White House pushes for futures fees
The Bush administration has asked the US House of Representatives to approve a proposed transaction fee on futures and options contracts.
In the statement, the President’s office of management and budget recommended that the House approve the transaction fees as recommended recently in a report by the Senate homeland security and governmental affairs’ permanent subcommittee on investigations, which looked to increase the powers of the CFTC following the collapse of Amaranth Advisors, an energy hedge fund, in 2006.
“The CFTC is the only federal financial regulator that does not derive its funding from the specialised entities it regulates, and because its programmes provide clear benefits to participants in these markets, it is appropriate for those participants to contribute toward their cost,” the statement said.
It also encouraged the House to “join the Senate appropriations committee in matching the [Bush administration] requested $116 million for the CFTC, which will allow more effective monitoring of the markets the Commission oversees and strengthen enforcement in cases where market abuses may have occurred.” The House bill seeks only $102.5 million.
The notion of transaction fees has been rejected by participants in the futures industry who view the move as a tax on futures transactions that would raise the costs while discouraging institutions and individuals from using futures contracts for risk-management purposes.
The renewed recommendation follows the July request by the securities, insurance and investment subcommittee of the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs for a study on whether the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC should merge some of their oversight functions.
Currently the CFTC regulates trading in commodity futures and options, while the SEC monitors key players in the securities world, including securities exchanges, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers and mutual funds.
The CFTC will hold hearings next month to examine its oversight of trading on regulated futures exchanges and other commercial markets.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules
Fed fractures post-SVB consensus on emergency liquidity
New supervisory principles support FHLB funding over discount window preparedness