Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Position Limits for Derivatives
Summary
SIFMA AMG sent comments and concerns regarding the rules relating to position limits that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is considering adopting, as originally proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, under Section 737 of The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1375 (2010).
These comments and concerns are directed at several aspects of the account aggregation standards to be adopted in Part 151 of the Commission’s rules and supplement the AMG’s prior comment letters dated March 28, 2011 and June 20, 2011.
Excerpt
Mr. David A. Stawick
Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20581
Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Position Limits for Derivatives
Dear Mr. Stawick:
The Asset Management Group (the “AMG”)1 of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) wishes to express certain comments and concerns regarding the rules relating to position limits that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) is considering adopting, as originally proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPR”)2, under Section 737 of The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1375 (2010). These comments and concerns are directed at several aspects of the account aggregation standards to be adopted in Part 151 of the Commission’s rules and supplement the AMG’s prior comment letters dated March 28, 2011 and June 20, 2011.
Based upon recent media reports, we understand that, despite making some modifications in response to comments, the Commission may be considering the adoption of account aggregation standards that remain problematic in a number of significant respects. Specifically, the AMG is concerned that these standards would (i) not provide industry participants with the legal certainty that they need in order to continue to operate their businesses as they have done for decades, (ii) blur the distinction between ownership of accounts and ownership of an entity on the one hand and control of an entity’s trading and positions on the other hand, and (iii) be unduly burdensome or unmanageable to comply with as a practical matter.