CFTC Unanimously Approves Supplemental Proposal on Position Limits
May 31, 2016
On May 26, 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) unanimously approved a
proposed supplement (“Supplemental Proposal”) to its December 2013 proposal to establish
position limits on futures and economically equivalent swaps.1 The primary focus of the
Supplemental Proposal is the definition of bona fide hedging positions exempt from speculative
position limits. The CFTC proposes to expand the definition of bona fide hedging to recognize
commercial hedging strategies as bona fide hedging. Separately, the Supplemental Proposal
relieves designated contract markets (“DCM”) and swap execution facilities (“SEF”) of the
requirement to establish speculative position limits in certain limited circumstances. The
Supplemental Proposal includes a 30-day public comment period that will begin once the proposal
is published in the Federal Register, which we expect to occur in early June 2016.
Chairman Massad described the Supplemental Proposal as an important measure to “ensure that
commercial end-users can continue to engage in bona fide hedging efficiently for risk management
and price discovery.”2 Commissioner Giancarlo, who has expressed a keen interest in the matter as
sponsor of the Energy & Environmental Markets Advisory Committee, also supports the
Supplemental Proposal as a means to “leverage[] exchange expertise and resources to enable
exemptions to be granted in an efficient and timely manner without sacrificing market integrity.”3
Non-Enumerated Hedging
The key aspect to the Supplemental Proposal is the flexibility to recognize non-enumerated hedging
strategies as bona fide hedging. Under the 2013 Position Limits Proposal, the CFTC limited the
definition of bona fide hedging to an exhaustive list of enumerated hedging strategies. If a hedging
strategy was not on the enumerated list, it did not qualify as a bona fide hedge. Many commenters
argued that this rigid structure excluded legitimate hedges commonly used by commercial
enterprises and would prevent the development of new hedging strategies.
1
The Supplemental Proposal is available here; see also Position Limits for Derivatives, 78 Fed. Reg. 75680 (Dec. 12, 2013)
(the “2013 Position Limits Proposal”).
2
Chairman Massad’s full statement is available here.
3
Commissioner Giancarlo’s full statement is available here.
This memorandum has been prepared by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Cadwalader) for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising or
solicitation and should not be used or taken as legal advice. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their
jurisdiction. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Confidential information should
not be sent to Cadwalader without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship. ©2016 Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP. All rights reserved.
The Supplemental Proposal authorizes the exchanges to establish rules allowing market
participants to apply for non-enumerated hedge exemptions. Market participants can apply for
non-enumerated hedge exemptions not only from exchange limits, but also from CFTC-set limits.
The exemption is available for one year, after which a market participant must renew it. Under the
Supplemental Proposal, the CFTC retains the ability to review any non-enumerated hedge
exemption application either before an exchange makes a determination or after an exchange grants
an exemption. However, if the CFTC revokes an exemption granted by the exchange, the recipient
of the exemption has an opportunity to reduce its position below the applicable limit to prevent a
violation. As a matter of practice, the CFTC expects the exchanges to review applications in the
first instance with the CFTC potentially reviewing the exchange process after the fact. If an
exchange recognizes a non-enumerated hedge exemption, the CFTC requires that the exchange
post a summary of the general hedging strategy to its website (without revealing the identity of the
hedger).
The Supplemental Proposal includes guidance regarding the general definition of bona fide
hedging for the exchanges to follow in granting non-enumerated hedge exemptions. This guidance
essentially mirrors the statutory definition of bona fide hedging in Section 4c(2) of the Commodity
Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd Frank Act (“CEA”). Finally, the CFTC proposes to limit the
authority to review a non-enumerated hedge exemption application to exchanges: (1) on which a
derivative contract is “actively traded;” and (2) with at least one year of experience administering
exchange-set position limits.
Elimination of Certain Restrictions to Bona Fide Hedging
The 2013 Position Limits Proposal included a requirement that a market participant establish and
liquidate a bona fide hedge in an “orderly manner.” The CFTC proposes to eliminate this obligation
in the Supplemental Proposal, explaining that it is not aware of a denial of a bona fide hedge due to
a lack of orderly trading on the exchange. Indeed, the CFTC conceded that a commercial entity
engaging in disruptive trading would be acting contrary to its economic interests. However, the
CFTC also noted that market participants would remain subject to other provisions within the CEA,
such as restrictions on disruptive trading and manipulation.
The CFTC further proposes to eliminate the requirement from the 2013 Position Limits Proposal
that the risks offset by a commodity derivative contract be “incidental” to the position holder’s
commercial operations. However, bona fide hedging positions would still need to be “economically
appropriate to the reduction of risks in the conduct and management of a commercial enterprise.”
The CFTC confirmed that it continues to read this “economically appropriate” test to refer to price
risk only, and does not include other risks such as execution, logistics, or credit risk. Finally, the
Supplemental Proposal authorizes the exchanges to recognize anticipatory hedge exemptions,
although it is unclear how the filing requirements specified in the 2013 Position Limits Proposal for
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
2
anticipatory hedging interact with or supplement the newly proposed exchange application
requirements for anticipatory hedging.
Spread Exemptions
The Supplemental Proposal authorizes the exchanges to establish rules governing spread
exemptions from federal and exchange-set position limits. For example, an exchange may grant
exemptions for calendar spreads, quality differential spreads, processing spreads (e.g. energy
“crack” spreads), and product/by-product spreads.
However, the Supplemental Proposal does not change the 2013 Position Limits Proposal
prohibiting risk management exemptions. Market participants still cannot rely on an exemption to
hedge exposure to commodity index contracts (e.g., exposure to the Goldman Sachs Diversified
Commodity Index) with a component of the commodity index (e.g., a futures contract component of
the index).
Delay for Exchange-Set Position Limits for Swaps
The CFTC proposes to “temporarily” delay the requirement for an exchange to establish position
limits on swaps where the exchange “lack[s] access to sufficient swap position information.” Based
upon the language in the preamble of the Supplemental Proposal, the CFTC does not expect
DCMs or SEFs to have sufficient swap position information to monitor swap positions against a
limit. This likely means that there will not be position limits on SEFs in the near future, and that
DCM-set position limits will be limited to futures contracts.
CFTC to Use its Swaps Large Trader Reporting Data
The CFTC noted improvements in the swap position data that it receives pursuant to its Part 20
swaps large trader reporting regulation. In light of these improvements, the CFTC plans to use this
data to calculate the initial levels of federal non-spot month position limits. In the 2013 Proposed
Position Limits Rule, the CFTC proposed to establish non-spot month position limits for futures and
economically equivalent swaps based upon a percentage of the total open interest for the particular
derivative contract. However, the initial limits proposed in the 2013 Proposed Position Limits Rule
did not include swap open interest data due to concerns about the accuracy of swap data the
CFTC receives under Part 20. The decision in the Supplemental Proposal to include Part 20
swaps data in the open interest calculation may raise the size of the non-spot month limits in any
CFTC final rule.
Conclusion
The Supplemental Proposal is a significant step in the right direction for commercial hedgers. The
CFTC recognized that its 2013 Position Limits Proposal was overly prescriptive and intends that
the Supplemental Proposal provide more flexibility to accommodate hedging. The Supplemental
Proposal also places the flexibility in the hands of the experts – i.e., the exchanges with years of
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
3
experience administering limits and understanding the nature of hedging activity. That said, the
Supplemental Proposal retains a role for the CFTC to review the decisions of the exchanges.
In light of the expanded role for the exchanges, one area that the CFTC does not address is the
extensive CFTC filing requirements for market participants relying on a bona fide hedge exemption.
Given the application requirements discussed in the Supplemental Proposal, the Commission
should consider streamlining the various forms from the 2013 Position Limits Proposal to prevent
redundant, burdensome, and unnecessary filing requirements.
*****
Should you have any questions regarding the Supplemental Proposal, please contact Paul J.
Pantano, Jr. ([email protected]), Anthony M. Mansfield ([email protected]), Neal E.
Kumar ([email protected]), Jonathan Flynn ([email protected]), or Michael S. Selig
([email protected]).
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
4