May 21, 2025

Richard Haynes
Acting Director
Division of Clearing and Risk
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Thomas Smith
Acting Director
Market Participants Division
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Rahul Varma
Acting Director
Division of Market Oversight
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Re: Request for Comment on Trading and Clearing Derivatives on a 24/7 Basis [Release Number 9068-25]

Dear Mr. Haynes, Mr. Varma, and Mr. Smith:

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), and the SIFMA Asset Management Group (“SIFMA AMG”) (collectively, the “Associations”)¹ appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments in response to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC or Commission”) request for comment on trading and clearing derivatives on a 24/7 basis (the “RFC”).²

While certain market participants have recently started offering 24/7 trading and clearing,³  and technological advancements may drive the market further in this direction, continuous trading and clearing present novel and complex issues that require careful consideration.

As a preliminary matter, we note that it is important to distinguish between 24/7 trading and 24/7 clearing. While interconnected, each has distinct implications for market infrastructure, operations and risk management. Below, we identify and explain these implications in more detail, discussing trading and clearing in turn.

In general, however, the feasibility of both 24/7 trading and clearing needs to be evaluated holistically with an understanding of the interdependencies between market participants, trading venues, middleware and software providers, clearing systems, margining frameworks, payments systems, default mechanisms and adjacent markets. It is critical for the Commission and market participants to collectively discuss and consider the full range of potential impacts, including liquidity, price transparency, collateral access and default management during non-traditional business hours; operational and technological considerations; and the costs associated with expanding trading hours to 24/7.⁴ We welcome further engagement between the Commission and market participants to examine these issues more closely.⁵

24/7 Trading

The decision to move towards 24/7 trading is a commercial decision for trading platforms and market participants; however, that decision cannot occur in a vacuum. In order to offer 24/7 trading, even for a limited set of asset classes, critical market infrastructure would need to be in place 24/7 to support such trading, including middleware and other third-party service providers that are essential in facilitating matching, trade affirmations, credit checks, reporting and other key aspects of the trading lifecycle. These service providers would also need to maintain full-time technical and trading support.

In addition to trading platforms and service providers, certain market participants, such as asset managers, executing brokers, swap dealers and futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), would likely also need to operate on a 24/7 basis and restructure their business and staffing models both from a front office perspective (e.g., executing trades, responding to requests for quotes, handling pre-trade credit check requests) and back office perspective (e.g., settling trades, moving collateral). Other personnel such as those responsible for risk, credit, compliance and legal could also be required to be available to address any trade errors, correction trades, or any other issues. Building and maintaining this additional infrastructure will significantly increase the cost of trading. Market participants and infrastructure providers need to further evaluate whether these additional costs are justified and should be mindful of the impacts on end-users that do not have an interest in trading outside of normal business hours.

While we believe that the current regulatory framework applicable to Designated Contract Markets (“DCMs”) and Swaps Execution Facilities (“SEFs”) could generally apply to an extended trading environment, the manner in which DCMs and SEFs comply with the Commission’s rules will certainly change. DCMs and SEFs will likely need to restructure staffing models, trading protocols, and surveillance and compliance mechanisms to ensure adequate compliance coverage 24/7. The Commission would also need to clarify the definition o a “business day” in the context of 24/7 trading. This definition has a widespread impact on
interpretations of contractual and regulatory obligations, including DCM and SEF obligations related to market data and the publication of trading information.⁶

Another key consideration is that, in a 24/7 trading environment, there would be a lack of downtime for platform maintenance and upgrades. As the Commission points out, uninterrupted trading could heighten the risk of unplanned outages, complicate patch management, and require live change deployments and rollback mechanisms. Market participants would therefore need to
take additional steps to avoid these risks and ensure the reliability and integrity of their trading systems.

Critically, with respect to market impacts, continuous trading may result in low volume periods, especially during weekends. The current concentration of derivatives trading activity within specified hours has historically supported efficient price discovery and market liquidity. Extending access outside of regular business hours and over the weekend—when fewer market participants are likely available—could result in diminished liquidity, leading to wider spreads, increased volatility, and reduced price transparency. From a best execution or fiduciary perspective, there may be very little incentive to trading outside of traditional business hours given the likelihood of diminished liquidity and wider bid/offer spreads. To mitigate these outcomes, the Associations believe that any extension of trading hours should be considered on a product-by-product and measured basis, taking into account pricing and liquidity concerns.⁷

1. A description of the Associations is available in the Appendix. [↩]
2. Available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9068-25. [↩]
3. See https://www.nodalclear.com/nodal-clear-announces-clearing-support-for-24×7-trading-on-coinbase-derivatives-exchange/; https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/coinbase-launches-24-7-bitcoin-futures-trading-us. SIFMA has also considered these issues in the context of securities markets and provided comments to the SEC, which may aid the CFTC in its consideration of 24/7 trading for derivatives markets. See SIFMA Letter to SEC June 2024; SIFMA Letter to SEC October 2024; SIFMA Letter to SEC December 2024. [↩]
4. We would also note that some of these impacts will affect firms even if they opt not to expand their trading hours as resources will still be needed to meet requirements such as margin. [↩]
5. This discussion could include whether and how emerging technologies such as blockchain may mitigate some of these concerns for certain asset classes. [↩]
6. For example, in the context of Core Principle 8, how should DCMs now define “daily” (or trading day) which is generally defined as “business day”? Should it be redefined from the execution point of view? In addition, should “weekend trading” be treated as an extension of the bank holiday methodology or should exchanges be prepared to publish weekend trading information each day? These questions require careful consideration and would benefit from public roundtable discussion, including market participants and other stakeholders. [↩]
7. In this regard, we believe the Commission’s existing product and rule self-certification processes may be inappropriate in this context given the complex market structure issues associated with 24/7 trading. This novel concept requires input and consideration by all market participants, and thus, at a minimum, any product listed for 24/7 trading should automatically be subject to an additional 90-day stay for review and public comment. See 17
   CFR Part 40. [↩]