(The article featured
below is a selection from Hedge
Funds and Private Equity: Risk Management and Regulatory Update, which is
available to subscribers of that publication.)
SEC Requests Changes in House Draft Derivatives Legislation to Prevent
Regulatory Arbitrage
While
praising the House Financial Services Committee’s draft legislation to
regulate the OTC-derivatives markets, the SEC warned that the draft could
present opportunities for significant regulatory arbitrage. In testimony
before the committee, Henry T.C. Hu, Director of the Risk, Strategy and
Financial Innovation Division, said that the draft adopts a distinction that is
not meaningful between derivatives referencing a single security or a
narrow-based index of securities and derivatives referencing a broad-based index
of securities. The SEC cautioned that a market participant could use a
broad-based swap as part of a strategy to gain highly targeted exposure to a
single company or a narrow group of companies.
In addition, the draft could result in regulatory
differences between swaps products and currently regulated securities and
futures products. For example, energy swaps would not be regulated in the same
way as energy futures, he noted, and securities swaps would not be regulated in
the same way as securities. The differences come from the fact that the draft
sets up a new regulatory scheme for swaps and securities swaps.
Focused as it is on minimizing differences in the regulation
of swaps and security-based swaps, this scheme would be different from the
regulations applicable to securities or futures. In the SEC's view, this is
significant because market players evaluating whether to engage in a swap
transaction are far more likely to focus on the choice between a swap and a
regulated alternative.
These differences could perpetuate regulatory arbitrage that
encourages the migration of activities from the traditional regulated markets
into the differently regulated swaps markets. The SEC asked Congress to modify
the draft so that all securities-related OTC derivatives are regulated more like
securities, and commodity and other non-securities-related OTC derivatives are
regulated more like futures.
The SEC's concern is compounded by the fact that the draft
revises the Securities Act to include security-based swaps in the definition of "security"
but does not make the corresponding change in the Exchange Act. The SEC urged
Congress make the additional change because including security-based swaps in
the Exchange Act is necessary to reduce regulatory arbitrage and provide Rule
10b-5 antifraud protections for these markets.
Provisions in the draft calling for the SEC to adopt
business-conduct rules do not fill the gap because the rules would relate only
to the conduct of security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap
participants and would not reach brokers who sell security-based swaps to retail
investors. Such brokers would not have to register with the SEC or become FINRA
members. Including security-based swaps in the Exchange Act would also give the
SEC the tools to oversee the exchange trading of such instruments.
Similarly, inter-dealer brokers would remain outside the
regulatory framework, said the SEC, and they are important players in the OTC
derivatives markets, as most credit default swaps are done through such brokers.
Adding security-based swaps to the definition of "security"
would ensure that the SEC can oversee these players.
The draft contains an abusive-swap provision, which allows
the SEC and the CFTC to jointly prohibit swap transactions detrimental to market
stability or to market participants. This could be a useful regulatory tool,
said the SEC, but Congress should consider how regulators would quantify the
destabilizing effects of the derivatives and balance the tension between the
destabilizing effects on the entire financial system and large individual
participants and make determinations for products that are both useful and
potentially destabilizing. There must be a process for making this determination
because other regulators might not agree with a decision and because there could
be a conflict between the SEC and the CFTC. Congress may want to consider giving
this authority to the Financial Stability Oversight Council instead of to the
SEC and CFTC.
Because regulation of major swap participants and dealers is
vital to the new OTC regulatory regime, Congress must take care not to allow
entities using swaps as risk management tools to fall outside the scheme. The
Treasury draft defined a "major security-based swap
participant" as any non-dealer maintaining a substantial net
position in outstanding swaps for purposes other than to create and maintain an
effective hedge under GAAP. The House draft is broader and excludes those
holding positions for risk management purposes. The SEC said that the term "risk
management" is ambiguous, and its use could cause many important
entities to fall outside the new regulation. The SEC urged Congress to adopt a
more narrow and objective standard more consistent with the legislative purpose.
According to the SEC, the draft also has an overly broad
definition of "swap" that could include
products and transactions already subject to federal and state securities
regulation, including investment contracts, some stock options, and security
forwards. The SEC sees no benefit in including instruments already subject to
the full panoply of securities regulation in the definition and urged Congress
to clarify that such products or transactions do not fall within it.
The draft's exclusion of identified banking products from
OTC-derivatives regulation could allow foreign banks not subject to oversight by
a federal banking regulator to offer derivatives products in the United States
under the guise of offering banking products. Congress was urged to clarify that
the exclusion is not available to foreign banks that are not subject to federal
banking regulation.
The draft would create a new category of mixed swaps where
dual SEC-CFTC regulation would apply to swaps that are both securities- and
non-securities based. The SEC is concerned that even quintessentially
security-based swaps could be deemed mixed swaps under this rubric. For example,
a market player entering into an equity swap with a synthetic substitute for
owning the shares will often have to make either fixed- or floating-rate
interest payments to the derivatives dealer providing the swap. Under the
draft's proposed definition of "mixed swap,"
the mere use of a floating basis for interest rate payments could cause the swap
to be a mixed swap subject to joint SEC-CFTC oversight. The SEC urged Congress
to clarify that a swap is not considered a mixed swap merely because it has a
floating-interest-rate component or a foreign-currency component.
The SEC fears that the draft would establish a joint
rulemaking process with the CFTC that would be hard to implement. The draft
places important definitions of security-based swaps within the Commodity
Exchange Act. This would establish a rulemaking process undercutting the SEC's
ability to interpret terms in response to market and regulatory developments. If
Congress insists on using joint rulemaking, said the director, it should put all
definitions in the text of the legislation itself with cross references to the
securities and commodities laws.
The financial crisis demonstrated that less-sophisticated
institutions need protection from abusive practices by their swap intermediaries
through improved business conduct standards. As such, the Treasury draft would
require the SEC and the CFTC to adopt business conduct rules for dealers and
major participants in the OTC derivatives markets. Congress should also direct
the commissions to adopt more protective rules when a swaps dealer is selling
OTC derivatives to the less sophisticated.
Also, the SEC stated that Congress should revise the
qualification standards for participation in the OTC-derivatives markets, The
standards for being an eligible contract participant under the Treasury draft
are important because only such participants may trade OTC derivatives. All
other participants must trade on exchanges. Thus, the SEC urged Congress to
raise the qualification standards for a governmental entity, such as a
municipality, to qualify as an eligible contract participant.
Currently, the SEC believes that exchange-traded credit
default swaps on securities are securities whether involving one security or a
basket of securities. In order to reduce the opportunity for regulatory
arbitrage, Congress was asked to clarify that the definition of
“security-based swap” includes broad-based index credit default swaps as
well as single-name and narrow-based index credit default swaps.
|