Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Monday, February 10, 2014

CFTC ACTING CHAIRMAN WETJEN'S TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE VOLCKER RULE

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Testimony of Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen Before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services on the Volcker Rule Impact

February 5, 2014

Good morning Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to today’s hearing on Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), otherwise known as the Volcker Rule. I am honored to testify as Acting Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). I also am pleased to join my fellow regulators in testifying today.

Congress directed the CFTC to implement Section 619 of Dodd-Frank, which prohibits or places restrictions on certain types of financial activities conducted by “banking entities” and certain financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. For the CFTC, the Volcker Rule was one of the last remaining rulemakings required by Dodd-Frank. Most of the CFTC’s rulemaking responsibilities are complete and have been, or are in the process of being, implemented.

CFTC Progress on Financial Reform

Due to Dodd-Frank and the efforts of my colleagues and staff at the CFTC, today there is both pre-trade and post-trade transparency in the swaps market where it did not exist before. The public now can see the price and volume of swap transactions in real-time, and the CFTC’s Weekly Swaps Report provides a snapshot of the market each week. The most liquid swaps are being traded on regulated platforms and exchanges, with a panoply of protections for those depending on the markets, and regulators themselves have a new window into the marketplace through swap data repositories.

Transparency, of course, is helpful only if the information provided to the public and regulators can be usefully employed. Therefore, the CFTC also is taking steps to protect the integrity of that data and ensure that it continues to be reliable and useful for surveillance, systemic risk monitoring, and the enforcement of important financial reforms, including the Volcker Rule.

These transparency rules complement a number of equally important financial reforms. For example, the counterparty credit risks in the swaps market have been reduced as a large segment of the swaps market is now being cleared. Additionally, nearly 100 swap dealers and major swap participants have registered with the CFTC, bringing their swaps activity and internal risk-management programs under the CFTC’s oversight for the first time.

As it has put these reforms in place, the CFTC has consistently worked to protect liquidity in the markets and ensure that end-users can continue using them to hedge risk, as Congress directed. The CFTC, in short, has completed most of its initial mandate under Dodd-Frank and has successfully ushered in improvements to the over-the-counter derivatives market structure for swaps, while balancing countervailing objectives.

Leadership from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Coordination within the Financial Regulatory Community on the Volcker Rule

The Volcker Rule was exceptional on account of the unprecedented coordination among the five financial regulators.

Congress required the banking regulators to adopt a joint Volcker Rule, but it also provided that the market regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the CFTC, need only coordinate with the prudential banking regulators in their rulemaking efforts. One of the hallmarks of the final rule is that the market regulators went beyond the congressional requirement to simply coordinate. In fact, the CFTC’s final rule includes the same rule text as that adopted by the other agencies. Building a consensus among five different government agencies was no easy task, and the level of coordination by the financial regulators on this complicated rulemaking was exceptional.

This coordination was thanks in no small part to leadership at the Department of the Treasury. Secretary Lew, Acting Deputy Secretary Miller, and others have been instrumental in keeping the agencies on task and seeing this rulemaking over the finish line. Along with the other agencies, the CFTC received more than 18,000 comments addressing numerous aspects of the proposal. CFTC staff hosted a public roundtable on the proposed rule and met with a number of commenters. Through weekly inter-agency staff meetings, along with more informal discussions, the CFTC staff and the other agencies carefully considered the comments in formulating the final rule.

Differences with Proposal

The agencies were responsive to the comments when appropriate, which led to several changes from the proposed Volcker Rule I would like to highlight.

The final Volcker Rule included some alterations to certain parts of the hedging-exemption requirements found in the proposal. For instance, the final rule requires banking entities to have controls in place through their compliance programs to determine whether hedges remain reasonably correlated with an underlying position. The final rule also requires ongoing recalibration of hedging positions in order for the entities to remain in compliance.

Additionally, the final rule provides that hedging related to a trading desk’s market-making activities is part of the trading desk’s financial exposure, which can be managed separately from the risk-mitigating hedging exemption.

Another modification to the proposal was to include under “covered funds” only those commodity pools that resemble, in terms of type of offering and investor base, a typical hedge fund.

CFTC Volcker Rule Implementation and Enforcement

The CFTC estimates that, under its Volcker regulations, it has authority over more than 100 registered swap dealers and futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) that meet the definition of “banking entity” in the Volcker Rule. In addition, under Section 619, some of these banking entities may be subject to oversight by other regulators.  For example, a joint FCM/broker-dealer would be subject to both CFTC and SEC jurisdiction and in such circumstances, the CFTC will monitor the activities of the entity directly and also coordinate closely with the other functional regulator(s).

In this regard, Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Banking Holding Company Act to direct the CFTC itself to write rules implementing Volcker Rule requirements for banking entities “for which the CFTC is the primary financial regulatory agency” as that term was defined by Congress in Dodd Frank. Accordingly, as Congress directed, the CFTC’s final rule applies to entities that are subject to CFTC registration and that are banking entities, under the Volcker provisions of the statute.

To ensure consistent, efficient implementation of the Volcker Rule, and to address, among other things, the jurisdiction issues I just mentioned, the agencies have established a Volcker Rule implementation task force. That task force will also be the proper vehicle to examine the means for coordinated enforcement of the rule. Although compliance requirements under the Volcker Rule do not take effect until July 2015, the CFTC is exploring now whether to take additional steps, including whether to adopt formal procedures for enforcement of the rule. As part of this process, I have directed CFTC staff to consider whether the agency should adopt such procedures and to make recommendations in the near future.

Volcker Rule: Lowering Risk in Banking Entities

The final Volcker Rule closely follows the mandates of Section 619 and strikes an appropriate balance in prohibiting banking entities from engaging in the types of proprietary trading activities that Congress contemplated when considering Section 619 and in protecting liquidity and risk management through legitimate market making and hedging activities. In adopting the final rule, the CFTC and other regulators were mindful that exceptions to the prohibitions or restrictions in the statute, if not carefully defined, could conceivably swallow the rule.

Banking entities are permitted to continue market making—an important activity for providing liquidity to financial markets—but the agencies reasonably confined the meaning of the term “market making” to the extent necessary to maintain a market-making inventory to meet near-term client, customer or counterparty demands.

Likewise, the final rule permits hedging that reduces specific risks from individual or aggregated positions of the banking entity.

The final Volcker Rule also prohibits banking entities from engaging in activities that result in conflicts of interest with clients, customers or counterparties, or that pose threats to the safety and soundness of these entities, and potentially therefore to the U.S. financial system.

The final Volcker rule also limits banking entities from sponsoring or owning “covered funds,” which include hedge funds, private equity funds or certain types of commodity pools, other than under certain limited circumstances. The final rule focuses the prohibition on certain types of pooled investment vehicles that trade or invest in securities or derivatives.

Finally, and importantly, the final Volcker Rule requires banking entities to put in place a compliance program, with special attention to the firm’s compliance with the rule’s restrictions on market making, underwriting and hedging. It also requires the larger banking entities to report key metrics to regulators each month. This new transparency, once phased-in, will buttress the CFTC’s oversight of swap dealers and FCMs by providing it additional information regarding the risk levels at these registrants.

The CFTC Needs Additional Resources to Effectively Monitor Compliance with the Volcker Rule

To be effective, the CFTC’s oversight of these registrants requires technological tools and staff with expertise to analyze complex financial information. On that note, I am pleased that the House and Senate have agreed to an appropriations bill that includes a modest budgetary increase to $215 million for the CFTC, lifting the agency’s appropriations above the sequestration level that has been challenging for planning and orderly operation of the agency. The new funding level is a step in the right direction. We will continue working with Congress to secure resources that match the agency’s critical responsibilities in protecting the safety and integrity of the financial markets under its jurisdiction. We need additional staff for surveillance, examinations, and enforcement, as well as investments in technology, to give the public confidence in our ability to oversee the vast derivatives markets.

TruPS Interim Final Rule

Even with resource constraints, though, the CFTC has been responsive to public input and willing to explore course corrections, when appropriate. With respect to the Volcker Rule, the CFTC, along with the other agencies, last month unanimously finalized an interim final rule to allow banks to retain collateralized debt obligations backed primarily by trust-preferred securities (TruPS) issued by community banks. The agencies acted quickly to address concerns about restrictions in the final rule, demonstrating again the commitment of the agencies at this table to ongoing coordination. In doing so, the CFTC and the other agencies protected important markets for community banks, as Congress directed.

Conclusion

The Volcker Rule is an important piece of the Dodd-Frank Act’s regulatory regime and, in conjunction with provisions of Title VII, promises to limit risk taking and encourage appropriate risk management for firms operating in the U.S. financial system.

Thank you again for inviting me today. I would be happy to answer any questions from the panel.

Last Updated: February 5, 2014

Sunday, February 9, 2014

TWO TRADERS CHARGED IN "PARKING" FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against two Wall Street traders involved in a fraudulent “parking” scheme in which one temporarily placed securities in the other’s trading book to avoid penalties that would affect his year-end bonus.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Thomas Gonnella solicited the assistance of Ryan King to evade a policy at his firm that penalizes traders financially if they hold securities for too long.  Gonnella arranged for King, who worked at a different firm, to purchase several securities with the understanding that Gonnella would repurchase them at a profit for King’s firm.  By parking the securities in King’s trading book in order to reset the holding period when he repurchased them, Gonnella’s intention was to avoid incurring any charges to his trading profits and ultimately his bonus for having aged inventory.

The alleged round-trip trades caused Gonnella’s firm to lose approximately $174,000.  The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that after Gonnella’s supervisor began inquiring about the trades, Gonnella and King took steps to evade detection by interposing an interdealer broker in subsequent transactions and communicating by cell phone to avoid having conversations recorded by their firms.  Gonnella and King were eventually fired by their firms for the misconduct.

King, who has cooperated with the SEC investigation, agreed to settle the charges by disgorging his profits and being barred from the securities industry.  Any additional financial penalties will be determined at a later date.  The Enforcement Division’s litigation against Gonnella continues in a proceeding before an administrative law judge.

“Gonnella conducted trades for the purpose of avoiding his firm’s aged-inventory policy and protecting his own bonus,” said Andrew M. Calamari, director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “Even though Gonnella misled his employer and resorted to text messages on his cell phone to avoid detection, his tricks failed and we are holding him accountable for these deceptive trades.”

According to the SEC’s administrative orders, Gonnella parked a total of 10 securities with King.  The scheme began on May 31, 2011, when Gonnella offered to sell King several asset-backed bonds issued by Bayview Commercial Asset Trust (BAYC).  Gonnella wrote in an instant message to King, “i have 4 small bonds that i’m looking to turnover today for good ol’ month end/aging purposes ... i like these bonds ... and would more than likely have a higher bid for these later this wk when the calendar turns ...”  Gonnella’s reference to “aging purposes” was his firm’s aged-inventory policy.  After King agreed, Gonnella sold him the securities and repurchased them before they had even settled in the account at King’s firm.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Gonnella contacted King again a few months later on August 29, writing, “let’s talk tmrw. Have some aged bonds that I might offer you, if you’re game ... maybe do what we did a few months ago w/ some of those bayc’s ...”  After Gonnella sold three BAYC bonds to King, he repurchased two but did not immediately repurchase the other security. He later did so at a loss to King’s firm, but made them whole by selling two other bonds at prices favorable to King’s firm and unfavorable to his own firm. King then used the resulting profit on the two bonds to offset the original loss incurred.

As their scheme began to unravel, the SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Gonnella and King discussed their trading plans via cell phone and text messaging in an effort to avoid detection.  Cell phone records show that they rarely contacted one another that way in the prior four years.  For example, after discussing some trades in instant messages, Gonnella told King, “Check your text [messages] in like 3 minutes.” King responded, “haha, ok ... sneaky sneaky.”

The order against Gonnella alleges that he willfully violated Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The order alleges that he willfully aided and abetted and caused violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3.

The order against King finds that he willfully aided and abetted and caused Gonnella’s violations.  The Commission took into account King’s cooperation when agreeing to the settlement.  King agreed to pay disgorgement of $22,606.80 and prejudgment interest of $1,503.66.  The cease-and-desist order bars King from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization as well as participating in any penny stock offering, with the right to apply for re-entry after three years.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Joshua Pater with assistance from examiners Adam Bacharach, Caroline Forbes, Michael Kress, and Yvette Panetta.  The case was supervised by Celeste Chase, and the litigation will be handled by Joseph Boryshansky and Daniel Michael.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

INVESTMENT ADVISER CHARGED FOR ILLEGAL SHORT SELLING

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Charges Bermudian Investment Adviser and Principal for Illegal Short Selling

On January 31, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Revelation Capital Management Ltd. ("Revelation Capital") and its principal, Christopher P.C. Kuchanny ("Kuchanny") alleging illegal short selling. Kuchanny, who resides in Hamilton Parish, Bermuda, is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer and sole shareholder of Revelation Capital, an exempt reporting adviser with its principal place of business in Pembroke, Bermuda.

Rule 105 is designed to prevent potentially manipulative short selling just prior to the pricing of follow-on and secondary offerings, thereby facilitating offering prices determined by independent market forces. Rule 105 prohibits any person who makes a short sale of securities during a defined restricted period prior to the pricing of that offering from purchasing the same securities in that offering. The Rule is prophylactic and prohibits the conduct irrespective of the short seller's intent in effecting the short sale.

Revelation Capital and Kuchanny violated Rule 105 in connection with Central Fund of Canada Limited's ("Central Fund") November 2009 offering by short selling Central Fund securities during the restricted period and then purchasing the same securities in Central Fund's offering. According to the complaint, defendants' profits from this illegal trading totaled $1,368,243. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions against each defendant, and disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties against each defendant.

Friday, February 7, 2014

STOP ORDER PROCEEDINGS FILED AGAINST 20 MINING COMPANIES BY SEC

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the filing of stop order proceedings against 20 purported mining companies believed to have included false information in their registration statements.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that all of the companies are controlled by John Briner, a promoter who was the subject of a prior SEC enforcement action and was suspended from practicing as an attorney on behalf of any entity regulated by the SEC.  However, each registration statement falsely stated that management consisted of a different individual who controlled and solely governed the company.  The named individuals varied by company.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division and the agency’s Division of Corporation Finance collaborate to essentially weed out false or materially misleading registration statements before they become effective.  The purpose of a stop order is to prevent the sale of privately held shares to the public under a registration statement that is materially misleading or deficient.  If a stop order is issued, no new shares can enter the market pursuant to that registration statement until the company has corrected the deficiencies or misleading information in the prospectus.

“By seeking stop orders, we can proactively protect investors from the harmful consequences of investing in companies with materially misleading and deficient offering documents,” said Andrew M. Calamari, director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “These particular registration statements failed to give investors an accurate depiction of who is running the companies.”

The 20 companies that are the subjects of the stop order proceedings are:

Braxton Resources Inc.
Bonanza Resources Corp.
Canyon Minerals Inc.
CBL Resources Inc.
Chum Mining Group Inc.
Clearpoint Resources Inc.
Coronation Mining Corp.
Eclipse Resources Inc.
Gaspard Mining Inc.
Gold Camp Explorations Inc.
Goldstream Mining Inc.
Jewel Explorations Inc.
Kingman River Resources Inc.
La Paz Mining Corp.
Lost Hills Mining Inc.
PRWC Energy Inc.
Seaview Resources Inc.
Stone Boat Mining Corp.
Tuba City Gold Corp.
Yuma Resources Inc.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the companies also falsely stated that they had no material agreements with an undisclosed control person or promoter when in fact they did with Briner.  The SEC’s Enforcement Division also alleges that some of these issuers obstructed the SEC staff and refused to permit examinations of their registration statements.

The SEC instituted the proceedings against the issuers pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 to determine whether the Enforcement Division’s allegations are true and afford each issuer an opportunity to establish any defenses to the allegations.  The proceedings will determine whether a stop order should be issued suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement or statements.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Lara Shalov Mehraban, Jason W. Sunshine, and James Addison of the New York office.  Mr. Sunshine will lead the litigation.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

SEC.gov | Statement on Life Partners Verdict

SEC.gov | Statement on Life Partners Verdict

SEC OBTAINS ASSET FREEZE AGAINST ALLEGED FRAUDSTER

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Obtains Asset Freeze and Other Relief Against Michael P. Zenger

On January 31, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a temporary restraining order and an emergency asset freeze in an offering fraud orchestrated by Lehi, Utah resident Michael P. Zenger (Zenger).

The complaint alleges that since June 2013, Zenger solicited at least $200,000 from two friends for the purported purpose of trading futures contracts, commodities, and government securities. While Zenger used some investor money as represented, the complaint alleges that Zenger misappropriated approximately $100,000 of the $200,000 he raised to pay personal expenses, including airplane rentals, monthly credit card bills, payments to BMW and Mercedes Benz, purchases at Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom and Costco, and other personal expenses.
The Commission's complaint charges Zenger with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction as well as disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties from Zenger.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Jennifer Moore and Scott Frost; the litigation will be led by Thomas Melton.