms.

They did so based on a long public debate.

In fact, then-Senator Obama in June 2008 called for fully closing the “Enron Loophole.”

Last week, CFTC staff issued guidance with regard to SEF registration. If a multilateral trading platform is a U.S. person, or it is located or operating in the U.S., it should register.

Consistent with the cross-border provisions of Dodd-Frank, a multilateral swaps trading platform located outside the United States that provides U.S. persons or persons located in the U.S. (including personnel and agents of non-U.S. persons located in the United States) with the ability to trade or execute swaps on or pursuant to the rules of the platform, either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, will register as a SEF or DCM.

This will trigger some SEF registrations for foreign-based platforms that are already registered with their home country. For instance, one Australian platform is going to register with the CFTC, and we’re working with the Australian home country regulators. We’re prepared to figure out where we might defer to those home country regulators.

In addition, we have been asked by a number of swap dealers and SEFs about how our rules apply to foreign swap dealers operating in the United States.

Last week, CFTC staff issued an advisory addressing this question.

If a foreign-based swap dealer has personnel in New York and they regularly arrange, negotiate, or execute swaps in the United States, then the transactions come under Dodd-Frank requirements. As the advisory stated, these activities are “core, front-office activities” of a swap dealer’s dealing business.

In other words, a U.S. swap dealer on the 32nd floor of a New York building and a foreign-based swap dealer on the 31st floor of the same building, have to follow the same rules when arranging, negotiating or executing a swap.

One elevator bank … one set of rules.

Moving Forward

The CFTC now largely has moved beyond rulewriting and initial compliance dates.

We have now moved on to reviewing registered entities and registrants to ensure they fully come into compliance.

As we have done for many years, we are doing this through examinations, surveillance, enforcement and issuing guidance and advisories. To smooth implementation, we will continue to work with market participants as needed.

We know the markets are undertaking a significant effort to ensure a smooth transition, including steps to incorporate guidance and advisories. We will continue working with market participants, but when there is a question, the best thing to do is to come into compliance with all of the CFTC’s rules and guidance.

CFTC Resources

To ensure for a well-functioning futures and swaps market, the public needs a well-funded CFTC.

To ensure that transparency and access are a reality and not something just in the rulebooks, the public needs a well-funded CFTC.

To ensure that the markets are free of fraud, manipulation and other abuses, the public needs a well-funded CFTC.

Though this small and effective agency was able to complete 67 rulemakings, orders and guidances to transform a marketplace, this should not be confused with the agency having sufficient people and technology to oversee the markets.

With 670 people, we are only 36 people more than 20 years ago, and we’ve got a whole lot more to do. We have a vast $400 trillion swaps market to oversee, in addition to the $30 trillion futures market that we historically have overseen.

The overall branding of these markets is dependent on investors and customers having confidence in using them.

It’s also critical that we have the resources for the timely reviews of applications, registrations, petitions and answers to market participants’ questions.

The President has asked for $315 million for the CFTC. This year we’ve been operating with only $195 million.

Worse yet, as a result of continued funding challenges, sequestration, and a required minimum level Congress set for the CFTC’s outside technology spending, the CFTC already has shrunk 6 percent, and was forced to notify employees of an administrative furlough for up to 14 days this fiscal year.

I believe that the CFTC is a good investment for the American public. It’s a good investment for transparent, well-functioning markets.

Conclusion

Let me close by thanking all of you. These last five years have been a remarkable journey, and the result is a transformed marketplace.

I want to thank you for all that we’ve achieved together.

I look forward to answering your questions.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

CFTC COMMISSIONER CHILTON'S SPEECH BEFORE OUACHITA SPEAKERS SERIES

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
“Reasonable Responsibilities”

Speech of Commissioner Bart Chilton before the Ouachita Speakers Series

November 7, 2013

Introduction—Ponzimonium

Good evening! Thank you, Wilbur (Smither), for the invitation and for the introduction. It’s great to be with all of you tonight. I’m excited for a few reasons, one of which is to break out of my often very specific issue-oriented agenda.

Thank you for the shout out in the introduction regarding my book Ponzimonium: How Are Scam Artists Are Ripping Off America; it was written as an educational piece, to help folks appreciate the enormous number of scam artists out there working 24-7-365 to rip people off. I wrote about con artists that over the years impacted tens of thousands of people by stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. We will talk about a range of characters tonight, but the folks in the book are particularly slick fraudsters, masters of illusion and deception and outright criminals. They are not the topic of tonight’s speech, but suffice it to say, they live on—even right here in River City—and I simply felt a responsibility to share with folks some simple things they could do to help identify a swindle. We can talk more about that in the Q&A period if folks would like.

Fortunate Fellow

One thing Wilbur did not tell you in his introduction is that I am one very fortunate fellow. You see, I’m told a large inheritance from a distant relative that I didn’t even know I had, is coming my way. Also, my email address won a lottery worth several million (although I’ve not entered any contest). It is a good thing I’ll be getting all that cash because a woman wrote about her botched surgery in Peru. Now that I’m newly rich, there’s an obligation to help her out. She’s in tremendous pain and needs cash to have another surgery and get healthy. She says she will be “forever indebted” to me once I help out, so it sounds like a good trade! I thought these and other emails seemed suspicious, and I had a reasonable responsibility to check them out, but as it turns out, I’m also a beneficiary of a scam fraud fund for folks who have been robbed by schemers of one sort or another. They just need a bunch of personal information and my bank account numbers and I’ll get the money due to me. So, I’ve got that going for me.

I hope to have a bit of fun this evening and cover a good bit of substance. We will talk a little about government and politics, about business and technology, and about what we all can do that might be a little different, to help rebuild a civil society. So, let’s do the Barry White, and “…get it on”.

Grrreat!

Some of you may have seen this recently. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 60 percent of Americans say every Member of Congress should be fired—fired. Did anyone see that? Who said we don’t need Donald Trump in government! “You’re fired!”

The polls aren’t treating President Obama much more kindly either. His job approval ratings are only 41 percent as of this week, one point off his all-time low of 40 percent in 2011. His disapproval rating is a record high 52 percent, 1 point short of his highest disapproval rating of 53 percent. If you want to contrast and compare or look at more details, go to Gallup’s website at gallup.com. For example, the lowest job approval for President George W. Bush (43) was 25 percent. The highest was 90 percent. Anyone want to guess when he hit 90 percent approval? Yep, just following 9/11.

We had a unified, shared vision after 9/11: We were determined to survive, to find the perpetrators and to be stronger than before because of the experience. U.S.A., USA, USA! Oh, and we pretty much agreed that terrorists are despicable, there is that. But, we were really into the Proud To Be An American, Born In The U.S.A. patriotism.

It would be awesome if we could have that shared vision again, maybe even get behind our politicians and think that the large majority of time they were doing a respectable job. We could look upon them, regardless of political party, as leaders. Ah, to return, “…now to the thrilling days of yesteryear!” That would be “grrreat!”

While we can’t go back, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect more decorum, more respect, more grace and courage under fire. And we should expect and demand more collaboration and teamwork on behalf of the nation, because it is “grrreat!”

We need more strong, accountable leaders. I’m fortunate, as many of you are, to have seen some terrific leaders—leaders of all political stripes, leaders who enjoyed the trust of the American People.

Fairness Doctrine & Reasonable Responsibility

So, let’s talk about it. Today, certainly, it seems like constant bickering, doesn’t it? In “fairness” it’s from all sides. And, the media plays a significant role in the present quagmire. Some of you may recall the Fairness Doctrine, which has a history dating back more than 60 years. For the majority of years in our lives, it was the law of the land and appropriately led us to conclude that we could “trust” what we saw on TV. It required all holders of broadcast licenses (radio and television) to present controversial issues of public important in a manner that was—in the opinion of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—“honest, equitable and balanced.” The goal was to assure that folks heard competing sides of an issue from news segments, editorials or public affairs shows.

What many people don’t realize is the FCC stopped enforcing that reasonable responsibility requirement in 1987, and a little over two years ago, removed all the language regarding the Fairness Doctrine from its books. So, all taglines and branding efforts aside, “fair and balanced” are self-ascribed values these days. “News” can now be a three-ring circus of entertainment. “Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, see the silver-tongued-devil speak out of both sides of the mouth, all the while not losing the smile.”

And it is nonstop! No more “Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light” at 1 a.m. Today’s 24-hour television programming has bred embellished rhetoric. That war of words is worrisome because it creates intolerance. The line between advocate and thespian has been so badly blurred most Americans are in a fuzz about what is actually taking place.

As a result, many of those on the right see the left as wimpy weasels weakening the fiber and footing of our founding fathers. On the left, many see the right as self-righteous swine, swigging 80-proof bottles of patriotism and behaving badly. They have one thing in common. A lot of them hate each other. They hate each other. It is sad state of affairs that so many Americans dislike other Americans and have little tolerance for diverse opinions.

I’ve watched the discourse deteriorate dramatically in my own 30 years in politics and public service. I witness it today in Technicolor and Dolby Surround Sound, travelling and speaking with people all across the nation. Plus, I receive a lot of email from people who are very angry. (Although to be fair, in the last two days, I’ve never received more nice emails from people.) But I’ve received many emails from folks who are irritated with me, or my Agency, at the government, the banks or just plain distraught in general. And think about the emails that say this or that dreadful thing about politicians. Some may be true. However, many of them seem crazy, because they are crazy. But, many people believe them.

It seems like a reasonable responsibility that when people receive an email that seems really bizarre, they check it out, certainly before they forward it to anyone and potentially perpetuate false information. I’m not suggesting that will get any president or Congress to a 90 percent job approval, but it can’t hurt the state of affairs. “Come on and dream, dream along.” What have we got to lose by fact-checking?

Pants-on-Fire

There are a couple of places folks can go to do this very easily. Here’s the one I like best: factcheck.org. They will call foul on anyone for incorrect information. They are nonpartisan and not-for-profit and serve a real consumer advocacy function. They are my sort of peeps. They monitor TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases in order to reduce the dishonesty and confusion and increase clarity in American politics.

Another place to go is PolitiFact at politifact.com. They use a “truth-o-meter.” If you really are not telling the truth, they term it “pants-on-fire.” For example, the chain email which stated that “Congressional lawmakers earn their salaries ‘FOR LIFE,’ which for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would add up to $803,700 Dollars (sic) a year for LIFE including FREE medical care.” That’s pants-on-fire false. Undoubtedly it contributed to the average blood pressure reading that week, but nonetheless pants-on-fire false.

Ann Coulter, the political commentator said, “No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting Obamacare.” A blogger posted “Obama Declares November National Muslim Appreciation Month.” Betsy McCaughey, a former Lieutenant Governor of New York said, “Obamacare will question your sex life.” Those are all pants-on-fire falsehoods. Yet, people repeat these things, and it increases intolerance—as well as ignorance.

Here’s another two from right here in Arkansas. Congressman Tom Cotton says Senator Pryor voted for “special subsidies” for lawmakers and staff in Congress so they’re protected from Obamacare. He also said, “The health care marketplaces have no privacy protections.” Both statements are false, according to PolitiFact.

And before anyone thinks I’m here as an evangelist for the Democratic Party, I will voluntarily adhere to the Fairness Doctrine. Van Jones is a host of CNN's Crossfire; he’s on the left. He said that only “1 percent of candidates that (the National Rifle Association) endorsed in 2012 won”. That’s false. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the United States “stood alone in the war in Iraq”. Pants-on-fire false. President Obama said, “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas”. That too, is false. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said, “If I have affordable coverage in my workplace, I’m not eligible to go into the marketplace…It’s illegal.” That is Democrat pants-on-fire false, according to PolitiFact.

Anyway, you get the picture. There is a war of words in American politics and a few of the folks out there shoot blanks sometimes, some more than others. So, let’s hope people look to unbiased sources to get to the truth, not those with an agenda—hidden or otherwise. We can’t take responsibility for the nutty things folks say, but it is certainly reasonable that we take responsibility for what we say or pass along. We can, as a valued friend says, be “system busters” and stop, or at least slow, the war of words by the politicians.

Wall Streeters & the Decade of Deregulation

Let’s move to another area of inquiry—the Wall Streeters. You know: “Some say money is bad for the soul, bad for the rock, bad for the roll, bad for the heart, bad for the brain, bad for damn near everything, of yeah!” (Sammy and Van Halen were on fire.) But, I don’t believe that “…the love of money is the root of all evil,” nope; “Money Makes The World Go Round.”

Some of you may have retired from Wall Street. Others have friends or maybe kids on Wall Street. I deal with these folks all the time. There are very smart people in the financial sector. I know and like many, even most of them. At the same time, there have been some, umm, how do we say it—issues.

The economic collapse in 2008 was due, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, to both Wall Streeters and a lack of appropriate laws, rules and oversight by regulators. I call it a Decade of Deregulation promoted by a group of folks called the Free-Marketeers.

Sure, we want free markets, but utterly free markets with no rules or regulation whatsoever don’t work out so well. That’s what took place in 2008. There were hundreds of trillions of dollars being bet that were not regulated whatsoever—zero zippity zilch regulation. Wall Street was making bets upon bets upon bets that bundles of things, like home mortgages, would fail. There was no agreed-upon valuation of what these things were worth. As a result, we saw firms like Lehman Brothers bite the dust. Lehman was over-leveraged 30 to one in their last statement. No economist in the world would think that was reasonably responsible. Then the collapse hit. That was fun . . . not!

In 2010, Congress approved and the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Regulators have made some good progress in implementing the requirements of the law, but there is still more to be done.

Evil Ways

At the same time, we’ve seen more malfeasance in the financial sector than ever before. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t learn about some illegal activity. That’s got to change. Larger fines need to be imposed and when folks do the crime they should do the time, not just pay the fine. There needs to be a culture shift on Wall Street. I’m not so sure all the Wall Streeters got the memo (or that there were enough memos) that told people “You’ve got to change your evil ways, baby . . . This can’t go on, Lord knows you got to change.”

We can’t solve that problem by passing another law or regulation. Government can’t effectively regulate ethics or morals. But, the top executives and the boards of directors can instill in these firms, core values—and reasonable responsibilities—about what they should, and should not do. And if they cannot, we need to go back to our nation’s business schools and start discussing curricula electives versus requirements.

I’m optimistic this is changing, and it’s high time it did.

Technology

Without getting too in-the-weeds on how markets have changed, I do want to mention technology.

We know how scary-complex things have become in our own world, with iPhones and droids. It’s tough to keep up with all that technology going on in our personal lives. Sometimes, many folks feel left out as technology surpasses their ability to work with it. Well, that’s taking place in markets too, and regulators can’t keep up. See, you aren’t alone. However, I’d bet it doesn’t make you feel much better that regulators don’t have the same technology as traders and we don’t have enough people keep up with what the tech savvy financial wizards are doing.

I term these market participants called high frequency traders “Cheetahs” because of their incredible speed. They are faster than Speedy Gonzales…because they are Cheetahs, not mice! Here’s how fast they go, they can trade many times per second. A millisecond is 1,000 parts of a single second. That’s fast.

What all that means is that when things go wrong, and we’ve seen things like the Flash Crash of 2010 where the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 1,000 points in 20 minutes, they go wrong in a huge honking hurry.

Guess what, these traders aren’t even required to register with our Agency, test their programs, or install kill switches. I’ve been working on those things and hope for changes next year.

I’m reminded of an Albert Einstein statement. He said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” Think about that, technology has exceeded our humanity.

Technology is a good thing—even grrreat—but it needs to be monitored. Just like when Wall Streeters, after the Decade of Deregulation, were left to their own devices, so too are the Cheetahs. That needs to change before we see another major market meltdown. And I hate to say this, but mark my words, if we don’t do something; there will be another meltdown like the Flash Crash.

Time Machines

Think about how things are so very different than they were 20 years ago. How about 40 years ago? How do you think things will be different in three or five years, or ten 20 or 30 years? It’s actually sort of fun to contemplate if you can let your mind wander and wonder. Try it in bed as you are going to sleep. I’m a big believer in using our dream states for cool things like that. Really, try it. Think about what the world will be like in 20 years. What should people plan for in the future?

Let’s talk specifics so you can see what I’m suggesting. Twenty years ago, we knew computing technology was going to get better, “you better, you better, you bet.” Things would be lighter and have more capacity. We knew information would available on the web. But it wasn’t a reality yet. It was a question of how and when?

Today, we know that climate change is taking place. It will be addressed. It’s sort of like the debt ceiling; there is simply no other reasonably responsible thing to do. So, how will climate change be addressed? I know, I know, there will be worldwide carbon credits being traded in the years to come. It’s already happening in the European Union and other places. Richard Sandor, the father of financial futures in Chicago started an environmental climate exchange years ago. That is, in part, how we addressed acid rain. Anyone hear about problems with acid rain lately? Nope, because a free markets approach—trading acid rain credits—took care of it. Mr. Sandor championed the effort to get a law in place that would move carbon trading forward and take our place as a nation in the endeavor to right the wrongs of the last hundred-plus years of atmospheric degradation. There was bipartisan support for this. Senator McCain was a supporter! Then, however, we just got slowed down, candidly, due to politics in and the aftermath of the 2008 elections.

Like computers and the web, on climate change, we just don’t know exactly when or how it will be addressed. But, it will happen, we have no other option if we want to save the planet.

(And BTW, if you aren’t down with the “climate change is real part,” with all due respect, seriously, go back and read this speech later and follow up on the fact-checking section. Maybe try nasa.gov. Thanks for your attention and reasonable responsibility.)

Searching for insight into when changes may occur or how they will be manifested will give us an upper hand on changing its course—faster or slower, this way or that way.

Change

So, how do we deal with the things that are to come, in our dreams or in reality, or both? If we are good, they come in both, right? How do we deal with “Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes.”

Remember the old Byrds song adapted from the Bible? “To everything—turn, turn, turn, There is a season—turn, turn, turn, And a time for every purpose under heaven.” Let’s talk about change and changes.

It’s so easy to persist in resisting change. People like their routines. Change can mess them up. Think Cheryl Crow singing “A Change” with her great tone, “Hello it’s me, I’m not at home, If you’d like to reach me, leave me alone…” and then the chorus, “A change would do you good.” (She’s fabulous, and has a new country album.)

If we expect change and ready ourselves to adapt to change, that’s a great starting point.

Oscar Wilde, the cultural commentator from the late 1800s said, “To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect”. He made that statement about expecting the unexpected when a lot of stuff was going on. Things were being invented left and right: typewriters, dish and clothes washers, radar, and metal detectors, contact lenses, and escalators. You’d be hit in the face with a new invention if you didn’t watch it. If you didn’t expect incredible things, well, you didn’t have a thoroughly modern intellect. Sorry Charlie.

Well, today is sort of like that. We have this technology and that technology coming at us at seemingly lightning speed. My phone is only one year old, but there are two newer models.

We live in a world of constant and increasing change, and we can either embrace that change or learn to live with it—and indeed, thrive in it—or we can just go crawl under a rock.

So, we too should consider expecting the unexpected. It readies us for change. The change might be with regard to technology, but it also might be with regard to the financial sector, or the environment, or with healthcare, or Washington. And if we’re prepared, we’re in the best position we can be to avoid calamities like the 2008 financial crisis or the 2010 flash crash. But we have to be open to dealing with change.

Regrooving Change Managers

On an individual level, we’ve all experienced it. Whether you call it adaptation or managing change, or coping with the unexpected, sometimes we just need to suck it up, cowboy or cowgirl up, bite the bullet, or whatever your phrase du jour. Regroove those brain cells. Retool our skill sets, behaviors and competencies.

Here’s an example. A friend of mine used to become practically paralyzed at the thought of purchasing and using any new piece of technology. A new DVD player was enough to send her into a tailspin—buying, installing, dealing with technicians—she hated all of it. It made her feel stupid. She realized at some point, however, that changes and improvements in technology was inexorable—it was going to keep moving ahead, with or without her, and unless she developed a different attitude, she would end up perpetually angry. So, she decided to make a change.

She started in a small way, and changed one thing: she decided that she would master texting. Not a big deal, right? But to her it was. And it was a big challenge, at first. She bought a smart phone, spent a lot of time in the store with some very helpful young “geniuses”, and finally, in fits and starts, began texting. It was a bumpy road, but she did it until it became natural for her. It wasn’t a momentous event in the history of the world, but it was a huge change in her brain, in the way she thought. And there were ripple effects.

It began to affect the way she looked at other technologies. They weren’t so scary. DVD player? Ah, easy. Smartphone apps? Well, she started to use load and use loads of them, all the time. Bluetooth stereo speakers? A snap.

And then she started to think about applying her new-found techie-talents in different ways. She ended up putting together several different pieces of sound equipment, combined with some smart phone technology, which allowed her to play some terrific music on an old acoustic guitar. And this new sound was delightful to her and she’s playing in bars and at weddings for fun and some pocket change…and the delight of others. It wouldn’t have occurred to her, however, to think about putting together this little system, had she stayed in her technology-hating cocoon. But she “change managed” her techno-aversion, and made something really exciting and good happen.

We have all done something similar in our lives. Been there, done that? For many, in fact most all of us, a change would do us good.

CanduU

All this talk about the inevitable nature of change brings me to my last point: how we drive cultural and political change on a larger scale. Is there a way we can help get the nation back on the right track? Or do we opt to kick that can on down the road for another generation? Oh wait, there’s that reasonable responsibility thing.

It has been a tremendous honor and privilege to spend 30 years in politics and government service. Not because the pay is great nor because the hours are reasonable, nor because I was able to finish my policy to-do list each day like my colleagues in the private sector have a penchant for doing. I’ve done it because reasonable or otherwise, it was to me, a responsibility.

In light of intensely partisan politics, a flagrant lack of fairness in the media, nagging negativity, and a culture of greed and selfishness, how do we move forward in simply not expecting, but driving change? Not simply manage, cope, deal with, accept, resign, tolerate, handle, but to create and drive that change? There are three thoughts to share and perhaps you will have others.

Number One: Question Authority. Now, now, I am not talking about James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause or John Mellencamp’s Authority Song. After all, in the latter song, “Authority always wins.” No flag or bra burning references. I’m thinking of that old radical balding guy in pantaloons. You know, the one who wrote, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” Yep, founding father Benjamin Franklin. (I’ve been working on his hair style for 25 years now, and about 4 more inches and I think I’ll finally have nailed it).

So yes, question authority and listen carefully. Today and almost always, it’s infinitely more important to understand than to be understood. Seek to fully understand. If it’s a great opportunity posed by a seemingly skilled and adept financial investor, surely could be a Ponzi scheme these days–question authority. A President, even one of your own political persuasions—question authority. A statement by a candidate running for office—question authority. An email from the friend of a friend of a friend, stating thus and such? Question...umm, okay, that might not be authority, which brings me to…

Number Two: Discernment. Judge well. Listen to all sides. Read multiple sources of conflicting points of view. Query, probe, research, look at the big picture. What’s in it for everyone? Who are the stakeholders? What are their myriad agenda? Don’t simply consume the comfort food of politics, listening only to what you want to hear...true or false, right or wrong, accurate or, umm, not so much. We all need protein. We all need veggies. We all need fruits. Enjoy a diverse diet of knowledge and sources, and use discernment to sort out what is honest, equitable and balanced in your view. And…

Number Three: Shared Vision. Seek and create a shared vision to build on common ground. The foundation of every successful change management program is the establishment of shared goals and objectives and a shared vision of where the organization is going. Without primary stakeholders and champions—like elected officials and so called leaders—sharing the same vision, nothing short of bloody revolution will get you there. And similarly, without the workers and implementers on board, well, good luck to you and the Razorbacks.

Yet, here we are as a mass of people living as residents of the same country no longer with a shared vision for our nation, no longer with shared goals and objectives for what we want it to become. We are beginning to agree on what we don’t want. But to be positive, to move forward, we need that vision on what we do want. We need clear leadership, and a balanced media to focus the discussion and be able to raise issues without raising our voices.

The days, weeks and months after 9/11 reminded us of that. We had a shared vision and voice about the nation. We shared strength, resilience, pride, courage, freedom and indomitable spirit. Let’s hope and pray we do not need another ugly event to find common ground. Let’s hope that if we are ready for change; that we seek and embrace change with a Candu enthusiasm by questioning authority, being discerning and seeking common ground. As the late Senator Paul Simon of Illinois often said, “We can do better.” I really believe you Candu, and we Candu better too, don’t you?

Conclusion

It has been a pleasure to be with you tonight. Oops, pardon me; it seems technology does not because that’s an email coming in on my phone. Oh, it seems like an urgent matter. It appears a rich princess is in distress and needs my assistance. I lend her a small amount now and she gives me lots of gold later. She seems nice and calls me “Dear Beloved.” I guess she needs my bank routing number. There are some things that will never change!

Ah, but that would be a different speech.

Thank you for your attention and your interest in helping to make our society a better place in which to live.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

RESTITUTION ORDER FORCES CALIFORNIA MAN TO PAY $1.75 MILLION TO SETTLE FRAUD CHARGES

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
November 13, 2013

Federal Court in California Orders Thomas B. Breen, a Principal of National Equity Holdings, Inc., to Pay $1.75 million to Settle Fraud Charges in CFTC Action

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court Order against a principal of National Equity Holdings, Inc. (National Equity), Thomas B. Breen, of Orange County, California, requiring Breen to jointly pay restitution to defrauded customers in accordance with a restitution Order set in a related criminal action of $1,059,096, and imposes a civil monetary penalty of $700,000 against Breen, as well as permanent trading and registration bans.

The Order, entered on November 5, 2013 by the Honorable James Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on November 8, 2011, against Defendants National Equity, Robert J. Cannone, Francis Franco, and Breen, charging them with fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and registration violations (see CFTC Press Release 6142-11).

The Order finds, and Breen acknowledges, that from at least June 2009 to May 2010, Breen, by and through National Equity, fraudulently solicited and accepted over $1.4 million to trade commodity futures contracts through a pool. In their solicitations, Breen, by and through National Equity, (1) falsely claimed to have a successful and experienced trader (Franco) for the pool, (2) misrepresented the likelihood of profits and the risks associated with trading commodity futures, (3) failed to disclose that they were not properly registered with the CFTC to operate a pool, and (4) failed to disclose their intended uses of pool participant funds.

The Order further finds that Breen and National Equity traded only a portion of the pool participant funds in proprietary accounts, and sustained overall and significant losses. Breen and National Equity concealed their fraud and trading losses from the pool participants by issuing false account statements reflecting profits. Approximately one year later, they claimed that participants’ fund were all lost in trading, but promised to return their funds.

The CFTC’s litigation continues against Defendant Francis Franco to determine the appropriate amount of a civil monetary penalty to be imposed and whether a personal trading ban should be imposed. However, on April 11, 2013, the court entered a consent Order of permanent injunction against Defendants National Equity and Cannone, requiring them to pay over $3.6 million of restitution and monetary penalties, among other sanctions, to settle the CFTC action (see CFTC Press Release 6567-13).

In related actions, Cannone, as well as the other Defendant Francis Franco, pled guilty to criminal violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. Cannone was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison, and ordered to pay the $1.05 million in restitution, jointly and severally with the other defendants. Franco was sentenced to 25 months, while Breen was sentenced to 40 months.

The CFTC thanks the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Orange County Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Office, for their assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Michelle S. Bougas, Heather Johnson, James H. Holl, III, and Gretchen L. Lowe.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR GETS RESTRAINING ORDER FOR ALLEGEDLY MISAPPROPRIATING POOL FUNDS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Obtains Restraining Order against Commodity Pool Operator and Commodity Trading Advisor, AlphaMetrix, LLC, Alleging Misappropriation of Pool Funds and Sending False or Misleading Statements

CFTC Complaint Also Names AlphaMetrix’s Parent Company, AlphaMetrix Group, LLC, as Relief Defendant

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 4, 2013, against AlphaMetrix, LLC (AlphaMetrix), a Chicago-based Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). The Complaint alleges that AlphaMetrix misappropriated funds belonging to commodity pools it operated and sent false or misleading account statements to at least some of the pool participants. On November 5, 2013, Federal District Judge Joan H. Lefkow issued a consent restraining Order that freezes AlphaMetrix’s assets, protects books and records, and appoints a corporate monitor to oversee the distribution of pool funds to participants.

According to the CFTC Complaint, AlphaMetrix operates approximately 90 pools that had approximately $700 million in assets under management as of August 31, 2013. The Complaint alleges that AlphaMetrix had agreements with some participants in which AlphaMetrix agreed to rebate certain fees by reinvesting the funds in the pools for the participants. However, as alleged, between at least January 1 and October 31, 2013, AlphaMetrix failed to reinvest at least $2.8 million of the rebates owed to participants and instead transferred the funds to its parent company, AlphaMetrix Group, LLC, which had no legitimate claim to those funds and is named as a Relief Defendant in the Complaint. The Complaint states that AlphaMetrix nevertheless sent the participants account statements, which included the funds that were supposed to have been invested in calculating the net asset value of their interests, and, as a result, misstated to participants the true value of their investments.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against AlphaMetrix, enjoining AlphaMetrix from committing further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, as charged, and ordering it to pay restitution, disgorgement, and a civil monetary penalty, among other appropriate relief. The CFTC also seeks an Order requiring AlphaMetrix Group, LLC, to disgorge funds it received as a result of AlphaMetrix’s unlawful conduct.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Stephanie Reinhart, David Terrell, Joseph Patrick, Scott Williamson, and Rosemary Hollinger. The Division thanks the CFTC’s Division of Swaps and Intermediary Oversight and the National Futures Association for their assistance in this matter.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

TRADER CHARGED BY CFTC WITH VIOLATING CATTLE FUTURES SPECULATIVE POSITION LIMITS

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURE TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Charges Illinois Resident, CME Floor Broker and Trader James C. Yadgir with Violating Live and Feeder Cattle Futures Speculative Position Limits

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed an enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against James C. Yadgir of Palatine, Illinois, charging Yadgir with exceeding the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s (CME) speculative position limits in live cattle futures contracts in April 2011 and in feeder cattle futures contracts in May 2012. As the CFTC approved the CME speculative position limits for both futures contracts, the Complaint alleges that Yadgir, a CME Floor Broker and Trader, violated the Commodity Exchange Act, which prohibits any person from holding futures contract positions or options on such contracts in excess of established CFTC-approved speculative position limits.

According to the CFTC’s Complaint, on April 6, 2011, Yadgir held an open net position in April 2011 live cattle future contracts that exceeded his 550 contracts long spot month spread exemption position limit by 70 contracts.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 23 and 24, 2012, Yadgir violated the CME’s speculative position limits in feeder cattle futures contracts. As charged in the Complaint, Yadgir’s aggregate futures equivalent net position in May 2012 feeder cattle futures on May 23, 2012 exceeded the speculative position limit of 300 contracts in the last 10 days of trading by over 81 contracts. Yadgir also allegedly exceeded the feeder cattle futures speculative position limit on May 24, 2012, the expiration day of the May 2012 contract. According to the Complaint, Yadgir admitted to the violations alleged in the Complaint.

Yadgir has been registered with the CFTC as a floor trader since 1993 and as a floor broker since 2007.

The federal Complaint seeks a permanent injunction in addition to other remedial relief, including a trading ban and a civil monetary penalty.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Mark A. Picard, Michael R. Berlowitz, Elizabeth Pendleton, David Acevedo, Trevor Kokal, Lenel Hickson, Jr., Stephen J. Obie, Manal Sultan, and Vincent A. McGonagle, with assistance from Margaret Sweet of the CFTC Office of Data Technology.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

CFTC PROPOSES RULE REGARDING MEMBERSHIP IN REGISTERED FUTURES ASSOCIATION

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

CFTC Issues Proposed Rule to Require All Registered Introducing Brokers, Commodity Pool Operators, and Commodity Trading Advisors to Become and Remain Members of a Registered Futures Association

Washington, DC —The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) proposed a rule today to amend its regulations to require that all persons registered with the Commission as introducing brokers (IBs), commodity pool operators (CPOs), and commodity trading advisors (CTAs) become and remain members of at least one registered futures association (RFA). Currently, the National Futures Association (NFA) is the only RFA.

The Commission is proposing new Section 170.17 to address recent changes to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Commission’s authority to regulate swaps. Currently, under Sections 170.15 and 170.16 of the Commission’s regulations, all registered futures commission merchants (FCMs), swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs) are required to become members of NFA. However, there is no mandatory membership requirement for other registrants. Through the interaction of the Commission’s rules and NFA Bylaw 1101, any IB, CPO or CTA required to be registered with the Commission that desires to conduct business directly with an FCM, SD, or MSP must become a member of NFA, and derivatively, must ensure that it conducts business only with those IBs, CPOs or CTAs that also are NFA members. However, due to the unique nature of swap transactions, it may be possible for certain IBs, CPOs or CTAs to not be captured by the intersection of Sections 170.15 or 170.16 and NFA Bylaw 1101, and therefore, it may be possible for these Commission registrants to serve clients without becoming members of NFA. The Commission intends the proposed rule to avoid this possibility.

The comment period for the proposed rule will remain open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

CFTC COMMISSIONER CHILTON'S STATEMENT ON POSITION LIMITS MEETING

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
“At Last”

Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton, Dodd-Frank Meeting on Position Limits

November 5, 2013

For two reasons, this is a significant day for me.  I am reminded of that great Etta James song, At Last.

The first reason is that, at last, we are considering what I believe to be the signal rule of my tenure here at the Commission; I’ve been working on speculative position limits since 2008. The second reason today is noteworthy is that this will be my last Dodd-Frank meeting.  Early this morning, I sent a letter to the President expressing my intent to leave the Agency in the near future. I’ve waited until now—today—to get this proposed rule out the door, and now—at last—with the process coming nearly full circle, I can leave. It’s with incredible excitement and enthusiasm that I look forward to being able to move on to other endeavors.

With that, here is a bit of history on the position limits journey that has led us, and me, to this day.  The early spring of 2008 was a peculiar time at the Commission.  None of my current colleagues were here.  I and my colleagues at that time watched Bear Stearns fail. We had watched commodity prices rise as investors sought diversified financial havens.  When I asked Commission staff about the influence of speculation on prices, some said speculative positions couldn’t impact prices.  It didn’t ring true, and as numerous independent studies have confirmed since, it was not true.

I began urging the Commission to implement speculative position limits under our then-existing authority.  And I was, at that time, the only Commissioner to support position limits.  Given the concerns, I urged Congress to mandate limits in legislation. A Senate bill was blocked on a cloture vote that summer, but late in the session, the House actually passed legislation.  Finally, in 2010, as part of the Dodd-Frank law, Congress mandated the Commission to implement position limits by early in 2011.

Within the Commission, I supported passing a rule that would have complied with the time-frame established by Congress—by any other name—federal law. A position limits rule was proposed in January of 2011 and finally approved in November.

In September 2012, literally days before limits were to be effective, a federal district court ruling tossed the rule out, claiming the CFTC had not sufficiently provided rationale for imposing the rule.  We appealed and I urged us to address the concerns of the court by proposing and quickly passing another new and improved rule.  I thought and hoped that we could move rapidly.  After months of delay and deferral, it became clear: we could not.

But today—at last—more than three years since Dodd-Frank’s passage, we are here to take it to the limits one more time.

Thankfully, we have it right in the text before us. The Commission staff has ultimately done an admirable job of devising a proposed regulation that should be unassailable in court, good for markets and good for consumers.

I thank everyone who has worked upon the rule: Steve Sherrod, Riva Adriance, Ajay Sutaria, Scott Mixon, Mary Connelly, and many others for their good work.

In addition, I especially thank Elizabeth Ritter, my Chief of Staff, Nancy Doyle, and also Salman Banaei who has left the Agency for greener pastures. I thank them for their tireless efforts on the single most important, and perhaps to me the most frustrating, policy issue of my tenure with the Commission. I have had the true honor of working with Elizabeth since prior to my confirmation. I would be remiss if I did not reiterate here what I have often said; nowhere do I believe there is a brighter, smarter, more knowledgeable and hard-working derivatives counsel. She has served the public and me phenomenally well. Thank you, Elizabeth.

And finally to my colleagues, past and present, my respect to those whom we have been unable to persuade to vote with us on this issue, and my thanks to those who will vote in support of this needed and mandated rule. At last!

Thank you.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

CFTC COMMISSIONER WETJEN'S STATEMENT REGARDING CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN THE DERIVATIVES MARKETPLACE

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Statement of Commissioner Mark P. Wetjen, Public Meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
October 30, 2013

Thank you Chairman Gensler. And my thanks to the professional staff for their hard work on the important final rule we are considering today regarding customer protection.

Customer Protection

The CFTC's core mission is to protect futures and swaps customers from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices and systemic risk. In pursuing this mission, it is vital that the commission unceasingly look to update and improve the protections we have in order to better protect the public and ensure the safety, soundness, and integrity of those operating in the derivatives marketplace.

The final customer protection rule before us today requires important improvements to a range of protections that have been implemented by the commission and industry in recent months. It fills certain remaining regulatory gaps to prevent future failures in the FCM community, and enhances nearly every protection afforded customers of FCMs in the futures and cleared-swaps markets. Customers will benefit from enhancements to FCM risk management programs, modernized audit programs and streamlined measures that will better insulate customers from fellow customer risk.

Residual Interest

The residual-interest provisions have been the most discussed part of the proposal. The commission received a significant number of comment letters in response to that proposal, which would have required FCMs to maintain “at all times” enough residual interest in their segregated accounts to cover all customer margin deficits. That approach was intended to limit fellow-customer risk by ensuring that one customer would in no circumstance be responsible for unwittingly covering another customer’s margin obligations.

Although the proposal offered one permissible construction of the Commodity Exchange Act, it suffered from some practical shortcomings. Those practical shortcomings, in my judgment, are appropriately addressed in the document before us today.

For example, many suggested that the “at all times” requirement under the proposal likely would have imposed significant capital costs on FCMs, which could have led to the unintended effect of limiting access to the derivatives markets. Many contended that this would be too high a price to pay when measured against the corresponding benefit of mitigating fellow-customer risks. The commission has considered these comments and has taken a different approach in today’s release.

The compromise reflected in the final rule is intended to usher in improvements to margin-collection practices over time and to protect access to the markets for a broad cross-section of participants. As a general matter, I strongly support improvements to the residual-interest requirements because of the critical policy objectives they are designed to achieve. First, they will better protect the excess segregation funds of a customer in the event of an FCM bankruptcy. Second, they will encourage FCMs to more actively monitor customer accounts for instances when those accounts are under-margined. And third, they will incentivize FCMs to address those circumstances when an account is under-margined. Together, these enhancements will better protect the safety and soundness of the FCM.

Importantly, the commission has given itself sufficient time to evaluate the FCM community’s progress in implementing the residual-interest policy in the final rule, and to change course if necessary. Indeed, the phased compliance schedule provided in today’s release was a critical component of getting to this final compromise on residual interest.

That compromise is reasonable and measured. For one year, there will be no change to current practice with respect to the treatment of residual interest. After that year, FCMs will be required to comply with the residual-interest requirement as of the close of business on the day following the margin-deficit calculation. This is a necessary and significant change to current market practice.

Thirty months after today’s release is published, commission staff is obligated to conduct a study determining the feasibility, costs and benefits of moving the residual-interest deadline to the completion of the first clearing-settlement cycle following the trade date. The study will be published for public comment, and a public roundtable will be held to solicit the views of market participants.

Finally, after five years, the residual-interest requirement will move up to the first clearing settlement cycle of the day, typically first thing in the morning, should the commission choose not to change course based upon recommendations in the study or in reaction to public feedback at the roundtable.

To be sure, if this end-state were implemented today it would no doubt create a significant cost to FCMs and to market participants. The five-year phase-in period, however, provides the industry an opportunity to streamline margin-collection practices and to take advantage of any technological solutions that may be developed in the meantime.

Equally important, today’s release ensures that future residual-interest requirements will not be imposed on the FCM community if the facts on the ground regarding feasibility and cost do not support it. It is important to note that the study and roundtable are not optional but rather mandated by law, which means that the newly updated information will be brought to the commission before the phase-in period would end.

If the commission decides that it is appropriate to change the residual-interest deadline, the commission may act nimbly and implement a new compliance schedule for that deadline by order, without the procedural hurdles of notice and comment. I am confident that if the commission is presented with convincing facts through this process, it will be compelled to respond appropriately.

All stakeholders in today’s release – including policymakers, FCMs and their customers – rightly anticipate that new services and technologies will provide solutions to today’s compliance challenges. I know that all of us not only welcome those advancements but hope they are brought to market as quickly as practicable. The approach of this rulemaking appropriately incentivizes that outcome.

For that reason, I anticipate that technological solutions will facilitate compliance with residual-interest requirements in the near future for those who could not comply today. I must point out that the comment file to this rule suggests that the vast majority of the marketplace could comply with more abbreviated timelines for margin calls and payments today.

I also anticipate that the flexibility built into this final rule will help avoid the less desirable, alternative methods of compliance suggested by commenters, including self-funding or pre-funding residual interest or margin obligations, as some have predicted. To be more clear, I strongly prefer, and indeed expect, that FCMs will not pursue these options in order to comply with today’s release. This judgment is based in part on the rapid advancement in settlement solutions in recent years, as well as the fact that the latter options may not – all things considered – be as commercially viable.

The expense of pre-funding margin accounts was a special concern of the agricultural community raised in their comments. I spent many days with agricultural producers over the last several months, discussing this issue and others. I met with a number of producers in my home state of Iowa who actively use the derivatives markets to hedge their production risks. I have listened to and carefully considered their concerns about the residual-interest requirement. Today’s release takes those concerns into account, and I believe that their most-pressing fears will not be realized because of this rule.

Meanwhile, even today producers can make intra-day margin payments to FCMs through banking or credit relationships once a margin call is received. Based on what I have learned over recent months, these types of relationships are at a minimum common in the producer community, and seemingly the norm for larger producers. For those producers who do not currently rely on these services, again, I expect other solutions to payment settlement will be offered, or producers will in time embrace those already available, with marginal added expense to them.

I also would like to clarify that today’s release does require FCMs to take a capital charge for failure to meet its residual-interest requirement, but this falls on the FCM at the close of business the day after its residual-interest obligation. Importantly, today’s release phases in the timing of this capital-charge obligation until one year after its publication in the federal register, as some commenters suggested.

I would like to thank the staff for their work in putting together this balanced approach. With the concerns about residual interest properly addressed, I am happy to support the final rule as an important step forward in the commission’s ongoing efforts to protect customers.

As a final note, I look forward to taking up the Volcker Rule and the position-limits proposal by year-end, along with a number of commission determinations on substituted compliance. As I said at the time we finalized our cross-border guidance, those determinations will benefit from as much transparency as practicable. With that, I look forward to supporting the staff’s recommendations on the rule before the commission today.