CFTC is proposing amendments to its regulations that would permit derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) organized outside of the United States (non-U.S. clearing organizations) that do not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system to register with CFTC, yet comply with the core principles applicable to DCOs set forth in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) through compliance with their home country regulatory regime, subject to certain conditions and limitations. CFTC is also proposing certain related amendments to the delegation provisions in its regulations. Comments must be received by September 17, 2019.
The CEA requires a DCO to comply with the DCO core principles and any requirement that CFTC imposes by rule or regulation. The CEA further provides that, subject to any rule or regulation prescribed by CFTC, a DCO has “reasonable discretion” in establishing the manner by which DCO complies with each DCO core principle. Currently, a DCO is required to comply with all CFTC regulations that were adopted to implement the DCO core principles. CFTC is proposing regulations that would allow a non-U.S. clearing organization that seeks to clear swaps for U.S. persons, including futures commission merchants (FCM) customers, to register as a DCO and, in most instances, comply with the applicable legal requirements in its home country as an alternative means of complying with the DCO core principles. A non-U.S. clearing organization would be eligible for this alternative compliance regime if:
- CFTC determines that the clearing organization's compliance with its home country regulatory regime would satisfy the DCO core principles
- The clearing organization is in good regulatory standing in its home country
- CFTC determines that the clearing organization does not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system
- A memorandum of understanding or similar arrangement satisfactory to CFTC is in effect between the Commission and the clearing organization's home country regulator
An applicant for alternative compliance would be required to file only certain exhibits of Form DCO, including a regulatory compliance chart in which the applicant would identify the applicable legal requirements in its home country that correspond with each DCO core principle and explain how the applicant satisfies those requirements. Under the current registration regime, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the DCO core principles and Part 39 of the CFTC regulations. Under the alternative compliance regime, an applicant must demonstrate that compliance with its home country requirements would satisfy the DCO core principles and compliance with those requirements. If the application is approved by CFTC, the DCO would be permitted to comply with its home country regulatory regime rather than Part 39. Because the DCO would clear swaps for customers through registered FCMs, the DCO would be required to fully comply with the customer protection requirements of CFTC as well as with the swap data reporting requirements in part 45 of the CFTC regulations. The DCO would also be held to certain ongoing and event-specific reporting requirements that are more limited in scope than the reporting requirements for existing DCOs. The proposed eligibility criteria, conditions, and reporting requirements would be set forth in proposed subpart D of Part 39.
Related Link: Federal Register Notice
Comment Due Date: September 17, 2019
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Securities, Derivatives Clearing Organization, DCO Core Principles, Commodity Exchange Act, Non-US Clearing Organization, CFTC
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.