Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Derivatives Diplomacy

| No Comments

Yesterday, officials from nine countries sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew out of frustration "at the lack of progress in developing workable cross-border rules as part of reforms of the OTC derivatives market." They noted that they were "already starting to see evidence of fragmentation in this vitally important financial market, as a result of lack of regulatory coordination." This letter is just the most recent attempt by foreign government officials to rein in their American counterparts, whose regulatory appetites appear to be insatiable.

The letter sets forth a number of principles that should govern the regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market. At the core, these principles envision a regulatory scheme in which regulators share responsibility for the derivatives market, but don't impose duplicative regulations. No one regulator is entitled to set the rules for the whole world. Instead, regulators in one country defer to regulators in another country as long as "the outcome delivered by the rules is equivalent in terms of the protections provided." In making an equivalence determination, it is unrealistic to demand "a precise rule-by-rule match up."

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission talk a lot about "substituted compliance" and "equivalence," but when top officials elaborate, their understanding of these terms appears more limited than their foreign counterparts' understanding. Former SEC Chairman Elisse Walter, for example, called for an ambiguous "middle ground" approach in which the SEC "would reserve the right to insist upon compliance with our own regulations when necessary." The CFTC's Chairman Gensler has been more aggressive than the SEC in interpreting its Dodd-Frank authority, less willing to surrender control over entities with even the slightest U.S. connection, and unwilling to provide clear rules to govern the agency's extraterritorial reach.

As more reasonable voices at both the SEC and CFTC have argued, the U.S. should not try to be the world's OTC derivatives policeman. It should share the job with foreign regulators, who are willing and eager to do their part.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.