Statement at Open Meeting on Re-Opening Comment Period for Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap

Hester M. Peirce is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on her recent remarks at an open meeting of the SEC, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Ms. Peirce and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Thank you, Brett, for your presentation. And I would like to express my thanks to all of the staff who worked on this release.

I am happy to see this recommendation come before the Commission for our consideration. In 2013, the Commission explained that it would implement the Title VII regulatory framework in stages, starting with the requirements relating to the registration and regulation of security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, [1] before moving on to requirements relating to regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transaction data, clearing, and trade execution. We still have three rules to finalize before market participants must comply with the dealer requirements and the regulatory reporting and public dissemination requirements: These prerequisites are Rule 194; books and records requirements for dealers; and capital, margin, and segregation requirements for dealers. The staff today is recommending that we reopen the comment period and solicit additional comment with respect to the last of these three prerequisites.

Approval of this recommendation would represent a significant step toward standing up our Title VII regulatory regime. Since these rules were initially proposed in 2012, the Commission has adopted a number of Title VII rules, and the prudential regulators and the CFTC have made further progress in implementing their own Title VII requirements. Regulators around the world have also made significant progress in their own efforts to regulate these markets. In light of these regulatory developments, as well as changes in the markets and comments the Commission has received on the proposal, I believe that it is important to solicit additional comment from interested parties before moving to finalize these requirements.

The staff has crafted a recommendation that is designed both to elicit further comment on the prior proposals generally and to request public input on the Commission’s understanding of previously submitted comments in connection with specific, often quite technical, issues. The recommendation includes requests for comment on how the proposed rule language might be modified to effect key changes suggested by those prior comments. The staff’s recommendation reflects the Chairman’s commitment to transparency and responsiveness in the Commission’s policymaking, and it demonstrates a willingness to engage closely with commenters throughout the rulemaking process. I believe the staff’s recommendation is appropriately tailored to help ensure that, as the Commission moves toward finalizing our dealer rules, we are able to stand up our regime in a deliberate, orderly manner that minimizes the risk of market disruption without causing further unnecessary delays in implementing our long-overdue mandate to regulate the security-based swap market.

I hope that market participants and others will provide frank comments on all aspects of the proposals. I am particularly interested in better understanding how our proposed rules may interact with the requirements promulgated by the CFTC, the prudential regulators, and foreign authorities since 2012. In addition, as I noted in a recent speech [2], I am also keenly interested in better understanding whether our current compliance period is consistent with an orderly registration process both for the Commission and for market participants. Given the myriad tasks that both the Commission and market participants will need to execute in the months leading up to registration, I believe that the Commission needs to consider carefully when it is reasonable to expect firms to comply with our registration requirements and whether we should phase in compliance with particular elements of our dealer and/or data reporting rules over time.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the appreciation expressed by the Chairman to the staff who have worked so hard to prepare this recommendation. It has been a pleasure to work through these issues with all of you, and I look forward to continued collaboration in the coming months. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Clayton for giving me the opportunity to participate in this effort: I have truly enjoyed the opportunity to work with you and your team through this process.


1For the sake of simplicity, I generally refer only to “security-based swap dealers” or “dealers” throughout these remarks.(go back)

2Peirce, Hester, Commissioner, SEC, “Why and Whither Title VII?: Remarks before the 2018 ISDA Annual North America Conference” (Oct. 4, 2018), available at back)

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.