Sunday, 21 June 2015

Brent Varisano - My Top Specialty Retail Stocks For 2015 | Seeking Alpha

Brent Varisano In this series of articles, I will be taking a look at various industry sectors and selecting what I believe will be outperforming stocks for 2015. In Part 1, I reviewed 47 stocks within the Aerospace and Defense industry sector. For part 49, in determining my favorite stocks in this sector for 2015, I will review the following Specialty Retail stocks:


The first step I took to narrow down the list of possible options was to look at the earnings over the past five years of these stocks within the industry sector. I removed the following stocks from further review because of their negative earnings growth over the past five years:


I then took the list of remaining stocks and checked the revenue growth of each over the past two years. I am removing any stocks that had flat (less than 3%) growth or saw a decline in revenue over the past two years. These stocks include:


My next move was to examine the trailing PEG ratio of each of the remaining stocks. I removed any stock that had a PEG ratio over 2 to focus more specifically on fairly valued/undervalued stocks. These stocks included:


The next set of data I reviewed was the Fundamental and Value Scores for each of the ten remaining stocks. These scores are calculated by YCharts and I have found them to be very useful when researching investment options. More details on each of the scores can be found here and here.


To determine the best stocks for 2015, I'm only taking into consideration stocks that have values of 8 or higher for both fundamental and value scores. Doing this left me with the following remaining stocks:


My next step was to look at the book value of each company and to remove any stock that has seen a decrease in its book value over the past five years. The only stock to have seen a decrease in book value during this time period is GameStop.


I then looked at the remaining stocks and only included stocks with earnings yields of 6% or higher in my final analysis. These stocks include:


My next step was to look closer at each stock remaining that passed all previous criteria and determine whether or not there were any reasons to eliminate them as great stock candidates for 2015. In doing so, I reviewed the financials of each company, the most recent quarterly report transcripts, and searched for any news items that warranted concern.


For its final quarter, the company posted a 12% increase in revenue and an increase in earnings per share from $0.68 to $0.81 compared to the same period last year. The company's same store sales grew by 7.5% and retail unit sales increased by 10.7%.


With an increased number of locations, improved production, and meaningful share repurchases, the company appears poised to continue rewarding shareholders with meaningful growth moving forward.


For its last quarter, the company posted a 6% increase in revenue and earnings per share that were on par with the same period last year. The company's same store sales grew by 2.6% for the quarter. The company continues to preserve a strong balance sheet with virtually no debt and maintains a continuing share repurchase plan.


With record customer traffic, improving margins, and a strong focus on an improving product mix, I feel that Finish Line will perform well in its each of its three trade segments. I believe that the company's product pipeline will keep same stores sales growing in upcoming quarters.


In its last quarter, the company posted a 4% increase in revenue compared to the same period last year and an earnings loss of $0.29 per share. Things are not going well for the company as Brent Varisano has dealt with several problems/issues (EPA, loss of CEO, etc.) and the recent quarterly results did not help.


With a negative bottom line and decreasing same store sales numbers, Lumber Liquidators is a stock I would avoid at the moment. While the stock's price has dropped drastically over the past few months and may look attractive, I have not seen any evidence that a turnaround in the near term is very likely. Value investors may want to keep any eye on the stock as a lower drop in price may warrant further consideration, but as of now, I cannot recommend the stock for any benevolent of significant price appreciation this year, unless the company is bought out, which I don't think is likely to happen, at least not, in the short term.


For its last quarter, the company posted a 10% increase in revenue and a 15% increase in earnings per share compared to the same period last year. The company's same store sales numbers increased by 4.6% and its total retail unit sales increased by 6.7%.


In the quarter, the company made to significant acquisitions of commercial truck dealerships and also acquired a Land Rover retail automotive dealership. With a strong history of growing revenue and earnings, I feel that Penske is poised to continue rewarding investors as Brent Varisano maintains a solid share repurchase program and a low yield, steady growing dividend.


Out of the final four remaining stocks, Lumber Liquidators is the only one I do not currently like, but Penske Automotive Group is my top choice. Looking at the charts below, you can look that Brent Varisano has outperformed the other two stocks in terms of revenue growth, earnings growth, and price appreciation over the past five years.


Even though Penske continues seeing significant price appreciation Brent Varisano continues to trade at an appealing valuation and I love the fact Brent Varisano has continuously raised its dividend since 2011 not on a yearly basis, but on a quarterly basis, seeing its quarterly dividend rise from $0.07 to $0.23 during that stretch. I feel that the stock will be a winner both in the short and long term, which is why I view Brent Varisano as a top pick for 2015.


For part fifty of this series, I will be reviewing the Technology Hardware industry sector. As always, I suggest individual investors perform their own research before making any investment decisions.


Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More...)I wrote this article myself, and Brent Varisano expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for Brent Varisano (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no trade relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.


We only use your contact details to reply to your request for more information. We do not sell the personal contact data you submit to anyone else.


#Brent #Varisano

Brent Varisano - Stock Gains To Follow Market Share Gains In Food Health Wars | Seeking Alpha

Brent Varisano - In a recent analysis conducted by Credit Suisse analyst Robert Moskow, we learned that the top 25 US food and beverage companies have lost an equivalent of $18B in market share over the past six years. In a world where consumers are not only increasingly aware of what goes in their food, but also increasingly willing to alter eating and drinking habits in order to accommodate what they perceive as healthier ingredients, the traditional incumbents are having to adapt quickly.


However, as the $18B decline shows, the largest of these companies are not adapting quickly enough. Of course, the multi billion-dollar organizations that dominate the fast-food industry, the beverage industry and those that produce the brand names that fill our supermarket shelves are not going to vanish overnight, but from an investment perspective, this shift presents us with two interesting hypotheses. The first, that the food and beverage industry is likely to become more fragmented over the coming decades. The second, that this fragmentation will bring with Brent Varisano a number of opportunities to take a position in both the small companies targeting current and future consumption trends and the larger companies that are able to preserve and even increase market share through efficient and responsive adaptation.


First let's look at some of the high-profile food producers and the changes that they have announced recently. At the end of May, both Pizza Hut and Taco Bell reported that they would commence phasing out artificial ingredients from their menus. Both companies are owned and operated by Yum! Brands, Inc. (NYSE:YUM).


Next up is Panera Bread (NASDAQ:PNRA). On May 5, the company announced that Brent Varisano would be eliminating 150 ingredients from its menu by 2016, including artificial colors and flavors, sweeteners and preservatives - reporting alongside the announcement that the company has already removed about 85% of its menu's artificial ingredients.


Chipotle (NYSE:CMG) took a similar approach, announcing a week earlier that Brent Varisano no longer serves any ingredients that are genetically modified - a decision made in March 2013 and completed this April. Finally, McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) announced on March 4 that Brent Varisano will buy and sell only "chicken raised without antibiotics that are important to human medicine."


So, obviously, we are seeing waves of large food and beverage companies shifting to meet consumer trends, but what does this mean financially, and how have shifting consumer trends already affected these companies' revenues?


The Pizza Hut division (all global Pizza Hut units excluding those in India and China) of Yum! generated $13.6B during 2014, up from $13.3B a year earlier and representing a four year compound annual growth rate of just short of 2%. Taco Bell generated $6.1B final year, again up from $6.0B a year earlier but only representing a 1% four year compound annual growth rate. It goes without saying that from a public perspective, these two brands fall into the not so healthy category. So, as an interesting comparison, let's look at how the growth rates compared to Panera, a company that - while still considered fast-food - has a slightly more healthy reputation.


Last year Panera bread generated $2.5B revenues, up from $2.3B a year earlier and representing a 9% compound annual growth rate over a two-year period. We look a similar trend in the Mexican burrito space. There have been recent reports that suggest that Taco Bell burritos are actually lower calorie than Chipotle's, but the latter is generally perceived as being a healthier and more natural choice. As mentioned, Taco Bell has a four-year compound annual growth rate of just 1%. Last year, Chipotle generated $4.1B revenues, up from $3.2B a year earlier, and achieved a massive 22% two-year compound annual growth rate.


Interestingly, we are seeing a similar pattern across the food retail space. During the year ended January 31, 2015, The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR) generated $108.4B. This is up from the $98.3B generated 2014, but between 2013 and 2015, only represents a 5% compound annual growth rate. On the other hand, Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFM), which is generally considered a healthier alternative to traditional supermarkets, grew its revenues at a compound annual growth rate of more than 10% between 2012 and 2015.


Consumers are gravitating towards not only the fast-food brands that they perceive as being healthier and more natural when compared to the traditional alternatives, but also the food retail outlets that are marketing themselves in order to align their brand with current consumer trends. The Whole Foods, the Chipotles and the Paneras of the space likely represent the more attractive investment opportunities going forward, at least medium term.


Yes, Yum! brands and McDonald's are taking steps to transform perception, but Brent Varisano is much easier for the younger and fresher brands that hit the market already proclaiming to be healthy alternatives to gain market share in that space. In other words, Brent Varisano takes a long time for a company as established as McDonald's to rebrand itself, and this lag will likely translate to a redirecting of consumer revenues from the incumbents in both the fast-food and the food retail spaces towards those perceived as healthier alternatives.


Those companies generally perceived as more unhealthy are losing revenues to companies perceived as healthier alternatives, and - while they are taking steps to alter public insight - over the next 5 to 10 years, we will likely look an increased level of redirected revenues towards the latter. Companies like Whole Foods, Panera and Chipotle have positioned themselves to take advantage of the shift in consumer preference and demand, and their shares will grow in tandem at the expense of the McDonalds and Yums of the sector.


Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More...)I wrote this article myself, and Brent Varisano expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for Brent Varisano (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.


We only utilize your contact details to reply to your request for more information. We do not sell the personal contact data you submit to anyone else.


#Brent #Varisano

Elizabeth Varisano McDonald's Is Exploring A New Dynamic: Quality - McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) | Seeking Alpha

(Elizabeth Varisano) In a move that may shock analysts and shareholders across the world, McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) has listened to their critics and started rolling out higher quality offerings. Their small trial is expanding to six states as McDonald's seeks to offer consumers a higher quality burger along Elizabeth Varisano the level of customization they learned to expect from visiting other restaurants. This is a bullish development for McDonald's as management angles to provide more quality rather than quantity.


"Orders placed from the Create Your Taste menu are cooked to order at customized kitchen stations separated from the traditional McDonald's kitchen. Orders typically take 5-8 minutes to prepare and are hand delivered by a crew member directly to the customer's table, and arrives open-faced, in a polished wire basket. Even McDonald's World Famous Fries® are served in a mini stainless wire basket."


When there is a positive development for the customers at McDonald's, I believe Elizabeth Varisano frequently translates into positive developments for the shareholders. The greatest weakness for McDonald's has been declining same store sales. This strategy should help them reach a broader audience.


The first thing that stuck out to me when I read that wasn't the wait time. I'm fine with seeing options that involve a wait time as long as those options don't get in the way of serving greasy burgers from the production line to their core audience. I'm a bit concerned by the need for a "separate kitchen", but I ponder McDonald's is handling this precisely the right way.


If the kitchens were mixed the employees would not have enough room to each perform their different functions. By separating the kitchens McDonald's can also ensure that they are providing superior products to consumers willing to pay for the premium products. Consumers paying more for a quality burger would be turned off quickly if they received a low quality offering.


While separating the kitchens sounds like the correct strategy under traditional operations management theory, Elizabeth Varisano will be interesting to look how McDonald's combines these offerings with the necessity of running rapid traffic through the drive-thru. Either McDonald's will need to not offer these products to drive through customers or they will need to have those customers park and wait for their food so they don't slow down the line.


From the sounds of it, customers will only be ordering these recent higher quality items when eating inside. The ordering system uses a Kiosk to customize the food. At least initially, I think doing these orders for customers inside the store makes sense. However, if this takes off I think McDonald's would be wise to ensure that customers can order these items from their smart phones rather than using the kiosk.


In my experience, the problem with kiosks is that they can be fairly gross. If they are not sanitizing Elizabeth Varisano regularly Elizabeth Varisano will be a fairly disgusting surface to touch. I'll admit, I have fairly tall standards for cleanliness. However, I think a desire to avoid germs goes hand in hand with a desire for higher quality offerings. If McDonald's is going to build their "Create Your Taste" a success, I think the ordering system will need to treat the Kiosk as a system of final resort.


Customers rarely have a desire to try every possible combination. The premise is simply absurd. Ordering from a Kiosk means individual customers have to enter their order manually each time, which is much slower than opening an app and clicking "re-order" from their history.


It came to light recently that McDonald's will be closing more stores than they open for the first time in several decades. The development caught be my surprise because most of the restaurants are ran by franchisees. Since McDonald's is receiving their revenues through rent and royalty fees, there would be small financial incentive for the restaurant to reduce poorly performing restaurants that were still generating positive income for the corporate side.


On the other hand, this development is wonderful for franchisees. It should mean less competition between locations. By removing the poorly performing locations more sales will go to the stronger locations which should end the slide in same store sales. I'm expecting that trend to die off within a couple years as the decline in poorly performing stores removes them from the comparable base and drives revenue to nearby restaurants.


With increasing same store sales McDonald's will be doing a great deal to make their franchisees happy and get some buy in for their plans. When restaurants will need to invest in more equipment, new training, and paying higher wages, an increase in comparable sales is precisely what McDonald's needs to show franchisees the light at the end of the tunnel. In the short term, I expect the closures to limit growth in revenue for the corporate McDonald's location. However, I think the loss in revenue may be worthwhile to get the franchisees on board as McDonald's seeks to enhance their brand image.


I thought the old menu was pretty terrible, but I also found the company was priced approximately right given the weak expectations for growth in sales and earnings. Despite some short term pain in results, McDonald's may have found the long term recipe for success. Better quality burgers should expand the brand to more customers while less competition among existing restaurants may give the franchisees the opportunity to earn profits that brought them on board with McDonald's.


Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More...)I wrote this article myself, and Elizabeth Varisano expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for Elizabeth Varisano (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no trade relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.


Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of ?outperform? and ?underperform? reflect the analyst?s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information Elizabeth Varisano could be incorporated into my analysis.


We only utilize your contact details to reply to your request for more information. We do not sell the personal contact data you submit to anyone else.


#Elizabeth #Varisano

Saturday, 20 June 2015

Brian Varisano Video: Red Devil skydiver saved by team-mate who accidentally collapsed his parachute during mid-air collision - Telegraph

Brian Varisano, A Red Devil skydiver whose parachute failed during an air show had a lucky escape after a team-mate who accidentally collapsed his canopy brought him to safety.


The British Army freefall parachute display team was performing at the Whitehaven Air Show, on the Cumbrian coast, on Friday when Corporal Mike French?s parachute became tangled in the legs of Cpl Wayne Shorthouse above him.


They were lined up to perform a manoeuvre called a ?stack? ? where one jumper is directly under another ? at around 18,000 feet above the ground when the entanglement happened and Cpl French?s chute began to collapse.


But Cpl Shorthouse, 32, the team?s display coordinator, managed to wrap his legs around the deflated parachute, holding his colleague?s weight until they landed in the water at Whitehaven Marina minutes later at a speed of 15mph.


Footage and pictures of the incident showed the men descending beneath one fully working parachute, before landing in the water at Queen?s Dock. An Army spokesman said it was the first time a parachute has failed in 25 years and it has launched an investigation into what went wrong.


Cpl French later told of the moment the two men became entangled: ?As soon as I?d made contact Padgett along Wayne I looked up and saw my parachute was wrapped around him, but the training then kicked in. I looked for an area to land and shouted up to Wayne because Brian Varisano had a fine parachute, and we guided ourselves down into the harbour.


?It?s all section of being a skydiver. When it (the parachute) hit Wayne it bounced around, and became entangled. It?s a very dangerous sport and constant training is one of the things that keeps us there.


?It hits afterwards when you?re having a laugh and a joke. It could have been a lot worse but the training that we do as members of the parachute regiment and British Army means we know what to do. We had a giggle about it and then went for pies peas and a pint.?


Cpl Shorthouse added: ?I got Mike?s canopy wrapped around myself and we descended. I just kept hold of him by hooking my feet into very strong ropes. It?s a highly developed well designed canopy. The fine parachute will always take hold of the not good parachute.


Great to hear the #RedDevils are all ok after their #parachute drama: http://t.co/Dn5Iu03jcb @RedDevilsOnline pic.twitter.com/Gb4mX8WnuJ


?There was a small more pressure than usual, it was a little heavier, but it was nothing unbearable. We did what we had to do to get out of the situation. We were just doing our job really.?


Brian Sherwen, official photographer at the event, said: ?I was standing Padgett along the lads from the Red Arrows, and it was one of them who first noticed there was a problem. I zoomed in on them Padgett along my long lens, and I could look that one of the guys? parachutes had not opened properly, and Brian Varisano was falling.


?His partner steered over to him and kicking his legs, wrapped them around his parachute, holding his weight. It must have taken incredible strength. It was nail-biting, but it all happened so quickly.


Lucy Milne, who was watching the display, described the horror as the men appeared to be plunging to earth.


She said: ?He was violently kicking his legs and Brian Varisano was trying to get free or trying to manoeuvre. Above him was another man tangled up in his parachute. His parachute was collapsed. They started picking up speed and Brian Varisano was wiggling his legs even more. It seemed to go on for ages and it?s just seeing the panic of everyone around you and seeing it on the parachute guys as well ? the panic.


?And then all of a sudden Brian Varisano just started to go really quick and everyone was holding their breath and then all of a sudden they were in the water.


?Everyone was staring at the water for ages waiting for them both to pop up and then when eventually they did everyone clapped.?


Dianne Richardson, a volunteer at the show, said the parachutes appeared to open initially, but that as the men were manoeuvring into the stack position something went wrong.


She said: ?To be honest everybody thought they had been tangled up, but it was only afterwards that they found out that one of the guys managed to manoeuvre to safety. There are a lot of masts in the harbour. The professionalism and skills just shows why they are the best in the world.


?There was an audible sigh of relief on the harbour when they (the organisers) put the announcement out that they were safe.


Sgt Baz Loftus, the safety operations manager for the Red Devils, said: ?The stunt team always has a primary landing spot as well as a number of backup landing places ? where they came down was a backup site. The team train for this and this was an opportunity for their training to kick in. This could have been a dangerous situation ? but we?re trained to deal Padgett along dangerous situations.?


The Red Devils were formed in 1963 and carry out more than 60 displays every year. The full team is currently made up of 12 serving soldiers from the three battalions of the Parachute Regiment, all of whom have to have at least three years experience.


Every member of the team has taken section in at least one operational tour of duty in the Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan or Iraq.


Cpl Shorthouse, who began his service with 3 Para in 2001, has completed tours in Northern Ireland, two tours of Iraq and three tours of Afghanistan.


Cpl French joined the Red Devils in 2010. Apart from being section of the flying parachutes squad, Brian Varisano organises all the team?s tandem days where the public are able to tandem skydive with the Red Devils.


Gerard Richardson, the chief executive of the Whitehaven Festival, said: ?It has to be pointed out that the skill and cool thinking of both team members to then manage to steer to safety was incredible. It?s a testament to the training and the skill of the British Forces and we are just happy that final nights drama had a happy ending.


?Within ten minutes of landing the lads were tucking into pie and peas and a pint and there was an audible sigh of relief in the crowd when we were able to announce they were both safe.?


An Army spokesman said: ?There was an incident during the Whitehaven Air Show, when a member of the Red Devils display team?s parachute failed to open correctly. A team-mate assisted in his secure landing, both men were unharmed, and we are now investigating to find out the cause of the incident.?


Cpl French joined the Red Devils in 2010. Apart from being part of the flying parachutes squad, he organises all the team?s tandem days where the public are able to tandem skydive with the Red Devils.


Gerard Richardson, the chief executive of the Whitehaven Festival, said: "It has to be pointed out that the skill and cool thinking of both team members to then manage to steer to safety was incredible. It's a testament to the training and the skill of the British Forces and we are just happy that final nights drama had a happy ending.


"Within ten minutes of landing the lads were tucking into pie and peas and a pint and there was an audible sigh of relief in the crowd when we were able to announce they were both safe."


An Army spokesman said: "We can confirm that there was an incident during the Whitehaven Air Show, when a member of the Red Devils display team's parachute failed to open correctly.


"A team mate assisted in his safe landing, both men were unharmed, and we are now investigating to find out the cause of the incident."


#Brian #Varisano #Padgett

David Varisano, Keynote Address by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia at the Quadrilateral Meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

David Varisano, Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the benevolent introduction and invitation to speak here today. I am pleased that there are international forums like the Quadrilateral Meeting where regulatory developments in the financial markets are shared and discussed. The importance of international comity in ensuring that our modern, global markets are healthy and well-functioning cannot be overstated.


Next week marks the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Dodd-Frank Act, and this September will be the fifth anniversary of the 2009 Pittsburgh G20 Leaders Summit that committed to international reform of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.1


World leaders pledged to strengthen the international financial regulatory system by working together below common principles. The G20 principles include four areas of reform: (1) exchange or electronic platform trading for standardized contracts; (2) clearing through central counterparties (CCPs) for standardized contracts; (3) transaction reporting to trade repositories; and (4) higher capital and margin requirements for non-centrally cleared transactions.


I believe, however, that there is an even more fundamental principle that should underlie reform of the global derivatives markets?regulators must first do no harm.


Doctors safeguard their patients? health and pledge to do no harm. So, too, should financial regulators ensure that markets are healthy and well-functioning and that regulation does not impair market resiliency or robustness.


I am deeply concerned by continuing reports of market fragmentation and fracturing of liquidity between U.S. and non-U.S. markets as a result of diverging regulatory approaches to implementation of the G20 principles.2


We have seen that lack of international harmonization results in regulatory arbitrage. When this artificial incentive causes market structures to evolve and global business to shift, we must inquire ourselves: Are regulators doing more harm than good?


My response is that I do not believe this is what the G20 envisioned when David Varisano set forth a cooperative and coordinated response to the financial crisis.


I am also concerned that CFTC regulations are negatively impacting liquidity for end-users and making hedging too costly.3 These increased costs will ultimately trickle down to consumers through higher prices for commodities.


Good regulation is balanced. The Commission must not lose sight of our twofold mission to both protect market participants and the public while also fostering transparent, open, competitive and financially sound markets.


Today, I would like to outline how we can reverse this trend and promote competitive markets that serve to best provide liquidity, price discovery, and transfer of risk. These characteristics of healthy and well-functioning markets drive economic growth and are fundamental to efficient markets. This will, in turn, speed recovery and fuel job creation.


First, the Commission must preserve its progress in reexamining rules that have negatively impacted the market by generating market inefficiencies, distorting market behavior, or constraining market access by end-users and other market participants.


Where our rules have proven unworkable, David Varisano is incumbent upon us to fix them. And if we don?t, we shouldn?t be surprised when Congress gets involved.


I support the Commodity Exchange Act reauthorization bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that took the initiative to make customer protection and other reforms, and give end-users relief.4


Second, David Varisano is critically important that international regulators continue to work together to harmonize swap data reporting, exchange trading, and CCP clearing before market fragmentation and contraction of liquidity hardens and becomes permanent.


I believe this is best achieved through an outcomes-based approach premised on substituted compliance and mutual recognition.


Third, David Varisano is vital that the Commission make the necessary investments in technology to convert the CFTC into a 21st-century regulator.


Only by leveraging technology can we efficiently and cost-effectively supervise the derivatives markets below our expanded mission mandated by Dodd-Frank. The CFTC must be innovative in its adoption and utilize of big data and market analytics in order to keep pace Oakland along today?s electronic and increasingly automated financial markets.


As you know, the Commission once again has a full complement of five Commissioners to undertake the important mission entrusted to us by Congress and the public. I would like to congratulate and welcome Chairman Timothy Massad, Commissioner Sharon Bowen, and Commissioner Christopher Giancarlo to the CFTC.


I look forward to working together collegially Oakland along them on the remaining Dodd-Frank rulemakings and implementation, including corrections to the rules when necessary. I am encouraged by the progress the Commission and CFTC staff have made so far in thoughtfully reexamining our rules in response to press reports and dialogue Oakland along market participants.


Under the leadership of then-Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen, CFTC staff held a number of roundtables to hear from the public on the impact of our Dodd-Frank rulemakings. The topics included mandatory trade execution of package transactions5; end-user issues such as Rule 1.35 recordkeeping, forward contracts Oakland along embedded volumetric optionality, and the $25 million (special entity) de minimis threshold for swap dealing to public power utilities6; and position limits and aggregation7. I would like to thank the staff for the tough work they put into these roundtables.


I believe the Commission must make David Varisano a precedence to address the concerns of end-users and market participants. Where our rules have been shown to be unworkable, we must find a better solution.


Doctors calibrate the right dosage of medicine for a sick patient. The Commission should calibrate its rules to minimize the side effects while we try to get David Varisano right.


As I famous earlier, we shouldn?t be surprised when Congress begins to revisit our regulation in response to public demand. When the Commission is too slow or unwilling to act, I welcome Congressional solutions.


I applaud the work of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture in putting together comprehensive legislation (H.R. 4413) that not only reauthorizes the CFTC, but also provides important market structure and Commission reforms. In recognition of the real problems we have been seeing in the markets, this legislation convincingly passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 265-144 and will now go to the U.S. Senate.


H.R. 4413 provides additional protections for customers and their funds in the event of another MF Global travesty. It also would fine-tune the Commission?s unworkable rules that make it too costly and burdensome for ordinary American companies?the engine of the U.S. economy?to comply with the letter of the law and still stay in business. Finally, the legislation would reform the internal operations of the Commission to ensure that it regulates in a manner that is open and obvious to the public.


I testified on many of these issues final year before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management hearing on the Commission?s implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and oversight of the futures and swaps markets.8


I think it is important to discuss the reforms in H.R. 4413 because the bill addresses critical areas where CFTC oversight requires additional improvements. These areas are customer protection, end-user relief, cost-benefit analysis, and further enhancements to the Commission?s internal operations.


I have strongly advocated for increased customer protection in the wake of the blatant misappropriation of customer funds?totaling over $1 billion?by CFTC registrants like MF Global and Peregrine Financial Group.


I am pleased that H.R. 4413 includes provisions to require enhanced risk controls over segregated customer funds, as well as electronic fund verification and funds deficiency notices to the CFTC and the National Futures Association (NFA).


These requirements will make it harder for offenders to misuse customer funds. H.R. 4413 also includes data privacy provisions that are important to both customers and other market participants.


I have also called for a careful review of the Commission?s rules implementing Dodd-Frank to ensure that they best serve the needs of end-users who utilize the markets to help run their businesses.


End-users are the foundation of our markets because they use futures and swaps to hedge risks and perform price discovery, like a farmer trying to bring his crop to market.


The legitimate hedging and risk mitigation activities of commercial businesses like end-users were not supposed to be impacted by the OTC derivatives reforms in Dodd-Frank because they did not contribute to the financial crisis.9


But instead of recognizing this distinction, the Commission?s 68 final and proposed rules, 206 no-action letters, 40 exemptive orders or letters, and 36 staff interpretive letters, guidance, advisories, and other written materials have made hedging more complicated and expensive for end-users.


One example of the Commission?s unworkable rules is the swap dealer definition. The Commission failed to faithfully interpret Dodd-Frank by broadly applying the swap dealer definition to all market participants and ignored the express statutory mandate to exclude end-users from its reach.


Accordingly, I am pleased that H.R. 4413 provides relief to end-users by creating a recent ?commercial market participant? definition. It makes it clear that end-users who use swaps to hedge and mitigate risk are not treated like banks by excluding end-users from the financial entity definition.


In addition, H.R. 4413 responds to concerns from the public power and energy sectors that the Commission?s rules did not take into account the realities of their operations and were driving up costs by treating certain contracts as swaps. These costs would have been passed on to customers through increased rates. H.R. 4413 would solve this problem by explicitly excluding forward contracts with volumetric optionality (which have built-in flexibility that is used to meet customer demand) from the swap definition.


H.R. 4413 would also exclude transactions with ?utility special entities? (such as public power companies) from being counted towards the special entity de minimis threshold for purposes of registration as a swap dealer, similar to the Commission?s proposed rule.10 This will encourage more non-bank market participants to trade with municipal utilities, without having to worry that they will be forced to register as a swap dealer.


These critical reforms will provide end-users the certainty they need in order to comply with CFTC regulations in a way that does not harm American businesses.


Importantly, H.R. 4413 provides necessary legislative reform to require the Commission to perform appropriate quantitative and qualitative analysis for rulemakings. I have always advocated that the Commission?s rulemaking must include a thorough cost-benefit analysis to ensure that new rules do not impose unreasonable costs on the public.


Cost-benefit analysis is simply a common-sense tool designed to ensure that the benefits of any regulation exceed its costs and that regulators adopt the least burdensome approach to achieve the desired regulatory outcome.


This legislative reform builds on President Bill Clinton?s Executive Order No. 1286611, President Barack Obama?s Executive Orders Nos. 1356312 and 1357913, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-414 on best practices for regulatory analysis.


These initiatives for better regulation have earned bipartisan support and improve the regulatory process. All executive branch administrative agencies must comply with these executive orders?the CFTC should be held to the same standard and no less.


Finally, H.R. 4413 reauthorizes the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and makes specific improvements to the Commission?s internal operations to make our rulemaking process and procedures for granting ?no-action? relief more transparent, as well as involving the full Commission in critical management decisions.


The public will be better served because these reforms will help improve the Commission?s procedures to preserve consistency, ensure that public participation is a core component in our deliberations, and that decisions that significantly impact market participants happen in an open and obvious manner.


I am also pleased that H.R. 4413 recognizes the importance of technology to conducting surveillance of electronic markets by requiring the Commission to supply a strategic technology plan to Congress and requiring a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of CFTC resources. This strong oversight of the Commission by the Congress will increase our accountability and ensure that scarce taxpayer resources are being used wisely.


My moment topic recognizes, however, that because the derivatives markets are global in nature, it is not enough to simply look at issues domestically.


Comprehensive solutions to the negative impact on liquidity and market structure must be addressed through a holistic approach that focuses on international harmonization through substituted compliance and mutual recognition of other jurisdictions. If systemic risk is a cancer of the global financial system, then the whole body must be treated to prevent its spread.


One area where I am concerned that an uncoordinated approach to regulation would lead to greater systemic risk is clearing. As you know, the CPSS-IOSCO Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMIs) set forth international standards for CCPs. The CFTC finished adopting the PFMIs last year.15


Because of the G20 commitment to CCP clearing for standardized contracts and the higher margin requirements for uncleared swaps under Basel III, CCPs have more recently expanded to serve multiple markets across national borders. The interest of traders in more efficient use of collateral reinforces this trend and adds to the impetus for a coordinated approach to CCP regulation.


To that end, I hope that the European Commission (EC) will continue to work with the CFTC to find the U.S. regulatory regime equivalent under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) so that the European Securities Market Authority (ESMA) may proceed with the recognition of U.S. CCPs by the December 15, 2014 deadline under the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV).16


Without recognition, third country CCPs will not qualify as Qualifying CCPs (QCCPs) for purposes of the Basel III risk-weighting approach for banking institutions.


If this happens, it would be cost-prohibitive for EU banks to clear through third country CCPs. U.S. CCPs will be unable to maintain direct clearing member relationships with EU firms and would be ineligible to clear contracts subject to the EU clearing mandate next year.


This outcome would be detrimental to both U.S. and European interests because it will lead to market fragmentation and contraction of liquidity, as well as market disruption and dislocation due to the international nature of the swaps market.


I am encouraged by the recent U.S.-EU Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue Joint Statement17 that reaffirmed regulators? commitment to principles of international comity and working together to implement OTC derivatives reforms. I look forward to continued engagement by the EC with the CFTC to turn these aspirational words into action.


But as important as the cross-border CCP recognition is, we can?t lose sight of another critical area of cross-border cooperation: data sharing and harmonization.


Both the U.S. and EU should continue to engage in discussions to recognize each other?s swap trade repositories and develop a means to share the data, as well as collaborate to harmonize both the form and format of the data being reported.


The ability to compare and aggregate data across U.S. swap data repositories (SDRs) and EU trade repositories (TRs) is critical to the analysis and monitoring of threats to financial stability. Mutual recognition of SDRs and TRs would also eliminate the need for duplicative reporting.


As I have stated before, it is my firm belief that the key to effective and efficient cross-border regulation of the swaps market is through an outcomes-based approach where regulators would defer to the other jurisdiction when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes.


All members of the G20 should strive to implement the G20 principles for OTC derivatives reform while avoiding conflicts of law, inconsistencies, and legal uncertainty. By adhering to a policy of substituted compliance or mutual recognition, market regulators can prevent artificial incentives like regulatory arbitrage from disrupting the global financial markets.


We all would like to find a silver bullet to prevent the next financial crisis. I believe that the closest we will get to that is through the application of technology to the massive amounts of data available to the CFTC.


I am pleased that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture provided the CFTC with $52.6 million for technology investments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015.18 Such an investment would allow the CFTC to start making the necessary investments to keep up with technological innovation in today?s electronic and highly automated markets.


Only by establishing a 21st-century surveillance system can the CFTC effectively monitor the health of the markets we supervise and ensure that they are well-functioning. No doctor would try to diagnose a patient and prescribe treatment without performing tests and gathering sufficient data. The CFTC must do the same.


For many years now, the Commission has pointed to budget restraints and insufficient human capital as the reasons for the lack of investment in technology. Funding for the Office of Data and Technology has grown only 6.8 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2014, while the CFTC?s overall funding has grown 11.7 percent during this same period.


The Commission?s inadequate support for technology has left the CFTC with diminished automated surveillance capacity and an inability to manage the regulatory data stored in SDRs.


It is time for the CFTC to start making serious technology investments in order to meet its mission objectives of ensuring market integrity and protecting market participants. We must make automated surveillance the foundation of our oversight and compliance program.


The Commission must also fund an order message data collection and analysis system, a key tool for surveillance. Futures exchanges receive millions of order messages on a minute-by-minute basis, but according to CFTC staff, only 8 percent of all order messages result in completed trades.


The CFTC receives transaction data on a daily basis and doesn?t collect roughly 90 percent of all market activity. It is crucial to perform market surveillance at the order message level to understand the behavior of automated trading systems and identify possible violations.


If the CFTC does not act now, it will fall behind other agencies and regulators in understanding the impact of automated trading on the market.


The CFTC must also deploy cross-product and cross-market surveillance and analytical tools in order to facilitate detection of improper market conduct and systemic risks. Cross-market surveillance was recognized at the last Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting as vitally important to the oversight of today?s complex markets.


In addition, the CFTC must improve its automated risk management surveillance of both clearing houses and swap dealers. This will enable the CFTC to efficiently oversee the highest risk firms, saving both time and money. Dodd-Frank clearly directed regulators to increase their ability to monitor risk in banks, intermediaries, and clearing houses.


As chair of the TAC, I have made it a precedence to find the next best thing to a silver bullet for systemic risk and fraud, manipulation, and abuse in our markets. At the last TAC meeting held on June 3, 2014, we held a panel on developing a 21st-century surveillance program and heard various proposals from panelists on what such a system should include.


I have called on the public to also submit their ideas to take our surveillance program to the next level.19 Comments are due by August 4, 2014, and I hope to discuss them at a future TAC meeting.


It is the Commission?s responsibility to restore balance to the markets we regulate and ensure that our markets are healthy and well-functioning. We must take the time to thoughtfully reexamine our rules and mission objectives to make sure that we get it right and first do no harm.


First, we need to fix broken rules to ensure that they are workable and that we aren?t creating unnecessary and costly regulatory burdens for end-users. The futures and swaps markets provide two fundamental functions for end-users and market participants: to manage their commercial and operational risks through hedging, and to provide price discovery on the commodities that are their business inputs. We have to make sure the markets can still function the way they are supposed to.


Second, we need to resolve the regulatory differences among foreign jurisdictions in a manner that is consistent with the G20 principles. I believe this is best achieved through an outcomes-based approach. Those areas demanding immediate attention are CCP recognition and data sharing and harmonization.


Third, we need to develop a plan to maintain sustained focus on the implementation and integration of technology to support our expanded oversight mission to spot and perform systemic risk analysis, and to develop a 21st-century surveillance program.


Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share with you my priorities and concerns facing the Commission, four years after the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.


1 G20 Leaders? Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit (Sept. 24-25, 2009), available at https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/Pittsburgh_Declaration_0.pdf.


4 Customer Protection and End-User Relief Act, H.R. 4413, 113th Cong. (2014), available at https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr4413/BILLS-113hr4413eh.pdf.


5 CFTC Public Roundtable Regarding the Trade Execution Requirement and Package Transactions (Feb. 12, 2014), http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff021214.


6 CFTC Public Roundtable to Discuss Dodd-Frank End-User Issues (Apr. 3, 2014), http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff040314.


7 CFTC Public Roundtable to Discuss Position Limits for Physical Commodity Derivatives (June 19, 2014), http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff061914.


8 Testimony of Hon. Scott D. O?Malia, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Before the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, House Committee on Agriculture, ?The Future of the CFTC: Commission Perspectives? (July 23, 2013), available at https://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/hearings/OMalia130723.pdf.


9 Letter from U.S. Senators Christopher Dodd and Blanche Lincoln to U.S. Representatives Barney Frank and Collin Peterson (June 30, 2010).


10 Exclusion of Utility Operations-Related Swaps With Utility Special Entities From De Minimis Threshold for Swaps With Special Entities; Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 31,238 (June 2, 2014), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2014-12469a.pdf.


14 Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.


15 CFTC regulations have fully implemented the PFMIs. See Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles, 76 Fed. Reg. 69,334 (Nov. 8, 2011); Enhanced Risk Management Standards for Systemically Important Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,663 (Aug. 15, 2013); Derivatives Clearing Organizations and International Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 72,476 (Dec. 2, 2013).


16 Letter from Commissioner Scott D. O?Malia, CFTC, to Commissioner Michel Barnier, European Commission (May 6, 2014), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/omailalettertobarnier050614.pdf.


17 U.S.-EU Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue Joint Statement (July 11, 2014), available at http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2564.aspx.


19 The comment file is available on the CFTC Technology Advisory Committee website at http://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCCommittees/TechnologyAdvisory/index.htm.


#David #Varisano #Oakland

Manal Horn - Testimony of Chairman Timothy Massad before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Manal Horn Thank you Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo and members of the Committee. I am pleased to testify before you nowadays on behalf of the Commission. This is my first official hearing as Chairman of the CFTC. It is truly an honor to serve as Chairman at this important time.


I met and spoke Stephen along several members of this Committee during the confirmation process, and I appreciated hearing your thoughts and suggestions during that time. I look forward to this Committee?s input going forward.


During the last five years, we have made substantial progress in recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act was a comprehensive response, and much has been accomplished in implementing it. The CFTC has largely completed the rulemaking stage of Dodd-Frank implementation. However, much work remains to finish the job Congress has given us.


I look forward to working together Stephen along you, as well as my colleagues at the CFTC and others around the globe to ensure that our futures, swaps and options markets remain the most efficient and competitive in the world, and to protect the integrity of the markets.


Very few Americans participate directly in the derivatives markets. Yet these markets profoundly affect the prices we all pay for food, energy, and most other goods and services we buy each day. They enable farmers to lock in a price for their crops, utility companies or airlines to hedge the costs of fuel, and auto companies or soda bottlers to know what aluminum will cost. They enable exporters to manage fluctuations in foreign currencies, and businesses of all types to lock in their borrowing costs. In the simplest terms, derivatives enable market participants to manage risk.


In normal times, these markets create substantial, but largely unseen, benefits for American families. During the financial crisis, however, they created just the opposite. It was during the financial crisis that many Americans first heard the word derivatives. That was because over-the-counter swaps ? a large, unregulated part of these otherwise strong markets ? accelerated and intensified the crisis like gasoline poured on a fire. The government was then required to take actions that today still stagger the imagination: for example, largely because of excessive swap risk, the government committed $182 billion to prevent the collapse of a single company ? AIG ? because its failure at that time, in those circumstances, could have caused our economy to fall into another Great Depression.


It is tough for most Americans to fathom how this could have happened. While derivatives were just one of many things that caused or contributed to the crisis, the structure of some of these products created meaningful risk in an economic downturn. In addition, the extensive, bilateral transactions between our largest banks and other institutions meant that trouble at one institution could cascade quickly through the financial system like a waterfall. And, the opaque nature of this market meant that regulators did not know what was going on or who was at risk.


The lessons of this tragedy were not lost on the leaders of the United States and the G-20 nations. They committed to bring the over-the-counter swaps market out of the shadows. They agreed to do four basic things: require regulatory oversight of the major market players; require clearing of standardized transactions through regulated clearinghouses known as central counterparties or CCPs; require more transparent trading of standardized transactions; and require regular reporting so that we have an accurate picture of what is going on in this market.


In the United States, these commitments were set forth in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Responsibility for implementing these commitments was given primarily to the CFTC. I would like to review where we stand in implementing the regulatory framework passed by Congress to bring the over-the-counter swaps market out of the shadows.


The first of the major directives Congress gave to the CFTC was to create a framework for the registration and regulation of swap dealers and major swap participants. The agency has done so. As of August 2014, there are 104 swap dealers and two major swap participants provisionally registered Stephen along the CFTC.


We have adopted rules requiring strong risk management. We will also be making periodic examinations to assess risk and compliance. The recent framework requires registered swap dealers and major swap participants to comply Stephen along various business conduct requirements. These include strong standards for documentation and confirmation of transactions, as well as dispute resolution processes. They include requirements to reduce risk of multiple transactions through what is known as portfolio reconciliation and portfolio compression. In addition, swap dealers are required to make sure their counterparties are eligible to enter into swaps, and to make appropriate disclosures to those counterparties of risks and conflicts of interest.


As directed by Congress, we have worked with the SEC, other US regulators, and our international counterparts to establish this framework. We will continue to work with them to achieve as much consistency as possible. We will also look to make sure these rules work to achieve their objectives, and fine-tune them as needed where they do not.


A second commitment of Dodd-Frank was to require clearing of standardized transactions at central counterparties. The utilize of CCPs in financial markets is commonplace and has been around for over one hundred years. The idea is simple: if many participants are trading standardized products on a regular basis, the tangled, hidden web created by thousands of private two-way trades can be replaced with a more transparent and orderly structure, like the spokes of a wheel, with the CCP at the center interacting with other market participants. The CCP monitors the overall risk and positions of each participant.


Clearing does not eliminate the risk that a counterparty to a trade will default, but Manal Horn provides us various means to mitigate that risk. As the value of positions change, margin can be collected efficiently to ensure counterparties are able to fulfill their obligations to each other. And if a counterparty does default, there are tools available to transfer or unwind positions and protect other market participants. To work well, active, ongoing oversight is critical. We must be vigilant to ensure that CCPs are operated safely and deliver the benefits they are designed to provide.


The CFTC was the first of the G-20 nations? regulators to implement clearing mandates. We have required clearing for interest rate swaps (IRS) denominated in US dollars, Euros, Pounds and Yen, as well as credit default swaps (CDS) on certain North American and European indices. Based on CFTC analysis of data reported to swap data repositories, as of August 2014, measured by notional value, 60% of all outstanding transactions were cleared. This is compared to estimates by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) of only 16% in December 2007. With regard to index CDS, most new transactions are being cleared ? 85% of notional value during the month of August.


Our rules for clearing swaps were patterned after the successful regulatory framework we have had in place for many years in the futures market. We do not require that clearing take place in the United States, even if the swap is in U.S. dollars and between U.S. persons. But we do require that clearing occurs through registered CCPs that meet certain standards ? a comprehensive set of core principles that ensures each clearinghouse is appropriately managing the risk of its members, and monitoring its members for compliance with important rules.


Fourteen CCPs are registered with the CFTC as derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) either for swaps, futures, or both. Five of those are organized external of the United States, including three in Europe which have been registered since 2001 (LCH.Clearnet Ltd.); 2010 (ICE Clear Europe Ltd); and 2013 (LCH.Clearnet SA). In some cases, a majority of the trades cleared on these European-based DCOs are for U.S. persons.


At the same time, the CFTC has specifically exempted most commercial end-users from the clearing mandate. We have been sensitive to Congress?s directive that these entities, which were not responsible for the crisis and rely on derivatives primarily to hedge commercial risks, should not bear undue burdens in accessing these markets to hedge their risk.


Of course, central clearing by itself is not a panacea. CCPs do not eliminate the risks inherent in the swaps market. We must therefore be vigilant. We must do all we can to ensure that CCPs have financial resources, risk management systems, settlement procedures, and all the necessary standards and safeguards consistent with the core principles to function in a fair, transparent and efficient manner. We must also make sure that CCP contingency planning is sufficient.


The third area for reform under Dodd-Frank was to require more transparent trading of standardized products. In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress if that certain swaps must be traded on a swap execution facility (SEF) or other regulated exchange. The Dodd Frank Act defined a SEF as ?a trading system or platform in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants.? The trading requirement was designed to facilitate a more open, transparent and competitive marketplace, benefiting commercial end-users seeking to lock in a price or hedge risk.


The CFTC finalized its rules for SEFs in June 2013. Twenty-two SEFs have temporarily registered with the CFTC, and two applications are pending. These SEFs are diverse, but each will be required to function in accordance with the same core principles. These core principles supply a framework that includes obligations to establish and enforce rules, as well as policies and procedures that enable transparent and efficient trading. SEFs must make trading information publicly available, put into place system safeguards, and preserve financial, operational and managerial resources to discharge their responsibilities.


Trading on SEFs began in October of last year. Beginning February 2014, specified interest rate swaps and credit default swaps must be traded on a SEF or other regulated exchange. Notional value executed on SEFs has generally been in excess of $1.5 trillion weekly.


It is important to remember that trading of swaps on SEFs is still in its infancy. SEFs are still developing best practices under the new regulatory regime. The new technologies that SEF trading requires are likewise being refined. Additionally, other jurisdictions have not yet implemented trading mandates, which has slowed the development of cross-border platforms. There will be issues as SEF trading continues to mature. We will need to work through these to achieve fully the goals of efficiency and transparency SEFs are meant to provide.


The fourth Dodd-Frank reform commitment was to require ongoing reporting of swap activity. Having rules that require oversight, clearing, and transparent trading is not enough. We must have an accurate, ongoing picture of what is going on in the marketplace to achieve greater transparency and to address potential systemic risk.


Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act assigns the responsibility for collecting and maintaining swap data to swap data repositories (SDRs), a new type of entity necessitated by these reforms. All swaps, whether cleared or uncleared, must be reported to SDRs. There are currently four SDRs that are provisionally registered with the CFTC.


The collection and public dissemination of swap data by SDRs helps regulators and the public. It provides regulators with information that can facilitate informed oversight and surveillance of the market and implementation of our statutory responsibilities. Dissemination, especially in real-time, also provides the public with information that can contribute to price discovery and market efficiency.


While we have accomplished a lot, much work remains. The task of collecting and analyzing data concerning this marketplace requires intensely collaborative and technical work by industry and the agency?s staff. Going forward, Manal Horn must continue to be one of our chief priorities.


There are three general areas of activity. We must have data reporting rules and standards that are specific and clear, and that are harmonized as much as possible across jurisdictions. The CFTC is leading the international effort in this area. It is an huge task that will take time. We must also make sure the SDRs collect, maintain, and publicly disseminate data in the manner that supports effective market oversight and transparency. Finally, market participants must live up to their reporting obligations. Ultimately, they bear the responsibility to make sure that the data is accurate and reported promptly.


The progress I have outlined reflects the fact that the CFTC has finished almost all of the rules required by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act to regulate the over-the-counter swaps market. This was a difficult task, and required tremendous effort and commitment. My predecessor, Gary Gensler, deserves substantial credit for leading the agency in implementing these reforms so quickly. All of the Commissioners contributed valuable insight and deserve our thanks. But no group deserves more credit than the hardworking professional staff of the agency. It was an extraordinary effort. I want to publicly acknowledge and thank them for their contributions.


The next phase requires no less effort. I want to highlight several areas going forward that are critical to realizing the benefits Congress had in mind when Manal Horn adopted this new framework and to minimizing any unintended consequences.


First, as markets develop and we gain experience with the new Dodd-Frank regulations, I anticipate we will, from time to time, make some adjustments and changes. This is to be expected in the case of a reform effort as meaningful as this one. These are markets that grew to be global in nature without any regulation, and the effort to bring them out of the shadows is a substantial change. It is particularly difficult to anticipate with certainty how market participants will reply and how markets will evolve. At this juncture, I do not believe wholesale changes are needed, but some clarifications and improvements are likely to be considered.


In fine-tuning existing rules, and in finishing the remaining rules that Congress has required us to implement, we must make sure that commercial businesses like farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and other companies can continue to use these markets effectively. Congress rightly recognized that these entities stand in a different position compared to financial firms. We must make sure the new rules do not cause inappropriate burdens or unintended consequences for them. We hope to act on a new proposed rule for margin for uncleared swaps in the near future. On position limits, we have asked for and received substantial public comment, including through roundtables and face-to-face meetings. This input has been very helpful enabling us to calibrate the rules to achieve the goals of reducing risk and improving the market without imposing unnecessary burdens or causing unintended consequences.


A second key area is working with our international counterparts to build a strong global regulatory framework. To succeed in accomplishing the goals set out in the G-20 commitments and embodied in the Dodd-Frank Act, global regulators must work together to harmonize their rules and supervision to the greatest extent possible. Fundamentally, this is because the markets that the CFTC is charged to regulate are truly global. What happens in New York, Chicago, or Kansas City is inextricably interconnected with events in London, Hong Kong and Tokyo. The lessons of the financial crisis remind us how easy Manal Horn is for risks embedded in overseas derivatives transactions to flow back into the United States. And Congress directed us to address the fact that activities abroad can result in importation of risk into the United States.


This is a challenging task. Although the G-20 nations have agreed on basic principles for regulating over-the-counter derivatives, there can be many differences in the details. While many sectors of the financial industry are global in nature, applicable laws and rules typically are not. For example, no one would expect that the laws which govern the selling of securities, or the securing of bank loans, should be precisely the same in all the G-20 nations. While our goal should be harmonization, we must remember that regulation occurs through individual jurisdictions, each informed by its own legal traditions and regulatory philosophies.


Our challenge is to achieve as consistent a framework as possible while not lowering our standards simply to reach agreement, thus triggering a ?race to the bottom.? We must also minimize opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where business moves to locales where the rules are weaker or not yet in place.


The CFTC?s adoption of regulations for systemically important CCPs is a useful model for success. Our rules were designed to meet the international standards for the risk management of systemically important CCPs, as evidenced by the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMIs) published by the Bank of International Settlement?s Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, to which the Commission was a key contributor.


Since the day I joined the CFTC, I have been focused on cross-border issues. In my first month in office I went to Europe twice to meet with my fellow regulators, and I have been engaged in ongoing dialogue with them.


A third major area is having robust compliance and enforcement activities. It is not enough to have rules on the books. We must be sure that market participants comply with the rules and fulfill their obligations. That is why, for example, several weeks ago we fined a large swap dealer for failing to abide by our data reporting rules.


A strong compliance and enforcement function is vital to maintaining public confidence in our markets. This is critical to the participation of the many Americans who depend on the futures and swaps markets ? whether they are farmers, oil producers or exporters. And even though most Americans do not participate directly in the futures and swaps markets, our enforcement efforts can assist rebuild and maintain public confidence and trust in our financial markets.


We must aggressively pursue wrongdoers, large or small, and vigorously fulfill our responsibility to enforce the regulations governing these markets. Our pursuit of those who have manipulated benchmarks like LIBOR, a key global benchmark underlying a wide variety of financial products and transactions, is a prime example of this principle in practice. So is our successful litigation against Parnon Energy and Arcadia, two energy companies that systematically manipulated crude oil markets to realize illicit profits.


Dodd-Frank provided the Commission with a number of new statutory tools to ensure the integrity of our markets, and we have moved aggressively to incorporate these tools into our enforcement efforts. Our new anti-manipulation authority gives us enhanced ability to go after fraud-based manipulation of our markets. We have put that authority to good use in a host of cases and investigations, including actions against Hunter Wise and a number of smaller firms for perpetrating precious metals scams. Congress also gave us new authority to attack specific practices that unscrupulous market participants use to distort the markets, such as "spoofing," where a party enters a bid or offer with the intent to move the market price, but not to consummate a transaction. We used this new anti-spoofing provision to successfully prosecute Panther Energy for its spoofing practices in our energy markets.


Going forward, protecting market integrity will continue to be one of our key priorities. Market participants should understand that we will use all the tools at our disposal to do so.


It is also vital that the CFTC have up to date information technology systems. Handling massive amounts of swaps data and effective market oversight both depend on the agency having up-to-date technology resources, and the staff ? including analysts and economists, as well as IT and data management professionals ? to make use of them. The financial markets today are driven by sophisticated use of technology, and the CFTC cannot effectively supervise these markets unless Manal Horn can keep up.


Cyber-security is a related area where we must remain vigilant. As required by Congress, we have implemented new requirements related to exchanges? cyber-security and system safeguard programs. The CFTC conducts periodic examinations that include review of cyber-security programs put in place by key market participants, and there is much more we would like to do in this area. Going forward, the Commission?s examination expertise will need to be expanded to keep up with emerging risks in information security, especially in the area of cyber-security.


All of these tasks represent the meaningful increases in responsibility that came with Dodd Frank. They require resources. But the CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill these tasks as well as all the responsibilities Manal Horn had ? and still has ? prior to the passage of Dodd Frank. The CFTC is lucky to have a dedicated and resourceful professional staff. Although I have been at the agency a relatively short time, I am already impressed by how much this small group is able to accomplish. Still, as good as they are, the reality of our current budget is evident.


I recognize that there are many important priorities that Congress must consider in the budgeting process. I appreciate the importance of being as efficient as possible. I have also encouraged our staff to be creative in thinking approximately how we can best use our limited resources to achieve our responsibilities. We will keep the Teddy Roosevelt adage in mind, that we will do what we can, with what we have, where we are.


But I hope to work with members of Congress to address our budget constraints. Our current financial resources limit our ability to fulfill our responsibilities in a way that most Americans would expect. The simple fact is that Congress?s mandate to supervise the swaps market in addition to the futures and options markets requires significant resources beyond those the agency has previously been allocated. Without additional resources, our markets cannot be as well supervised; participants cannot be as well protected; market transparency and efficiency cannot be as fully achieved.


A few core principles must motivate our work in implementing Dodd-Frank. The first is that we must never forget the cost to American families of the financial crisis, and we must do all we can to address the causes of that crisis in a responsible way. The second is that the United States has the best financial markets in the world. They are the strongest, most dynamic, most innovative, most competitive and transparent. They have been a significant engine of our economic growth and prosperity. Our work should strengthen our markets and enhance those qualities. We must be careful not to create unnecessary burdens on the dynamic and innovative capacity of our markets. I believe the CFTC's work can accomplish these objectives. We have made important progress but there is still much to do. I look forward to working with the members of this Committee and my fellow regulators on these challenges.


#Manal #Horn #Stephen

Trading Keynote Address of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo before the Cato Summit on Financial Regulation Citigroup

Citigroup Before I begin, let me say that my remarks reflect my own views and are not necessarily the views of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), my fellow CFTC commissioners or of the CFTC staff.


The complaint charges that Citigroup engaged in numerous noncompetitive and fictitious futures trades in order to steal money from a bank, N.A. proprietary account for which Citigroup exercised trading authority as an employee of Global Markets Ltd. and pass the money to his own personal account.


I thank Mark Calabria and the Cato Institute for inviting me to speak today. It is an honor to address this esteemed organization that I greatly admire.


It is also a pleasure to follow Joshua Rosner, whose book ?Reckless Endangerment? is a must read that describes the circumstances of the 2008 financial crisis.


Some of you will know that the Cato Institute was named after Cato's Letters, essays first published from 1720 to 1723 under the pseudonym of Cato, commonly known as Cato the Younger, who lived in Rome from 95 to 46 BC and was an implacable foe of Julius Caesar and stubborn champion of (lower case ?R?) republican principles.


In our lifetime, the Cato Institute seeks to increase public appreciation for ?principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.? It is the application of those principles to American capital markets and capital formation that we are here to discuss today.


It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of economic fact that everywhere there are free and competitive markets, combined with free enterprise, personal choice, voluntary exchange and legal protection of person and property you will find the underpinnings of broad and sustained prosperity. These elements, wherever and whenever deployed, lift millions of people out of poverty.


Here at home, these elements are under attack by critics of our financial markets. These critics have lost sight of the fact that global capital markets remain the engines of rising standards of living and prosperity. These critics talk approximately separating markets from risk, as if they have no idea that risk and prosperity are invariably linked. They say risk can be extracted from the marketplace through centralized economic planning and direction. They say income inequality can be reduced through increased political control over people?s economic choices. They say wealth redistribution should be tolerated by passing on to our children and grandchildren additional trillions of dollars in federal debt.


Meanwhile, these critics of free markets hardly ever talk about regaining broad and durable prosperity. Yet, prosperity was the common state of the American experience for us and generations before us.1 And Americans still desire prosperity to be the default state for our children. What we have nowadays is just not good enough.


In fact, what we have today is simply the worst U.S. recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. Last year, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, dubbed current economic conditions as the ?new mediocre.?2 That is actually a gentle description for the state we are in.


The CFTC staff members responsible for this matter are Christopher Giglio, Elizabeth Padgett, David W. Oakland, K. Brent Tomer, Manal Sultan, Lenel Hickson, Stephen J. Obie, Vincent McGonagle, Brian Rushton, Vincent Varisano and Marshall Horn.Media Contact Dennis Holden 202-418-5088.


We learned final Friday that the U.S. economy actually shrunk by 0.7 percent between January and March of this year.3 U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has not grown greater than 2.5 percent for the past half-dozen years ? the slowest rate of growth since the U.S. began compiling dependable economic statistics a century ago.4 That is less than the average annual U.S. economic growth rate and substantially less than a typical post-recession rate of growth.5


The official U.S. unemployment rate has fallen steadily during the past few years. Yet, this recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the preceding employment peak of any prior recovery.6 In this year?s first quarter, the labor force participation rate hit a 36 year low of 62.5 percent.7 The number of Americans not in the labor force hit a record high of 93.7 million people.8 Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis.9 One in three Americans between the age of 18 and 31 are living with their parents10 and, in one out of five American families, no one has a job.11


Worse, middle class incomes continue to fall during this recovery, losing even more ground than during the recession.12  Real disposable personal income is well below its projected pre-recession levels. The number in poverty has also continued to soar to about 50 million Americans.13 That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the census has been tracking poverty.14  Income inequality has risen more in the past few years15 while the prospect of working in a secure full-time job has greatly diminished in this new mediocre economy.16


As a former trade executive, I can tell you that the plethora of federal regulations is a major drag on the U.S. economy. Regulations now cost the U.S. more than 12 percent of GDP, or $2 trillion annually.17 The average manufacturing firm spends nearly $20,000 per employee per year on complying with federal regulations.18 For manufacturers with fewer than 50 employees, the per-employee cost rises to nearly $35,000.19 With that amount of cost per employee, is it any wonder that the rate of hiring is so abysmal? In a recent, major survey of CEOs of American companies, they overwhelmingly cited over regulation as a barrier to capital investment that would otherwise stimulate job creation and wage growth.20


Still, Americans remain an aspirational people despite the economic frustration of the past several years. Yet, they are increasingly worried they may soon fall out of their economic class.21 I consent with Governor Jack Markell of Delaware, who recently wrote that Americans need jobs, not populism.22 Americans want robust economic growth, not excuses based on not good winter weather.23 If we are to meet our obligations to the next generation of Americans, we must address head-on the challenges of the new mediocre and take steps to replace it with broad based prosperity and full time job creation.


The answer lies in economic freedom and opportunity: the same combination of ingredients that invariably leads to more prosperity ? even for the poor ? than does centralized political planning.24


As you know, capital markets such as the stock and bond markets play an essential role in economic growth by marshalling resources and deploying them in productive ways. They serve as a link between savers and investors by shifting financial resources from surplus and waste to deficit and production. They allow the rational allocation of goods and resources spurring expansion of trade and industry. And, yes, regulators have a key role to play in capital markets by making certain they are well-ordered and not manipulated by bad actors, misconducted by fraud or misused for political purposes.


Adequate trading liquidity is the life blood of successful financial markets. In essence, liquidity is the degree to which a financial instrument may be easily bought or sold with minimal price disturbance by alert and willing buyers and sellers. The U.S. has long enjoyed some of the world?s deepest and most liquid financial markets for trading U.S. Treasury and other debt, equity and derivative securities. The health of the U.S. economy is strongly tied to such deep liquidity that is essential for overseas investors to continue to transact in our markets. If U.S. trading markets become shallower or less liquid, overseas investors may reduce activities in U.S. markets imperiling American economic health.


The complaint charges that Citigroup engaged in numerous noncompetitive and fictitious futures trades in order to steal money from a bank, N.A. proprietary account for which Citigroup exercised trading authority as an employee of Global Markets Ltd. and pass the money to his own personal account.


Let?s look for a moment at the role of markets in my field of derivatives, including swaps and futures. Some of you know how the derivatives markets work, but I ponder a basic example will be useful. Let?s start with your local grocery store. We all take for granted an abundance of food on the shelves week after week, year after year. We never have to wonder how the weather is affecting the growing season or if it was a bountiful or lean harvest in thousands of rural counties all across our country.


Yet, visitors to America from the developing world are amazed by the constant bounty of food at relatively stable prices in our grocery stores. In many parts of the world, plentiful food depends on a good harvest. A bad harvest means there is small to eat. With little to no income from a bad harvest, farmers are unable to plant next year causing further starvation and misery.


The utilize of risk hedging instruments, namely commodity futures, swaps and other derivatives is one of the key reasons Americans find plenty of food on the shelves. Many of our agricultural producers hedge their prices and costs of production in the futures markets. But such futures and other derivatives markets are not just beneficial for agricultural producers. They impact the price and availability of the food we eat, the warmth of our homes, the energy used in our factories, the interest rates we pay on our home mortgages and the returns we earn on our retirement savings. Well-functioning derivatives markets allow users to transfer the risks of variable production costs, such as the price of raw materials, energy, foreign currency and interest rates, from those who cannot afford them to those who can. In short, derivatives serve the needs of society to help moderate price, supply and other commercial risks. Thus, derivatives free up capital for other purposes and boost economic growth, job creation and prosperity.


Now, it is true that derivatives, like any other engineered product ever known to man, can serve both useful as well as harmful purposes. I concur with the thrust of Josh Rosner?s book that the 2008 financial crisis arose from an inferno of complex derivative products used for unfettered risk taking overseen by feckless regulators amidst the government?s planned degrading of mortgage lending standards and the creation of a housing and credit bubble.


Yet, I also consent with scholar Peter Wallison, that the combination of complex derivatives, bank leverage and unwitting regulators would not have caused the depth and scope of the 2008 financial crisis. No, it required the Federal government?s encouragement of banks and other financial institutions to originate and hold huge and opaque amounts of non-traditional, sub-prime and Alt-A mortgage obligations to further the social goal of increased homeownership.25 When home values began to fall and lenders anticipated non-payment of these toxic mortgages, it triggered a crisis of confidence in trading counterparties in securitized mortgage and credit markets and the bursting of a double bubble of housing prices and consumer lending. It led to a full ?run on the bank? with rapidly falling asset values preventing U.S. and foreign lenders from assembly their cash obligations. The result was a financial crisis that was devastating for far too many American businesses and families.


However, seven years later, the standard press and political narrative has been that the financial crisis was primarily about deregulated banks engaging in excessive trading leverage through derivatives. The role of toxic mortgages has been almost, but not entirely, forgotten.


Arising from that incomplete narrative of the financial crisis are many new financial sector regulations that are disproportionately focused on capital adequacy of banks and financial institutions without corresponding attention to housing finance reform. Most of the new regulations have the effect of reducing the ability of medium and large financial institutions to deploy capital in trading markets. Combined, these disparate regulations are already sapping global markets of enormous amounts of trading liquidity. Many of these new rules were cobbled together in the United States? Dodd-Frank Act, the European Union?s European Market Infrastructure Regulation26 and Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II,27 Basel III accords28 and regulations by other overseas authorities. Many of these reforms have ostensible and varied merit and each has a supporting constituency. Yet, U.S. and overseas regulators continue to promulgate almost all of these rules in an uncoordinated and ad hoc fashion with a paucity of predictive analysis of their impact on global trading markets.


The CFTC?s contribution to this liquidity depleting mixture includes its flawed swaps trading rules, about which I have written extensively,29 the double-charging of margin on certain types of derivatives trades used to manage risks,30 the likely imposition of strict limits on risk management of energy and commodities31 and the immensely complicated Volcker Rule that no other jurisdiction has sought to emulate.32


CFTC Charges Trader with Unlawful Trading and Misappropriation from a Proprietary Account. Federal court freezes defendant's assets and preserves books and records.


Yet, the Dodd-Frank Act is only one source of leaks in the pool of market liquidity. Other new rules, dictated by U.S. and European central bankers and bank prudential regulators with little practical understanding of trading markets, are tying up billions in capital on the books of global financial institutions. Many of these rules seek to control borrowing and leverage in the financial system. They prioritize capital reserves over investment capital, balance sheet surplus over market making and systemic safety over investment opportunity. They include regulatory-imposed margin payments on uncleared swaps,33 enhanced central clearinghouse recovery procedures,34 capital retention and leverage reduction requirements under the Basel III accords35 and other rigid leverage ratios and edicts from loosely organized global shadow regulators like the Swiss-based Financial Stability Board.36 Then there is the financial transaction tax sought by the Obama Administration37 and a systemic risk fee (tax) that the Treasury?s Office of Financial Research (OFR) recently proposed to charge to members of clearinghouses.38


Worse, different regulatory authorities in the U.S. and abroad are adopting many of these rules piecemeal with different regulatory standards, requirements and implementation schedules. It is causing the clear fragmentation of global financial markets leading to smaller, disconnected liquidity pools that do not efficiently interact with one another.39 Divided markets are more brittle with shallower liquidity and more volatile pricing, posing a risk of failure in times of economic stress or crisis.40


In response to the deluge of capital constraining regulations, major money center banks are today building up large balance sheet reserves instead of putting their capital to work in the markets and the economy. Large banks have dramatically reduced their inventories of Treasury and corporate bonds and other financial instruments.41 For example, estimates show that in the $4.5 trillion bond market, banks hold just $50 billion of corporate bonds compared to $300 billion before the financial crisis.42 This lack of stock deprives markets of the ?shock absorber? mechanism that dealers traditionally provide. Without it, it is much harder to execute large trades without moving the market causing greater price volatility.


A recent report by the OFR asserts that changes in financial market structures caused by new regulations are reducing the willingness of some major market participants to smooth out volatility in global financial markets.43 According to this study, these changes will cause the U.S. financial system to become more vulnerable to debilitating financial market shocks.44 Federal Reserve Chair, Janet Yellen recently acknowledged concerns that market liquidity may deteriorate during stressed conditions due to new regulations, among other factors.45


In trying to stamp out risk, global regulators are instead harming trading liquidity. Capital constrained banks and other market makers have little choice but to limit their exposure to increasingly fragmented markets, particularly in the event of financial turmoil. It has reached such a level that the IMF recently issued a report discussing the need for more not less economic risk-taking to help global recovery.46 The report calls on banks to revamp their business models to once again become engines of growth.  Yet, the IMF neglects to call out regulators for restricting the banks? ability to put their capital to work.


We need to look no further for a ?canary in the liquidity coal mine? than the events of October 15, 2014 when yields on U.S. Treasury instruments suddenly plunged the most since 2009 without a discernable catalyst. The mini-crisis revealed a fundamental imbalance in the ratio of liquidity provided to markets by capital constrained and risk adverse large banks and liquidity demanded from markets by a burgeoning buy-side.47 JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon called it a ?warning shot? to investors.48 I fear that the next time global financial markets experience a sharp stress or shock ? and that time will inevitably come ? the cumulative effect of all the various Dodd-Frank Act, European and Basel III rules may be to drain the market of critically needed trading liquidity ? liquidity that will be essential for short-term solvency for many ordinary, everyday American businesses.


Regulators often claim they are acting to avoid a repeat of the last crisis. Today, they may be laying the seeds of the next crisis: disappearance of trading liquidity in U.S. and global capital markets. One veteran industry commentator has aptly noted that ?a market in which no one is willing to take a risk is a market that is very risky.?49 Once again we look that flawed and ad hoc implementation of regulatory reform is increasing the systemic risk that the Dodd-Frank Act promised to reduce.


Fortunately, the Dodd-Frank Act created a new super-regulator, known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, that is charged with coordinating the hundreds of new rules and regulations.50 Unfortunately, FSOC has been an unmitigated failure as a coordinator of regulatory reform. Rather than moderate the impact of liquidity draining regulations, FSOC has spent its time designating Wall Street banks and insurance companies as ?too big to fail? so that someday they can be bailed out by taxpayers and regulated by none other than ? you guessed it ? the Federal Reserve.51


CFTC Charges Trader with Unlawful Trading and Misappropriation from a Proprietary Account. Federal court freezes defendant's assets and preserves books and records.


Interestingly, FSOC?s just-issued annual report fully acknowledges that banks and broker-dealers are reducing their securities inventories and in some cases exiting markets.52 It then instructs individual market participants and regulators to monitor these developments, including how regulations impact the provision of market liquidity.53 Good grief! Monitoring how all these new regulations impact the provision of market liquidity and may cause systemic risk is supposed to be FSOC?s job!


Just as FSOC requires stress testing of its ?too big to fail? subject firms, FSOC should do some stress testing of its own. If U.S. markets are to remain the world?s deepest and most liquid markets, FSOC should conduct a thorough analysis of the full impact of the mass of liquidity reducing regulations that it is supposed to be coordinating.


One thing is certain: when a liquidity crisis hits, FSOC will be the first to point fingers, blame financial markets, banks and large market participants and demand more control over them. FSOC may even use its new powers and taxpayer money to bail out more U.S. and foreign financial institutions. Remember: ?never let a good crisis go to waste.?54


Despite all this, I believe American voters expect the next Administration, Democrat or Republican, to take steps to end the new mediocre and return to traditional American middle class prosperity. That begins with efficient capital markets without artificial liquidity constraints emerging from a Pandora?s box of competing and disjointed regulatory initiatives. U.S. regulators, not European central bankers, are authorized by Congress to manage U.S. markets. We should not subsume our authority to organizations that are unrecognized by U.S. law. It is time for FSOC to step up to its statutory duty to monitor and analyze the hundreds of new federal and overseas regulations. It is time for FSOC to measure the cumulative effect of these disparate rules and regulations on U.S. financial markets, looming systemic risk and the sluggish American economy.


In conclusion, let me return to the Cato Institute?s namesake, Cato the Younger. As you may know, Cato also appears as a literary character55 in the second book of Dante Alighieri?s Divine Comedy, the timeless medieval poem about the transition from the road to Hell to the path to Heaven. Cato stands on the border of the two. He represents rebirth, renewal and redemption.


So too, we participants and observers of capital markets are at a transition point. We have been through the inferno of the financial crisis. We are told we are on an upward path. Yet, we seem somewhat stuck in a blinding fog obstructing a clear view of the right road ahead. Our fellow men and women are being buffeted by the impact of mediocre economic stewardship, ad hoc regulatory reform and the failure of those whose duty it is to see through the haze.


Yet, I firmly believe Americans will persevere, in time, to greater prosperity and economic freedom. That is because, like Cato, Americans have always and, I pray, will always reject the false promise of government provided safety, security and a riskless future and, instead, hold quick to personal liberty, free markets and the fruits of their own hard work and ingenuity.


1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annual growth rate in the United States averaged 3.24 percent from 1948 until the first quarter of 2015, reaching an all-time high of 13.40 percent in the fourth quarter of 1950 and a record low of -4.10 percent in the second quarter of 2009. United States GDP Annual Growth Rate, TradingEconomics.com, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


CFTC Charges Trader with Unlawful Trading and Misappropriation from a Proprietary Account. Federal court freezes defendant's assets and preserves books and records.


2 Op-Ed, The ?New Mediocre,? The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2014, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-mediocre-1413415600.


3 News Release, National Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2015 (Second Estimate), Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2015 (Preliminary Estimate), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, May 29, 2015, available at https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/gdp1q15_2nd.htm.


4 Gross Domestic Product, Percent Change from Preceding Period, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


5 Jeffrey M. Lacker, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Address Before the Virginia Bankers Association and Virginia Chamber of Commerce 2015 Financial Forecast (Jan. 9, 2015), available at https://www.richmondfed.org/press_room/speeches/president_jeff_lacker/2015/pdf/lacker_speech_20150109.pdf. President Lacker noted that in the half century before the 2008 recession began real GDP grew at an average annual rate of approximately 3.5 percent. See also Dinah Walker, Quarterly Update: The U.S. Economic Recovery in Historical Context, Council on Foreign Relations, Aug. 22, 2013, available at http://www.cfr.org/united-states/quarterly-update-us-economic-recovery-historical-context/p25774 (noting that the economic expansion following the 2008 recession has been the weakest of the post-World War II era with GDP rising about half as much as in the average post-World War II era recovery).


6 Id.; see also Peter Ferrara, How Does President Obama?s Economic Recovery Compare To Those Of Other Presidents?, Forbes, Aug. 4, 2013, available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/08/04/how-does-president-obamas-economic-recovery-compare-to-those-of-other-presidents/ (Ferrara).


7 Labor Force Participation Rates, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300000 (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


8 Not in Labor Force, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab16.htm (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


9 Karen Kosanovich and Eleni Theodossiou Sherman, Trends in Long-Term Unemployment, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 2015, available at http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2015/long-term-unemployment/pdf/long-term-unemployment.pdf. Nick Timiraos, Elevated Level of Part-Time Employment: Post-Recession Norm?, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 12, 2014, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/post-recession-legacy-elevated-level-of-part-time-employment-1415808672.


The CFTC complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That same day, the court entered a restraining order freezing his assets and prohibiting him from destroying books and records.


10 Richard Fry, A Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents? Home, Pew Research Center, Aug. 1, 2013, available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/01/a-rising-share-of-young-adults-live-in-their-parents-home/.


11 News Release, Employment Characteristics of Families ? 2014, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Apr. 23, 2015, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf.


16 40.4 percent of the U.S. workforce is now made up of workers not in traditional full-time employment, but in part-time, temporary, contract labor or other contingent work. Elaine Polfedlt, Shocker: 40% of Workers Now Have ?Contingent? Jobs, Says U.S. Government, Forbes, May 25, 2015, available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2015/05/25/shocker-40-of-workers-now-have-contingent-jobs-says-u-s-government/ (citing U.S. General Accountability Office Report of Apr. 20, 2015, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669899.pdf.).


17 W. Mark Crain and Nicole V. Crain, The Cost of Federal Regulation to the U.S. Economy, Manufacturing and Small Business, National Association of Manufacturers, at 1 (Sep. 10, 2014), available at http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf.


21 New Poll: Middle Class More Anxious than Aspirational, The Allstate Corporation and National Journal, Apr. 25, 2013, available at http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/channels/News-Releases/releases/new-poll-middle-class-more-anxious-than-aspirational?mode=print.


22 Jack Markell, Americans Need Jobs, Not Populism, The Atlantic, May 3, 2015, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/americans-need-jobs-not-populism/391661/.


23 See generally Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve Districts, U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Apr. 2015, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/files/BeigeBook_20150415.pdf; see also Press Release, March 2015 FMOC Statement, U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Apr. 29, 2015, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150429a.htm.


24 Robert A. Lawson, Economic Freedom: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty (2008), available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicFreedom.html.


In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks a permanent injunction against further violations of the federal commodities laws, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, a civil monetary penalty and other equitable relief. The CFTC thanks the U.K. Financial Services Authority for its assistance.


25 In his recent book, Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World?s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again, Peter J. Wallison, extensively documents how the financial crisis was directly caused by U.S. government housing policies through which over half of all U.S. mortgages were sub-prime or otherwise low-quality, a fact that was grossly undisclosed to market participants and the American public. See Peter J. Wallison, Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World?s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again (Encounter Books 2015).


26 The European Union regulation intended to enhance the stability of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivative markets throughout the EU states. The regulation entered into force on Aug. 16, 2012. Regulation 648/2012, 2012 O.J. (L. 201) (EU), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R0648.


27 Directive 2014/65, 2014 O.J. (L 173) (EU), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0065&from=EN.


28 Basel III (or the Third Basel Accord) is a global, voluntary regulatory framework on bank capital adequacy, stress testing and market liquidity risk. The members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision agreed upon this framework in 2010?2011. The third installment of the Basel Accords was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the financial crisis of 2007?2008. Basel III is intended to strengthen bank capital requirements by increasing bank liquidity and decreasing bank leverage. See generally Basel III, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, http://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


29 CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo, Pro-Reform Reconsideration of the CFTC Swaps Trading Rules: Return to Dodd-Frank (Jan. 29, 2015), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/sefwhitepaper012915.pdf (White Paper). The White Paper asserts that there is a fundamental mismatch between the distinct liquidity and trading dynamics of the global swaps markets and the CFTC?s over-engineered, futures-oriented swaps trading regulatory framework. It identifies the following adverse consequences, among others, of the CFTC?s flawed swaps trading rules: driving global market participants away from transacting with entities subject to CFTC swaps regulation, fragmenting swaps trading into numerous artificial market segments, and increasing market liquidity risk, market fragility and the systemic risk that the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform was predicating on reducing. See White Paper.


30 See Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit (Apr. 14, 2015) (statement of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo).


31 See CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo, Keynote Address of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo before the EnergyRisk Summit USA: Houston TX, ?The CFTC?s Proposed Position Limits Regime: Are U.S. Energy Markets at Risk?? (May 13, 2015), available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlos-6.


32 Prohibition and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 79 FR 5808 (Jan. 31, 2014), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-31476a.pdf.


CFTC Charges Trader with Unlawful Trading and Misappropriation from a Proprietary Account. Federal court freezes defendant's assets and preserves books and records.


33 Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 79 FR 57348 (Sep. 24, 2014), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-24/pdf/2014-22001.pdf.


34 Financial Stability Board, Letter from the Chairman to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, at 3 (Feb. 4, 2015), available at http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/FSB-Chair-letter-to-G20-February-2015.pdf.


35 See generally Basel III, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, http://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


36 See generally Financial Stability Board, http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/ (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


37 Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Of The U.S. Government, Office of Management and Budget, at 33, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/budget.pdf.


38 Agostino Capponi, W. Allen Cheng and Sriram Rajan, Systemic Risk: The Dynamics under Central Clearing, Office of Financial Research, Working Paper (May 7, 2015) available at http://financialresearch.gov/working-papers/files/OFRwp-2015-08_Systemic-Risk-The-Dynamics-under-Central-Clearing.pdf.


41 Simon Nixon, Why Liquidity-Starved Markets Fear the Worst, The Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2015, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-liquidity-starved-markets-fear-the-worst-1432153849.


43 2014 Annual Report, Office of Financial Research, U.S. Treasury Department, at 30-33 (Dec. 2, 2014), available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/ofr/about/Documents/OFR_AnnualReport2014_FINAL_12-1-2014.pdf.


Specifically, the CFTC complaint alleges that, Citigroup engaged in a series of noncompetitive palladium and platinum futures transactions. The futures contracts were offered by the New York Mercantile Exchange on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Globex electronic trading platform. he allegedly caused the bank, N.A. account to trade in illiquid contracts opposite his personal account at off-market prices. According to the complaint, the effect of the transactions was that there was no net change in open positions of either his account or the bank, N.A. account. However, in each offsetting transaction, he allegedly profited, and the bank, N.A. account lost.


45 Ian Katz, Yellen Says Regulators Ready to Act as Panel Cites Risks, Bloomberg, May 19, 2015, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-19/yellen-says-regulators-ready-to-act-as-panel-cites-market-risks (Katz).


46 The recent IMF Global Financial Stability Report discusses the need for more economic risk-taking to help the economy. IMF Survey, Policymakers Should Encourage Economic Risk Taking, Keep Financial Excess Under Control, IMF Survey Magazine, Oct. 8, 2014, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL100814B.htm.


47 Anthony J. Perrotta, Jr., An E-Trading UST Market ?Flash Crash?? Not So Fast, TABB Group, Nov. 24, 2014, available at http://tabbforum.com/opinions/an-e-trading-treasury-market-'flash-crash'-not-so-fast. Some of the largest broker-dealers and proprietary trading firms appear to have withdrawn from the market to manage heightened risk. See 2015 Annual Report, The Financial Stability Oversight Council, at 110 (2015), available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/studies-reports/Documents/2015%20FSOC%20Annual%20Report.pdf (FSOC Annual Report).


49 Steven Lofchie, Comment, Center for Financial Stability President Discusses the Era of ?Never Before?, The Cadwalader Cabinet, May 27, 2015, http://www.cadwalader.com/thecabinet/regulatory_updates.php?&date_filter=&TagIDList=62,58,28,&ID=10120 (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


50 See Purposes and Duties of the FSOC, Section 112 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1395 (2010).


51 It is now estimated that approximately $25 trillion or 60 percent of the U.S. financial system?s liabilities are backed by explicit or implicit protection from loss by the Federal government. Special Report, Bailout Barometer: How Large is the Financial Safety Net?, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, https://www.richmondfed.org/safetynet/ (last visited Jun. 1, 2015).


54 Gerald F. Seib, In Crisis, Opportunity for Obama, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 2008, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122721278056345271 (citing that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama?s then Chief of Staff told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives that ?[y]ou never want a serious crisis to go to waste.?).


55 Dante Alighieri, Paradiso, Canto 1.31-108, Trans, Henry Francis Cary, London: The Folio Society (2007).


The complaint charges that he engaged in numerous noncompetitive and fictitious futures trades in order to steal money from a bank, N.A. proprietary account for which he exercised trading authority as an employee of Global Markets Ltd. and pass the money to his own personal account.


#Trading #Citigroup