Acceptance of Public Submissions on a Study Mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Section 719(b), 76706-76708 [2010-30905]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
76706
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices
to adopt rules for the capital and margin
requirements applicable to swaps and
security-based swaps of swap dealers,
major swap participants, security-based
swap dealers, and security-based swap
participants. The discussion will be
open to the public with seating on a
first-come, first-served basis. Members
of the public may also listen to the
meeting by telephone. Call-in
participants should be prepared to
provide their first name, last name and
affiliation. The information for the
conference call is set forth below.
• U.S. Toll-Free: 877–951–7311
• International Toll: 1–203–607–0666
• Conference ID: 8978249
A transcript of the public roundtable
discussion will be published at https://
www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/
DoddFrankAct/OTC_5_CapMargin.html.
The roundtable discussion will take
place in Lobby Level Hearing Room
(Room 1000) at the CFTC’s headquarters
at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
CFTC’s Office of Public Affairs at (202)
418–5080 or the SEC’s Office of Public
Affairs at (202) 551–4120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
roundtable discussion will take place on
Friday, December 10, 2010,
commencing at 1 p.m. and ending at 5
p.m. Members of the public who wish
to comment on the topics addressed at
the discussion, or on any other topics
related to capital and margin
requirements for swaps and securitybased swaps in the context of the Act,
may do so via:
• Paper submission to David Stawick,
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581, or Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090; or
• Electronic submission to
CapitalandMargin@CFTC.gov (all emails must reference ‘‘Dodd Frank
Roundtable Capital and Margin
Requirements’’ in the subject field); and/
or by e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov
or through the comment form available
at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/
other.shtml.
All submissions will be reviewed jointly
by the Agencies. All comments must be
in English or be accompanied by an
English translation. All submissions
provided to either Agency in any
electronic form or on paper will be
published on the Web site of the
respective Agency, without review and
without removal of personally
identifying information. Please submit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Dec 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
only information that you wish to make
publicly available.
By the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Dated: December 6, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
By the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
Dated: December 6, 2010.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–31003 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P; 8011–01–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63423; File No. 4–620]
Acceptance of Public Submissions on
a Study Mandated by the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Section 719(b)
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
AGENCY:
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) was enacted on July
21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act, among
other things, mandates that the
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’)
conduct a study on ‘‘the feasibility of
requiring the derivatives industry to
adopt standardized computer-readable
algorithmic descriptions which may be
used to describe complex and
standardized financial derivatives.’’
These algorithmic descriptions should
be designed to ‘‘facilitate computerized
analysis of individual derivative
contracts and to calculate net exposures
to complex derivatives.’’ The study also
must consider the extent to which the
algorithmic description, ‘‘together with
standardized and extensible legal
definitions, may serve as the binding
legal definition of derivative contracts.’’
In connection with this study, the staff
of the CFTC and SEC seek responses of
interested parties to the questions set
forth below.
DATES: The CFTC will accept
submissions on behalf of both agencies
in response to the questions through
December 31, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit responses
to the CFTC, identified in the subject
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
line with ‘‘algorithmic study’’ by any of
the following methods:
• CFTC Agency Web site: https://
www.cftc.gov, via its Comments Online
process at https://comments.cftc.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments through the Web site.
• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of
the Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
mail above.
Please submit your comments using
only one method.
All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received to https://
www.cftc.gov and https://www.sec.gov.
You should submit only information
that you wish to make available
publicly. If you wish the CFTC to
consider information that you believe is
exempt from disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act, a petition
for confidential treatment of the exempt
information may be submitted according
to the procedures established in CFTC
Regulation 145.9, 17 CFR 145.9.
The CFTC and the SEC reserve the
right, but shall have no obligation, to
review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse
or remove any or all of your submission
from https://www.cftc.gov and https://
www.sec.gov that they may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as
obscene language. All submissions that
have been redacted or removed that
contain comments may be accessible
under the Freedom of Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy R. Doyle, Office of the General
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581, telephone: (202) 418–5136, or
Matthew P. Reed, Division of Risk,
Strategy, and Financial Innovation,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-[mail stop], telephone (202) 551–
2607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
21, 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), Public Law 111–
203, was enacted.
Pursuant to Title VII, Sec. 719(b) of
Dodd-Frank, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, jointly,
must report to Congress by March of
2011 on ‘‘the feasibility of requiring the
derivatives industry to adopt
standardized computer-readable
algorithmic descriptions which may be
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices
used to describe complex and
standardized financial derivatives.’’
These algorithmic descriptions should
be designed to ‘‘facilitate computerized
analysis of individual derivative
contracts and to calculate net exposures
to complex derivatives.’’ The study also
must consider whether a combination of
these algorithmic descriptions and
‘‘standardized and extensible legal
definitions[ ] may serve as the binding
legal definition of derivative contracts.’’
A copy of the text of the statute
calling for this study may be found here:
https://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_
Frank_Act_Text_Section_719.html.
In furtherance of this report, we seek
responses to the following questions.
Please note that responses may be made
public, and may be cited in this report.
Questions relate to the current use of
standardized computer-readable
descriptions for both data storage and
messaging, and to the usefulness and
cost of any transition to a universal
standard for messaging and data storage.
Responders are encouraged to provide
any additional relevant information
beyond that called for by these
questions.
Calculation of ‘‘Net Exposures to
Complex Derivatives’’ and other
‘‘Computerized Analysis’’:
1. How would your organization or
community define ‘‘net exposures to
complex derivatives?’’
2. Do you calculate net exposures to
complex derivatives?
3. What data do you require to
calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives? Does it depend on the
derivatives instrument type? How?
4. Are there any difficulties associated
with your ability to gather the data
needed to calculate net exposures to
complex derivatives? What are they?
5. What other analyses do you
currently perform on derivatives
agreements? What kinds of analyses
would you like to perform, and how
could regulators and standards setters
make those analyses possible?
6. How often do you perform net
exposure calculations at the level of
your organization? Is it continuous and
real time, only for periodic external
reporting, or some frequency in
between?
Current practices concerning
standardized computer descriptions of
derivatives:
7. Do you rely on a discrete set of
computer-readable descriptions
(‘‘ontologies’’) to define and describe
derivatives transactions and positions?
If yes, what computer language do you
use?
8. If you use one or more ontologies
to define derivatives transactions and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Dec 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
positions, are they proprietary or open
to the public? Are they used by your
counterparties and others in the
derivatives industry?
9. How do you maintain and extend
the ontologies that you use to define
derivatives data to cover new financial
derivative products? How frequently are
new terms, concepts and definitions
added?
10. What is the scope and variety of
derivatives and their positions covered
by the ontologies that you use? What do
they describe well, and what are their
limitations?
11. How do you think any limitations
to the ontologies you use to describe
derivatives can be overcome?
12. Are these ontologies able to
describe derivatives transactions in
sufficient detail to enable you to
calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives?
13. Are these ontologies able to
describe derivatives transactions in
sufficient detail to enable you to
perform other analysis? What types of
analysis can you conduct with this data,
and what additional data must be
captured to perform this analysis?
14. Which identifier regimes, if any,
do you use to identify counterparties,
financial instruments, and other entities
as part of derivatives contract analysis?
Current use of standardized computer
readable descriptions for messaging of
derivatives transactions:
15. Which computer language or
message standard do you currently use
to create and communicate your
messages for derivatives transactions?
16. Is there a difference between the
created message and the communicated
message? For example, does your
internally archived version of the
message contain proprietary fields or
data that are removed when it is
communicated to counterparties or
clearing houses?
17. Are different messaging standards
used to describe different contracts,
counterparties, and transactions?
18. How and where are the messages
stored, and do the messages capture
different information from that
information stored in internal systems?
19. What information is currently
communicated, by and to whom, and for
what purposes?
20. For lifecycle event messages (e.g.,
credit events, changes of party names or
identifiers), are there extant messaging
standards that can update data relating
to derivatives contracts that are stored
in data repositories?
21. What other standards (i.e., FpML,
FIX, etc.) related to derivatives
transactions does your organization or
community use, and for what purposes?
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76707
Has your implementation of these
standards had any effect on the way
your business is conducted (e.g., does it
reduce misunderstanding of contract
terms, has it increased the frequency or
ease of trades).
22. Is the data represented by this/
these messaging standard(s) complete
enough to calculate net exposures to
complex derivatives? What additional
information would need to be
represented?
23. In general, to what extent are
XML-based languages able to describe a
derivatives contract for further analysis?
To what extent is other technology
needed to provide a full description?
24. What other analysis can be
conducted with this data? What
additional information should be
captured?
25. Do you have plans to change your
messaging schemes/formats in the near
future?
26. Are there identifier regimes
widely used in the derivatives market
for identifying counterparties, financial
instruments, and other entities in
messaging?
The need for standardized computer
descriptions of derivatives:
27. Would there be a benefit to
standardizing computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives?
What about standardization for a certain
class/type of financial derivatives (i.e.,
CDS versus interest rate, or plain vanilla
versus complex)?
28. What would be the issues, costs
and concerns associated with
standardizing computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives?
Are there existing standards that could
or should be expanded (i.e., FpML, FIX,
etc.)? Do the existing standards in this
area have materially different costs or
issues?
29. What would be an ideal ontology
for you in terms of design,
implementation, and maintenance of the
data sets and applications needed for
your business?
30. How would a standardized
computer readable description of
financial derivatives be developed and
maintained (i.e., a governmentsponsored initiative, a public-private
partnership, standard-setting by a
collaborative process, etc.)? Are there
current models that should be
considered?
31. What is the importance of
ontologies for the representation of
derivatives data now and in the future?
Implementation:
32. Have you ever implemented a
transition to a new data ontology, data
messaging standard, or internal data
standard?
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
76708
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
33. If yes, how did the perceived and
actual benefits compare to estimated
and actual costs over the short- and
long-run?
34. What were the main difficulties
that you experienced during a
transition/implementation of new data
standards? What could the organization
developing and maintaining the
standards do (or avoid) to help alleviate
these difficulties?
35. Would it be useful to use a
standardized, computer readable
description for financial derivatives
instruments? How would it be useful?
Would such a standard be useful for
communicating transactions, storing
position information, both, or other
purposes? What would be the costs
involved?
36. How should regulators and
standard setters implement description
standards in the derivatives market?
Making computer descriptions legally
binding:
37. Are there currently aspects of
financial derivatives messaged in a
computer readable format that have a
legally-binding effect?
38. What information, if any, is not
captured that would be required to
make the computer descriptions
themselves, without reference to other
materials, legally binding?
39. What information would need to
be captured for a legally binding
contract that would not need to be
captured for analyzing the contract? Is
there a substantial cost differential
between the processes needed to
capture one set of information versus
another?
40. Would there be a benefit to
making the computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives
legally binding? Would there be
drawbacks? What are they?
Other:
41. Is there other information not
called for by these questions that we
should consider?
Dated: December 2, 2010.
By the CFTC.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
By the Commission (SEC).
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–30905 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–8011–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:35 Dec 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0115]
Extension of the Date by Which Youth
All-Terrain Vehicles Must Be Tested
and Certified
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of extension of date of
testing and certification of youth allterrain vehicles.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) is announcing that the
Commission has extended, by 60 days,
the date by which manufacturers
(including importers) of youth allterrain vehicles (ATVs) must submit
sufficient samples of such products to a
third party conformity assessment body
approved by the Commission for testing
and, based on such testing, issue a
certificate that the products
manufactured after the deadline comply
with certain CPSC regulations relating
to ATVs. The extension is granted
because there are an insufficient number
of third party conformity assessment
bodies accredited by the Commission to
permit testing and certification under
the original schedule.1
DATES: The date after which youth ATVs
must be tested by third party conformity
assessment bodies accredited by the
Commission to assess conformity with
the CPSC regulations for all-terrain
vehicles is extended until January 25,
2011.
Comments in response to this notice
should be submitted by December 30,
2010. Comments on this notice should
be captioned ‘‘Third Party Testing and
Certification of Youth All-Terrain
Vehicles: Request for Stay of
Enforcement and Other Relief.’’
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010–
0115, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments in the following
way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
To ensure timely processing of
comments, the Commission is no longer
accepting comments submitted by
electronic mail (e-mail) except through:
https://www.regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
1 The Commission voted 3–1–1 to approve this
notice. Chairman Inez Tennenbaum, Commissioner
Thomas Moore, and Commissioner Robert Adler
approved the notice. Commissioner Nancy Nord
voted to approve a different version of the notice.
Commissioner Anne Northup abstained.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions),
preferably in five copies, to: Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. All
comments received may be posted
without change to: https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Do not
submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive or protected information
(such as a Social Security Number)
electronically; if furnished at all, such
information should be submitted in
writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard McCallion, Program Area Team
Leader, Office of Hazard Identification
and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission,10901 Darnestown
Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878; e-mail:
rmccallion@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, as
added by section 102(a)(2) of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110–
314, directs the CPSC to establish and
publish a notice of requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to assess children’s
products for conformity with ‘‘other
children’s product safety rules.’’ Section
14(f)(1) of the CPSA defines ‘‘children’s
product safety rule’’ as ‘‘a consumer
product safety rule under [the CPSA] or
similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban
under any other Act enforced by the
Commission, including a rule declaring
a consumer product to be a banned
hazardous product or substance.’’ Under
section 14(a)(3)(A) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(A), each manufacturer
(including an importer) or private
labeler of products subject to those
regulations must have products that are
manufactured more than 90 days after
the establishment and Federal Register
publication of a notice of the
requirements for accreditation tested by
a third party conformity assessment
body accredited to do so, and must issue
a certificate of compliance with the
applicable regulations based on that
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76706-76708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30905]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-63423; File No. 4-620]
Acceptance of Public Submissions on a Study Mandated by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Section 719(b)
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') was enacted on July 21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act,
among other things, mandates that the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'') conduct a study on ``the feasibility of requiring the
derivatives industry to adopt standardized computer-readable
algorithmic descriptions which may be used to describe complex and
standardized financial derivatives.'' These algorithmic descriptions
should be designed to ``facilitate computerized analysis of individual
derivative contracts and to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives.'' The study also must consider the extent to which the
algorithmic description, ``together with standardized and extensible
legal definitions, may serve as the binding legal definition of
derivative contracts.'' In connection with this study, the staff of the
CFTC and SEC seek responses of interested parties to the questions set
forth below.
DATES: The CFTC will accept submissions on behalf of both agencies in
response to the questions through December 31, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit responses to the CFTC, identified in the
subject line with ``algorithmic study'' by any of the following
methods:
CFTC Agency Web site: https://www.cftc.gov, via its
Comments Online process at https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.
Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail above.
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied
by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
https://www.cftc.gov and https://www.sec.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the
CFTC to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential
treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the
procedures established in CFTC Regulation 145.9, 17 CFR 145.9.
The CFTC and the SEC reserve the right, but shall have no
obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any
or all of your submission from https://www.cftc.gov and https://www.sec.gov that they may deem to be inappropriate for publication,
such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or
removed that contain comments may be accessible under the Freedom of
Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy R. Doyle, Office of the General
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, telephone: (202) 418-5136,
or Matthew P. Reed, Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial
Innovation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-[mail stop], telephone (202) 551-2607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), Public Law
111-203, was enacted.
Pursuant to Title VII, Sec. 719(b) of Dodd-Frank, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
jointly, must report to Congress by March of 2011 on ``the feasibility
of requiring the derivatives industry to adopt standardized computer-
readable algorithmic descriptions which may be
[[Page 76707]]
used to describe complex and standardized financial derivatives.''
These algorithmic descriptions should be designed to ``facilitate
computerized analysis of individual derivative contracts and to
calculate net exposures to complex derivatives.'' The study also must
consider whether a combination of these algorithmic descriptions and
``standardized and extensible legal definitions[ ] may serve as the
binding legal definition of derivative contracts.''
A copy of the text of the statute calling for this study may be
found here: https://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_Frank_Act_Text_Section_719.html.
In furtherance of this report, we seek responses to the following
questions. Please note that responses may be made public, and may be
cited in this report. Questions relate to the current use of
standardized computer-readable descriptions for both data storage and
messaging, and to the usefulness and cost of any transition to a
universal standard for messaging and data storage. Responders are
encouraged to provide any additional relevant information beyond that
called for by these questions.
Calculation of ``Net Exposures to Complex Derivatives'' and other
``Computerized Analysis'':
1. How would your organization or community define ``net exposures
to complex derivatives?''
2. Do you calculate net exposures to complex derivatives?
3. What data do you require to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives? Does it depend on the derivatives instrument type? How?
4. Are there any difficulties associated with your ability to
gather the data needed to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives? What are they?
5. What other analyses do you currently perform on derivatives
agreements? What kinds of analyses would you like to perform, and how
could regulators and standards setters make those analyses possible?
6. How often do you perform net exposure calculations at the level
of your organization? Is it continuous and real time, only for periodic
external reporting, or some frequency in between?
Current practices concerning standardized computer descriptions of
derivatives:
7. Do you rely on a discrete set of computer-readable descriptions
(``ontologies'') to define and describe derivatives transactions and
positions? If yes, what computer language do you use?
8. If you use one or more ontologies to define derivatives
transactions and positions, are they proprietary or open to the public?
Are they used by your counterparties and others in the derivatives
industry?
9. How do you maintain and extend the ontologies that you use to
define derivatives data to cover new financial derivative products? How
frequently are new terms, concepts and definitions added?
10. What is the scope and variety of derivatives and their
positions covered by the ontologies that you use? What do they describe
well, and what are their limitations?
11. How do you think any limitations to the ontologies you use to
describe derivatives can be overcome?
12. Are these ontologies able to describe derivatives transactions
in sufficient detail to enable you to calculate net exposures to
complex derivatives?
13. Are these ontologies able to describe derivatives transactions
in sufficient detail to enable you to perform other analysis? What
types of analysis can you conduct with this data, and what additional
data must be captured to perform this analysis?
14. Which identifier regimes, if any, do you use to identify
counterparties, financial instruments, and other entities as part of
derivatives contract analysis?
Current use of standardized computer readable descriptions for
messaging of derivatives transactions:
15. Which computer language or message standard do you currently
use to create and communicate your messages for derivatives
transactions?
16. Is there a difference between the created message and the
communicated message? For example, does your internally archived
version of the message contain proprietary fields or data that are
removed when it is communicated to counterparties or clearing houses?
17. Are different messaging standards used to describe different
contracts, counterparties, and transactions?
18. How and where are the messages stored, and do the messages
capture different information from that information stored in internal
systems?
19. What information is currently communicated, by and to whom, and
for what purposes?
20. For lifecycle event messages (e.g., credit events, changes of
party names or identifiers), are there extant messaging standards that
can update data relating to derivatives contracts that are stored in
data repositories?
21. What other standards (i.e., FpML, FIX, etc.) related to
derivatives transactions does your organization or community use, and
for what purposes? Has your implementation of these standards had any
effect on the way your business is conducted (e.g., does it reduce
misunderstanding of contract terms, has it increased the frequency or
ease of trades).
22. Is the data represented by this/these messaging standard(s)
complete enough to calculate net exposures to complex derivatives? What
additional information would need to be represented?
23. In general, to what extent are XML-based languages able to
describe a derivatives contract for further analysis? To what extent is
other technology needed to provide a full description?
24. What other analysis can be conducted with this data? What
additional information should be captured?
25. Do you have plans to change your messaging schemes/formats in
the near future?
26. Are there identifier regimes widely used in the derivatives
market for identifying counterparties, financial instruments, and other
entities in messaging?
The need for standardized computer descriptions of derivatives:
27. Would there be a benefit to standardizing computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives? What about standardization for a
certain class/type of financial derivatives (i.e., CDS versus interest
rate, or plain vanilla versus complex)?
28. What would be the issues, costs and concerns associated with
standardizing computer readable descriptions of financial derivatives?
Are there existing standards that could or should be expanded (i.e.,
FpML, FIX, etc.)? Do the existing standards in this area have
materially different costs or issues?
29. What would be an ideal ontology for you in terms of design,
implementation, and maintenance of the data sets and applications
needed for your business?
30. How would a standardized computer readable description of
financial derivatives be developed and maintained (i.e., a government-
sponsored initiative, a public-private partnership, standard-setting by
a collaborative process, etc.)? Are there current models that should be
considered?
31. What is the importance of ontologies for the representation of
derivatives data now and in the future?
Implementation:
32. Have you ever implemented a transition to a new data ontology,
data messaging standard, or internal data standard?
[[Page 76708]]
33. If yes, how did the perceived and actual benefits compare to
estimated and actual costs over the short- and long-run?
34. What were the main difficulties that you experienced during a
transition/implementation of new data standards? What could the
organization developing and maintaining the standards do (or avoid) to
help alleviate these difficulties?
35. Would it be useful to use a standardized, computer readable
description for financial derivatives instruments? How would it be
useful? Would such a standard be useful for communicating transactions,
storing position information, both, or other purposes? What would be
the costs involved?
36. How should regulators and standard setters implement
description standards in the derivatives market?
Making computer descriptions legally binding:
37. Are there currently aspects of financial derivatives messaged
in a computer readable format that have a legally-binding effect?
38. What information, if any, is not captured that would be
required to make the computer descriptions themselves, without
reference to other materials, legally binding?
39. What information would need to be captured for a legally
binding contract that would not need to be captured for analyzing the
contract? Is there a substantial cost differential between the
processes needed to capture one set of information versus another?
40. Would there be a benefit to making the computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives legally binding? Would there be
drawbacks? What are they?
Other:
41. Is there other information not called for by these questions
that we should consider?
Dated: December 2, 2010.
By the CFTC.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
By the Commission (SEC).
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30905 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-8011-01-P
