Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 70213-70354 [2012-26164]

Download as PDF Vol. 77 Friday, No. 226 November 23, 2012 Part II Securities and Exchange Commission emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 17 CFR Part 240 Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 240 [Release No. 34–68071; File No. S7–08–12] RIN 3235–AL12 Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major SecurityBased Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In accordance with the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’), is proposing capital and margin requirements for securitybased swap dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’) and major security-based swap participants (‘‘MSBSPs’’), segregation requirements for SBSDs, and notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission also is proposing to increase the minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealers permitted to use the alternative internal model-based method for computing net capital (‘‘ANC broker-dealers’’). DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 22, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: SUMMARY: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/proposed.shtml); or • Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File Number S7–08–12 on the subject line; or • Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7–08–12. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, at (202) 551–5525; Thomas K. McGowan, Deputy Associate Director, at (202) 551–5521; Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director, at (202) 551–5522; Mark M. Attar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–5889; Sheila Dombal Swartz, Special Counsel, at (202) 551–5545; Valentina M. Deng, Attorney, at (202) 551–5778; or Teen I. Sheng, Attorney, at 202–551–5511, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–7010. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments A. Capital 1. Introduction 2. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank SBSDs a. Computing Required Minimum Net Capital i. Stand-alone SBSDs Not Using Internal Models ii. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Not Using Internal Models iii. Stand-alone SBSDs Using Internal Models iv. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Using Internal Models and ANC Broker-Dealers b. Computing Net Capital i. The Net Liquid Assets Test ii. Standardized Haircuts for SecurityBased Swaps iii. VaR Models iv. Credit Risk Charges v. Capital Charge In Lieu of Margin Collateral vi. Treatment of Swaps c. Risk Management d. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement e. Other Rule 15c3–1 Provisions Incorporated into Rule 18a–1 i. Debt-Equity Ratio Requirements ii. Capital Withdrawal Requirements iii. Appendix C iv. Appendix D 3. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank MSBSPs B. Margin 1. Introduction PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2. Proposed Margin Requirements for Nonbank SBSDs and Nonbank MSBSPs a. Scope of Rule 18a–3 b. Daily Calculations i. Nonbank SBSDs ii. Nonbank MSBSPs c. Account Equity Requirements i. Nonbank SBSDs ii. Nonbank MSBSPs d. $100,000 Minimum Transfer Amount e. Risk Monitoring and Procedures 3. Specific Request for Comment to Limit the Use of Collateral C. Segregation 1. Background 2. Proposed Rule 18a–4 a. Possession and Control of Excess Securities Collateral b. Security-Based Swap Customer Reserve Account c. Special Provisions for Non-cleared Security-Based Swap Counterparties III. General Request for Comment IV. Paperwork Reduction Act A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments 1. Proposed Rule 18a–1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3–1 2. Proposed Rule 18a–2 3. Proposed Rule 18a–3 4. Proposed Rule 18a–4 B. Proposed Use of Information C. Respondents D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden 1. Proposed Rule 18a–1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3–1 2. Proposed Rule 18a–2 3. Proposed Rule 18a–3 4. Proposed Rule 18a–4 E. Collection Of Information Is Mandatory F. Confidentiality G. Retention Period For Recordkeeping Requirements H. Request For Comment V. Economic Analysis A. Baseline Of Economic Analysis 1. Overview of the OTC Derivatives Markets—Baseline for Proposed Rules 18a–1 through 18a–4 2. Baseline for Amendments to Rule 15c3– 1 B. Analysis of the Proposals and Alternatives 1. Overview—The Proposed Financial Responsibility Program a. Nonbank SBSDs b. Nonbank MSBSPs 2. The Proposed Capital Rules a. Nonbank SBSDs and ANC Broker-dealers i. Minimum Capital Requirements ii. Standardized Haircuts iii. Capital Charge in Lieu of Margin Collateral iv. Credit Risk Charge v. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement vi. Risk Management Procedures b. Capital Requirements for MSBSPs c. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation 3. The Proposed Margin Rule—Rule 18a– 3 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules a. Calculation of Margin Amount b. Account Equity Requirements i. Commercial end users ii. SBSDs—Alternatives A and B c. Margin Requirements for NonbankMSBSPs d. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation 4. Proposed Segregation Rule—Rule 18a–4 a. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation C. Implementation Considerations D. General Request for Comment VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification VII. Statutory Basis and Text of the Proposed Amendments I. Background On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.1 Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (‘‘Title VII’’) established a new regulatory framework for OTC derivatives.2 In this 1 See Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ See Public Law 111–203 § 701. The Dodd-Frank Act assigns responsibility for the oversight of the U.S. OTC derivatives markets to the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’), and certain ‘‘prudential regulators,’’ discussed below. The Commission has oversight authority with respect to a security-based swap as defined in section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)), including to implement a registration and oversight program for a security-based swap dealer as defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)) and a major securitybased swap participant as defined in section 3(a)(67) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)). The CFTC has oversight authority with respect to a swap as defined in section 1(a)(47) of the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(47)), including to implement a registration and oversight program for a swap dealer as defined in section 1(a)(49) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(49)) and a major swap participant as defined in section 1(a)(33) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(33)). The Commission and the CFTC jointly have adopted rules to further define, among other things, those terms and the terms swap, security-based swap, swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap dealer, and major security-based swap participant. See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement’’; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release No. 64372 (Apr. 29, 2011), 76 FR 29818 (May 23, 2011) (‘‘Product Definitions Proposing Release’’); Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement’’; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release No. 67453 (July 18, 2012), 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012) (Joint final rule with the CFTC) (‘‘Product Definitions Adopting Release’’); Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, Exchange Act Release No. 63452 (Dec. 7, 2010), 75 FR 80174 (Dec. 21, 2010) (Joint proposal with the CFTC) (‘‘Entity Definitions Proposing Release’’); and Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘SecurityBased Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2 Pursuant VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 regard, Title VII was enacted, among other reasons, to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system by, among other things: (i) Providing for the registration and regulation of SBSDs and MSBSPs; (ii) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on standardized derivative products; (iii) creating recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (iv) enhancing the Commission’s rulemaking and enforcement authorities with respect to all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the Commission’s oversight.3 Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange Act.4 Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs that do not have a prudential regulator (respectively, ‘‘nonbank SBSDs’’ and ‘‘nonbank MSBSPs’’).5 Section 763 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 3E to the Exchange Act.6 Section 3E provides the Commission with authority to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.7 Section 4s(e)(1)(B) of the CEA provides that the CFTC shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants for which there is not a prudential regulator (‘‘nonbank swap dealers’’ and ‘‘nonbank swap participants’’).8 Section 15F(e)(1)(A) of ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, Exchange Act Release No. 66868 (Apr. 27, 2012), 77 FR 30596 (May 23, 2012) (Joint final rule with the CFTC) (‘‘Entity Definitions Adopting Release’’). 3 See Public Law 111–203 §§ 701–774. 4 See id. § 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o–10. 5 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(1)(B). Specifically, section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that each registered SBSD and MSBSP for which there is not a prudential regulator shall meet such minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin requirements as the Commission shall by rule or regulation prescribe. The term ‘‘prudential regulator’’ is defined in section 1(a)(39) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(39)) and that definition is incorporated by reference in section 3(a)(74) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(74)). Pursuant to the definition, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (‘‘Federal Reserve’’), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (‘‘OCC’’), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’), the Farm Credit Administration, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the ‘‘prudential regulators’’) is the ‘‘prudential regulator’’ of an SBSD, MSBSP, swap participant, or major swap participant if the entity is directly supervised by that agency. 6 See Public Law 111–203 § 763; 15 U.S.C. 78c– 5. 7 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(a)–(g). Section 3E of the Exchange Act does not distinguish between bank and nonbank SBSDs and bank and nonbank MSBSPs, and, consequently, provides the Commission with the authority to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs, whether or not they have a prudential regulator. Id. 8 See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(B). PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70215 the Exchange Act provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, and section 4s(e)(1)(A) of the CEA provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants for which there is a prudential regulator (‘‘bank swap dealers’’ and ‘‘bank swap participants’’).9 The prudential regulators have proposed capital and margin requirements for bank swap dealers, bank SBSDs, bank swap participants, and bank MSBSPs.10 The CFTC has proposed capital and margin requirements for nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants.11 The CFTC also has adopted segregation requirements for cleared swaps and proposed segregation requirements for non-cleared swaps.12 Pursuant to sections 763 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 15c3–1 and Rule 15c3–3 and propose new Rules 18a–1 (including appendices to Rule 18a–1), 18a–2, 18a–3, and 18a–4 (including an exhibit to Rule 18a–4).13 The proposed amendments and new rules would establish capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs, including broker-dealers that are registered as SBSDs (‘‘broker-dealer SBSDs’’), and nonbank MSBSPs. They also would establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Further, the proposals also would increase the minimum net capital 9 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(1)(A); 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A). 10 See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 76 FR 27564 (May 11, 2011) (‘‘Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release’’). The prudential regulators, as part of their proposed margin requirements for noncleared security-based swaps, proposed a segregation requirement for collateral received as margin. Id. 11 See Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 76 FR 27802 (May 12, 2011) (‘‘CFTC Capital Proposing Release’’); Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 76 FR 23732 (Apr. 28, 2011) (‘‘CFTC Margin Proposing Release’’). The CFTC reopened the comment period for the CFTC Margin Proposing Release to allow interested parties to comment on the CFTC proposed rules in light of the proposals discussed in the international consultative paper. See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 41109 (July 12, 2012). 12 See Protection of Cleared Swaps Customer Contracts and Collateral; Conforming Amendments to the Commodity Broker Bankruptcy Provisions, 77 FR 6336 (Feb. 7, 2012) and Protection of Collateral of Counterparties to Non-cleared Swaps; Treatment of Securities in a Portfolio Margining Account in a Commodity Broker Bankruptcy, 75 FR 75432 (Dec. 3, 2010). 13 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1; 17 CFR 240.15c3–3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules requirements and establish liquidity requirements for ANC broker-dealers.14 An ANC broker-dealer is a broker-dealer that has been approved by the Commission to use internal value-at-risk (‘‘VaR’’) models to determine market risk charges for proprietary securities and derivatives positions and to take a credit risk charge in lieu of a 100% charge for unsecured receivables related to OTC derivatives transactions (hereinafter, collectively ‘‘internal models’’). The proposed amendments applicable to ANC broker-dealers are designed to account for their large size, the scale of their custodial activities, and the potential substantial leverage they may take on if they become more active in the security-based swap markets under the Dodd-Frank Act reforms, which, among other things, require dealers in security-based swaps to register with the Commission.15 Finally, some of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would apply to broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs. These proposed amendments are designed to maintain a consistent capital treatment for securitybased swaps and swaps under Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1. As discussed in detail below, the proposals for capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs are based in large part on existing capital, margin, and segregation requirements for broker-dealers (‘‘broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements’’).16 The broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements served as the model for the proposals because the financial markets in which SBSDs and MSBSPs are expected to operate are similar to the financial markets in which broker-dealers operate. In addition, as discussed below, the objectives of the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements are similar to the objectives underlying the proposals. Moreover, the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements have existed for many years and have facilitated the prudent operation of broker-dealers.17 Consequently, they 14 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3– emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 1e. 15 See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(a)(1) (‘‘It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a security-based swap dealer unless the person is registered as a security-based swap dealer with the Commission.’’). 16 See infra section II.A.1. of this release (describing generally the broker-dealer capital standards); section II.B.1. of this release (describing generally the broker-dealer margin standards); section II.C.1. of this release (describing generally the broker-dealer segregation requirements). 17 For example, one of the objectives of the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements is to protect customers from the consequences of the financial failure of a broker-dealer in terms of VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 provide a reasonable template for building a financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Furthermore, it is expected that some nonbank SBSDs also will register as broker-dealers in order to be able to offer customers a broader range of services than a nonbank SBSD not registered as a broker-dealer (‘‘standalone SBSD’’) would be permitted to engage in. Therefore, establishing consistent financial responsibility requirements would avoid potential competitive disparities between standalone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs. However, the Commission recognizes that there may be other approaches to establishing financial responsibility requirements that may be appropriate— including, for example, applying a standard based on the international capital standard for banks (‘‘Basel Standard’’) 18 in the case of entities that are part of a bank holding company, as has been proposed by the CFTC.19 In general, the bank capital model requires the holding of specified levels of capital as a percentage of ‘‘risk weighted assets.’’ 20 It does not require generally a full capital deduction for unsecured receivables, given that banks, as lending entities, are in the business of extending credit to a range of counterparties. This approach could promote a consistent view and management of capital within a bank holding company structure. The Commission is not proposing this approach, however, both safeguarding customer securities and funds held by the broker-dealer. It should be noted that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (‘‘SIPC’’), since its inception in 1971, has initiated customer protection proceedings for only 324 broker-dealers, which is less than 1% of the approximately 39,200 broker-dealers that have been members of SIPC during that timeframe. From 1971 through December 31, 2011, approximately 1% of the $117.5 billion of cash and securities distributed for accounts of customers came from the SIPC fund rather than debtors’ estates. See SIPC, Annual Report 2011, available at https://www.sipc.org/ Portals/0/PDF/2011_Annual_Report.pdf (‘‘SIPC 2011 Annual Report’’). 18 The Basel Standard was developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements (‘‘BCBS’’). More information about the Basel Standard is available at the Web site of the Bank for International Settlements (‘‘BIS’’) at https://www.bis.org/bcbs/ index.htm. 19 CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 20 The prudential regulators also have proposed capital rules that would require a covered swap entity to comply with the regulatory capital rules already made applicable to that covered swap entity as part of its prudential regulatory regime. Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27568. The prudential regulators note that they have ‘‘had risk-based capital rules in place for banks to address over-the-counter derivatives since 1989 when the banking agencies implemented their risk-based capital adequacy standards * * * based on the first Basel Accord.’’ Id. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 because of the distinctions between bank and nonbank dealer business models and access to backstop liquidity, as well as uncertainties as to how a bank capital standard would in practice affect valuations and the conduct of business in a nonbank entity; but the Commission is specifically seeking comment on this approach. In addition, detailed comment is requested below on alternative financial responsibility frameworks that could serve as a model for establishing financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The minimum financial and customer protection requirements proposed today—like other financial tests that market participants use in the ordinary course of business to manage risk or to comply with applicable regulations— incorporate many specific numerical thresholds, limits, deductions, and ratios.21 The Commission recognizes that each such quantitative requirement could be read by some to imply a definitive conclusion based on quantitative analysis of that requirement and its alternatives. The Commission notes in this regard that the specific quantitative requirements included in this proposal have not been derived directly from econometric or mathematical models, nor has the Commission performed a detailed quantitative analysis of the likely economic consequences of the specific quantitative requirements being included in this proposal. As discussed in the economic analysis below, there are a number of challenges presented in conducting such a quantitative analysis in a robust fashion. Accordingly, the selection of a particular quantitative requirement proposed below reflects a qualitative assessment by the Commission regarding the appropriate financial standard for an identified issue. In making such assessments and in turn selecting proposed quantitative requirements, the Commission has drawn from its experiences in regulating broker-dealers and has frequently looked to comparable quantitative elements in the existing broker-dealer financial responsibility regime (e.g., the current capital charges in the existing broker-dealer net capital rule) or, where appropriate, the existing or proposed regulations of the prudential regulators, 21 For example, the proposed capital requirements would include in the formula that determines minimum net capital an amount generally equal to 8% of the amount of margin that nonbank SBSDs would be required to collect from counterparties. Similarly, the capital and margin proposals, in setting ‘‘haircut’’ requirements to reflect market risk for certain types of securitybased swaps, propose to use a numerical grid that establishes specific deductions depending on spread and tenor, among other factors. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules FINRA, or the CFTC with respect to similar activities. For example, the Commission may propose using a specified haircut percentage (e.g., 15%, as opposed to a percentage that is higher or lower) because it believes, based on its experience regulating markets, that such percentage should be sufficient to cover a severe market movement. The Commission has used these comparable quantitative requirements as a reasonable starting point for purposes of the various proposals because, as noted above, there are substantial similarities between the proposed rules and those other regimes in terms of the relevant markets, entities, and regulatory objectives, and because many nonbank SBSDs may also be subject to the existing broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements. The Commission invites comment, including relevant data and analysis, regarding all aspects of the various quantitative requirements reflected in the proposed rules. In particular, data and comment from market participants and other interested parties regarding the likely effect of each proposed quantitative requirement, the effect of such requirements in the aggregate, and potential alternative requirements will be particularly useful to the Commission in evaluating modifications to the proposals. Commenters are also requested to describe in detail any econometric or mathematical models or economic analyses of data, to the extent they exist, that they believe would be relevant for evaluating or modifying any quantitative provisions contained in the proposals. The Commission staff consulted with the prudential regulators and the CFTC in drafting the proposals discussed in this release.22 In addition, the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC were considered in developing the Commission’s proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission’s proposals differ in some respects from proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC, and such differences are described below in connection with the relevant proposals. While some differences are based on differences in the activities of securities firms, banks, and commodities firms, or differences in the products at issue, other differences may reflect an alternative approach to balancing the relevant policy choices and 22 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(3)(D)(i) (‘‘The prudential regulators, the [CFTC], and the [Commission] shall periodically (but not less frequently than annually) consult on the minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin requirements.’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 considerations. Where these differences exist, comment is sought on the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal and whether a given proposal is appropriate based on differences in the business models of the types of entities that would be subject to the respective proposal, the risks of these entities, and any other factors commenters believe relevant.23 The capital, margin, and segregation requirements ultimately adopted, like other requirements established under the Dodd-Frank Act, could have a substantial impact on international commerce and the relative competitive position of intermediaries operating in various, or multiple, jurisdictions. In particular, intermediaries operating in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions could be advantaged or disadvantaged if corresponding requirements are not established in other jurisdictions or if the Commission’s rules are substantially more or less stringent than corresponding requirements in other jurisdictions. This could, among other potential impacts, affect the ability of intermediaries and other market participants based in the U.S. to participate in non-U.S. markets, the ability of non-U.S.-based intermediaries and other market participants to participate in U.S. markets, and whether and how international firms make use of global ‘‘booking entities’’ to centralize risks related to security-based swaps. These issues have been the focus of numerous comments to the Commission and other regulators, Congressional inquiries, and other public dialogue.24 23 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(3)(D)(ii) (providing that the prudential regulators, the CFTC, and the Commission ‘‘shall, to the maximum extent practicable establish and maintain comparable minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin requirements, including the use of noncash collateral,’’ for SBSDs and swap dealers). 24 See, e.g., letter from Senator Tim Johnson, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Congressman Barney Frank, Ranking Member of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, to the CFTC, Commission, Federal Reserve, and FDIC (Oct. 4, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/ s7-25-11/s72511-34.pdf (‘‘Given the global nature of this market, U.S. regulators should avoid creating opportunities for international regulatory arbitrage that could increase systemic risk and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. firms abroad’’); letter from Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas S.A., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Rabobank Nederland, Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Societe Generale, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and UBS AG, to the CFTC, Commission, and Federal Reserve (Feb. 17, 2011), available at https:// www.sec.gov/comments/s7-39-10/s73910-25.pdf (‘‘[T]he home country regulator has the greatest interest in and is in the best position to protect a foreign bank swap dealer under its primary supervision by setting appropriate margin requirements or functionally equivalent capital PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70217 The potential international implications of the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements warrant further consideration. However, consistent with the Commission’s general approach with respect to its other proposals under Title VII, these implications are recognized here but not fully addressed. Instead, the Commission intends to publish a comprehensive release seeking public comment on the full spectrum of issues relating to the application of Title VII to cross-border security-based swap transactions and non-U.S. persons that act in capacities regulated under the Dodd-Frank Act. This approach will provide market participants, foreign regulators, and other interested parties with an opportunity to consider, as an integrated whole, the proposed approach to the cross-border application of Title VII, including capital, margin, and segregation requirements. II. Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments A. Capital 1. Introduction Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act requires that the Commission prescribe capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs.25 The Commission also has concurrent authority under section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act to prescribe capital requirements for brokerdealers.26 The existing broker-dealer capital requirements are contained in charges for non-cleared swaps’’); letter from Carlos Tavares, Vice-Chairman of European Securities and Markets Authority, to the Commission (Jan. 17, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/ s7-35-10/s73510-19.pdf (‘‘if the foreign supervision were not taken into account * * * a foreign [entity would] be subject to multiple regimes * * * [which would be] very challenging for regulated entities and would significantly raise the costs for both the industry and supervisors’’); BCBS, Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (‘‘IOCSO’’), Consultative Document, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-cleared Derivatives (July 2012), available at https://www. iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD387.pdf (consultative document seeking comment on margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives). 25 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(1)(B). 26 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3). Section 771 of the DoddFrank Act states that unless otherwise provided by its terms, its provisions relating to the regulation of the security-based swap markets do not divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the Commission, the CFTC, or any other Federal or State agency, of any authority derived from any other provision of applicable law. See Public Law 111–203 § 771. In addition, section 15F(e)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that nothing in section 15F ‘‘shall limit, or be construed to limit, the authority’’ of the Commission ‘‘to set financial responsibility rules for a broker or dealer * * * in accordance with Section 15(c)(3).’’ 15 U.S.C. 78o– 8(e)(3)(B). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Rule 15c3–1,27 including seven appendices to Rule 15c3–1.28 The minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs would be contained in proposed new Rule 18a–1,29 and the minimum capital requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs would be contained in Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended. Proposed Rule 18a–1 would be structured similarly to Rule 15c3–1 and would contain many provisions that correspond to those in Rule 15c3–1.30 As described above, the capital and other financial responsibility requirements for broker-dealers generally provide a reasonable template for crafting the corresponding requirements for nonbank SBSDs. For example, among other considerations, the objectives of capital standards for both types of entities are similar. Rule 15c3–1, described in detail below, is a net liquid assets test that is designed to require a broker-dealer to maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet all obligations to customers and counterparties and have adequate additional resources to wind-down its business in an orderly manner without the need for a formal proceeding if it fails financially.31 In turn, the objective 27 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. CFR 240.15c3–1a (Options); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b (Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain commodities transactions); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c (Consolidated computations of net capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain subsidiaries and affiliates); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d (Satisfactory subordination agreements); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e (Deductions for market and credit risk for certain brokers or dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f (Optional market and credit risk requirements for OTC derivatives dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1g (Conditions for ultimate holding companies of certain brokers or dealers). 29 See proposed new Rule 18a–1. 30 For example, proposed new Rule 18a–1 would include four appendices: Appendix A (proposed new Rule 18a–1a); Appendix B (proposed new Rule18a–1b); Appendix C (proposed new Rule 18a– 1c); and Appendix D (proposed new Rule 18a–1d). The appendices would correspond to the following appendices to Rule 15c3–1: Appendix A (Options) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1a); Appendix B (Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain commodities transactions) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1b); Appendix C (Consolidated computations of net capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain subsidiaries and affiliates) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1c); and Appendix D (Satisfactory subordination agreements) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1d). 31 See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 38248 (Feb. 6, 1997), 62 FR 6474 (Feb. 12, 1997) (‘‘Rule 15c3–1 requires registered broker-dealers to maintain sufficient liquid assets to enable those firms that fall below the minimum net capital requirements to liquidate in an orderly fashion without the need for a formal proceeding.’’). As indicated, the goal of the rule is to require a brokerdealer to hold sufficient liquid net capital to meet all obligations to creditors, except for creditors who agree to subordinate their claims to all other creditors. As discussed in more detail below, Rule 15c3–1d (Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1) sets forth emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 28 17 VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 of the proposed capital standards for nonbank SBSDs is to protect customer assets and mitigate the consequences of a firm failure, while allowing these firms the flexibility in how they conduct a security-based swaps business. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act divided responsibility for SBSDs by providing the prudential regulators with authority to prescribe the capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and the Commission with authority to prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs.32 This division also suggests it may be appropriate to model the capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs on the capital standards for broker-dealers, while the capital requirements for bank SBSDs are modeled on capital standards for banks (as reflected in the proposal by the prudential regulators).33 Certain operational, policy, and legal differences appear to support this distinction between nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs. First, based on the Commission staff’s understanding of the activities of nonbank dealers in over-the counter (‘‘OTC’’) derivatives, nonbank SBSDs are expected to engage in a securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is more similar to the dealer activities of brokerdealers than to the activities of banks; indeed, some broker-dealers likely will be registered as nonbank SBSDs.34 Second, existing capital standards for banks and broker-dealers reflect, in part, differences in their funding models and access to certain types of financial support, and those same differences also will exist between bank SBSDs and nonbank SBSDs. For example, banks obtain funding through customer deposits and can obtain liquidity through the Federal Reserve’s discount window, whereas broker-dealers do not—and nonbank SBSDs will not— have access to these sources of funding and liquidity. Third, Rule 15c3–1 currently contains provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by broker-dealers and, therefore, to some minimum requirements for a subordinated loan agreement. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. Typically, affiliates of the broker-dealer (e.g., the firm’s holding company) or individual owners of the broker-dealer make subordinated loans to the broker-dealer. If the broker-dealer fails financially and is liquidated, the obligations of the brokerdealer to all other creditors would need to be paid in full before the obligations of the broker-dealer to a subordinated lender are paid. 32 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10, in general; 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2)(A)–(B), in particular. 33 The prudential regulators have proposed capital requirements for bank SBSDs and bank swap dealers that are based on the capital requirements for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27582. 34 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 extent already can accommodate this type of activity (although, as discussed below, proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would be designed to more specifically address the risks of securitybased swaps and the potential for increased involvement of broker-dealers in the security-based swaps markets).35 For these reasons, the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs is a net liquid assets test modeled on the broker-dealer capital standard in Rule 15c3–1.36 However, the Commission 35 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f and 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1e. See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities, Exchange Act Release No. 49830 (June 8, 2004), 69 FR 34428 (June 21, 2004) (‘‘Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release’’); OTC Derivatives Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (Oct. 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362 (Nov. 3, 1998). 36 As noted above, the prudential regulators similarly proposed capital standards for bank SBSDs based on the capital standards for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release 76 FR 27564. The CFTC has proposed three different capital standards for nonbank swap dealers. First, a futures commission merchant (‘‘FCM’’) that is registered as a swap dealer would be subject to the CFTC’s net capital rule for FCMs, which is similar to the Commission’s net capital rule for broker-dealers in that it imposes a net liquid assets test. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. Second, a swap dealer that is not an FCM and not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company would be subject to a ‘‘tangible net equity’’ capital standard (the CFTC proposal defines tangible net equity as equity determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (‘‘GAAP’’), and excludes goodwill and other intangible assets). Third, a swap dealer that is not an FCM and is affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company would be subject to the capital standard that applies to U.S. banking institutions. Id. The proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs would not make such distinctions and, therefore, all nonbank SBSDs would be subject to the net liquid assets test embodied in Rule 15c3– 1 (i.e., regardless of whether they are registered as broker-dealers or affiliates of U.S. bank holding companies). The CFTC proposed a tangible net equity requirement for certain swap dealers to address the probability that commercial entities (e.g., entities engaged in agricultural or energy businesses) may need to register as swap dealers and that imposing a net liquid assets test could require them to engage in significant corporate restructuring and potentially cause undue costs because their equity is comprised of physical and other non-current assets. Differences between the swaps markets and the security-based swaps markets may make a single capital standard more workable for nonbank SBSDs. The swaps market is significantly larger than the security-based swaps market and has many more active participants that are commercial entities. See BIS, OTC Derivatives Market Activity in the Second Half of 2010, Monetary and Economic Department, (May 2011), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1105. pdf. It is expected that financial institutions will comprise a large segment of the security-based swaps market as is currently the case and that these entities are more likely to have affiliates dedicated to OTC derivatives trading and affiliates that are broker-dealers registered with the Commission. See infra section V.A. of this release (providing an overview of the security-based swaps markets). Consequently, these affiliates—because their capital structures are geared towards securities trading or because they already are broker-dealers—would be E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 recognizes that there may be alternative approaches to financial responsibility requirements that may be appropriate.37 Accordingly, in the requests for comment below on the various capital standards, commenters are encouraged: (1) To consider alternative approaches to capital for nonbank SBSDs generally; (2) for nonbank SBSDs that are brokerdealers, to identify what, if any, specific amendments to Rule 15c3–1 and its appendices they believe would not be appropriate for broker-dealers; and (3) for stand-alone SBSDs, to identify what, if any, specific provisions in proposed new Rule 18a–1 and its appendices (including those modeled on provisions in Rule 15c3–1 and its appendices) they believe would not be appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs. The capital standard in Rule 15c3–1— that serves as a model for the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs—is a net liquid assets test. This standard is designed to promote liquidity; the rule allows a broker-dealer to engage in activities that are part of conducting a securities business (e.g., taking securities into inventory) but in a manner that places the firm in the position of holding at all times more than one dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities (e.g., money owed to customers, counterparties, and creditors).38 For example, Rule 15c3–1 able to more readily adhere to a net liquid assets test. In addition, many broker-dealers currently are affiliates within bank holding companies. Consequently, these broker-dealers are subject to Rule 15c3–1, while their bank affiliates are subject to bank capital standards. 37 CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 38 See, e.g., Interpretation Guide to Net Capital Computation for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 8024 (Jan. 18, 1967), 32 FR 856 (Jan. 25, 1967) (‘‘Rule 15c3–1 (17 CFR 240.15c3–1) was adopted to provide safeguards for public investors by setting standards of financial responsibility to be met by brokers and dealers. The basic concept of the rule is liquidity; its object being to require a broker-dealer to have at all times sufficient liquid assets to cover his current indebtedness.’’) (footnotes omitted); Net Capital Treatment of Securities Positions, Obligations and Transactions in Suspended Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 10209 (June 8, 1973), 38 FR 16774 (June 26, 1973) (Commission release of a letter from the Division of Market Regulation) (‘‘The purpose of the net capital rule is to require a broker or dealer to have at all times sufficient liquid assets to cover its current indebtedness. The need for liquidity has long been recognized as vital to the public interest and for the protection of investors and is predicated on the belief that accounts are not opened and maintained with broker-dealers in anticipation of relying upon suit, judgment and execution to collect claims but rather on a reasonable demand one can liquidate his cash or securities positions.’’); Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 15426 (Dec. 21, 1978), 44 FR 1754 (Jan. 8, 1979) (‘‘The rule requires brokers or dealers to have sufficient cash or liquid assets to protect the cash or securities positions carried in their customers’ accounts. The thrust of the rule is to VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 allows securities positions to count as allowable net capital, subject to standardized or internal model-based haircuts.39 The rule, however, does not permit most unsecured receivables to count as allowable net capital.40 This aspect of the rule severely limits the ability of broker-dealers to engage in activities, such as unsecured lending, that generate unsecured receivables. The rule also does not permit fixed assets or other illiquid assets to count as allowable net capital, which creates disincentives for broker-dealers to own real estate and other fixed assets that cannot be readily converted into cash. For these reasons, Rule 15c3–1 incentivizes broker-dealers to confine their business activities and devote capital to activities such as underwriting, market making, and advising on and facilitating customer securities transactions. Rule 15c3–1 requires broker-dealers to maintain a minimum level of net capital (meaning highly liquid capital) at all times.41 The rule requires that a brokerdealer perform two calculations: (1) A computation of the minimum amount of net capital the broker-dealer must maintain; 42 and (2) a computation of the amount of net capital the broker-dealer is maintaining.43 The minimum net capital requirement is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio.44 In computing net capital, the brokerdealer must, among other things, make certain adjustments to net worth such as deducting illiquid assets and taking other capital charges and adding qualifying subordinated loans.45 The amount remaining after these deductions is defined as ‘‘tentative net capital.’’ 46 The final step in computing insure that a broker or dealer has sufficient liquid assets to cover current indebtedness.’’); Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 26402 (Dec. 28, 1989), 54 FR 315 (Jan. 5, 1989) (‘‘The rule’s design is that brokerdealers maintain liquid assets in sufficient amounts to enable them to satisfy promptly their liabilities. The rule accomplishes this by requiring brokerdealers to maintain liquid assets in excess of their liabilities to protect against potential market and credit risks.’’) (footnote omitted). 39 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 40 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv). 41 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. 42 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). 43 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2). The computation of net capital is based on the definition of net capital in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 15c3–1. Id. 44 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). 45 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(i)–(xiii). 46 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(15). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70219 net capital is to take prescribed percentage deductions (‘‘standardized haircuts’’) from the mark-to-market value of the proprietary positions (e.g., securities, money market instruments, and commodities) that are included in its tentative net capital.47 The standardized haircuts are designed to account for the market risk inherent in these positions and to create a buffer of liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities business.48 ANC broker-dealers and a type of limited purpose broker-dealer that deals solely in OTC derivatives (‘‘OTC derivative dealers’’) are permitted, with Commission approval, to calculate net capital using internal models as the basis for taking market risk and credit risk charges in lieu of the standardized haircuts for classes of positions for which they have been approved to use models.49 Rule 15c3–1 imposes substantially higher minimum capital requirements for ANC brokerdealers and OTC derivatives dealers, as compared to other types of brokerdealers, because, among other reasons, the use of internal models to compute net capital can substantially reduce the deductions for securities and money market positions as compared with the standardized haircuts.50 Consequently, the higher minimum capital requirements are designed to account for risks that may not be addressed by the internal models. A broker-dealer must ensure that its net capital exceeds 47 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 13635 (June 16, 1977), 42 FR 31778 (June 23, 1977) (‘‘[Haircuts] are intended to enable net capital computations to reflect the market risk inherent in the positioning of the particular types of securities enumerated in [the rule]’’); Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 22532 (Oct. 15, 1985), 50 FR 42961 (Oct. 23, 1985) (‘‘These percentage deductions, or ‘haircuts’, take into account elements of market and credit risk that the broker-dealer is exposed to when holding a particular position.’’); Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39455 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 67996 (Dec. 30, 1997) (‘‘Reducing the value of securities owned by broker-dealers for net capital purposes provides a capital cushion against adverse market movements and other risks faced by the firms, including liquidity and operational risks.’’) (footnote omitted). 49 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. As part of the application to use internal models, an entity seeking to become an ANC broker-dealer or an OTC derivatives dealer must identify the types of positions it intends to include in its model calculation. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3e(a)(1)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f(a)(1)(ii). After approval, an ANC broker-dealer and OTC derivatives dealer must obtain Commission approval to make a material change to the model, including a change to the types of positions included in the model. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(8); 17 CFR 240.15c3-f(a)(3). 50 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7). 48 See, E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules its minimum net capital requirement at all times.51 A different capital standard than the net liquid assets test is proposed for nonbank MSBSPs. As discussed in more detail below, proposed Rule 18a–2 would require nonbank MSBSPs to maintain positive tangible net worth.52 The Commission preliminarily believes that a tangible net worth standard—as opposed to the net liquid assets test— is more workable for nonbank MSBSPs because these entities may engage in a diverse range of business activities different from, and broader than, the securities activities conducted by broker-dealers or SBSDs (and, to the extent they did not, they likely would be required to register as an SBSD and/ or broker-dealer).53 Consequently, requiring nonbank MSBSPs to adhere to a capital standard based on a net liquid assets test could restrict these entities from engaging in commercial activities that are part of their core business models. For example, some of these entities may engage in manufacturing and supply activities that generate large amounts of unsecured receivables and require substantial fixed assets.54 Accordingly, as discussed below, proposed Rule 18a–2 is not modeled on Rule 15c3–1 because of the expected differences between nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers, on the one hand, and the entities that may register as nonbank MSBSPs, on the other hand. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposals to impose a net liquid assets test capital standard for nonbank SBSDs and a tangible net worth standard for nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Will the entities that register as nonbank SBSDs engage in a securities business with respect to security-based 51 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). proposed new Rule 18a–2. 53 An entity will need to register with the Commission as an MSBSP and, consequently, be subject to proposed new Rule 18a–2 if it falls within the definition of major security-based swap participant in section 3(a)(67) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)) as further defined by the Commission by rule. See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596. 54 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27807 (proposing a tangible net equity test for major swap participants that are not part of bank holding companies noting that although these firms ‘‘may have significant amounts of balance sheet equity, it may also be the case that significant portions of their equity is comprised of physical and other noncurrent assets, which would preclude the firms from meeting FCM capital requirements without engaging in significant corporate restructuring and incurring potentially undue costs.’’). emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 swaps that is similar to the securities business conducted by broker-dealers? If not, describe how the securities activities of nonbank SBSDs will differ from the securities activities of brokerdealers. 2. Will some broker-dealers register as nonbank SBSDs? If so, which types of broker-dealers and which types of activities do these broker-dealers currently engage in? 3. Should there be different capital standards for nonbank SBSDs depending on whether they are registered as broker-dealers or affiliated with bank holding companies, or not registered as broker-dealers and not affiliated with bank holding companies? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, should stand-alone SBSDs be subject to a tangible net worth standard or, if affiliated with a bank holding company, the bank capital standard? Would different standards create competitive advantages? If so, explain why. If different capital standards would be appropriate, explain the appropriate capital standard that should apply to each of these classes of nonbank SBSDs. 4. Generally, is there a level of capital under which counterparties will not transact with a dealer in OTC derivatives because the counterparty credit risk is too great? If so, identify that level of capital. 5. Will stand-alone SBSDs seek to effect transactions in securities OTC derivatives products other than securitybased swaps, such as OTC options, that would necessitate registration as a broker-dealer? If so, would registering as a limited purpose broker-dealer under the provisions applicable to OTC derivatives dealers provide a workable alternative to registering as a full-service broker-dealer? For example, would there be conflicts between the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and the existing requirements for OTC derivatives dealers? If so, identify the conflicts. 6. Should the requirements for OTC derivatives dealers be amended (by exemptive relief or otherwise) to accommodate firms that want to deal in security-based swaps? If so, explain how the requirements should be amended and why. 7. Should the Commission exempt nonbank SBSDs engaged in activities with respect to securities OTC derivatives products other than securitybased swaps from any requirements applicable to OTC derivatives dealers? Please identify which requirements and explain why. 8. As discussed below, the proposed minimum net capital requirements PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 would differ substantially for standalone SBSDs that are approved to use models in computing net capital (i.e., a $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement and $100 million tentative net capital requirement) compared to broker-dealer SBSDs approved to use models (i.e., a $1 billion fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement and $5 billion tentative net capital requirement). In general, because the definition of ‘‘security-based swap dealer’’ in the Dodd-Frank Act does not include acting as a broker or agent in security-based swaps, entities engaging in brokerage activities with respect to security-based swaps could be required to register as broker-dealers. To the extent these broker-dealer SBSDs wanted to use models to compute net capital, they would be subject to the higher minimum net capital requirements. Accordingly, in order to avoid being subject to higher minimum net capital requirements applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs approved to use models to compute net capital, a standalone SBSD may need to limit the activity it could conduct on behalf of customers so that it does not fall within the definition of a ‘‘broker’’ under the Exchange Act and, thereby, need to register as a broker-dealer. Commenters are requested to address this issue, including any potential changes to the proposed capital requirements for standalone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs discussed below. For example, should broker-dealer SBSDs approved to use internal models to compute net capital and that register as broker-dealers only in order to conduct brokerage activities with respect to security-based swaps, and that do not conduct a general business in securities with customers, be subject to the minimum net capital requirements applicable to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. If different capital standards would be appropriate, explain the appropriate capital standard that should apply to this class of broker-dealer SBSDs and whether any limitations should apply, including with respect to the types of broker activities in which the nonbank SBSD may engage in order to qualify for a particular capital treatment. Alternatively, or in addition, should the Commission allow OTC derivatives dealers (which are subject to a $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement and $100 million tentative net capital requirement) to be dually registered as nonbank SBSDs and/or amend the rules for OTC derivatives dealers to conduct a broader range of activities than are currently E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank SBSDs As discussed in detail below, proposed new Rule 18a–1 would prescribe capital requirements for standalone SBSDs and amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would prescribe capital requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs. Proposed new Rule 18a–1 would require a stand-alone SBSD to compute net capital using standardized haircuts prescribed in the rule (including standardized haircuts specifically for security-based swaps and swaps) or, alternatively, with Commission emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 i. Stand-alone SBSDs Not Using Internal Models A stand-alone SBSD would be subject to the capital requirements set forth in proposed new Rule 18a–1. Under this proposed new rule, a stand-alone SBSD that is not approved to use internal models to compute haircuts would be required to maintain minimum net capital of not less than the greater of $20 million or 8% of the firm’s risk margin amount (‘‘8% margin factor’’).57 The term risk margin amount would be 55 See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f; 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 56 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 approval, to use internal models for positions for which the stand-alone SBSD has been approved to use internal models. Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, a brokerdealer SBSD would be required to use the existing standardized haircuts in the rule plus proposed new additional standardized haircuts specifically for security-based swaps and swaps. A broker-dealer SBSD that seeks to compute net capital using internal models would need to apply to the Commission for approval to operate as an ANC broker-dealer. A nonbank SBSD permitted to use internal models to compute net capital (whether a standalone SBSD subject to proposed new Rule 18a–1 or an ANC broker-dealer subject to Rule 15c3–1, as amended) would need to comply with additional requirements as compared to a nonbank SBSD that is not approved to use internal models. This would be consistent with the existing requirements in Rule 15c3–1, which impose additional requirements on ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers as compared with other brokerdealers.55 Finally, the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would apply to broker- Rule 15c3–1 prescribes the minimum net capital requirement for a brokerdealer as the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio.56 The proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs would use a similar framework. Under the proposals, there would be different minimum net capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models, brokerdealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models, stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models, and broker-dealer SBSDs that are approved to use internal models (i.e., ANC broker-dealers). The following table provides a summary of the proposed minimum net capital requirements, which are discussed in the following sections. defined as the sum of: (1) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the nonbank SBSD with respect to security-based swap transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Rule 18a–1; and (2) the total margin amount calculated by the standalone SBSD with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a–3.58 Accordingly, to determine its minimum net capital requirement, a stand-alone SBSD would need to calculate the amount equal to the 8% margin factor.59 The firm’s minimum net capital requirement would be the greater of $20 million or the amount equal to the 8% margin factor.60 The proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement would be the same as the fixed-dollar minimum 57 See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. The rationales for these minimum requirements are discussed below. 58 See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. The components of the risk margin amount are discussed in detail below. 59 See paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 60 See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 dealers that are not registered as SBSDs to the extent they hold positions in security-based swaps and swaps. a. Computing Required Minimum Net Capital E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 EP23NO12.000</GPH> permitted? If the Commission took this action, should it also remove the exemption for OTC derivatives dealers from membership in a self-regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’)? 9. Describe the types of entities that may need to register as MSBSPs and how the activities that these entities engage in would impact the entity’s capital position. 10. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to a net liquid assets test capital standard (in contrast to a tangible net worth test)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 70221 70222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 requirement applicable to OTC derivatives dealers and already familiar to existing market participants.61 OTC derivatives dealers are limited purpose broker-dealers that are authorized to trade in certain derivatives, including security-based swaps, and to use internal models to calculate net capital. They are required to maintain minimum tentative net capital of $100 million and minimum net capital of $20 million.62 These current fixed-dollar minimums have been the minimum capital standards for OTC derivative dealers for over a decade, and are substantially lower than the fixed-dollar minimums in Rule 15c3–1 currently applicable to ANC broker-dealers, which use internal models to calculate net capital.63 In addition, available data regarding the current population of broker-dealers suggests that these minimums would not prevent new entrants in the security-based swap market.64 To date, there have been no indications that these minimums are not adequately meeting the objective of requiring OTC derivatives dealers to maintain sufficient levels of regulatory capital to 61 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5). The CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement for FCMs that are registered as swap dealers, regardless of whether the firm is approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. Further, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixeddollar ‘‘tangible net equity’’ minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not FCMs and are not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company. Finally, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar Tier 1 capital minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not FCMs and are affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company (the term ‘‘Tier 1 capital’’ refers to the regulatory capital requirement for U.S. banking institutions). Id. 62 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5). When adopting the capital requirements for OTC derivatives dealers, the Commission stated ‘‘[t]he minimum tentative net capital and net capital requirements are necessary to ensure against excessive leverage and risks other than credit or market risk, all of which are now factored into the current haircuts. Further, while the mathematical assumptions underlying VaR may be useful in projecting possible daily trading losses under ‘normal’ market conditions, VaR may not help firms measure losses that fall outside of normal conditions, such as during steep market declines. Accordingly, the minimum capital requirements provide additional safeguards to account for possible extraordinary losses or decreases in liquidity during times of stress which are not incorporated into VaR calculations.’’ See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. 63 Paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3–1 currently requires that ANC broker-dealers at all times maintain tentative net capital of not less than $1 billion and net capital of not less than $500 million. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7). 64 See infra section V.B.2.a.i. of this release (economic analysis discussion based on year-end 2011 data showing that approximately 270 brokerdealers maintain net capital of $20 million or more). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 account for the risks inherent in their activities. At the same time, the proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement for stand-alone SBSDs that do not use internal models to calculate net capital would be substantially higher than the fixed-dollar minimums in Rule 15c3–1 currently applicable to broker-dealers that do not use internal models (i.e., that are not ANC brokerdealers or OTC derivatives dealers).65 Under the proposals, stand-alone SBSDs that do not use models would not be able to avail themselves of such minimums and would be subject to the same $20 million minimum net capital requirement as OTC derivatives dealers, even though they would not be using models like such derivatives dealers. In other words, the same minimum net capital requirement will apply to standalone SBSDs regardless of whether or not they use models. This level of minimum capital may be appropriate because of the nature of the business of a stand-alone SBSD and the differences from the business of a broker-dealer or OTC derivatives dealer. Generally, OTC derivatives, such as security-based swaps, are contracts between a dealer and its counterparty. Consequently, the counterparty’s ability to collect amounts owed to it under the contract depends on the financial wherewithal of the dealer. In contrast, the returns on financial instruments held by a broker-dealer for an investor (other than a derivative issued by the broker-dealer) are not linked to the financial wherewithal of the brokerdealer holding the instrument for the customer. Accordingly, if a stand-alone SBSD fails, the counterparty may not be able to liquidate the contract or replace the contract with a new counterparty without incurring a loss on the position. The entities that will register and operate as nonbank SBSDs should be sufficiently capitalized to minimize the risk that they cannot meet their obligations to counterparties, particularly given that the counterparties will not be limited to other dealers but will include customers and other counterparties as well. 65 For example, a broker-dealer that carries customer accounts has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $250,000; a broker-dealer that does not carry customer accounts but engages in proprietary securities trading (defined as more than ten trades a year) has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $100,000; and a broker-dealer that does not carry accounts for customers or otherwise does not receive or hold securities and cash for customers, and does not engage in proprietary trading activities, has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $5,000. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(a)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 In addition, stand-alone SBSDs will not be subject to the same limitations that apply to OTC derivative dealers in effecting transactions with customers and engaging in dealing activities.66 Therefore, the failure of a stand-alone SBSD could have a broader adverse impact on a larger number of market participants, including customers and counterparties.67 The proposed capital requirements for this group of firms, in part, are meant to account for this potential broader impact on market participants.68 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs that do not use internal models would be subject to the same $20 million fixeddollar minimum net capital requirement that applies to OTC derivatives dealers. The same firms would not, however, be subject to a minimum tentative net capital requirement, which is applied to firms that use internal models to account for risks that may not be fully captured by the models.69 66 See 17 CFR 240.3b-12; 17 CFR 240.15a–1. Rule 3b–12, defining the term OTC derivatives dealer, provides, among other things, that an OTC derivatives dealer’s securities activities must be limited to: (1) Engaging in dealer activities in eligible OTC derivative instruments (as defined in the rule) that are securities; (2) issuing and reacquiring securities that are issued by the dealer, including warrants on securities, hybrid securities, and structured notes; (3) engaging in cash management securities activities (as defined in Rule 3b–14 (17 CFR 240.3b–14)); (4) engaging in ancillary portfolio management securities activities (as defined in the rule); and (5) engaging in such other securities activities that the Commission designates by order. See 17 CFR 240.3b–12. Rule 15a–1, governing the securities activities of OTC derivatives dealers, provides that an OTC derivatives dealer must effect transactions in OTC derivatives with most types of counterparties through an affiliated Commission-registered brokerdealer that is not an OTC derivatives dealer. See 17 CFR 240.15a–1. 67 The proposal is consistent with the CFTC’s proposed capital requirements for nonbank swap dealers, which impose $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirements regardless of whether the firm is approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 68 As discussed above, stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to a minimum ratio amount based on the 8% margin factor. OTC derivatives dealers are not subject to a minimum ratio amount. 69 OTC derivatives dealers are subject to a $100 million minimum tentative net capital requirement. ANC broker-dealers are currently subject to a $1 billion minimum tentative net capital requirement. The minimum tentative net capital requirements are designed to address risks that may not be captured when using internal models rather than standardized haircuts to compute net capital. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384; Alternative Net Capital Requirements for BrokerDealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities; Proposed Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 48690 (Oct. 24, 2003), 68 FR 62872, 62875 (Nov. 6, 2003) (‘‘We expect that net capital charges will be reduced for broker-dealers that use the proposed alternative net capital computation. The present haircut structure is designed so that firms will have a sufficient capital base to account for, in addition to market and credit risk, other types of risk, such E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The proposed 8% margin factor would be part of determining the standalone SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement. As noted above, the standalone SBSD would determine this amount by adding: • The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the standalone SBSD with respect to securitybased swap transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Rule 18a–1; 70 and • The total margin amount calculated by the stand-alone SBSD with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3.71 as operational risk, leverage risk, and liquidity risk. Raising the minimum tentative net capital requirement to $1 billion and net capital requirement to $500 million is one way to ensure that firms that use the alternative capital computation maintain sufficient capital reserves to account for these other risks. In addition, based on our experience, firms must have this scale of operations in order to have developed internal risk management control systems necessary to support reliable VaR computations.’’). 70 See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, nonbank SBSDs will be subject to margin requirements imposed by clearing agencies pursuant to which nonbank SBSDs will be required to collect collateral from customers relating to the customers’ cleared security-based swap transactions. The amount of collateral required to be collected as a result of customers’ cleared security-based swap transactions would be used to determine the first component of the risk margin amount. This amount would be added to the second component of the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared security-based swaps and that amount would be multiplied by 8% to determine the 8% margin factor. However, if the margin requirements of the clearing agencies require the stand-alone SBSD to collect total collateral in an amount that is less than the deductions the firm would apply to the customers’ cleared security-based swap positions under proposed new Rule 18a–1, the stand-alone SBSD would need to add the amount of the deductions to the second component of the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared securitybased swaps and multiply that amount by 8% to determine the 8% margin factor. 71 See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would establish margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. See proposed new Rule 18a–3. The proposed rule would define the term margin to mean the amount of positive equity in an account of a counterparty. See paragraph (b)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. Under the proposed rule, a nonbank SBSD would be required to calculate daily a margin amount for the account of each counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap. See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. These calculations of counterparty margin amounts for the purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be used to determine the component of the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared security-based swaps. This amount would be added to the first component relating to cleared security-based swaps, VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 The total of these two amounts—i.e., the risk margin amount—would be multiplied by 8% to determine the amount of the 8% margin factor, which, if greater than the $20 million fixeddollar amount, would be the stand-alone SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement.72 This proposed 8% margin factor ratio requirement is similar to an existing requirement in the CFTC’s net capital rule for FCMs.73 Further, the CFTC has proposed a similar requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants registered as FCMs.74 Under the CFTC’s proposal, an FCM would be required to maintain adjusted net capital that is equal to or greater than 8% of the risk margin required for customer and non-customer exchange-traded futures and swaps positions that are cleared by a derivatives clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’).75 The CFTC’s proposed 8% of margin, or risk-based capital rule, ‘‘is intended to require FCMs to maintain a minimum level of capital that is associated with the level of risk associated with the customer positions that the FCM carries.’’ 76 Based on Commission staff experience with dually-registered broker-dealer/FCMs, the Commission preliminarily believes that the 8% margin factor would serve as a reasonable measure to ensure that a firm’s minimum capital requirement increases or decreases in tandem with the level of risk arising from customer futures transactions. Consequently, the 8% margin factor is being proposed to provide a similar adjustable minimum net capital requirement for nonbank and the total amount would be multiplied by 8% to determine the 8% margin factor. 72 See paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 73 See 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(B). See also Minimum Financial and Related Reporting Requirements for Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers, 69 FR 49784 (Aug. 12, 2004). The CFTC proposed the 8% risk margin requirement to establish a margin-based capital computation identical to the margin-based minimum net capital computation that several futures self-regulatory organizations, including one derivatives clearing organization, adopted for their respective memberFCMs. Id. at note 16. 74 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The 8% risk margin calculation under the CFTC’s proposal relates to cleared swaps or futures transactions, whereas the 8% margin factor proposed in new Rule 18a–1 would be based on cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps. As discussed below, the proposed minimum net capital requirement is based on a nonbank SBSD’s cleared and non-cleared security-based swap activity in order to account for the risks of both types of positions. 75 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 76 Id. at 27807. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70223 SBSDs with respect to their securitybased swap activity.77 Under the proposed rule, nonbank SBSDs—including stand-alone SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models to calculate net capital—would be subject to a minimum net capital requirement that increases in tandem with an increase in the risks associated with nonbank SBSD’s security-based swap activities.78 Without the 8% margin factor, the minimum net capital requirement for a nonbank SBSD would be the same (i.e., $20 million) regardless of the volume, size, and risk of its outstanding security-based swap transactions. The amount computed under the 8% margin factor generally would increase as the stand-alone SBSD increased the volume, size, and risk of its securitybased swap transactions. Specifically, the proposed definition of the term risk margin amount is designed to link the stand-alone SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement to its cleared and non-cleared security-based swap activity. For example, the definition in proposed new Rule 18a–1 provides that, for cleared security-based swaps, the amount is the greater of the margin required to be collected or the amount of the deductions that would apply pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a–1 (i.e., the amount of the deductions using standardized haircuts).79 The margin requirement for cleared security-based swap positions generally should increase with the volume, size, and risk of the positions as would the amount of the standardized haircuts applicable to the positions. Further, the ‘‘greater of’’ provision is designed to ensure that the 8% margin factor requirement is based on, at a minimum, the standardized haircuts as these provide a uniform approach for all cleared security-based 77 As discussed below in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, an 8% multiplier is used for purposes of calculating credit risk charges under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. While this is a different calculation than the proposed 8% margin factor, using an 8% multiplier for purposes of computing regulatory capital requirements is an international standard. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428, note 42 (describing the 8% multiplier in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 as being ‘‘consistent with the calculation of credit risk in the OTC derivatives dealers rules and with the Basel Standard’’ and as being ‘‘designed to dampen leverage to help ensure that the firm maintains a safe level of capital.’’). 78 As discussed below in sections II.A.2.a.ii., II.A.2.a.iii., and II.A.2.a.iv. of this release, the 8% margin factor would be used to compute the minimum net capital requirement for all nonbank SBSDs. 79 For a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models and an ANC broker-dealer, it would be the amount of the deductions determined using a VaR model, except for types of positions for which the firm has not been approved to use a VaR model. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules swaps, whereas margin requirements for cleared security-based swaps will vary over time and across different clearing agencies. As proposed, the 8% margin factor is determined using the greater of required margin or standardized haircuts with respect to cleared security-based swaps plus the margin amount for non-cleared security-based swaps calculated under proposed new Rule 18a–3.80 Thus, the 8% margin factor would be based on a stand-alone SBSD’s activity in both cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps. As noted above, the goal of the provision is to require the stand-alone SBSD to increase its net capital in tandem with an increase in the risk of its security-based swap transactions. The proposal does not limit the computation to only cleared securitybased swaps, as proposed by the CFTC, because such a limitation would allow the stand-alone SBSD to increase the amount of its non-cleared security-based swaps positions without a corresponding increase in net capital. This could create greater risk to the stand-alone SBSD’s customers because—as discussed above—their ability to collect amounts owing on security-based swaps depends on the ability of the stand-alone SBSD to meets its obligations. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum net capital requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–1 for stand-alone SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models to compute net capital. In addition, the 80 Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to calculate daily a margin amount for the account of each counterparty to a noncleared security-based swap. See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would be required to perform this calculation even though proposed new Rule 18a–3 would not require the nonbank SBSD to collect collateral from all counterparties to collateralize the margin amount. For example, the Commission is proposing that collateral need not be collected from commercial end users. Nonetheless, the calculation of the margin amount for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would determine the non-cleared security-based swap component of the risk margin amount regardless of whether the nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral from the counterparty to collateralize the margin amount. In other words, the amount of the risk margin amount would be based on the calculation required by proposed new Rule 18a–3 for all counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps and not on whether the stand-alone SBSD would be required to collect collateral from a counterparty to collateralize the margin amount. As discussed in section II.B. of this release, this is designed to ensure that the risk margin amount is based on all non-cleared security-based swap activity of the stand-alone SBSD and not just on security-based swap activity that would require the firm to collect collateral. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed $20 million minimum net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models appropriate? If not, explain why not. What minimum amount would be more appropriate? For example, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $20 million to account for the broader range of activities that stand-alone SBSDs will be able to engage in as compared with OTC derivatives dealers? If so, explain why. If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $30 million, $50 million, $100 million, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be less than $20 million because these firms will not be using internal models to compute net capital? If so, explain why. If it should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10 million, $5 million, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be more appropriate for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models. 2. Is the proposed definition of risk margin amount appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest modifications to the definition. For example, are there modifications that could make the definition more accurately reflect the nonbank SBSD’s risk exposure from dealing in security-based swaps? If so, describe the modifications and explain why they would achieve this result. 3. Is the component of the risk margin amount definition addressing margin delivered for cleared swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. Would the definition be more appropriate if this component was dropped so that the first prong of the definition only incorporated the haircuts for cleared security-based swaps? 4. Should the proposed definition of risk margin amount only address cleared security-based swaps, consistent with the CFTC’s proposal? If so, explain why, including how the risk of noncleared security-based swap activities could be addressed through other measures. 5. Is the component of the risk margin amount definition addressing margin collected for non-cleared security-based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. 6. Is the 8% margin factor an appropriate metric for determining a nonbank SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement in terms of increasing a PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 nonbank SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement as the risk of its securitybased swap activities increases? If not, explain why not. For example, should the percentage be greater than 8% (e.g., 10%, 12%, or some other percentage)? If so, identify the percentage and explain why it would be preferable. Should the percentage be less than 8% (e.g., 6%, 4%, or some other percentage)? If so, identify the percentage and explain why it would be preferable. 7. Should the 8% multiplier be tiered as the amount of the risk margin amount increases? If so, explain why. For example, should the multiplier decrease from 8% to 6% for the amount of the risk margin amount that exceeds a certain threshold, such as $1 billion or $5 billion? If so, explain why. Should the amount of the multiplier increase from 8% to 10% for the amount of the risk margin amount that exceeds a certain threshold such as $1 billion or $5 billion? If so, explain why. 8. Should the 8% margin factor be an adjustable ratio (e.g., increase to 10% or decrease to 6%)? For example, should the multiplier adjust periodically if certain conditions occur? If so, explain the conditions under which the 8% multiplier would adjust upward or downward and why having an adjustable ratio would be appropriate. 9. Would the 8% margin factor be a sufficient minimum net capital requirement without the $20 million fixed-dollar minimum? If so, explain why. 10. Are there metrics other than a fixed-dollar minimum and the 8% margin factor for calculating required minimum capital that would more appropriately reflect the risk of nonbank SBSDs? If so, identify them and explain why they would be preferable. For example, instead of an absolute fixeddollar minimum, should the minimum net capital requirement be linked to a scalable metric such as the size of the nonbank SBSD or the amount of the deductions taken by the nonbank SBSD when computing net capital? For any scalable minimum net capital requirements identified, explain how the computation would work in practice and how the minimum requirement would address the same objectives of a fixed-dollar minimum. 11. Would the 8% margin factor address the risk of extremely large nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example, if the customer margin requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps carried by the nonbank SBSD were low because the positions were hedged or otherwise not high risk, the 8% margin E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules factor may not increase in tandem with the level of the nonbank SBSD’s security-based swap activity. In this case, would the 8% margin factor adequately address the risk of the nonbank SBSD, particularly if it carried substantial security-based swap positions? If not, explain why not. Would the 8% margin factor be necessary for small nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 12. Would the 8% margin factor provide an appropriate and workable restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models because the amount of minimum net capital would increase as the risk margin amount increases? If not, explain why not. Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more accurate and effective. 13. Should the 8% margin factor be applied to margin related to cleared and non-cleared swap transactions in addition to security-based swap transactions? For example, the provision could require that 8% of the margin required for cleared and non-cleared swaps be added to the 8% of margin required for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps in determining the minimum net capital requirement. Would this be a workable approach to address the fact that the CFTC’s proposed 8% margin requirement would not apply to swap dealers that are not registered as FCMs and, with respect to dually-registered FCM swap dealers, it would apply only to cleared swaps? Including swaps in the 8% margin factor calculation would provide for equal treatment of security-based swaps and swaps in determining a minimum net capital requirement. Would this be a workable approach? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 14. Would the 8% margin factor be practical as applied to a portfolio margin account that contains securitybased swaps and swaps? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 15. What will be the practical impacts of the 8% margin factor? For example, what will be the effect on transaction costs, liquidity in security-based swaps, availability of capital to support security-based swap transactions generally and/or for non-security-based swap-related uses, use of security-based swaps for hedging purposes, risk management at SBSDs, the costs for potential new SBSDs to participate in the security-based swap markets, etc.? How would these impacts increase or decrease if the 8% margin factor were set at a higher or lower percentage? VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 ii. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Not Using Internal Models A broker-dealer that registers as an SBSD would continue to be subject to the capital requirements in Rule 15c3– 1, as proposed to be amended to account for security-based swap activities. Proposed amendments to paragraph (a) of Rule 15c3–1 would establish minimum net capital requirements for a broker-dealer SBSD that is not approved to use internal models to compute net capital.81 Under these proposed amendments, the broker-dealer SBSD would be subject to the same $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement as a stand-alone SBSD that does not use internal models.82 As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum would be consistent with the current fixed-dollar minimum that applies to OTC derivatives dealers, which has been used as a minimum capital standard for OTC derivative dealers for over a decade. In addition, a broker-dealer SBSD that does not use internal models would be required to use the 8% margin factor to compute its minimum net capital amount. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the 8% margin factor is designed to adjust the brokerdealer SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement in tandem with the risk associated with the broker-dealer SBSD’s security-based swap activity. Without the 8% margin factor, the minimum net capital requirement for a broker-dealer SBSD would be the same (i.e., $20 million) regardless of the number, size, and risk of its outstanding security-based swap transactions. Consequently, the proposed rule would include the 8% margin factor in order to increase the broker-dealer SBSD’s net capital requirement as the risk of its security-based swap activities increases. Moreover, the broker-dealer SBSD—as a broker-dealer—would be subject to the existing financial ratio requirements in Rule 15c3–1 and, therefore, would need to include the applicable financial ratio amount when determining the firm’s minimum net capital requirement.83 A broker-dealer’s minimum net capital requirement is the greater of the applicable fixed-dollar amount and one of two alternative financial ratios. The 81 See proposed new paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 15c3–1. 82 Id. 83 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1); proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. Currently, all broker-dealers, including the ANC broker-dealers, are subject either to the aggregate indebtedness standard or the aggregate debit items (alternative standard) financial ratio requirements. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70225 first financial ratio requirement provides that a broker-dealer must not permit its aggregate indebtedness to all other persons to exceed 1500% of its net capital (i.e., a 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital requirement).84 This is the default financial ratio requirement that all broker-dealers must apply unless they affirmatively elect to be subject to the second financial ratio requirement by notifying their designated examining authority of the election.85 The second financial ratio requirement provides that a broker-dealer must not permit its net capital to be less than 2% of aggregate debit items (i.e., customer-related obligations to the broker-dealer).86 The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would provide that a brokerdealer SBSD that is not approved to use internal models would be required to maintain a minimum net capital level of not less than the greater of: (1) $20 million or (2) the financial ratio amount required pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3–1 plus the 8% margin factor.87 Thus, the proposed minimum net capital requirement for a brokerdealer SBSD would incorporate the requirement in Rule 15c3–1 that a broker-dealer maintain the greater of a fixed-dollar amount or one of the two financial ratio amounts, as applicable.88 The financial ratio requirements in Rule 15c3–1 are designed to link the brokerdealer’s minimum net capital requirement to the level of its securities activities. For example, the aggregate debit ratio requirement is designed for broker-dealers that carry customer securities and cash.89 This provision increases the minimum net capital requirement for these broker-dealers as they increase their debit items by engaging in margin lending and facilitating of customer short-sale 84 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(i). Stated another way, the broker-dealer must maintain, at a minimum, an amount of net capital equal to 1/15th (or 6.67%) of its aggregate indebtedness. This financial ratio generally is used by smaller brokerdealers that do not hold customer securities and cash. 85 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(i)–(ii). 86 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(ii). Customer debit items—computed pursuant to Rule 15c3–3— consist of, among other things, margin loans to customers and securities borrowed by the brokerdealer to effectuate deliveries of securities sold short by customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3; 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. This ratio generally is used by larger broker-dealers that hold customer securities and cash. 87 See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. 88 Id. 89 See Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 17208 (Oct. 9, 1980), 45 FR 69915 (Oct. 22, 1980). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 transactions.90 The proposal to combine the Rule 15c3–1 financial ratios with the 8% margin factor in a broker-dealer SBSD’s computation of its minimum net capital requirement is designed to require the broker-dealer SBSD to maintain a capital cushion to support its traditional securities activities (e.g., margin lending) and its security-based swap activities. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models. Commenters are referred to the general questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release about the 8% margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank SBSDs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed $20 million minimum net capital requirement appropriate for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models? If not, explain why not. What minimum amount would be more appropriate? For example, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $20 million to account for the broader range of activities that broker-dealer SBSDs will be able to engage in (e.g., traditional securities activities such as margin lending), as compared with stand-alone SBSDs and OTC derivatives dealers? If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $30 million, $50 million, $100 million, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be less than $20 million because these firms will not be using internal models to compute net capital? If it should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10 million, $5 million or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be preferable for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models. 2. Is combining the 8% margin factor requirement with the applicable Rule 15c3–1 financial ratio requirement an appropriate way to determine a minimum net capital requirement for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models? If not, explain why not. 3. Would the 8% margin factor combined with the Rule 15c3–1 financial ratio provide an appropriate 90 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(ii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 and workable restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal models? If not, explain why not. Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more accurate and effective. iii. Stand-Alone SBSDs Using Internal Models As discussed above, a stand-alone SBSD would be subject to the capital requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–1.91 Rule 18a–1 would permit stand-alone SBSDs to apply to use internal models to compute net capital.92 In terms of minimum capital requirements, a stand-alone SBSD that has been approved to use internal models would be required to maintain: (1) a minimum tentative net capital level of not less than $100 million; and (2) a minimum net capital level of not less than the greater of $20 million or the 8% margin factor.93 The proposed minimum net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models (i.e., the greater of $20 million or the 8% margin factor) is the same as the proposed minimum net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal models (though the latter would need to incorporate the Rule 15c3–1 financial ratio requirement into their minimum net capital computations). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models also would be subject to a minimum tentative net capital requirement of $100 million.94 This proposed minimum tentative net capital requirement would be consistent with the current minimum tentative net capital requirement applicable to OTC derivatives dealers.95 A minimum tentative net capital requirement is designed to operate as a prudential control on the use of internal models for regulatory capital purposes.96 Tentative 91 See proposed new Rule 18a–1. paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–1; the discussion below in section II.A.2.b.iii. of this release. 93 See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–1. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the 8% margin factor is designed to adjust the stand-alone SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement in tandem with the risk associated with the broker-dealer firm’s security-based swap activity. 94 See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 95 Both ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers—entities that use internal models—are subject to a minimum tentative net capital requirement. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7). 96 OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384 (‘‘The final rule contains the minimum requirements of 92 See PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 net capital is the amount of net capital maintained by a broker-dealer before applying the standardized haircuts or using internal models to determine deductions on the mark-to-market value of proprietary positions to arrive at the broker-dealer’s amount of net capital.97 OTC derivatives dealers, therefore, compute tentative net capital before using internal VaR models to take the market risk deductions. The minimum tentative net capital requirement is designed to account for the fact that VaR models, while more risk sensitive than standardized haircuts, tend to substantially reduce the amount of the deductions to tentative net capital in comparison to the standardized haircuts because the models recognize more offsets between related positions (i.e., positions that show historical correlations) than the standardized haircuts.98 In addition, VaR models may $100 million in tentative net capital and $20 million in net capital. The minimum tentative net capital and net capital requirements are necessary to ensure against excessive leverage and risks other than credit or market risk, all of which are now factored into the current haircuts. Further, while the mathematical assumptions underlying VaR may be useful in projecting possible daily trading losses under ‘normal’ market conditions, VaR may not help firms measure losses that fall outside of normal conditions, such as during steep market declines. Accordingly, the minimum capital requirements provide additional safeguards to account for possible extraordinary losses or decreases in liquidity during times of stress which are not incorporated into VaR calculations.’’). See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34431 (‘‘The current haircut structure [use of the standardized haircuts] seeks to ensure that broker-dealers maintain a sufficient capital base to account for operational, leverage, and liquidity risk, in addition to market and credit risk. We expect that use of the alternative net capital computation [internal models] will reduce deductions for market and credit risk substantially for broker-dealers that use that method. Moreover, inclusion in net capital of unsecured receivables and securities that do not have a ready market under the current net capital rule will reduce the liquidity standards of Rule 15c3–1. Thus, the alternative method of computing net capital and, in particular, its requirements that broker-dealers using the alternative method of computing [sic] maintain minimum tentative net capital of at least $1 billion, maintain net capital of at least $500 million, notify the Commission that same day if their tentative net capital falls below $5 billion, and comply with Rule 15c3–4 are intended to provide broker-dealers with sufficient capital reserves to account for market, credit, operational, and other risks.’’) (Text in brackets added). 97 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(10). 98 See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 53962. See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68011 (Dec. 30, 1997) (concept release considering the extent to which statistical models should be used in setting the capital requirements for a broker-dealer’s proprietary positions) (‘‘For example, the current method of calculating net capital by deducting fixed percentages from the market value of securities can allow only limited types of hedges without becoming unreasonably complicated. Accordingly, the net capital rule recognizes only certain specified hedging activities, and the Rule does not account E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules not capture all risks and, therefore, having a minimum tentative net capital requirement (i.e., one that is not derived using the VaR model) is designed to require that capital be sufficient to withstand events that the model may not take into account (e.g., extraordinary losses or decreases in liquidity during times of stress that are not incorporated into VaR calculations).99 Consequently, the proposed $100 million minimum tentative net capital requirement is designed to provide a sufficient liquid capital cushion for stand-alone SBSDs that use models, just as it has done in practice for entities registered as OTC derivatives dealers.100 Request for Comment emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models. Commenters are referred to the general questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release about the 8% margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank SBSDs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed minimum net capital requirement of $20 million appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models, in comparison to OTC derivatives dealers which are more limited by the activities they are permitted to conduct (such as being prohibited from effecting transactions with customers)? If not, explain why not. What minimum amount would be more appropriate? For example, should the minimum fixeddollar amount be greater than $20 million to account for the use of internal models? If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $30 for historical correlations between foreign securities and U.S. securities or between equity securities and debt securities. By failing to recognize offsets from these correlations between and within asset classes, the fixed percentage haircut method may cause firms with large, diverse portfolios to reserve capital that actually overcompensates for market risk.’’ Id. ‘‘The primary advantage of incorporating models into the net capital rule is that a firm would be able to recognize, to a greater extent, the correlations and hedges in its securities portfolio and have a comparatively smaller capital charge for market risk.’’). 99 See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362; Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. Further, the deductions to tentative net capital taken by nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers are intended to create a pool of new liquid assets that can be used for any risk assumed by the firm and not only market risk. A tentative net capital requirement also serves as a capital buffer for these other risks to offset the narrower type of risk intended to be covered by calculating net capital using internal models. 100 OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 million, $50 million, $100 million, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be less than $20 million? If it should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10 million, $5 million or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be more appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models. 2. Is it necessary to impose a minimum tentative net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models to capture additional risks not incorporated into VaR models (consistent with those tentative minimum met capital requirements imposed on OTC derivatives dealers)? If not, why not? 3. Is the proposed amount of the minimum tentative net capital level of $100 million for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the minimum tentative net capital amount be greater than $100 million to account for the use of internal models? If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $150 million, $200 million, $250 million, or some other amount)? Should it be a lesser amount (e.g., $75 million, $50 million, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be more appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models. 4. Are there metrics other than a fixed-dollar minimum tentative net capital requirement that would more appropriately reflect the risk of nonbank SBSDs? If so, identify them and explain why they would be preferable. For example, instead of an absolute fixeddollar minimum tentative net capital requirement, should the minimum tentative net capital requirement be linked to a scalable metric such as the size of a nonbank SBSD? For any scalable minimum tentative net capital requirements identified, explain how the computation would work in practice and how the minimum requirement would address the same objectives of a fixed-dollar minimum. Would the 8% margin factor provide an appropriate and workable restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models? Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more accurate and effective. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70227 iv. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Using Internal Models and ANC Broker-Dealers Under the current requirements of Rule 15c3–1, a broker-dealer that seeks to use internal models to compute net capital must apply to the Commission to become an ANC broker-dealer.101 If the application is granted, the ANC brokerdealer is able to take less than 100% deductions for unsecured receivables from OTC derivatives counterparties (non-ANC broker-dealers must deduct these receivables in full) and can use VaR models in lieu of the standardized haircuts to take deductions on their proprietary positions in securities and money market instruments to the extent the firm has been approved to use an internal model for the type of position.102 It is expected that some broker-dealer SBSDs would seek to use internal models to compute net capital—as have some broker-dealers— by applying to become ANC brokerdealers. Broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models would be subject to the existing provisions and proposed amendments to those provisions currently applicable to ANC brokerdealers. Under the proposed amendments, the current net capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers in Rule 15c3–1 would be enhanced to account for the firms’ large size, the scale of their custodial activities, and the potential that they may become substantially more active in the security-based swap markets under the Dodd-Frank Act’s OTC derivatives reforms. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed enhancements would include increasing the minimum tentative net capital and minimum net capital requirements; increasing the ‘‘early warning’’ notice threshold; narrowing the types of unsecured receivables for which ANC broker-dealers may take a credit risk charge in lieu of a 100% deduction; and requiring ANC broker-dealers to comply with a new liquidity requirement.103 Currently, an ANC broker-dealer must maintain minimum tentative net capital of at least $1 billion and minimum net capital of at least $500 million.104 In addition, an ANC broker-dealer must provide the Commission with an ‘‘early warning’’ notice when its tentative net capital falls below $5 billion.105 These relatively high minimum capital requirements (as compared with the requirements for other types of broker101 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e. 102 Id. 103 See proposed amendments to 17 CFR 240.15c3–1; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e. 104 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(i). 105 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(ii). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 dealers) reflect the substantial and diverse range of business activities engaged in by ANC broker-dealers and their importance as intermediaries in the securities markets.106 Further, the heightened capital requirements reflect the fact that, as noted above, VaR models are more risk sensitive but also may not capture all risks and generally permit substantially reduced deductions to tentative net capital as compared to the standardized haircuts.107 The proposals to strengthen the requirements for ANC broker-dealers are made in response to issues that arose during the 2008 financial crisis, recognizing the large size of these firms, and the scale of their custodial responsibilities. The proposals also are based on the Commission staff’s experience supervising the ANC brokerdealers. The financial crisis demonstrated the risks to financial firms when market conditions are stressed and how the failure of a large firm can accelerate the further deterioration of market conditions.108 The proposals are designed to bolster the ANC brokerdealer net capital rules to ensure that these firms continue to maintain sufficient capital reserves to account for market, credit, operational, and other risks.109 While the rationale for these enhancements exists irrespective of whether the ANC broker-dealers ultimately register as SBSDs, the proposed increased capital requirements also are designed to account for increased security-based swap activities by these firms. FOCUS Report data and the Commission staff’s supervision of the ANC broker-dealers indicate that these firms currently do not engage in a substantial business in security-based swaps.110 It is expected, however, that 106 For example, based on data from broker-dealer FOCUS Reports, the six ANC broker-dealers collectively hold in excess of one trillion dollars’ worth of customer securities. Under Rule 17a–5 (17 CFR 240.17a–5), broker-dealers must file periodic reports on Form X–17A–5 (Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Reports, ‘‘FOCUS Reports’’). Unless an exception applies, the Commission’s rules deem all reports filed under Rule 17a–5 confidential. 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(3). The FOCUS Report requires, among other financial information, a balance sheet, income statement, and net capital and customer reserve computations. The FOCUS Report data used in this release is year-end 2011 FOCUS Report data. 107 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 108 See, e.g., World Economic Outlook: Crisis and Recovery, International Monetary Fund (‘‘IMF’’) (Apr. 2009), available at https://www.imf.org/ external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf. 109 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 110 The ANC broker-dealers are subject to ongoing Commission staff supervision, which includes monthly meetings with senior staff of the ANC broker-dealers. This supervision program provides VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 they may increase their security-based swap activities after the Dodd-Frank Act’s OTC derivatives reforms are implemented and become effective because security-based swap activities will need to be conducted in regulated entities.111 Consequently, financial institutions that currently deal in security-based swaps will need to register as an SBSD or register one or more affiliates as an SBSD. To the extent they want to offer securities products and services beyond those related to security-based swaps, they also will need to be registered as broker-dealers. Using an existing broker-dealer— particularly an ANC broker-dealer that already is capitalized and has risk management systems and personnel in place—could provide efficiencies that create incentives to register the same entity as a nonbank SBSD. Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, ANC broker-dealers would be required to maintain: (1) Tentative net capital of not less than $5 billion; and (2) net capital of not less than the greater of $1 billion or the financial ratio amount required pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3–1 plus the 8% margin factor.112 FOCUS Report data indicates that the six current ANC broker-dealers report capital levels in excess of these proposed increased minimum requirements. While raising the tentative net capital requirement under Rule 15c3–1 from $1 billion to $5 billion would be a significant increase, the existing ‘‘early warning’’ notice requirement for ANC broker-dealers is $5 billion.113 This $5 billion ‘‘early warning’’ threshold acts as a de facto minimum tentative net capital requirement since ANC broker-dealers seek to maintain sufficient levels of tentative net capital to avoid the necessity of providing this regulatory notice. Accordingly, the objective in raising the minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers is not to require the six existing ANC broker-dealers to increase their current capital levels (as they already maintain tentative net capital in excess of $5 billion).114 Rather, the goal is to establish new higher minimum the Commission with information about the current practices of the ANC broker-dealers. 111 This expectation is based on information gathered as part of the ANC broker-dealer supervision program. 112 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. 113 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(i). 114 The ANC broker-dealers report to the Commission staff, as part of the ANC broker-dealer supervision program, levels of tentative net capital that generally are well in excess of $6 billion, which, as discussed below, is the proposed new ‘‘early warning’’ threshold for ANC broker-dealers. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirements designed to ensure that the ANC broker-dealers continue to maintain high capital levels and that any new ANC broker-dealer entrants maintain capital levels commensurate with their peers. As indicated above, the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would require an ANC broker-dealer to incorporate the 8% margin factor into its net capital calculation.115 Consequently, an ANC broker-dealer would be required at all times to maintain tentative net capital of not less than $5 billion and net capital of not less than the greater of $1 billion or the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3–1 and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount for security-based swaps carried by the ANC broker-dealer.116 Under the proposal, an ANC brokerdealer would be required to provide early warning notification to the Commission if its tentative net capital fell below $6 billion.117 The purpose of an ‘‘early warning’’ notice requirement is to require a broker-dealer to provide notice when its level of regulatory capital falls to a level that approaches its required minimum capital requirement but is sufficiently above the minimum that the Commission and SROs can increase their monitoring of the firm before the minimum is breached. The proposed increase in the minimum tentative net capital requirement to $5 billion necessitates a corresponding increase in the ‘‘early warning’’ threshold to an amount above $5 billion. Existing early warning thresholds for OTC derivatives dealers include a requirement to provide notice when the firm’s tentative net capital falls below an amount that is 120% of the firm’s required minimum tentative net capital amount.118 The proposed new ‘‘early warning’’ threshold for ANC broker-dealers of $6 billion in tentative net capital is modeled on this requirement and is equal in percentage terms (120%) to the amount that the early warning level exceeds the minimum tentative net capital 115 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the 8% margin factor is designed to adjust the firm’s minimum net capital requirement in tandem with the risk associated with the broker-dealer firm’s securitybased swap activity. 116 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. 117 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1. As noted above, the ANC broker-dealers report to the Commission staff tentative net capital levels that generally are well in excess of $6 billion. 118 See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(3). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 requirement for OTC derivatives dealers. The rules applicable to ANC brokerdealers provide that the Commission may impose additional conditions on an ANC broker-dealer under certain circumstances.119 In particular, paragraph (e) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 establishes a non-exclusive list of circumstances under which the Commission may restrict the business of an ANC broker-dealer, including when the firm’s tentative net capital falls below the early warning threshold.120 In this event, the Commission—if it finds it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors—may impose additional conditions on the firm, including requiring the firm to submit to the Commission a plan to increase its tentative net capital (to an amount above the early warning level).121 Additional restrictions could include restricting the ANC broker-dealer’s business on a product-specific, categoryspecific, or general basis; requiring the firm to file more frequent reports with the Commission; modifying the firm’s internal risk management controls or procedures; requiring the firm to compute deductions for market and credit risk using standardized haircuts; or imposing any other additional conditions, if the Commission finds that imposition of other conditions is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.122 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum capital requirements for ANC brokerdealers. Commenters are referred to the general questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release about the 8% margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank SBSDs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed increased minimum net capital requirement from $500 million to $1 billion for ANC brokerdealers appropriate? If not, explain why not. What minimum amount would be preferable? For example, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $1 billion to account for the large size of these firms and the scale of their custodial activities? If so, explain 119 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(e)(1). 120 Id. 121 Id. See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 122 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(e). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 why. If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $1.5 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be less than $1 billion? If so, explain why. If it should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $950 million, $900 million, $850 million, $800 million, $750 million, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be preferable. 2. Is the proposed increase in the minimum tentative net capital level for ANC broker-dealers appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the minimum tentative net capital amount be greater than $5 billion to account for the use of internal models and the large size of these firms and the scale of their custodial activities? If it should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $6 billion, $8 billion, $10 billion, or some other amount)? Should it be lesser amount (e.g., $4 billion, $3 billion, $2 billion or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be preferable. 3. Is the proposed increase in the early warning threshold from $5 billion to $6 billion for ANC broker-dealers appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the minimum tentative net capital amount be greater than $6 billion, given that the current early warning threshold ($5 billion) is five times the current tentative net capital requirement ($1 billion)? If the early warning level should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $8 billion, $10 billion, $12 billion, $20 billion, $25 billion, or some other amount)? Should it be lesser amount (e.g., $5.8 billion, 5.5 billion, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be preferable. 4. Is it appropriate to require brokerdealer SBSDs to become ANC brokerdealers in order to use internal models? For example, would it be appropriate to permit broker-dealer SBSDs to use internal models but subject them to lesser minimum capital requirements than the ANC broker-dealers? If so, explain why. In addition, provide suggested alternative minimum capital requirements. 5. Is combining the 8% margin factor requirement with the applicable Rule 15c3–1 financial ratio requirement an appropriate way to determine a minimum net capital requirement for ANC broker-dealers? If not, explain why not. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70229 6. Would the 8% margin factor provide an appropriate and workable restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by ANC broker-dealers? If not, explain why not. Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more accurate and effective. Additional Request for Comment on VaR-Based Capital Charges On June 7, 2012, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve (collectively, the ‘‘Banking Agencies’’) approved a joint final rule (‘‘Final Rule’’) regarding market risk capital rules.123 Certain portions of the Final Rule relate to the use of financial models for regulatory capital purposes. Generally, the Banking Agencies stated that the Final Rule is designed to ‘‘better capture positions for which the market risk capital rules are appropriate; to reduce procyclicality; enhance the rules’ sensitivity to risks that are not adequately captured under current methodologies; and increase transparency through enhanced disclosures.’’ The effective date for the Final Rule is January 1, 2013. Under the Final Rule, the capital charge for market risk is the sum of: (1) Its VaR-based capital requirement; (2) its stressed VaR-based capital requirement; (3) any specific risk add-ons; (4) any incremental risk capital requirement; (5) any comprehensive risk capital requirement; and (6) any capital requirement for de minimis exposures. Generally, the qualitative and quantitative requirements for the Banking Agencies’ VaR-based capital requirement are similar to the VaRbased capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers, OTC derivatives dealers, and, as proposed, for nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal models. The Banking Agencies’ stressed VaRbased capital requirement is a new requirement that banks calculate a VaR measure with model inputs calibrated to reflect historical data from a continuous 12-month period that reflects a period of significant financial stress appropriate to the bank’s current portfolio. The stressed VaR requirement is designed to address concerns that the Banking Agencies’ existing VaR-based measure, due to inherent limitations, proved inadequate in producing capital requirements appropriate to the level of losses incurred at many banks during the financial crisis and to mitigate 123 Risk Based Capital Guidelines: Market Risk, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, 77 FR 53059 (Aug. 30, 2012). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules procyclicality in the existing market risk capital requirement for banks. The Final Rule also specifies modeling standards for specific risk and eliminates the current option for a bank to model some but not all material aspects of specific risk for an individual portfolio of debt or equity positions. To address concerns about the ability to model specific risk of securitization products, the Final Rule would require a bank to calculate an additional capital charge ‘‘add-on’’ for certain securitization positions that are not correlation trading positions. Further, under the Final Rule, a bank that measures the specific risk of a portfolio of debt positions using internal models is required to calculate an incremental risk measure for those positions using an internal model (an incremental risk model). Generally, incremental risk consists of the risk of default and credit migration risk of a position. Under the Final Rule, an internal model used to calculate capital charges for incremental risk must measure incremental risk over a oneyear time horizon and at a one-tail, 99.9% confidence level, either under the assumption of a constant level of risk, or under the assumption of constant positions. A bank may measure all material price risk of one or more portfolios of correlation trading positions using a comprehensive risk model. Among the requirements for using a comprehensive risk model is that the model measure comprehensive risk consistent with a one-year time horizon and at a one-tail, 99.9% confidence level, under the assumption of either a constant level of risk or constant positions. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Final Rule adopted by the Banking Agencies for calculating market risk capital requirements should be required for ANC broker-dealers, OTC derivatives dealers, and nonbank SBSDs that have approval to use internal models for regulatory capital purposes, and, if so, which aspects of the proposed rules of the Banking Agencies would be appropriate in this context. b. Computing Net Capital emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 i. The Net Liquid Assets Test The net liquid assets test embodied in Rule 15c3–1 is being proposed as the regulatory capital standard for all nonbank SBSDs (i.e., stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs) because these firms, as previously noted, are expected to engage in a securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is similar to the dealer activities of brokerdealers and because some broker-dealers VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 likely will be registered as nonbank SBSDs. In addition, Rule 15c3–1 currently contains provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by broker-dealers.124 Furthermore, Rule 15c3–1 has been the capital standard for broker-dealers since 1975 and, generally, it has promoted the maintenance of prudent levels of capital. As discussed in section II.A.1. of this release, the net liquid assets test is designed to promote liquidity; the rule allows a broker-dealer to engage in activities that are part of conducting a securities business (e.g., taking securities into inventory) but in a manner that places the firm in the position of holding at all times more than one dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities (e.g., money owed to customers, counterparties, and creditors). Consequently, under the proposed rules, this standard—the net liquid assets test—would be applied to all categories of nonbank SBSDs. The objective is to require the nonbank SBSD to maintain sufficient liquidity so that if it fails financially it can meet all unsubordinated obligations to customers and counterparties and have adequate resources to wind-down in an orderly manner without the need for a formal proceeding. The net liquid assets test is imposed through the mechanics of how a brokerdealer is required to compute net capital pursuant to Rule 15c3–1. These requirements are set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 15c3–1, which defines the term ‘‘net capital.’’ 125 The first step is to compute the broker-dealer’s net worth under GAAP.126 Next, the brokerdealer must make certain adjustments to its net worth to calculate net capital.127 These adjustments are designed to leave the firm in a position where each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities is matched by more than a dollar of highly liquid assets.128 There are thirteen categories 124 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2). 126 See id. See also, e.g., Computation of Net Capital on FOCUS Report Part II, available at https://sec.gov/about/forms/formx-17a-5_2.pdf. Net worth is to be computed in accordance with GAAP. See Interpretation Rule 15c3–1(c)(2)/01 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (‘‘FINRA’’), available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/ industry/@ip/@reg/@rules/documents/ interpretationsfor/p037763.pdf. 127 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2). 128 See, e.g., Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, 54 FR at 315 (‘‘The [net capital] rule’s design is that broker-dealers maintain liquid assets in sufficient amounts to enable them to satisfy promptly their liabilities. The rule accomplishes this by requiring broker-dealers to maintain liquid assets in excess of their liabilities to protect against potential market and credit risks.’’) (footnote omitted). 125 See PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of net worth adjustments required by the rule.129 The most significant adjustments are briefly discussed below. The first adjustment permits the broker-dealer to add back to net worth liabilities that are subordinated to all other creditors pursuant to a loan agreement that meets requirements set forth in Appendix D to the net capital rule.130 Appendix D prescribes a number of requirements for a loan to qualify for the ‘‘add-back’’ treatment.131 For example, the loan agreement must provide that the broker-dealer cannot repay the loan at term if doing so would reduce its net capital to certain levels above the minimum requirement.132 The second adjustment to net worth is that the broker-dealer must add unrealized gains and deduct unrealized losses in the firm’s accounts, mark-tomarket all long and short positions in listed options, securities, and commodities as well as add back certain deferred tax liabilities.133 The third adjustment is that the broker-dealer must deduct from net worth any asset that is not readily convertible into cash.134 This means the broker-dealer must deduct the following types of assets (among others): real estate; furniture and fixtures; exchange memberships; prepaid rent, insurance and other expenses; goodwill; and most unsecured receivables.135 An additional adjustment is that the broker-dealer must deduct 100% of the carrying value of securities for which there is no ‘‘ready market’’ or which cannot be publicly offered or sold because of statutory, regulatory, or contractual arrangements or other restrictions.136 129 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(i)–(xiii). 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(ii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. 131 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b). 132 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b)(8). The restriction on repayment, if triggered, makes the subordinated loan take on the characteristics of permanent capital in that the loan cannot be repaid until such time as the conditions preventing repayment no longer exist. Other requirements for the subordinated loan include that the agreement shall: (1) Have a term of at least one year; (2) effectively subordinate any right of the lender to receive any payment (a defined term) with respect thereto, together with accrued interest or compensation, to the prior payment or provision for payment in full of all claims of all present and future creditors of the broker-dealer arising out of any matter occurring prior to the date on which the related payment obligation (a defined term) matures; and (3) provide that the cash proceeds thereof shall be used and dealt with by the broker-dealer as part of its capital and shall be subject to the risks of the brokerdealer’s business. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b)(1), (3), and (4). 133 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(i). 134 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv). 135 Id. 136 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vii). Rule 15c3– 1 defines ready market to include a recognized established securities market in which there exists 130 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 After making these and other adjustments and taking charges required under Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1,137 the broker-dealer is left with an amount of adjusted net worth that is defined in the rule as ‘‘tentative net capital.’’ 138 As discussed in more detail below, the final step in the process of computing net capital is to take deductions from tentative net capital to account for the market risk inherent in the proprietary positions of the brokerdealer and to create a buffer of extra liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities business.139 Most broker-dealers use the standardized haircuts prescribed in Rule 15c3–1 to determine the amount of the deductions they must take from tentative net capital. ANC brokerdealers and OTC derivatives dealers may use internal VaR models to determine the amount of the deductions for positions for which they have been approved to use VaR models.140 For all other types of positions, they must use standardized haircuts. The standardized haircuts prescribe deductions in amounts that are based on the type of security or money market instrument independent bona fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be determined for a particular security almost instantaneously and where payment will be received in settlement of a sale at such price within a relatively short time conforming to trade custom. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(11). The rule also provides that a ready market will be deemed to exist where the securities have been accepted as collateral for a loan by a bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act and where the brokerdealer demonstrates to its designated examining authority that such securities adequately secure such loans. Id. The rule further provides that indebtedness will be deemed to be adequately secured when the excess of the market value of the collateral over the amount of the indebtedness is sufficient to make the loan acceptable as a fully secured loan to banks regularly making secured loans to broker-dealers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(c)(5). 137 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b. 138 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(15). Tentative net capital—net worth after the adjustments—is the amount by which highly liquid assets plus subordinated debt of the broker-dealer exceeds total liabilities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(15). Hence, the adjustments to net worth required by Rule 15c3–1 impose the net liquid assets test. 139 See, e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, 42 FR 31778 (‘‘[Haircuts] are intended to enable net capital computations to reflect the market risk inherent in the positioning of the particular types of securities enumerated in [the rule]’’); Net Capital Rule, 50 FR 42961 (‘‘These percentage deductions, or ‘haircuts’, take into account elements of market and credit risk that the broker-dealer is exposed to when holding a particular position.’’); Net Capital Rule, 62 FR 67996 (‘‘Reducing the value of securities owned by broker-dealers for net capital purposes provides a capital cushion against adverse market movements and other risks faced by the firms, including liquidity and operational risks.’’) (footnote omitted). 140 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 and, in the case of certain debt instruments, the time-to-maturity of the bond.141 Under the VaR model approach, the amount of the deductions is based on an estimate of the maximum potential loss the portfolio of securities would be expected to incur over a fixed time period at a certain probability level. In order to comply with the proposed net liquid assets test capital standard for nonbank SBSDs, broker-dealer SBSDs would be required to comply with the existing provisions of Rule 15c3–1 and proposed amendments to the rule designed to account for security-based swap activities. Consequently, a brokerdealer SBSD would compute its net capital pursuant to the provisions described above. Stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to the net liquid assets test capital standard through application of proposed new Rule 18a–1.142 The mechanics of computing net capital in Rule 18a–1 would be the same as the existing mechanics for computing net capital in Rule 15c3–1.143 ii. Standardized Haircuts for SecurityBased Swaps As discussed above, Rule 15c3–1 provides two alternative approaches for taking the deductions to tentative net capital to compute net capital: standardized haircuts and internal VaR models.144 ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to use internal VaR models to take deductions for types of positions for which they have been approved to use the models. For all other types of positions, they must use the standardized haircuts. Broker-dealers that are not ANC brokerdealers or OTC derivatives dealers must use the standardized haircuts for all positions. The same approach is being proposed for nonbank SBSDs.145 Under this proposal, a nonbank SBSD would be required to apply standardized haircuts to its proprietary positions unless the Commission approves the firm to use internal models for those positions. Nonbank SBSDs would be required to apply the standardized haircuts currently set forth in Rule 15c3–1 for securities positions for which they have not been approved to use internal models.146 The standardized haircuts in 141 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). proposed new Rule 18a–1. 143 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2), with paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 144 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5), (a)(7), and (c)(2)(vi). See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 145 See section II.A.1. of this release. 146 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. As proposed, 142 See PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70231 Rule 15c3–1 prescribe differing deduction amounts for a variety of classes of securities, including, for example: securities guaranteed as to principal or interest by the government of the United States (‘‘U.S. government securities’’); 147 certain municipal securities; 148 Canadian debt obligations; 149 certain types of mutual funds; 150 certain types of commercial paper, bankers acceptances, and certificates of deposit; 151 certain nonconvertible debt securities; 152 certain convertible debt securities; 153 paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 would incorporate by reference the standardized haircuts in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3–1 rather than repeat them in the rule text. 147 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A). 148 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(B). To qualify for the deductions under this paragraph, the municipal security cannot be traded flat or in default as to principal or interest (a bond is traded flat if it is sold or traded without accrued interest). Id. A municipal security that does not meet this condition would be subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the 100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready market discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). 149 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(C). 150 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(D). 151 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(E). To qualify for the deductions under this paragraph, the instrument must have a fixed rate of interest or be sold at a discount and be rated in one of the three highest categories by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (‘‘NRSROs’’). Id. If the instrument does not meet these conditions, it is subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the 100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready market discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). Pursuant to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed substituting the NRSRO-rating requirement in this provision and other provisions of Rule 15c3–1 with a different standard of creditworthiness. See Public Law 111– 203 § 939A and Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 64352 (Apr. 27, 2011), 76 FR 26550 (May 6, 2011) (‘‘Reference Removal Release’’). 152 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F). To qualify for the deductions under this paragraph, a nonconvertible debt security must have a fixed interest rate and a fixed maturity date, not be traded flat or in default as to principal or interest, and be rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs. Id. If the nonconvertible debt security does not meet these conditions it is subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the 100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready market discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). Pursuant to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed substituting the NRSRO-rating requirement in this provision with a different standard of creditworthiness. See Public Law 111– 203 § 939A; Reference Removal Release, 76 FR 26550. 153 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(G). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 certain cumulative, nonconvertible preferred stock; 154 and certain options.155 The rule also contains catchall provisions to account for securities that are not included in these specific classes of securities.156 Generally, the catchall provisions impose higher deductions than the deductions in the specifically identified classes of securities.157 Further, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release, if a security does not have a ‘‘ready market,’’ it is subject to the 100% deduction from net worth.158 Security-based swaps currently are not an identified class of securities in Rule 15c3–1.159 The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1 would establish standardized deductions for security-based swaps that would apply to broker-dealers registered as nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs (in the case of Rule 15c3–1), and to stand-alone SBSDs (in the case of Rule 18a–1).160 Some brokerdealers may engage in a de minimis amount of security-based swap activity, which would allow them to take advantage of an exemption from the definition of ‘‘security-based swap dealer’’ and not require them to register as SBSDs.161 Rule 15c3–1 currently requires broker-dealers to take haircuts on their proprietary security-based swap positions as they must for all 154 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(H). To qualify for the deductions under this paragraph, a nonconvertible preferred stock must rank prior to all other classes of stock of the same issuer, be rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs, and not be in arrears as to dividends. Id. If the nonconvertible preferred stock does not meet these conditions, it is subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the 100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready market discussed above. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). Pursuant to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed substituting the NRSRO-rating requirement in this provision with a different standard of creditworthiness. See Public Law 111– 203 § 939A; Reference Removal Release, 76 FR 26550. 155 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a. 156 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(J)–(K). 157 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A)–(H), with 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(J)–(K). 158 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vii). 159 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). 160 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 161 See section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)) (defining the term security-based swap dealer); Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596; Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 65543 (Oct. 12, 2011), 76 FR 65784 (Oct. 24, 2011) (‘‘SBSD Registration Proposing Release’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 proprietary positions. Because there are no specific standardized haircuts for security-based swaps, a broker-dealer currently is required to apply a deduction based on the existing provisions (e.g., the catchall provisions). For certain types of OTC derivatives, the deduction is the notional amount of the derivative multiplied by the deduction that would apply to the underlying instrument referenced by the derivative.162 The proposals would establish two separate sets of standardized haircuts for security-based swaps: one applicable to security-based swaps that are credit default swaps and one applicable to other security-based swaps.163 Credit Default Swaps The proposed standardized haircuts for cleared and uncleared security-based swaps that are credit default swaps (‘‘CDS security-based swaps’’) are designed to account for the unique attributes of these positions.164 A CDS security-based swap is an instrument in which the ‘‘protection buyer’’ makes a series of payments to the ‘‘protection seller’’ and, in return, the ‘‘protection seller’’ is obligated to make a payment to the ‘‘protection buyer’’ if a credit event occurs with respect to one or more entities referenced in the contract or with respect to certain types of obligations of the entity or entities referenced in the contract.165 The credit events that can trigger a payment obligation of the protection seller on a CDS security-based swap referencing a corporate entity typically include the bankruptcy of the entity or entities referenced in the contract and the nonpayment of interest and/or principal on one or more of specified type(s) of obligations issued by the entity or entities referenced in the contract.166 In the case of a CDS security-based swap that references an asset-backed security, the credit events may include a 162 See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 32256 (May 6, 1993), 58 FR 27486, 27490 (May 10, 1993). 163 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 164 See section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)) (defining the term security-based swap) and Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207 (Joint Commission and CFTC release adopting interpretative guidance and rules to, among other things, further define the types of credit default swaps that would meet the definition of security-based swap). 165 See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207. See also The Credit Default Swap Market—Report, IOSCO FR05/12 (June 2012) available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/ pdf/IOSCOPD385.pdf. 166 See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48267. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 principal write-down, a failure to pay interest, and an interest shortfall.167 CDS security-based swaps referencing both asset-backed securities and corporate entities can include other standardized and customized credit events. In addition to the entity or assetbacked security to which they reference, CDS security-based swaps are defined by the amount of protection purchased (the notional amount) and the tenor of the contract (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10 years). For example, a protection buyer can enter into a credit default swap referencing XYZ Company with a notional amount of $10 million and a tenor of five years. If XYZ Company suffers a credit event (as defined in the contract) during the five-year period before the contract expires, the protection seller must pay the protection buyer $10 million less the then-current market value of $10 million of obligations issued or guaranteed by XYZ Company.168 To receive this protection, the protection buyer must pay the protection seller periodic (typically quarterly) payments over the five-year term of the contract and possibly an additional upfront amount. The cumulative amount of annual payments can be expressed as a ‘‘spread’’ in basis points.169 The spread at which a CDS security-based swap trades is based on the market’s estimation of the risk that XYZ Company will suffer a credit event (as defined in the contract) that triggers the credit seller’s payment obligation as 167 Id. at 48267, note 682. most CDS security-based swaps currently use a standardized ‘‘Auction Settlement’’ mechanism to determine the amount of payment due from a protection seller to the protection buyer after the occurrence of a credit event, in some contracts the protection buyer is required to deliver obligations issued or guaranteed by the entity referenced in the contract to the protection seller. The protection seller can use the value of those obligations to offset the payment to the protection buyer. 169 Most CDS security-based swaps currently trade with contractually standardized fixed rates (100 basis points or 500 basis points for standard North American corporate CDS security-based swaps). Buyers and sellers of protection agree on upfront payments to adjust the value of the contract from the contractual fixed rate to the rate which reflects the credit risks perceived by the market. For example, if the market spread for a one-year CDS security-based swap on XYZ Company is 200 basis points per annum and the notional amount is $10 million, a CDS security-based swap with a standardized 100-basis points fixed rate would have quarterly payments of $25,000 (for $100,000 in annual payments) and an upfront payment of approximately $100,000. See https:// www.cdsmodel.com/cdsmodel/ for documentation on the standard model to convert an upfront payment on a CDS security-based swap to a spread (or vice-versa) and https://www.theice.com/cds/ Calculator.shtml for an implementation of the standard model. 168 While E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 well as the market’s assessment of the size of that payment. The greater the estimated risk that a credit event will occur (or the greater the expected payment contingent upon a credit event occurring), the higher the spread (i.e., the cost of buying the protection). The proposed standardized haircuts for CDS security-based swaps would be based on a ‘‘maturity grid’’ approach.170 Rule 15c3–1 currently uses maturity grids to prescribe standardized haircuts for various classes of debt instruments.171 The grids impose a sliding scale of haircuts with the largest deductions applying to bonds with the longest period of time-to-maturity.172 The grids also permit broker-dealers to completely or partially net long and short positions in these classes of debt instruments when the maturities of long and short positions are in the same category, subcategory, or, in some cases, between certain adjacent categories.173 The permitted netting allows the broker170 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 171 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A), (B), (C), (E), and (G). See also FINRA Rule 4240 (which prescribes margin requirements for CDS securitybased swaps and includes a maturity-grid approach), available in the FINRA Manual at https:// www.finra.org; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Implement an Interim Pilot Program with Respect to Margin Requirements for Certain Transactions in Credit Default Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 59955 (May 22, 2009), 74 FR 25586 (May 28, 2009) (File No. SR–FINRA 2009–012); Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No. 66528 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR–FINRA–2012–014) (extending interim pilot program until July 17, 2012); Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No. 67449 (July 17, 2012) (extending interim pilot program until July 17, 2013). 172 Id. For example, the grid for certain nonconvertible debt securities has nine maturity categories (this class of debt instrument includes corporate debt and asset-backed securities). See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1). Each category prescribes a different deduction and the amounts of the deductions increase as the maturity increases. Id. The following table shows the maturity categories and corresponding deductions for these securities: Time to Maturity and Deduction Less than 1 year—2.0% 1 year but less than 2 years—3.0% 2 years but less than 3 years—5.0% 3 years but less than 5 years—6.0% 5 years but less than 10 years—7.0% 10 years but less than 15 years—7.5% 15 years but less than 20 years—8.0% 20 years but less than 25 years—8.5% 25 years or more—9% 173 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A), (B), (C), (E), and (G). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 dealer to reduce its required deductions.174 The proposed grid for CDS securitybased swaps would prescribe the applicable deduction based on two variables: the length of time to maturity of the CDS security-based swap contract and the amount of the current offered basis point spread on the CDS securitybased swap.175 As discussed above, the maturity grids for debt instruments in Rule 15c3–1 require increased capital charges as maturity increases. Similarly, the vertical axis of the proposed grid for CDS security-based swaps (presented in the first column of the grid) would contain nine maturity categories ranging from 12 months or less (the smallest deduction) to 121 months and longer (the largest deduction).176 The horizontal axis in the proposed maturity grid (presented in the top row of the grid) would contain six spread categories ranging from 100 basis points or less (the smallest deduction) to 700 basis points and above (the largest deduction).177 Similar to the current ‘‘haircut’’ grids under Rule 15c3–1, the proposed grid for CDS security-based swaps is designed to be risk sensitive by specifying a range of maturity and spread buckets. The number of maturity and spread categories in the proposed grid for CDS security-based swaps is based on Commission staff experience with the maturity grids for other securities in Rule 15c3–1 and, in part, on FINRA Rule 4240.178 While FINRA Rule 4240 is one reference point, the maturity grid it specifies does not appear to have been widely used by market participants, in part because a significant amount of business in the current CDS securitybased swap market is conducted by entities that are not members of 174 Netting would be permitted under the proposed rule for cleared and non-cleared CDS because the CDS will have the same underlying reference obligation and similar time to maturity and spread factors. 175 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The current offered spread would be the spread on the CDS securitybased swap offered by the market at the time of the net capital computation and not the spread specified under the terms of the contract. 176 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 177 Id. 178 See Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No. 66527 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR–FINRA–2012– 015) (in which FINRA amended the maturity grid in Rule 4240 in the interest of regulatory clarity and efficiency, and based upon FINRA’s experience in the administration of the rule). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70233 FINRA.179 Accordingly, the proposed grid draws largely on Commission staff experience and reasoned judgments about the appropriate specifications, and, as detailed below, the Commission requests comment and empirical data as to whether these specifications or others appropriately reflect the unique attributes of CDS security-based swaps. The horizontal ‘‘spread’’ axis is designed to address the specific credit risk associated with the obligor or obligation referenced in the contract. As noted above, the spread increases as the protection seller’s estimation of the likelihood of a credit event occurring increases. Therefore, the net capital deduction—which is designed to address the risk inherent in the instrument—should increase as the spread increases. Combining the two components (maturity and spread) in the grid results in the smallest deduction (1% of notional) required for a short CDS security-based swap with a maturity of 12 months or less and a spread of 100 basis points or below and the largest deduction (50% of notional) required for a short CDS security-based swap with a maturity of 121 months or longer and a spread of 700 basis points or more. The deduction for an unhedged short position in a CDS securitybased swap (i.e., when the nonbank SBSD is the seller of protection) would be the applicable percentage specified in the grid. The deduction for an unhedged long position in a CDS securitybased swap (i.e., when the nonbank SBSD is the buyer of protection) would be 50% of the applicable deduction in the grid.180 The proposed deduction requirements for CDS security-based swaps would permit a nonbank SBSD to net long and short positions where the credit default swaps reference the same entity (in the case of CDS securities-based swaps referencing a corporate entity) or 179 Broker-dealers historically have not participated in a significant way in security-based swap trading, in part, because the Exchange Act has not previously defined security-based swaps as ‘‘securities’’ and, therefore, they have not been required to be traded through registered brokerdealers. Existing broker-dealer capital requirements, however, make it relatively costly to conduct these activities in broker-dealers, as discussed in section II.A.2. of this release. As a result, security-based swap activities, including CDS transactions, currently are generally concentrated in entities that are affiliated with the parent companies of brokerdealers, but not in broker-dealers themselves. 180 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The approach of taking 100% of the applicable deduction for short positions in CDS security-based swaps and 50% for long positions in CDS security-based swaps is consistent with FINRA Rule 4240 and is designed to account for the greater risk inherent in short CDS security-based swaps. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 obligation (in the case of CDS securitiesbased swaps referencing an asset-backed security), reference the same credit events that would trigger payment by the seller of protection, reference the same basket of obligations that would determine the amount of payment by the seller of protection upon the occurrence of a credit event, and are in the same or adjacent maturity and spread categories (as long as the long and short positions each have maturities within three months of the other maturity category).181 In this case, the nonbank SBSD would need to take the specified percentage deduction only on the notional amount of the excess long or short position.182 A reduced deduction also could be taken for long and short CDS securitybased swap positions in the same maturity and spread categories and that reference corporate entities in the same industry sector.183 In this case, the market risk of the offsetting positions is mitigated to the extent that macroeconomic factors similarly impact companies in a particular industry sector, because corporate entities in the same industry sector would likely be similarly impacted by market events affecting that specific industry. The proposed rule would not identify a specific source for determining industry sector classifications in order to provide firms flexibility and to avoid requiring firms to rely on a specific commercial entity to comply with the rule. Instead, a nonbank SBSD would need to use an industry sector classification system that is reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics, and document the industry sector classification system used for the purposes of the rule.184 A 181 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 182 Id. For example, assume the nonbank SBSD is short protection on $10 million in notional CDS security-based swaps on XYZ Company with a 4.25year (51-month) maturity that trades at a 290 basis point spread and long protection on $8 million in notional CDS security-based swaps on XYZ Company with a 5.25-year (63-month) maturity that trades at a 310 basis point spread. Rather than take the deductions on the short protection $10 million position and the long protection $8 million position individually, the nonbank SBSD would take a deduction on the excess short position of $2 million ($10 million short protection position minus the $8 million long protection position) of 5-year maturity CDS security-based swaps trading at a 290 basis point spread. 183 Id. 184 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. An example of an industry sector classification system is: consumer discretionary, consumer staples, energy, financials, health care, industrials, VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 nonbank SBSD could use a third-party’s classification system or develop its own classification system, subject to these limitations. The nonbank SBSD would need to be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of the system it uses. Reduced deductions also would apply for strategies where the firm is long (short) a bond or asset-backed security and long (short) protection through a CDS security-based swap referencing the same underlying bond or assetbacked security. In the case where the nonbank SBSD is long a bond or an asset-backed security and long protection through a credit default swap, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take 50% of the deduction required on the bond (i.e., no deduction would be required with respect to the CDS security-based swap and a lesser deduction would apply to the bond than would be the case if it were not paired with a CDS security-based swap).185 In other words, the deduction the nonbank SBSD would take if it held the bond in isolation would be reduced by one-half to account for the protection provided by the CDS security-based swap referencing the bond. This reduced deduction for the long bond position reflects the risk-reducing effects of the protection provided by the long CDS security-based swap position. If the nonbank SBSD is short a bond or assetbacked security and short protection through a credit default swap, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take the deduction required on the bond or asset-backed security (i.e., no deduction would be required with respect to the CDS security-based swap).186 Non-Credit Default Swaps Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps (each, a ‘‘non-CDS security-based swap’’) can be divided into two broad categories: those that reference equity securities and those that reference debt instruments.187 Total information technology, materials, telecommunication services, and utilities. See the Global Industry Classification Standard developed by MSCI and Standard & Poor’s, available at https://www.msci.com/resources/pdfs/MK-GICS-DIR3-02.pdf. Another example of an industry sector classification system is: basic materials, cyclical consumer, energy, financials, healthcare, industrials, non-cyclical consumer, technology, telecommunications, and utilities. See Thompson Reuters’ business classifications, available at https://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/ financial/thomson_reuters_indices/trbc/sectors/. 185 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(B) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 186 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(C) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 187 See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48207. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 return swaps are an example of a nonCDS security-based swap. A total return swap is an instrument that requires one of the counterparties (the seller) to make a payment to the other counterparty (the buyer) that is based on the price appreciation of, and income from, the underlying security referenced by the security-based swap.188 The buyer in return makes a payment that is based on a variable interest rate plus any depreciation of the underlying security referenced by the security-based swap.189 The ‘‘total return’’ consists of the price appreciation or depreciation plus any interest or income.190 The proposed standardized haircut for a non-CDS security-based swap would be the deduction currently prescribed in Rule 15c3–1 applicable to the instrument referenced by the securitybased swap multiplied by the contract’s notional amount.191 For example, the standardized haircut for an exchange traded equity security typically is 15%.192 Consequently, under the proposal, the standardized haircut for a non-CDS security-based swap referencing an exchange traded equity security would be a deduction equal to the notional amount of the securitybased swap multiplied by 15%.193 The same approach would apply to a nonCDS security-based swap referencing a debt instrument. For example, Rule 15c3–1 prescribes a 7% standardized haircut for a corporate bond that has a maturity of five years and is not traded flat or in default as to principal or interest and is rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs.194 Under the proposal, a nonCDS security-based swap referencing such a bond would require a deduction equal to the contract’s notional amount multiplied by 7%.195 Linking the 188 See id. at 48264. 189 Id. 190 Id. The total return swap is designed to put the buyer in the position of having exposure to the reference security without actually owning it. Thus, the seller pays the buyer appreciation (i.e., gains) and any interest or income on the security and the buyer pays the seller any depreciation (i.e., loss) on the reference security plus a variable interest rate. 191 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 192 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(J). 193 If the notional amount was $5 million, the standardized haircut would be $750,000 ($5 million × 0.15 = $750,000). The approach of multiplying the notional amount by the percentage deduction applicable to the reference security is consistent with the CFTC’s proposed capital charges of equity swaps for nonbank swap dealers that are not using models and are FCMs. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27812–27813. 194 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1)(v). 195 If the notional amount was $5 million, the standardized haircut would be $350,000 ($5 million × 0.07 = $350,000). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules standardized deduction for the non-CDS security-based swap to the standardized deduction that would apply to the instrument referenced by the securitybased swap is based on the rationale that changes in the market value of the instrument underlying the securitybased swap will result in corresponding changes to the market value of the security-based swap. The proposal also is consistent with the treatment of equity security-based swaps under Rule 15c3–1.196 Moreover, the potential volatility of the changes in the non-CDS security-based swap is expected to be similar to the potential volatility in the instrument underlying the securitybased swap. For example, as discussed above, the standardized haircut for an exchange traded equity security is 15%,197 whereas the standardized haircut is 7% for a corporate bond that has a maturity of five years and is not traded flat or in default as to principal or interest and is rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs.198 The equity security has a higher deduction amount because it is expected to have a greater amount of market risk.199 The examples above reflect the proposed standardized haircuts for a single non-CDS security-based swap treated in isolation. It is expected that nonbank SBSDs will maintain portfolios of multiple non-CDS security-based swaps with offsetting long and short positions to hedge their risk. Under the proposed standardized haircuts for nonCDS security-based swaps, nonbank SBSDs would be able to recognize the offsets currently permitted under Rule 15c3–1.200 In particular, as discussed below, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat a non-CDS securitybased swap that references an equity security (‘‘equity security-based swap’’) under the provisions of Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1, which produces a single haircut for portfolios of equity options 196 See Net Capital Rule, 58 FR at 27490. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(J). 198 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1). 199 See, e.g., Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68011 (Dec. 30, 1997) (‘‘[A] broker-dealer’s haircut for equity securities is equal to 15 percent of the market value of the greater of the long or short equity position plus 15 percent of the market value of the lesser position, but only to the extent this position exceeds 25 percent of the greater position. In contrast to the uniform haircut for equity securities, the haircuts for several types of interest rate sensitive securities, such as government securities, are directly related to the time remaining until the particular security matures.’’). 200 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 197 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 and related positions.201 Similarly, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat a non-CDS security-based swap that references a debt instrument (‘‘debt security-based swap’’) in the same manner as debt instruments are treated in the Rule 15c3–1 grids in terms of allowing offsets between long and short positions where the instruments are in the same maturity categories, subcategories, and in some cases, adjacent categories for the purposes of computing haircuts for debt securitybased swaps.202 Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 prescribes a standardized theoretical pricing model to determine a potential loss for a portfolio of equity positions involving the same equity security to establish a single haircut for the group of positions (‘‘Appendix A methodology’’).203 Proposed amendments to Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 would permit equity securitybased swaps to be included in portfolios of equity positions for which the Appendix A methodology is used to compute a portfolio haircut.204 Under 201 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–1. 202 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). 203 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–1. 204 Specifically, Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 would be amended to include equity security-based swaps within the definition of the term ‘‘underlying instrument’’ in paragraph (a)(4) of Appendix A. This would allow these positions to be included in portfolios of equity positions involving the same equity security for purposes of the Appendix A methodology. In addition, the proposals would include security futures on single stocks within the definition of the term ‘‘underlying instrument,’’ which would permit these positions to be included in portfolios of positions involving the same underlying security for purposes of the Appendix A methodology, subject to a minimum charge. This proposal is made in response to legislative and regulatory developments that have occurred since the Appendix A methodology was adopted in 1997. See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 38248 (Feb. 6, 1997), 62 FR 6474 (Feb. 12, 1997). When the Appendix A methodology was adopted, security futures trading was prohibited in the U.S. This prohibition was repealed by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which established a framework for the joint regulation of security futures products by the Commission and the CFTC. Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). Because security futures contracts on individual stocks generally track the price of the underlying stock, and, at expiration, the price of the security futures contract equals the price of the underlying stock, the proposed amendments would treat a security future on an underlying stock as if it were the underlying stock. Appendix A to Rule 18a–1 similarly would include equity securitybased swaps and security futures products in the definition of ‘‘underlying instrument.’’ See paragraph (a)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–1a. See also letter from Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to Timothy H. Thompson, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’), and Grace B. Vogel, Executive Vice President, Member Regulation, Risk Oversight and Operational PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70235 these proposed amendments, brokerdealer SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs would be able to include equity security-based swaps in portfolios of equity positions for purposes of the Appendix A methodology. In addition, proposed new Rule 18a–1 would permit standalone SBSDs to use the Appendix A methodology as well.205 By permitting equity security-based swaps to be included in portfolios of related equity positions, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs would be able to employ a more sensitive measure of the risk when computing net capital than would be the case if the positions were treated in isolation. Under the Appendix A methodology (as proposed to be amended), a nonbank SBSD could group equity security-based swaps, options, security futures, long securities positions, and short securities positions involving the same underlying security (e.g., XYZ Company common stock) and stress the current market price for each position at ten equidistant points along a range of positive and negative potential future market movements, using an approved theoretical option pricing model that satisfies certain conditions specified in the rule.206 For equity security-based swaps, the ten stress points for a portfolio of related positions would span a range from ¥15% to +15% (i.e., ¥15%, ¥12%, ¥9%, ¥6%, ¥3%, +3%, +6%, +9%, +12%, +15%).207 The gains and losses of each position (e.g., a security-based swap, option, and a security future referencing XYZ Company and a long position and short position in XYZ Company stock) in the portfolio would be allowed to offset each other to yield a net gain or loss at each stress point.208 The stress point Regulation, FINRA (May 4, 2012) (no-action letter permitting broker-dealers when calculating net capital using a theoretical pricing model pursuant to Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 to group U.S.-listed security futures contracts on individual stocks with equity options on, and positions in, the same underlying instrument under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of Appendix A). 205 See proposed new Rule 18a–1a. 206 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a(b)(1); paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule18a–1a. Presently, there is only one theoretical options pricing model that has been approved for this purpose. 207 This range of price movements (±) 15% is consistent with the prescribed 15% haircut for most equity securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi)(J). 208 For example, at the ¥6% stress point, XYZ Company stock long positions would experience a 6% loss, short positions would experience a 6% gain, and XYZ Company options would experience gains or losses depending on the features of the options. These gains and losses are added up resulting in a net gain or loss at that point. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 that yields the largest potential net loss for the portfolio would be used to calculate the aggregate haircut for all the positions in the portfolio.209 This method would permit a nonbank SBSD to compute deductions for a portfolio of equity security-based swaps in a more risk sensitive manner by accounting for the risk of the entire portfolio, rather than the risk of each position within the portfolio. With respect to portfolios of debt security-based swaps, a nonbank SBSD could use the offsets permitted in the debt-maturity grids in Rule 15c3–1.210 The debt-maturity grids permit the broker-dealer to reduce the amount of the deductions when long debt security positions are offset by short debt security positions. For example, as discussed above, the maturity grid for nonconvertible debt securities has nine maturity categories.211 In each category, the broker-dealer is required to take the specified deduction on the greater of the long or short positions in the category.212 Consequently, the brokerdealer need not take a deduction on the gross amount of these positions (i.e., the broker-dealer need not take a deduction for the long and short positions). In addition, the rule permits the brokerdealer to exclude nonconvertible debt securities from the maturity categories if they are hedged by other similar nonconvertible debt securities or government securities or futures on government securities.213 The excluded positions are subject to a separate maturity grid that imposes lower deductions.214 The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1 would permit broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs, respectively, to treat debt 209 Because options are part of the portfolio, the greatest portfolio loss (or gain) would not necessarily occur at the largest potential market move stress points (±) 15%. This is because a portfolio that holds derivative positions that are far out of the money would potentially realize large gains at the greatest market move points as these positions come into the money. Thus, the greatest net loss for a portfolio conceivably could be at any market move stress point. In addition, the Appendix A methodology imposes a minimum charge based on the number of options contracts in a portfolio that applies if the minimum charge is greater than the largest stress point charge. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a(b)(1)(v)(C)(2); paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1a. This minimum charge is designed to address issues such as leverage and liquidity risk that may exist even if the market risk of the portfolio is very low as a result of closely-correlated hedging. 210 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 (incorporating by reference the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3–1). 211 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1). 212 Id. 213 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(2). 214 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 security-based swaps in the same manner as the debt instruments they reference are treated for the purposes of determining haircuts. Consequently, nonbank SBSDs could recognize the offsets and hedges that those provisions permit to reduce the deductions on portfolios of debt security-based swaps. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed standardized haircuts for calculating deductions for security-based swaps. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed maturity/spread grid approach for CDS security-based swaps appropriate in terms of addressing the risk of these positions? If not, explain why not. How could the proposed maturity/spread grid approach be modified to better address the risk of these positions? 2. Do broker-dealers currently use the spread/maturity grid in FINRA Rule 4240 to determine capital charges for credit default swaps? If so, what has been the experience of broker-dealers in using the grid? If not, what potential practical issues does the maturity/ spread grid raise? Are there ways these practical issues could be addressed through modifications to the proposed maturity/spread grid? 3. Is there an alternative maturity/ spread grid approach that would be a preferable model for the standardized haircuts? If so, identify the model and explain why it would be preferable. For example, should the standardized haircut for a CDS security-based swap that references an obligation be based on the standardized haircut that would apply to the obligation under paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3–1? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How could a CDS security-based swap that references an obligor as an entity be addressed under such a standardized haircut approach? For example, could the standardized haircut that would apply to obligations (e.g., bonds) issued by the obligor be used as a proxy for the standardized haircut that would apply to the CDS security-based swap referencing the obligor? If so, explain why. 4. Are the proposed spread categories for the CDS security-based swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should there be more spread categories? If so, specify the total number of recommended spread categories and the basis point ranges that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 modifications would be preferable. Should there be fewer spread categories? If so, specify the total number of recommended spread categories and the basis point ranges that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended modifications would be preferable. 5. Would there always be an observable current offered basis point spread for purposes of determining the applicable spread category for a CDS security-based swap? If it could be the case that a CDS security-based swap does not have an observable current offered spread, how should the spread category be determined and how should the rule be modified to require the use of the determined spread category? For example, should the rule require that the nonbank SBSD apply the greatest percentage deduction applicable to the CDS security-based swap based on its maturity (i.e., the deduction prescribed in ‘‘700 or more’’ basis points spread category) or another deduction amount? 6. Are the proposed maturity categories for the CDS security-based swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should there be more maturity categories? If so, specify the total number of recommended maturity categories and the time ranges that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended modifications would be preferable. Should there be fewer maturity categories? If so, specify the total number of recommended maturity categories and the time ranges that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended modifications would be preferable. 7. Are the proposed percentage deductions in the CDS security-based swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the percentage deductions be greater? If so, specify the greater deductions and explain why they would be preferable. Should the percentage deductions be lesser? If so, specify the lesser deductions and explain why it would be preferable. 8. Is the proposed 50% reduced deduction for long CDS security-based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the amount of the reduced deduction be greater? If so, specify the amount and explain why it would be preferable. Should the amount of the reduced deduction be lesser? If so, specify the lesser amount and explain why it would be preferable. 9. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for net long and short positions where the CDS security-based swaps reference the same obligor or obligation and are in the E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules same maturity and spread categories appropriate? If not, explain why not. 10. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for net long and short positions where the CDS security-based swaps reference the same obligor or obligation, are in the same spread category, and are in an adjacent maturity category and have maturities within three months of the other maturity category appropriate? If not, explain why not. 11. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for long and short CDS security-based swap positions in the same maturity and spread categories and that reference obligors or obligations of obligors in the same industry sector appropriate? If not, explain why not. 12. Should the rule specify an industry sector classification system? If so, specify the recommended industry sector classification system and explain why it would be useful for the purposes of the standardized haircuts for CDS security-based swaps. 13. If a nonbank SBSD uses its own industry sector classification system, what factors would be relevant in evaluating whether the system is reasonable? 14. Should there be a concentration charge that would apply when the notional amount of the long and short CDS security-based swap positions in the same maturity and spread categories and that reference obligors or obligations of obligors in the same industry sector exceed a certain threshold to account for the potential that long and short positions may not directly offset each other? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 15. Is the proposed deduction for a position where a nonbank SBDS is long a bond and long a CDS security-based swap on the same underlying obligor appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, is the proposed provision that the reduced deduction would apply only if the CDS security-based swap allowed the nonbank SBSD to deliver the bond to satisfy the firm’s obligation on the swap appropriate? If not, explain why not. Additionally, is reducing the deduction applicable to the bond by 50% an appropriate reduction level? Should the reduction be less than 50% (e.g., 25%) or greater than 50% (e.g., 75%)? 16. Is the proposed reduced deduction for a position where a nonbank SBDS is short a bond and short a CDS securitybased swap on the same underlying bond appropriate? If not, explain why not. 17. Should the Commission propose separate grids for CDS security-based VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 swaps that reference a single obligor or obligation and CDS security-based swaps that reference a narrow based index? If so, how should the two grids differ? 18. Are the proposed standardized haircuts for non-CDS security-based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, would the risk characteristics of non-CDS securitybased swaps (e.g., price volatility) be similar to the instruments they reference? If not, explain why not. 19. Are there practical issues with treating equity security-based swaps under the Appendix A methodology? If so, describe them. Are there modifications that could be made to the Appendix A methodology to address any practical issues identified? If so, describe the modifications. 20. Are there provisions in Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 not included in Appendix A to Rule 18a–1 that should be incorporated into the latter rule? If so, identify the provisions and explain why they should be incorporated into Appendix A to Rule 18a–1. For example, should the strategy-based methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 be applied to equity securitybased swaps? If so, explain why. 21. Are there practical issues with treating debt security-based swaps under the debt maturity grids in Rule 15c3–1? If so, describe them. Are there modifications that could be made to address any practical issues identified? If so, describe the modifications. iii. VaR Models The proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs would permit the use of internal VaR models to compute deductions for proprietary securities positions, including security-based swap positions, in lieu of the standardized haircuts. VaR models are used by financial institutions for internal risk management purposes.215 In addition, VaR models are used to compute market risk charges in international bank capital standards 216 215 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428 (The option to use VaR models is ‘‘intended to reduce regulatory costs for broker-dealers by allowing very highly capitalized firms that have developed robust internal risk management practices to use those risk management practices, such as mathematical risk measurement models, for regulatory purposes’’); Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68011 (Dec. 30, 1997) (‘‘Given the increased use and acceptance of VAR as a risk management tool, the Commission believes that it warrants consideration as a method of computing net capital requirements for brokerdealers.’’). 216 See, e.g., Amendment to the capital accord to incorporate market risks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Jan. 1996); 12 CFR part 3; 12 CFR parts 208 and 225; 12 CFR part 325. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70237 and are permitted by the Commission’s rules for ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers.217 Furthermore, the prudential regulators and the CFTC have proposed permitting the use of VaR models in their capital requirements for bank SBSDs, bank swap dealers, and swap dealers.218 The use of VaR models to calculate market risk charges for security-based swap positions would be subject to the conditions described below. Broker-dealer SBSDs that are not already ANC broker-dealers would need to obtain approval to operate as ANC broker-dealers to use internal VaR models to compute net capital. Standalone SBSDs also would need to obtain Commission approval to use VaR models for this purpose. The requirements for a broker-dealer to apply for approval to operate as an ANC broker-dealer are contained in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.219 Pursuant to these requirements, the applicant must provide the Commission with various types of information about the applicant.220 A stand-alone SBSD applying for approval to use internal models to compute net capital would be required to provide similar information (though a stand-alone SBSD would not be required to provide certain information relating to its holding company or affiliates that is required of ANC broker-dealer applicants).221 217 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. 218 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 219 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e. The application covers both the use of internal VaR models to compute deductions for proprietary positions and internal credit risk models to compute charges for unsecured receivables relating to OTC derivatives. Id. Specifically, the broker-dealer may apply to the Commission for authorization to compute deductions pursuant to Appendix E to Rule 15c3– 1 in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(vi) (the standardized haircuts) and paragraph (c)(2)(vii) (the 100% deduction for securities with no ready market) of Rule 15c3–1 and to compute deductions for credit risk pursuant to Appendix E for unsecured receivables arising from transactions in OTC derivatives in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Rule 15c3–1 (the deductions for unsecured receivables). See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a). The use of internal credit risk models is discussed below in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release. 220 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34433. 221 See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 requires a broker-dealer applying to become an ANC brokerdealer to provide information about the brokerdealer’s ultimate holding company and affiliates. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(viii)–(ix) and (a)(2). Consistent with the requirements for OTC derivatives dealers, the proposed application requirements for stand-alone SBSDs seeking E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 A broker-dealer applying to become an ANC broker-dealer is required to provide the Commission with, among other things, the following information: • An executive summary of the information provided to the Commission with its application and an identification of the ultimate holding company of the ANC broker-dealer; 222 • A comprehensive description of the internal risk management control system of the broker-dealer and how that system satisfies the requirements set forth in Rule 15c3–4; 223 • A list of the categories of positions that the ANC broker-dealer holds in its proprietary accounts and a brief description of the methods that the ANC broker-dealer will use to calculate deductions for market and credit risk on those categories of positions; 224 • A description of the mathematical models to be used to price positions and to compute deductions for market risk, including those portions of the deductions attributable to specific risk, if applicable, and deductions for credit risk; a description of the creation, use, and maintenance of the mathematical models; a description of the ANC approval to use internal models would not require the submission of the information about the firm’s ultimate holding company and affiliates required in paragraphs (a)(1)(viii)–(ix) and (a)(2)(i)–(xi) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1) and (a)(2), with paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 and 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1f(a). This additional information may be more appropriate for a broker-dealer applying to operate as an ANC broker-dealer because of its ability to engage in wider ranges of activities than a standalone nonbank SBSD, such as engaging in a general securities business. The information about the ultimate holding company and affiliates is designed to help ensure the Commission can monitor activities of the holding company and affiliates that could negatively impact the financial well-being of the broker-dealer. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34430. 222 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(i). A stand-alone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 223 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(ii). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. As discussed below in section II.A.2.c. of this release, ANC broker-dealers are required to comply with Rule 15c3–4, and to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(ii), 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(iii) and 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. A nonbank SBSD that does not use internal models also would be required to comply with Rule 15c3– 4, but would not have to provide information to the Commission unless it determined to apply to the Commission to use internal models. See paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 and section II.A.2.c. of this release discussing this requirement. 224 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(iii). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 broker-dealer’s internal risk management controls over those models, including a description of each category of persons who may input data into the models; if a mathematical model incorporates empirical correlations across risk categories, a description of the process for measuring correlations; a description of the backtesting procedures the ANC brokerdealer will use to backtest the mathematical model used to calculate maximum potential exposure; a description of how each mathematical model satisfies the applicable qualitative and quantitative requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1; and a statement describing the extent to which each mathematical model used to compute deductions for market and credit risk will be used as part of the risk analyses and reports presented to senior management; 225 • If the ANC broker-dealer is applying to the Commission for approval to use scenario analysis to calculate deductions for market risk for certain positions, a list of those types of positions, a description of how those deductions will be calculated using scenario analysis, and an explanation of why each scenario analysis is appropriate to calculate deductions for market risk on those types of positions; 226 • A description of how the ANC broker-dealer will calculate current exposure; 227 • A description of how the ANC broker-dealer will determine internal credit ratings of counterparties and internal credit risk weights of counterparties, if applicable; 228 • For each instance in which a mathematical model used by the ANC broker-dealer to calculate a deduction for market risk or to calculate maximum 225 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(iv). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 226 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(v). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(E) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. As discussed below, ANC brokerdealers can use scenario analysis in certain cases to determine deductions for some positions. 227 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(vi). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(F) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 228 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(1)(vii). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(G) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. As discussed below in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, internal credit ratings are used to compute the credit risk charge. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 potential exposure for a particular product or counterparty differs from the mathematical model used by the ultimate holding company of the ANC broker-dealer to calculate an allowance for market risk or to calculate maximum potential exposure for that same product or counterparty, a description of the difference(s) between the mathematical models; 229 and • Sample risk reports that are provided to the persons at the ultimate holding company who are responsible for managing group-wide risk and that will be provided to the Commission pursuant to Rule 15c3–1g.230 The Commission may request that a broker-dealer applying to operate as an ANC broker-dealer supplement its application (‘‘ANC application’’) with other information relating to the internal risk management control system, mathematical models, and financial position of the broker-dealer.231 A broker-dealer’s ANC application and all submissions in connection with the ANC application are accorded confidential treatment, to the extent permitted by law.232 If any information in an ANC application is found to be or becomes inaccurate before the Commission approves the application, the broker-dealer must notify the Commission promptly and provide the Commission with a description of the circumstances in which the information was inaccurate along with updated, accurate information.233 The 229 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(2)(xi). A standalone SBSD also would be required to provide this information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(H) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 230 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(2)(xiii). A standalone SBSD would be required to provide similar information in an application to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(I) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The proposed requirement for standalone SBSDs to provide this information refers to sample risk reports that are provided to ‘‘management’’ as opposed to the ‘‘ultimate holding company.’’ Id. As a practical matter, the two provisions would achieve the same result; namely, the submission of sample reports that are provided to senior levels of the firm. However, because the stand-alone SBSD application provisions do not require information about holding companies and affiliates, the proposed text of the rule refers to ‘‘management.’’ 231 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(4). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 232 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(5). See also 5 U.S.C. 552; Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34433 (discussing confidential treatment of ANC applications). A similar provision would apply to information submitted by stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 233 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(6). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Commission may approve, in whole or in part, an ANC application or an amendment to the application, subject to any conditions or limitations the Commission may require if the Commission finds the approval to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.234 As part of the ANC application approval process, the Commission staff reviews the operation of the brokerdealer’s VaR model, including a review of associated risk management controls and the use of stress tests, scenario analyses, and back-testing.235 As part of this process and on an ongoing basis, the broker-dealer applicant is required to demonstrate to the Commission that the VaR model reliably accounts for the risks that are specific to the types of positions the broker-dealer intends to include in the model computations. During the review, the Commission assesses the quality, rigor, and adequacy of the technical components of the VaR model and of related model governance processes. Stand-alone SBSDs applying for approval to use internal models to compute net capital would be subject to similar reviews of their VaR models as part of the application process. After an ANC application is approved, an ANC broker-dealer is required to amend and submit to the Commission for approval its ANC application before materially changing its VaR model or its internal risk management control system.236 Further, an ANC brokerdealer is required to notify the Commission 45 days before it ceases using a VaR model to compute net capital.237 Finally, the Commission, by order, can revoke an ANC brokerdealer’s ability to use a VaR model to compute net capital if the Commission finds that the ANC broker-dealer’s use of the model is no longer necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.238 In this 234 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(7). A similar provision would apply to applications of standalone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 235 The Commission also reviews the brokerdealer’s credit risk model. 236 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(8). This requirement also applies to material changes to the ANC broker-dealer’s internal credit risk model. Id. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 237 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(10). This requirement also applies to the ANC broker-dealer’s internal credit risk model. Id. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 238 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(11). This requirement also applies to the ANC broker-dealer’s internal credit risk model. Id. A similar provision VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 case, the broker-dealer would need to revert to using the standardized haircuts for all positions. An ANC broker-dealer must comply with certain qualitative and quantitative requirements set forth in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.239 A stand-alone SBSD approved to use a VaR model would be subject to the same qualitative and quantitative requirements.240 In this regard, VaR models estimate the maximum potential loss a portfolio of securities and other instruments would be expected to incur over a fixed time period at a certain probability level. The model utilizes historical market data to generate potential values of a portfolio of positions taking into consideration the observed correlations between different types of assets. The qualitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 specify, among other things, that: (1) Each VaR model must be integrated into the ANC broker-dealer’s daily internal risk management system; 241 (2) each VaR model must be reviewed periodically by the firm’s internal audit staff, and annually by a registered public accounting firm, as that term is defined in section 2(a)(12) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.); 242 and (3) the VaR measure computed by the model must be multiplied by a factor of at least three but potentially a greater amount based on the number of exceptions to the measure resulting from quarterly back-testing exercises.243 would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 239 See 17 CFR 15c3–1e(d). 240 Compare 17 CFR 15c3–1e(d), with paragraph (d)(9) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 241 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(1)(i). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 242 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(1)(ii). The annual review must be conducted in accordance with procedures agreed upon by the broker-dealer and the registered public accounting firm conducting the review. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 243 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(1)(iii). A backtesting exception occurs when the ANC brokerdealer’s actual one-day loss exceeds the amount estimated by its VaR model. See, e.g., Supervisory framework for the use of ‘‘backtesting’’ in conjunction with the internal models approach to market risk capital requirements, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Jan. 1996) (‘‘The essence of all backtesting efforts is the comparison of actual trading results with model-generated risk measures. If this comparison is close enough, the backtest raises no issues regarding the quality of the risk measurement model. In some cases, however, the comparison uncovers sufficient differences that problems almost certainly must exist, either with the model or with the assumptions of the backtest. In between these two cases is a grey area where the test results are, on their own, inconclusive.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70239 The quantitative requirements specify that the VaR model of the ANC brokerdealer must, among other things: (1) Use a 99%, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a tenbusiness-day movement in rates and prices; 244 (2) use an effective historical observation period of at least one year; 245 (3) use historical data sets that are updated at least monthly and are reassessed whenever market prices or volatilities change significantly; 246 and (4) take into account and incorporate all significant, identifiable market risk factors applicable to positions of the ANC broker-dealer, including risks arising from non-linear price characteristics, empirical correlations within and across risk factors, spread risk, and specific risk for individual positions.247 The deduction an ANC broker-dealer must take to tentative net capital in lieu of the standardized haircuts is an amount equal to the sum of four charges.248 The first is a portfolio market risk charge for all positions that are included in the ANC broker-dealer’s VaR models (i.e., the amount measured by each VaR model multiplied by a factor of at least three).249 The second charge is a specific risk charge for positions where specific risk was not captured in the VaR model.250 The third Depending on the number of back-testing exceptions, the ANC broker-dealer may need to increase the market risk multiplier to 3.40, 3.50, 3.65, 3.75, 3.85, or 4.00. Id. Increasing the multiplier increases the deduction amount, which in turn is designed to account for a model that is producing less accurate measures. The same multiplier provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(i)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 244 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(2)(i). This means the potential loss measure produced by the model is a loss that the portfolio could experience if it were held for ten trading days and that this potential loss amount would be exceeded only once every 100 trading days. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 245 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(2)(iii). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 246 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(2)(iii). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 247 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(d)(2)(iv). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 248 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(b). A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (e)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 249 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(b)(1). A similar charge would apply to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See paragraph (e)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 250 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(b)(2). Specific risk is the risk that a security price will change for reasons E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 charge is for positions not included in the VaR model where the ANC brokerdealer is approved to determine a charge using scenario analysis.251 The fourth charge is determined by applying the standardized haircuts for all other positions.252 Finally, ANC broker-dealers are subject to on-going supervision with respect to their internal risk management, including their use of VaR models.253 In this regard, the Commission staff meets regularly with senior risk managers at each ANC broker-dealer to review the risk analytics prepared for the firm’s senior management. These reviews focus on the performance of the risk measurement infrastructure, including statistical models, risk governance issues such as modifications to and breaches of risk limits, and the management of outsized risk exposures. In addition, Commission staff and personnel from an ANC broker-dealer hold regular meetings focused on financial results, the management of the firm’s balance sheet, and, in particular, the liquidity of the balance sheet. The Commission staff also monitors the performance of the ANC broker-dealer’s internal models through regular reports generated by the firms for their internal risk management purposes (backtesting, unrelated to broader market moves. The market risk charge is designed to address the risk that the value of a portfolio of trading book assets will decline as a result of a broad move in market prices or interest rates. For example, the potential that the S&P 500 index will increase or decrease on the next trading day creates market risk for a portfolio of equity securities positions (longs, shorts, options, and OTC derivatives) and the potential that interest rates will increase or decrease on the next trading day creates market risk for a portfolio of fixed-income positions (longs, shorts, options, and OTC derivatives). The specific risk charge is designed to address the risk that the value of an individual position would decline for reasons unrelated to a broad movement of market prices or interest rates. For example, specific risk includes the risk that the value of an equity security will decrease because the issuer announces poor earnings for the previous quarter or the value of a debt security will decrease because the issuer’s credit rating is lowered. The Commission is proposing a similar charge that would apply to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 251 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(b)(3). A similar charge would apply to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 252 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(b)(4). A similar charge would apply to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 253 More detailed descriptions of the Commission’s ANC broker-dealer program are available on the Commission’s Web site at https:// www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdriskoffice.htm and https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/ bdaltnetcap.htm. The ultimate holding companies of the ANC broker-dealers also are subject to monitoring by Commission staff. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 stress test, and other monthly risk reports) and discussions with firm personnel (scheduled and ad hoc).254 Material changes to the internal models are also subject to review and approval.255 Stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models to compute net capital would be subject to similar monitoring and reviews. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed requirements for using VaR models to compute net capital. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Would VaR models appropriately account for the risks of security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, do the characteristics of security-based swaps make it more difficult to measure their market risk using VaR models than it is to measure the market risk of other types of securities using VaR models? If so, explain why. 2. Are the application requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 an appropriate model for the application requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–1? If not, explain why not. 3. Are there provisions in the application requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 not incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a–1 that should be included in the proposed rule, such as information regarding the ultimate holding company of the nonbank SBSD? If so, identify the provisions and explain why they should be incorporated into the proposed rule. 4. Is the review process for ANC applications an appropriate model for the review process for stand-alone SBSDs seeking approval to use internal models to compute net capital? If not, explain why not. 5. Are there ways to facilitate the timely review of applications from nonbank SBSDs to use internal models if a large number of applications are filed at the same time? For example, could a more limited review process be used if a banking affiliate of a nonbank SBSD has been approved by a prudential regulator to use the same model the nonbank SBSD intends to use? If so, what conditions should attach to such approval? Are there other indicia of the reliability of such models that could be relied on? 254 In addition to regularly scheduled meetings, communications with ANC broker-dealers may increase in frequency, dependent on existing market conditions, and at times, may involve daily, weekly or other ad hoc calls or meetings. 255 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(8). PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 6. Are the qualitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 an appropriate model for the qualitative requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–1? 7. More generally, are the qualitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 appropriate for VaR models that will include security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, are there additional or alternative qualitative requirements that should be required to address the unique risk characteristics of security-based swaps? If so, describe them and explain why they would be appropriate qualitative requirements. 8. Are the quantitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 an appropriate model for the quantitative requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–1? If not, explain why not. 9. More generally, are the quantitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 appropriate for VaR models that will include security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, are there additional or alternative quantitative requirements that should be required to address the unique risk characteristics of security-based swaps? If so, describe them and explain why they would be preferable. 10. Are the components of the deduction an ANC broker-dealer must take from tentative net capital under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 an appropriate model for the components of the deduction a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be required to take from tentative net capital under proposed new Rule 18a– 1? If not, explain why not. 11. Should the Commission employ the same type of on-going monitoring process used for ANC broker-dealers to monitor stand-alone SBSDs using internal models? If not, explain why not. iv. Credit Risk Charges Obtaining collateral is one of the ways dealers in OTC derivatives manage their credit risk exposure to OTC derivatives counterparties.256 Collateral may be provided to cover the amount of the 256 See, e.g., International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (‘‘ISDA’’), Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices, Release 2.0 (Mar. 1, 2010), available at https://www. isda.org/c_and_a/pdf/Collateral-Market-Review.pdf (‘‘Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices’’); Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Eurocurrency Standing Committee of the Central Banks of the Group of Ten countries, OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures And Counterparty Risk Management, (Sept. 1998), available at https://www. bis.org/publ/ecsc08.pdf (‘‘OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures And Counterparty Risk Management’’). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 current exposure of the dealer to the counterparty.257 In this case, the collateral is designed to protect the dealer from losing the positive market value of the OTC contract if the counterparty defaults.258 Collateral also may be provided to cover an amount in excess of the current exposure (sometimes referred to as ‘‘residual exposure’’) of the dealer to the counterparty.259 In this case, the collateral is designed to protect the dealer from potential future credit risk exposure to the counterparty (‘‘potential future exposure’’).260 This risk, among other things, is that the current exposure may increase in the future and the counterparty will default on the obligation to provide additional collateral to cover the increase or an increase in the amount of current exposure will occur after the counterparty defaults and is no longer providing collateral.261 As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, the margin rule for noncleared security-based swaps—proposed new Rule 18a–3—would require a nonbank SBSD to collect collateral from a counterparty to cover current and potential future exposure to the counterparty.262 However, under the rule, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect collateral from a commercial end user to cover current and potential future exposure to the commercial end user.263 This proposed 257 See, e.g., ISDA, Independent Amounts, Release 2.0 (Mar. 1, 2010) (‘‘Independent Amounts’’). The current exposure is the amount that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the nonbank SBSD if all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were terminated (i.e., the net positive value of the OTC contracts to the nonbank SBSD and the net negative value of the OTC contracts to the counterparty). The amount payable on the OTC derivatives contracts (the positive value) is determined by marking-to-market the OTC derivatives contracts and netting contracts with a positive value against contracts with a negative value. The market value of an OTC derivatives contract also is referred to as the replacement value of the contract as that is the amount the nonbank SBSD would need to pay to enter into an identical contract with a different counterparty. 258 Id. at 2 (‘‘The commercial reason for basing the collateral requirement around the Exposure is that this represents an approximation of the amount of credit default loss that would occur between the parties if one were to default.’’). 259 Id. at 4. 260 Id. at 6 (‘‘The underlying commercial reason behind Independent Amounts is the desire to create a ‘‘cushion’’ of additional collateral to protect against certain risk * * *’’). 261 Id. 262 See proposed new Rule 18a–3. 263 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As discussed in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would contain three other exceptions to the requirements in the rule to collect and hold collateral. See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(B), (C), and (D) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. The proposed alternative credit risk charge VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 exception to collecting collateral from commercial end users is intended to address concerns that have been expressed by these entities and others that the imposition of margin requirements on commercial companies that use derivatives to mitigate business risks could disrupt their ability to enter into hedging transactions by making it prohibitively expensive.264 At the same time, because collecting collateral is an important means of mitigating risk, nonbank SBSDs would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth if collateral is not collected from a commercial end user to cover the amount of the nonbank SBSD’s uncollateralized current exposure.265 In addition, as discussed below in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, nonbank SBSDs would be required to take a capital charge equal to the amount that the potential future exposure to the commercial end user—as measured under proposed new Rule 18a–3—is uncollateralized.266 As an alternative to taking these 100% capital charges for uncollateralized current and potential future exposure to a commercial end user, an ANC broker-dealer and a standalone SBSD using internal models could take a credit risk charge using a discussed in this section of the release would not apply to these other exceptions. 264 See, e.g., letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, the Honorable Frank D. Lucas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, the Honorable Tim Johnson, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives to Secretary Timothy Geithner, Department of Treasury, Chairman Gary Gensler, CFTC, Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Board, and Chairman Mary Schapiro, Commission (Apr. 6, 2011); letter from the Honorable Christopher Dodd, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Blanche Lincoln, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, to the Honorable Barney Frank, Chairman, Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, and the Honorable Collin Peterson, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives (June 30, 2010); 156 Cong. Rec. S5904 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statement of Sen. Lincoln). See also letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011); letter from Paul Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Users of America, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011); letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission and David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (Sept. 10, 2010). 265 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (which requires a broker-dealer—and would require a broker-dealer SBSD—to deduct unsecured and partly secured receivables); paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 (which would contain an analogous provision for stand-alone SBSDs). 266 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–1. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70241 methodology in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.267 This charge would be designed to balance the concern of commercial end users that delivering collateral to nonbank SBSDs could disrupt their ability to enter into hedging transactions with the need for nonbank SBSDs to account for their credit risk to commercial end users. ANC broker-dealers currently are permitted to add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from OTC derivatives transactions (i.e., they can add back the amount of the uncollateralized current exposure).268 Instead of the 100% deduction that applies to most unsecured receivables under Rule 15c3–1, ANC broker-dealers are permitted to take a credit risk charge based on the uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty.269 In most cases, the credit risk charge is significantly less than a 100% deduction, since it is a percentage of the amount of the receivable that otherwise would be deducted in full. ANC brokerdealers are permitted to use this approach because they are required to implement processes for analyzing credit risk to OTC derivative counterparties and to develop mathematical models for estimating credit exposures arising from OTC derivatives transactions and determining risk-based capital charges for those exposures.270 Under the current requirements, this approach is used for uncollateralized OTC derivatives receivables from all types of counterparties.271 For the reasons discussed below, this treatment would be narrowed under the proposed capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models so that it would apply only to uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swaps (i.e., uncollateralized receivables from other types of counterparties would be subject to the 100% deduction from net worth).272 267 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 268 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to treat such uncollateralized receivables in a similar manner. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 269 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c); 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(a)(7). 270 Id. 271 Id. While the requirements permit this treatment for unsecured receivables from all types of counterparties, the amount of the credit risk charge—as discussed below—depends on the creditworthiness of the counterparty. Id. 272 See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule 15c3–1e. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules The current requirements for determining risk-based capital charges for credit exposures are prescribed in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. These requirements are based on a method of computing capital charges for credit risk exposures in the international capital standards for banking institutions. In general terms, credit risk is the risk of loss arising from a borrower or counterparty’s failure to meet its obligations in accordance with agreed terms, including, for example, by failing to make a payment of cash or delivery of securities. The considerations that inform an entity’s assessment of a counterparty’s credit risk therefore are broadly similar across the various relationships that may arise between the dealer and the counterparty. Accordingly, the methodology in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 should be a reasonable model for determining riskbased capital charges for credit exposures whether the entity in question is an ANC broker-dealer or a stand-alone SBSD using models. Similarly, because credit risk arises regardless of the number or size of transactions, the methodology should apply in a consistent manner whether an entity deals exclusively in OTC derivatives, maintains a significant book of such derivatives, or only engages in one from time to time. As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the capital standard in Rule 15c3–1 is a net liquid assets test. The rule imposes this test by requiring a broker-dealer to deduct all illiquid assets, including most unsecured receivables.273 The goal is to require the broker-dealer to hold more than one dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities. The rule requires a 100% deduction for most types of unsecured receivables because these assets cannot be readily converted into cash to provide immediate liquidity to the broker-dealer.274 FOCUS Report data and Commission staff experience with supervising the ANC broker-dealers indicates that ANC broker-dealers have not engaged in a large volume of OTC derivatives transactions since these rules were adopted in 2004. Therefore, they have not had significant amounts of unsecured receivables that could be subject to the credit risk charge provisions in Appendix E to Rule 15c3– 1. However, when the Dodd-Frank Act’s OTC derivatives reforms are implemented and become effective, ANC broker-dealers could significantly 273 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv). Interpretation Guide to Net Capital Computation for Brokers and Dealers, 32 FR at 858. 274 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 increase the amount of the receivables these firms have relating to OTC derivatives. This development could adversely impact the liquidity of the ANC broker-dealers to the extent exposures to OTC derivatives are not collateralized. For these reasons, ANC broker-dealers (including broker-dealer SBSDs that are approved to use internal models) would be required to treat uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from security-based swaps like most other types of unsecured receivables (i.e., subjecting them to a 100% deduction from net worth) except when the counterparty is a commercial end user. In the case of a commercial end user, the ANC broker-dealer would be permitted to continue to take a credit risk charge in lieu of the 100% deduction.275 Stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models also would be permitted to take a credit risk charge for uncollateralized receivables arising from security-based swaps with (and only with) commercial end users in lieu of the 100% deduction.276 Under the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs, this credit risk charge for a commercial end user could serve as an alternative to the proposed capital charge in lieu of collecting collateral to cover potential future exposure.277 The proposed capital charge in lieu of margin is designed to address situations where a nonbank SBSD does not collect sufficient (or any) collateral to cover potential future exposure relating to cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps.278 This situation may arise with respect to counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps that are commercial end users because proposed new Rule 18a–3 would not require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from them to cover either current or potential future exposure.279 The proposed method for calculating the credit risk charge for commercial end users would be the same method ANC broker-dealers currently are permitted to use for all OTC derivatives counterparties.280 A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would 275 See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule 15c3–1e. 276 See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 277 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 278 Id. 279 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 280 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c); paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 use the same method.281 Under this method, the credit risk charge is the sum of three calculated amounts: (1) A counterparty exposure charge; (2) a concentration charge if the current exposure to a single counterparty exceeds certain thresholds; and (3) a portfolio concentration charge if aggregate current exposure to all counterparties exceeds certain thresholds.282 The first component of the credit risk charge is the counterparty exposure charge.283 An ANC broker-dealer must determine an exposure charge for each OTC derivatives counterparty. The first component of the credit risk charge is the aggregate of the exposure charges across all counterparties. The exposure charge for a counterparty that is insolvent, in a bankruptcy proceeding, or in default of an obligation on its senior debt, is the net replacement value of the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty (i.e., the net amount of the uncollateralized current exposure to the counterparty).284 The counterparty exposure charge for all other counterparties is the credit equivalent amount of the ANC broker-dealer’s exposure to the counterparty multiplied by an applicable credit risk weight factor and then multiplied by 8%.285 The credit equivalent amount is the sum of the ANC broker-dealer’s: (1) Maximum potential exposure (‘‘MPE’’) to the counterparty multiplied by a back-testing determined factor; and (2) current exposure to the counterparty.286 281 See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. While this discussion focuses on the application of the method in the context of ANC broker-dealers, the same method would be used by stand-alone SBSDs for the reasons described above, in particular the fact that credit risk exposure should not vary materially depending on whether an entity is a broker-dealer SBSD or a stand-alone SBSD. 282 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). 283 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(1). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be required to take an identical credit risk charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 284 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(1)(i). In other words, the uncollateralized receivable is deducted in full. A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would take an identical credit risk charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 285 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(1)(ii). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would take an identical credit risk charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The 8% multiplier is consistent with the calculation of credit risk in the OTC derivatives dealers rules and with the Basel Standard, and is designed to dampen leverage to help ensure that the firm maintains a safe level of capital. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34436, note 42. 286 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(i). The amount of the factor is based on backtesting exceptions. A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The MPE amount is a charge to address potential future exposure and is calculated using the ANC brokerdealer’s VaR model as applied to the counterparty’s positions after giving effect to a netting agreement with the counterparty, taking into account collateral received from the counterparty, and taking into account the current replacement value of the counterparty’s positions.287 The current exposure amount is the current replacement value of the counterparty’s positions after giving effect to a netting agreement with the counterparty and taking into account collateral received from the counterparty.288 A collateral agreement gives the dealer the right of recourse to an asset or assets that can be sold or the value of which can be applied in the event the counterparty defaults on an obligation arising from an OTC derivatives contract between the dealer and the counterparty.289 Collateral ‘‘ideally’’ is ‘‘an asset of stable and predictable value, an asset that is not linked to the value of the transaction in any way and an asset that can be sold quickly and easily if the need arises.’’ 290 Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 sets forth requirements for taking account of collateral in determining the MPE and current exposure amounts.291 These requirements are designed to require collateral that meets the characteristics noted above. The requirements, among other things, include that the collateral is: (1) Marked-to-market each day; (2) subject to a daily margin maintenance requirement;292 (3) in the ANC brokerdealer’s possession and control; (4) liquid and transferable; (5) capable of being liquidated promptly without intervention of any other party; (6) subject to a legally enforceable collateral agreement; (7) not comprised of securities issued by the counterparty or would determine the credit equivalent amount in the same manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 287 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(ii). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would compute MPE in the same manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 288 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iii). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would compute current exposure in the same manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 289 See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices at 5. 290 Id. 291 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(v). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same requirements in order to be permitted to take into account collateral when determining the MPE and current exposure amounts. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 292 This refers to an internal maintenance margin requirement (i.e., not one imposed by regulation). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 a party related to the ANC broker-dealer or the counterparty; (8) comprised of instruments that can be included in the ANC broker-dealer’s VaR model; and (9) not used in determining the credit rating of the counterparty.293 Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 sets forth certain minimum requirements for giving effect to netting agreements 294 when determining the MPE and current exposure amounts.295 Specifically, an ANC broker-dealer may include the effect of a netting agreement that allows the netting of gross receivables from and gross payables to a counterparty upon default of the counterparty if: • The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings; • The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject to the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any time; and • For internal risk management purposes, the ANC broker-dealer monitors and controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net basis.296 These requirements are designed to ensure that the netting agreement between the ANC broker-dealer and the counterparty permits the ANC brokerdealer to reduce the receivables and 293 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(v)(A)–(H). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same requirements. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E)(1)–(8) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 294 Netting agreements are bilateral contracts between two counterparties that enter into OTC derivatives contracts with each other. In netting agreements, the two parties agree that if one counterparty defaults, the pending OTC derivatives contracts between the parties will be closed out and a single net payment obligation will be determined (as opposed to payment obligations for each separate OTC derivatives contract between the parties). The amount of the single net payment obligation is determined by offsetting OTC derivatives contracts that have a positive value to a counterparty with OTC derivatives contracts that have a negative value to the counterparty. After the offsets, one counterparty has an amount of positive value, which to the other counterparty is a negative value. This is the amount of the single net payment obligation. If the non-defaulting counterparty is owed the single net payment amount, it can liquidate collateral held to secure the obligations of the defaulting counterparty. However, if the nondefaulting party does not hold collateral, it becomes a general creditor of the defaulting counterparty with respect to the amount of the single net payment obligation. 295 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iv). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same requirements in order to be permitted to take into account netting agreements when determining MPE and current exposure amounts. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 296 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iv)(A)–(C). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same requirements. See paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(D)(1)–(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70243 payables between the two entities to a single net payment obligation. The counterparty exposure charge is the sum of the MPE and current exposure amounts multiplied by an applicable credit risk weight factor and then multiplied by 8%.297 Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 prescribes three standardized credit risk weight factors (20%, 50%, and 150%) and, as an alternative, permits an ANC brokerdealer with Commission approval to use internal methodologies to determine appropriate credit risk weights to apply to counterparties.298 A higher percentage credit risk weight factor results in a larger counterparty exposure charge amount. Moreover, because the counterparty exposure charge is designed to require the ANC brokerdealer to hold capital to address the firm’s credit risk exposure to the counterparty, the selection of the appropriate risk weight factor to use for a given counterparty is based on an assessment of the creditworthiness of the counterparty. ANC broker-dealers are permitted to use internally derived credit ratings to select the appropriate risk weight factor.299 297 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(1)(ii). As noted above, an 8% multiplier is consistent with the international bank capital standards and is designed to dampen leverage to help ensure that the ANC broker-dealer maintains a safe level of capital. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34436. 298 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(vi). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same requirements. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The credit risk weights in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 were based on the international bank capital standards. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34436 (‘‘These proposed credit risk weights were based on the formulas provided in the Foundation Internal Ratings-Based approach to credit risk proposed by the Basel Committee and were derived using a loss given default (the percent of the amount owed by the counterparty the firm expects to lose if the counterparty defaults) of 75%.’’) (citations omitted). 299 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(vi)(D). There is a basic method for ANC broker-dealers to determine the applicable risk weight factor using external credit ratings of NRSROs. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1e(c)(4)(vi)(A)–(C). Currently, all six ANC brokerdealers are approved to use internally derived credit ratings. See Reference Removal Release, 76 FR at 26555. Pursuant to section 939A of the DoddFrank Act, the Commission has proposed eliminating the basic method of using NRSRO credit ratings and, consequently, if the proposals are adopted, an ANC broker-dealer would be required to use internally derived credit ratings. See Public Law 111–203 § 939A and Reference Removal Release, 76 FR at 26555–26556. Consistent with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, there would not be a basic method for stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. Consequently, these nonbank SBSDs would be required to use internally derived credit ratings to determine the appropriate risk weight factor to apply to a counterparty. This does not mean that an ANC broker-dealer or stand-alone SBSD could E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The second component of an ANC broker-dealer’s credit risk charge is a counterparty concentration charge.300 This charge accounts for the additional risk resulting from a relatively large exposure to a single counterparty.301 This charge is triggered if the current exposure of the ANC broker-dealer to a counterparty exceeds 5% of the tentative net capital of the ANC brokerdealer.302 In this case, the ANC brokerdealer must take a counterparty concentration charge equal to: (1) 5% of the amount by which the current exposure exceeds 5% of tentative net capital for a counterparty with a risk weight factor of 20% or less; (2) 20% of the amount by which the current exposure exceeds 5% of tentative net capital for a counterparty with a risk weight factor of greater than 20% and less than 50%; and (3) 50% of the amount by which the current exposure exceeds 5% of tentative net capital for a counterparty with a risk weight factor of 50% or more.303 The third—and final—component of the credit risk charge is a portfolio concentration charge.304 The portfolio concentration charge is designed to address the risk of having a relatively large amount of unsecured receivables relative to the size of the firm. This charge is triggered when the aggregate current exposure of the ANC brokerdealer to all counterparties exceeds 50% of the firm’s tentative net capital.305 In this case, the portfolio concentration charge is equal to 100% of the amount by which the aggregate current exposure not include external credit ratings as part of its internal credit rating methodology. See Reference Removal Release, 76 FR at 26552–26553 (identifying external credit ratings as one of several factors a broker-dealer could consider when assessing credit risk under the Commission’s proposals to substitute NRSRO credit ratings in the broker-dealer rules with a different standard of creditworthiness). 300 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(2). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same counterparty concentration charge. See paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 301 Concentration charges are intended to provide a liquidity cushion if a lack of diversification of positions exposes the firm to additional risk. 302 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(2)(i)–(iii). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same threshold in determining the counterparty concentration charge. See paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A)–(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 303 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(1)(i)–(iii). A standalone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same charges. See paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A)–(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 304 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(3). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same portfolio concentration charge. See paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 305 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 exceeds 50% of the ANC broker-dealer’s tentative net capital.306 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed credit risk charges. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Should ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models be required to deduct in full unsecured receivables from commercial end users, rather than being permitted to use the proposed credit risk charge? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, would ANC brokerdealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models have substantial amounts of receivables from commercial end users that, if not collateralized, could adversely impact the liquidity of these firms? If so, what measures in addition to the proposed credit risk charge could be implemented to address the risk of uncollateralized credit risk exposure to commercial end users in the absence of a required 100% deduction? Commenters should provide data to support their responses to these questions. 2. Should ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models be required to take a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared security-based swaps with commercial end users? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, would ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models enter into substantial amounts of non-cleared security-based swaps with commercial end users that could adversely impact the risk profiles of these firms, if collateral was not collected to cover potential future exposure? If so, what measures in addition to the proposed credit risk charge could be implemented to address this risk in the absence of a required 100% deduction? Commenters should provide data to support their responses to these questions. 3. Is the credit risk charge an appropriate measure to address the risk to nonbank SBSDs of having uncollateralized current and potential future exposure to commercial end users? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Are there other measures that could be implemented as an alternative or in addition to the credit risk charge to address the risk of this uncollateralized exposure? If so, 306 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(3). A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same charge. See paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 identify the measures and explain why they would be appropriate alternatives or supplements to the credit risk charge. 4. What will be the economic impact of the credit risk charge? For example, will the additional capital that a nonbank SBSD would be required to maintain because of the credit risk charge result in costs that will be passed through to end users? Please explain. 5. Should the application of the credit risk charge be expanded to unsecured receivables from other types of counterparties? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How would such an expansion impact the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs? 6. Should the application of the credit risk charge be expanded to the other exceptions to the margin collateral requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How would such an expansion impact the risk profile of nonbank SBSDs? 7. The ability to take a credit risk charge in lieu of a 100% deduction for an unsecured receivable would apply only to unsecured receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swap transactions. Consequently, an ANC broker-dealer and a nonbank SBSD would need to take a 100% deduction for unsecured receivables from commercial end users arising from swap transactions. Should the application of the credit risk charge be expanded to include unsecured receivables from commercial end users arising from swap transactions? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How would such an expansion impact the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs? 8. Is the overall method of computing the credit risk charge appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example, are there differences between ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs that would make the method of computing the credit risk charge appropriate for the former but not appropriate for the latter? If so, identify the differences and explain why they would make the credit risk charge not appropriate for nonbank SBSDs. What modifications should be made to the method of computing the credit risk charge for nonbank SBSDs? 9. Are the steps required to compute the credit risk charge understandable? If not, identify the steps that require further explanation. 10. Is the method of computing the first component of the credit risk charge—the counterparty exposure charge—appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example, is the calculation of the credit equivalent amount for a counterparty E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 (i.e., the sum of the MPE and the current exposure to the counterparty) a workable requirement for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 11. Are the conditions for taking collateral into account when calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 12. Are the conditions for taking netting agreements into account when calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 13. Are the standardized risk weight factors (20%, 50%, and 150%) proposed for calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 14. Is the method of computing the second component of the credit risk charge—the counterparty concentration charge—appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 15. Is the method of computing the third component of the credit risk charge—portfolio concentration charge—appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. v. Capital Charge In Lieu of Margin Collateral As discussed above in section II.B. of this release, collateral is one of the ways dealers in OTC derivatives manage their credit risk exposure to OTC derivatives counterparties.307 Collateral may be provided to cover the amount of the current exposure of the dealer to the counterparty.308 Collateral also may be provided to cover the potential future exposure of the dealer to the counterparty, i.e., margin collateral.309 Clearing agencies will impose margin collateral requirements on their clearing members, including nonbank SBSDs, for cleared security-based swaps.310 In addition, as discussed below in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would establish margin collateral requirements for nonbank SBSDs with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps.311 Furthermore, FINRA also prescribes margin requirements for security-based swaps.312 Rule 15c3–1 currently requires a broker-dealer to take a deduction from net worth for under-margined accounts.313 Specifically, the brokerdealer is required to deduct from net 307 See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices. 308 See Independent Amounts. 309 Id. at 4. 310 See discussion below in section II.B. of this release. 311 See proposed new Rule 18a–3. 312 See FINRA Rule 4240. 313 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(xii). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 worth the amount of cash required in each customer’s and noncustomer’s account to meet a maintenance margin requirement of the firm’s designated examining authority after application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding five business days or less.314 These deductions serve the same purpose as the deductions a brokerdealer is required to take on proprietary securities positions in that they account for risk of the positions in the customer’s account, which the brokerdealer may need to liquidate if the customer defaults on obligations to the broker-dealer. In order to prescribe a similar requirement for security-based swap positions, Rule 15c3–1 would be amended to require broker-dealer SBSDs to take a deduction from net worth for the amount of cash required in the account of each security-based swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a clearing agency, selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’), or the Commission, after application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding one business day or less.315 An analogous provision would be included in new Rule 18a–1, though it would not refer to margin requirements of SROs because stand-alone SBSDs will not be members of SROs.316 These provisions would require broker-dealer SBSDs to take capital charges when their securitybased swap customers do not meet margin collateral requirements of clearing agencies, SROs, or the Commission after one business day from the date the margin collateral requirement arises. The capital charge would be designed to address the risk to nonbank SBSDs that arises from not collecting the margin collateral.317 As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral to meet account equity requirements by noon of the next business day from the day the account equity requirement arises.318 Consequently, to be consistent with the proposed requirement to collect collateral within one day, the undermargined capital charge for securitybased swap accounts would be triggered within one day of the margin 314 Id. 315 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(B) of Rule 15c3–1. 316 See paragraph (c)(1)(ix) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 317 See section II.B.1. of this release for a discussion of the purpose of margin collateral. 318 See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70245 requirement arising, as opposed to the five-day trigger in Rule 15c3–1. In addition to the deductions for under-margined security-based swap accounts, the proposed rules would impose capital charges designed to address situations where the account of a security-based swap customer is meeting all applicable margin requirements but the margin collateral requirement results in the collection of an amount of collateral that is insufficient to address the risk because, for example, the requirement for cleared security-based swaps established by a clearing agency does not result in sufficient margin collateral to cover the nonbank SBSD’s exposure or because an exception to collecting margin collateral for non-cleared security-based swaps exists.319 These proposed capital charges would not apply in the circumstance, discussed in the preceding section, involving unsecured receivables from commercial end users, which would be separately addressed by proposed new Rule 18a–1 and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1.320 The proposed capital charges relating to margin collateral would be required deductions from the nonbank SBSD’s net worth when computing net capital.321 The proposals are intended to require a nonbank SBSD to set aside net capital to address the risks of potential future exposure that are mitigated through the collection of margin collateral. The set aside net capital would serve as an alternative to obtaining margin collateral for this purpose. With respect to cleared security-based swaps, for which margin requirements will not be established by the Commission, the rules would impose a capital charge that would apply if a nonbank SBSD collects margin collateral from a counterparty in an amount that is less than the deduction that would apply to the security-based swap if it was a proprietary position of 319 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. The exceptions to the proposed margin rule are discussed below. 320 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, nonbank SBSDs would be required to take a 100% deduction to net worth when calculating net capital equal to their uncollateralized current exposure to a counterparty arising from a security-based swap except that an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models could take a credit risk charge as an alternative to the 100% deduction if the counterparty was a commercial end user. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (which requires a broker-dealer—and would require a broker-dealer SBSD—to deduct unsecured and partly secured receivables); paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 (which would contain an analogous provision for stand-alone SBSDs). 321 Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 the nonbank SBSD (i.e., less than an amount determined by using the standardized haircuts in Commission Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and in proposed new Rule 18a–1 or a VaR model, as applicable).322 This aspect of the proposal is intended to adequately account for the risk of the counterparty defaulting by requiring the nonbank SBSD to maintain capital in the place of margin collateral in an amount that is no less than would be required for a proprietary position.323 This requirement also is intended to ensure that there is a standard minimum coverage for exposure to cleared security-based swap counterparties apart from the individual clearing agency margin requirements, which could vary among clearing agencies and over time. If the counterparty defaults, the nonbank SBSD would need to liquidate the counterparty’s cleared security-based swaps and other positions in the account to cover the counterparty’s obligation to the nonbank SBSD. Thus, the nonbank SBSD will become subject to the market risk of these positions in the event of the counterparty’s default. If the positions decrease in value, the nonbank SBSD may not be able to cover the defaulted counterparty’s obligations to the nonbank SBSD through the liquidation of the positions because the cash proceeds from the liquidation may yield less than the obligation. Margin collateral is designed to mitigate this risk by serving as a buffer to account for a decrease in the market value of the counterparty’s positions between the time of the default and the liquidation. If the amount of the margin collateral is insufficient to make up the difference, the nonbank SBSD will incur losses. This proposed capital charge is designed to require the nonbank SBSD to hold sufficient net capital, as an alternative to margin, to enable it to withstand such losses. With respect to non-cleared securitybased swaps, the rules would impose capital charges to address three exceptions in proposed new Rule 18a– 3 (the nonbank SBSD margin rule).324 322 See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(A) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 323 As discussed in section II.B.2. of this release, the margin requirements for non-cleared securitybased swaps would be the same as the deductions to net capital that a nonbank SBSD would take on the positions under Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1. 324 See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A), (C), and (D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. There is a fourth exception in proposed new Rule 18a–3 under which a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect margin collateral to cover potential future exposure to another SBSD. See paragraph VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Under these three exceptions, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect (or, in one case, hold) margin collateral. As discussed below in section II.B.2.b. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to perform a daily calculation of a margin amount for the account of each counterparty to a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction.325 Proposed new Rule 18a–3 also would require a nonbank SBSD to collect and hold margin collateral (in the form of cash, securities, and/or money market instruments) from each counterparty in an amount at least equal to the calculated margin amount to the extent that amount is greater than the amount of positive equity in the account.326 The rule would, however, provide exceptions in certain cases.327 (c)(1)(iii)(B)—Alternative A of proposed new Rule 18a–3. There would not be a capital charge in lieu of collecting margin collateral from another SBSD because capital charges could impact the firm’s liquidity, and each SBSD would be subject to regulatory capital requirements. A second alternative (Alternative B) being proposed in new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to have margin collateral posted to an account at a thirdparty custodian in an amount sufficient to cover the nonbank SBSD’s potential future exposure to the other SBSD. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)— Alternative B—of proposed new Rule 18a–3. These two alternatives are discussed in more detail in section II.B.2. of this release. 325 See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The term margin in proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be defined to mean the amount of positive equity in an account of a counterparty. See paragraph (b)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 326 See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. See also paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 (requiring among other things that collateral be in the physical possession or control of the nonbank SBSD and that the collateral must be capable of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD). As discussed in section II.B.2. of this release, the term equity in proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be defined to mean the total current fair market value of securities positions in an account of a counterparty (excluding the time value of an over-the-counter option), plus any credit balance and less any debit balance in the account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect to gross derivatives payables and receivables. See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The term negative equity in proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be defined to mean equity of less than $0. See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The term positive equity in proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be defined to mean equity of greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 327 See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A), (C), and (D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As noted above and discussed in more detail in section II.B.2. of this release, one alternative being considered is to establish a fourth exception in proposed new Rule 18a–3 under which a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect margin collateral to cover potential future exposure to another SBSD. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. Under this alternative, there would not be a capital charge in lieu of collecting margin collateral from the other SBSD because capital charges could impact the firm’s liquidity, and each SBSD would be subject to regulatory capital requirements. The other alternative would require nonbank SBSDs to PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Consequently, the three proposed capital charges discussed below are designed to serve as an alternative to margin collateral by requiring the nonbank SBSD to hold sufficient net capital to enable it to withstand losses if the counterparty defaults. The first proposed capital charge would apply when a nonbank SBSD not approved to use internal models does not collect sufficient margin collateral from a counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap because the counterparty is a commercial end user.328 As discussed below in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect margin collateral from commercial end users for non-cleared security-based swaps.329 The nonbank SBSD would be required to take a capital charge equal to the margin amount less any positive equity in the account of the commercial end user if the nonbank SBSD did not collect margin collateral from the commercial end user pursuant to this exception.330 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, as an alternative to this deduction, an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models could incur a credit risk charge. The second proposed capital charge would apply when the nonbank SBSD does not hold the margin collateral because the counterparty to the noncleared security-based swap is requiring the margin collateral to be segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.331 Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, among other things, provides that the segregated account authorized by that provision must be carried by an independent third-party custodian and be designated as a segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty.332 Collateral held in this manner would not be in the have margin collateral posted to an account at a third-party custodian in an amount sufficient to cover the nonbank SBSD’s potential future exposure to the other SBSD. 328 See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 329 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 330 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. If collateral is not collected from a commercial end user, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take a 100% deduction for the amount of the uncollateralized current exposure. As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, as alternative to this deduction, an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models could take a credit risk charge. 331 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 332 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(3). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules physical possession or control of the nonbank SBSD, nor would it would be capable of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD without the intervention of another party. Consequently, it would not meet collateral requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3.333 Because collateral segregated under section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act would not be under the control of the nonbank SBSD, consistent with the existing capital requirements that apply to broker-dealers, the Commission is proposing to require the nonbank SBSD to take a capital charge equal to the margin amount less any positive equity in the account of the counterparty.334 The third proposed capital charge would apply when a nonbank SBSD does not collect sufficient margin collateral from a counterparty to a noncleared security-based swap because the transaction was entered into prior to the effective date of proposed new Rule 18a–3 (a ‘‘legacy non-cleared securitybased swap’’).335 The nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect margin collateral for accounts holding legacy non-cleared security-based swaps.336 This proposal is designed to avoid the difficulties of requiring a nonbank SBSD to renegotiate security-based swap contracts in order to come into compliance with new margin collateral requirements, which would be a complex task.337 In lieu of collecting the margin collateral, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take a capital emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 333 See paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 334 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 335 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(3) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 336 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. A nonbank SBSD would need to take a 100% deduction for the amount of the uncollateralized current exposure arising from a legacy non-cleared security-based swap because (as discussed above) this amount would be an unsecured receivable from the counterparty and subject to a 100% deduction in the computation of net capital under Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1. 337 The CFTC has proposed a similar exception for legacy swap transactions. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23734 (‘‘The Commission believes that the pricing of existing swaps reflects the credit arrangements under which they were executed and that it would be unfair to the parties and disruptive to the markets to require that the new margin rules apply to those positions.’’). The prudential regulators proposed to permit a covered swap entity to exclude preeffective swaps from initial margin calculations, while requiring these entities to collect variation margin, consistent with industry practice. Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27569. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 charge equal to the margin amount less any positive equity in the account.338 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital in lieu of margin requirements. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Would the proposed deductions for under-margined accounts be appropriate for cleared security-based swap margin requirements, which would be established by clearing agencies and SROs? If not, explain why not. For example, is the requirement to take the deduction after one business day workable in the context of cleared security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. In addition, should the margin requirements of clearing agencies be included in the deduction for undermargined accounts? 2. Would the proposed deductions for under-margined accounts be appropriate for non-cleared security-based swap margin requirements, which would be established by proposed new Rule 18a– 3 and, potentially, by SROs? If not, explain why not. For example, is the requirement to take the deduction after one business day workable in the context of non-cleared security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. 3. Should there be a deduction for under-margined swap accounts? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 338 The prudential regulators and CFTC have not proposed new capital charges for legacy swaps and legacy security-based swaps; nor have they proposed specific margin collateral requirements for such positions. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. With respect to banks, the credit risk of holding legacy security-based swap positions is already taken into account by existing capital requirements for banks. The proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for nonbank SBSDs is based on a concern that, after SBSD registration requirements take effect, financial institutions may transfer large volumes of legacy non-cleared security-based swaps from unregulated affiliates to newly registered nonbank SBSDs, including broker-dealer SBSDs. As noted above, the Commission understands that registered brokerdealers currently do not engage in a high volume of security-based swap transactions. An influx of legacy non-cleared security-based swaps into a newly registered nonbank SBSD could create substantial risks to the entity. Under the proposed rule, nonbank SBSDs would be required to hold sufficient collateral to cover the current exposure and potential future exposure that arise from these transactions or, alternatively, to take appropriate capital charges to address these risks. Entities holding legacy non-cleared security-based swaps could either obtain additional capital in order to register as nonbank SBSDs or legacy non-cleared security-based swaps could be held and ‘‘wound down’’ in one entity while a separate entity is used to conduct new business. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70247 4. Would the proposed capital charges in lieu of collecting margin collateral appropriately address the potential future exposure risk of nonbank SBSDs arising from security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative means of addressing this risk? If so, identify and explain them. 5. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for cleared security-based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. In particular, if the amount of margin collateral required to be collected for cleared security-based swaps is less than the capital deduction that would apply to the positions, would the margin collateral nonetheless be sufficient? If so, explain why. In addition, should SBSDs approved to use internal models be permitted to use their VaR models (as opposed to the standardized haircuts) for purposes of determining whether this capital charge applies? If so, explain why. 6. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared securitybased swaps with counterparties that are commercial end users appropriate? If not, explain why not. 7. Should there be an exception for broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models from the requirement to take a capital charge in lieu of collecting margin collateral from commercial end users? If so, explain why such an exception would not negatively impact the risk profiles of these nonbank SBSDs and suggest alternative measures that could be implemented to address the risk of uncollateralized potential future exposure to commercial end users. 8. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared swaps with counterparties that are commercial end users? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 9. Is it appropriate to apply the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared security-based swaps with counterparties that require segregation pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act? If not, explain why not. 10. Should there be an exception for counterparties that require segregation pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act from the requirement to take a capital charge in lieu of margin collateral? If so, explain why such an exception would not negatively impact the risk profiles of nonbank SBSDs and suggest alternative measures that could be implemented to address the risk of not holding collateral to cover the potential future exposure. 11. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared swaps with counterparties that require margin E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules collateral with respect to the swaps to be segregated and held by an independent third party custodian? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 12. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared securitybased swaps in accounts that hold legacy security-based swaps appropriate, or should there be an exception from the capital charge for legacy security-based swaps? Is there an alternate measure that could be implemented to address the risk of uncollateralized potential future exposure resulting from legacy securitybased swaps? If the proposed capital charge applies to legacy security-based swaps, explain how the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral would change the economics of the transactions previously entered into. How would any such change(s) be reflected in the cost of maintaining those, or initiating, new positions? Would there be any other impacts of the change in treatment of the legacy positions? 13. If there is an exception from the capital charge for legacy security-based swaps, how would such an exception impact the risk profiles of nonbank SBSDs? 14. After the SBSD registration requirements take effect, would substantial amounts of legacy securitybased swaps with uncollateralized potential future exposure be transferred to broker-dealer SBSDs? Would entities with substantial amounts of legacy security-based swaps with uncollateralized potential future exposure register as stand-alone SBSDs? 15. Would it be practical for financial institutions to wind down legacy security-based swaps in existing entities rather than transferring them to nonbank SBSDs? What legal and operational issues would this approach raise? 16. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared swap accounts that hold legacy swaps? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 17. What should be deemed a legacy security-based swap? For example, if a nonbank SBSD dealer holds an existing legacy security-based swap that is subsequently modified for risk mitigation purposes, should this be deemed a new security-based swap transaction or should it continue to be treated as a legacy security-based swap? vi. Treatment of Swaps CFTC Rule 1.17 prescribes minimum capital requirements for FCMs.339 The rule imposes a net liquid assets test 339 See 17 CFR 1.17. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 capital standard.340 Broker-dealers that are registered as FCMs are subject to Rule 15c3–1 and CFTC Rule 1.17.341 CFTC Rule 1.17 provides that an FCM registered as a broker-dealer must maintain a minimum amount of adjusted net capital equal to the greater of, among other amounts, the minimum amount of net capital required by Rule 15c3–1.342 CFTC Rule 1.17 also prescribes standardized haircuts for securities positions by incorporating by reference the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3–1.343 Similarly, Rule 15c3–1, through Appendix B, prescribes capital deductions for commodities positions of a broker-dealer by incorporating by reference deductions in CFTC Rule 1.17 to the extent Rule 15c3–1 does not otherwise prescribe a deduction for the type of commodity position.344 Broker-dealer SBSDs (as brokerdealers) would be subject to Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1.345 Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a–1 would prescribe capital deductions for commodities positions of stand-alone SBSDs and would be modeled on Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1.346 Consequently, under the provisions of Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1, nonbank SBSDs would be required to take deductions for commodity positions when computing net capital.347 In addition, nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers may have proprietary positions in swaps. Consequently, Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1 would be amended to establish standardized haircuts for proprietary swap positions and analogous provisions would be included in Appendix B to proposed 340 Id. 341 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1; 17 CFR 1.17. 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(D). 343 See 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(v)–(vii). 344 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b(a)(1). 345 17 CFR 240.15c3.–1b. 346 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b, with Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a–1. As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, a brokerdealer’s minimum net capital requirement is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in Rule 15c3–1 and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of customer debit items ratio. The minimum net capital requirement for a stand-alone SBSD under proposed Rule 18a–1, however, would not use either of these financial ratios; rather, its minimum net capital requirement would be determined by calculating the 8% margin factor. Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1 contains provisions that factor into a broker-dealer’s calculation of the aggregate indebtedness financial ratio. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1b(a)(1) and (a)(2). Those provisions are not included in Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a– 1 because stand-alone SBSDs would not use the aggregate indebtedness financial ratio to determine their minimum net capital requirement. 347 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b; Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a–1. 342 See PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 new Rule 18a–1.348 This would make the standardized swap haircuts applicable to nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers.349 An ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD could apply to include different types of swaps in their VaR models. If approved, the firm would not need to apply the standardized haircuts for the type of swaps covered by the approved models. The proposed standardized haircuts for swaps are similar to the proposed standardized haircuts for security-based swaps. Specifically, swaps that are credit default swaps referencing a broad based securities index (‘‘Index CDS swaps’’) would be subject to a maturity grid similar to the proposed maturity grid for CDS security-based swaps.350 All other swaps would be subject to a standardized haircut determined by multiplying the notional amount of the swap by the percentage deduction that would apply to the type of asset or event referenced by the swap. Index CDS Swaps The standardized haircuts proposed for Index CDS swaps would use the maturity grid approach proposed for CDS security-based swaps discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release. This would provide for a consistent standardized haircut approach for Index CDS swaps and CDS security-based swaps though, as discussed below, the haircuts would be lower for the Index CDS security-based swaps. As with CDS security-based swaps, the proposed maturity grid for Index CDS swaps prescribes the applicable deduction based on two variables: the length of time to maturity of the swap and the amount of the current offered spread on the swap.351 The vertical axis of the proposed grid would contain nine maturity categories ranging from 12 months or less (the smallest deduction) to 121 months and longer (the largest deduction).352 The horizontal axis would contain six spread categories ranging from 100 basis points or less (the smallest deduction) to 348 See proposed new paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3– 1b; paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 349 A nonbank SBSD that is registered as a swap dealer with the CFTC also would be required to comply with the CFTC’s capital requirements applicable to swap dealers as would a broker-dealer that is registered as a swap dealer (just as a brokerdealer registered as an FCM must comply with Rule 15c3–1 and CFTC Rule 1.17). 350 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 351 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 352 Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 700 basis points and above (the largest deduction).353 The haircut percentages in the proposed maturity grid for Index CDS swaps would be one-third less than the haircut percentages in the maturity grid for CDS security-based swaps to account for the diversification benefits of an index.354 For example, the proposed haircut for an Index CDS swap with a maturity of 12 months or less and a spread of 100 basis points or less would be 0.67% as opposed to a 1% haircut for a CDS security-based swap in the same maturity and spread categories. This one-third reduction in the haircut percentages is consistent with how broad-based equity security-indices are treated in the Appendix A methodology as compared with single name equity securities and narrow-based equity index securities. Specifically, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, the Appendix A methodology requires portfolios of single name equity securities and narrow-based equity index securities to be stressed at 10 equidistant valuation points within a range consisting of a (+/¥) 15% market move. Portfolios of broad-based equity index securities are stressed at 10 equidistant valuation points within a range consisting of a (+/¥) 10% market move, which is twothirds of the market move range applicable to single name equity securities and narrow-based equity index securities. Consistent with the maturity grid approach for CDS security-based swaps, the proposed deduction for an unhedged long position in an Index CDS swap would be 50% of the applicable haircut in the grid.355 The proposed deduction requirements for Index CDS swaps would permit a nonbank SBSD to net long and short positions where the credit default swaps reference the same index, are in the same spread categories, are in the same maturity categories or in adjacent maturity categories, and have maturities within three months of each other.356 In this case, the nonbank SBSD would need to take the specified haircut only on the notional amount of the excess long or short position.357 Reduced deductions also would apply for strategies where the firm is long a basket of securities consisting of the components of an index and long (buyer 353 Id. 354 Id. 355 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 356 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 357 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 of protection on) an Index CDS swap on the index.358 The reduced deduction for this strategy would apply only if the credit default swap allowed the nonbank SBSD to deliver a security in the basket to satisfy the firm’s obligation on the swap.359 In this case, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take 50% of the deduction required on the securities in the basket (i.e., no deduction would be required with respect to the Index CDS swap and a lesser deduction would apply to the securities).360 If the nonbank SBSD is short (seller of protection) a basket of securities consisting of the components of an index and short a credit default swap that references the index, the nonbank SBSD would be required only to take the deduction required on the securities in the basket (i.e., no deduction would be required with respect to the Index CDS swap).361 Interest Rate Swaps For interest rate swaps, Appendix B to both Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1 would prescribe a standardized haircut equal to a percentage of the notional amount of the swap that is generally based on the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3–1 for U.S. government securities.362 An interest rate swap typically involves the exchange of specified or determinable cash flows at specified times based upon a notional amount.363 The notional amount is not exchanged but is used to calculate the fixed or floating rate interest payments under the swap. Under the proposed rule, each side of the interest rate swap would be converted into a synthetic bond position based on the notional amount of the swap and the interest rates against which payments are calculated. These synthetic bonds would then be placed into the standardized haircut grid in Rule 15c3–1 for U.S. government securities. Any obligation to receive payments under the swap would be categorized as a long position; any obligation to make payments under the swap would be categorized as a short position. A position receiving or paying based on a floating interest rate generally would be treated as having a maturity equal to the period until the 358 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(2) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 359 Id. 360 Id. 361 See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(3) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 362 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A). 363 See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39455 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 67996 (Dec. 30, 1997). PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70249 next interest reset date; a position receiving or paying based on a fixed rate would be treated as having a maturity equal to the residual maturity of the swap. Synthetic bond equivalents derived from interest rate swaps, when offset against one another, would be subject to a one percent charge based on the swap’s notional amount. Any synthetic bond equivalent that would be subject to a standardized haircut of less than one percent under the approach described above would be subject to a minimum deduction equal to a one percent charge against the notional value of the swap.364 This minimum haircut of one percent is designed to account for potential differences between the movement of interest rates on U.S. government securities and interest rates upon which swap payments are based. All Other Swaps In the case of a swap that is not an Index CDS swap or an interest rate swap, the applicable haircut would be the amount calculated by multiplying the notional value of the swap and the percentage specified in either Rule 15c3–1 or CFTC Rule 1.17 for the asset, obligation, or event referenced by the swap.365 For example, a swap referencing a commodity that is not covered by an open futures contract or commodity option would be subject to a capital deduction applicable to the commodity as if it were a long or short inventory position with a market value equal to the notional value of the swap. This would typically result in a deduction equal to 20% of the notional value of the swap.366 The deduction for un-hedged currency swaps referencing certain major foreign currencies, including the euro, British pounds, Canadian dollars, Japanese yen, or Swiss francs, would be 6%.367 This 364 Under Rule 15c3–1, U.S. government securities with a maturity of less than nine months are subject to net capital deductions ranging from three-quarters of 1% to 0%. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(1)(i)–(iii). 365 See proposed new paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 15c3–1b; paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1b. 366 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b(a)(3)(ix)(C); paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1b. 367 See CFTC Rule 1.17(c)(5)(ii)(E) (imposing a 6% haircut). 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(ii)(E). Currency swaps may involve exchanges of fixed amounts of currencies. If a nonbank SBSD has a currency swap in which it receives one foreign currency and pays out another foreign currency, the broker-dealer would treat the currency swap as a long position in a forward of the one foreign currency and an unrelated short position in the other foreign currency for capital purposes. See, e.g., Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 32256 (May 4, 1993), 58 FR 27486, 27490 (May 10, 1993). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules deduction could be reduced by an amount equal to any reduction recognized for a comparable long or short position in the referenced instrument, obligation, or event under Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1, or CFTC Rule 1.17. For example, a commodity swap referencing an agricultural product that is covered by an open futures contract or commodity option in that product would be subject to a 5% deduction from the notional value of the swap, rather than the 20% deduction specified above.368 Finally, swaps referencing an equity index could be treated under Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed standardized haircuts swaps. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Which types of swap activities would nonbank SBSDs engage in? How would nonbank SBSDs use swaps? 2. Which types of swap activities would broker-dealers engage in? How would broker-dealers use swaps? 3. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide a reasonable and workable solution for determining capital charges? Explain why or why not. Are there preferable alternatives? If so, describe those alternatives. 4. Are there additional categories of swaps, other than commodity swaps, currency swaps, and interest rate swaps, that the Commission should address in Rule 15c3–1 and/or proposed Rule 18a–1? If so, describe them. 5. Are the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps too high or too low? If so, please explain why and provide data to support the explanation. 6. Are there capital charges that should be applied to swaps? If so, describe them. 7. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps adequately recognize offsets in establishing capital deductions? If not, what offsets should be recognized, for what type of swap, and why? Provide data, if applicable, and identify why that offset would be appropriate. 8. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide any incentives or disincentives to effect swap transactions in a particular type of 368 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b(a)(3)(ix)(B); paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1b. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 legal entity (e.g., in a stand-alone SBSD versus a broker-dealer SBSD)? Describe the incentives and/or disincentives. 9. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide any competitive advantages or disadvantages for a particular type of legal entity? Describe the advantages and/or disadvantages. 10. How closely do the movements of interest rates on U.S. government securities track the movements of interest rates upon which interest rate swap payments are based? Is the proposed 1% minimum percentage deduction for interest rate swaps appropriate given that U.S. government securities with a maturity of less than nine months have a haircut ranging from three-quarters of 1% to 0%? c. Risk Management Prudent financial institutions establish and maintain integrated risk management systems that seek to have in place management policies and procedures designed to help ensure an awareness of, and accountability for, the risks taken throughout the firm and to develop tools to address those risks.369 A key objective of a risk management system is to ensure that the firm does not ignore any material source of risk.370 Elements of an integrated risk management system include a dedicated risk management function, which seeks to promote integrated and systematic approaches to risk management and to develop and encourage the use of a common set of metrics for risk throughout the firm.371 This function generally includes establishing common firm-wide definitions of risk and requiring that different business segments of the firm apply such definitions consistently for risk reporting purposes.372 The risk management function in a financial institution also typically prepares background material and data analysis (risk reports) for senior managers to review and use to discuss firm-wide risks.373 Nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4, which requires the establishment of a risk management control system.374 Rule 15c3–4 was adopted in 1998 as part of 369 See Trends in Risk Integration and Aggregation, Joint Forum, Bank of International Settlements (Aug. 2003), available at https:// www.bis.org/publ/joint07.pdf. 370 Id. 371 Id. 372 Id. 373 Id. 374 See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1 (17 CFR 240.15c3–1); paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the OTC derivatives dealer oversight program.375 The rule requires an OTC derivatives dealer to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with its business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.376 It also requires OTC derivatives dealers to establish, document, and maintain procedures designed to prevent the firm from engaging in securities activities that are not permitted of OTC derivatives dealers pursuant to Rule 15a–1.377 Rule 15c3–4 identifies a number of elements that must be part of an OTC derivatives dealer’s internal risk management control system.378 These include, for example, that the system have: • A risk control unit that reports directly to senior management and is independent from business trading units; 379 • Separation of duties between personnel responsible for entering into a transaction and those responsible for recording the transaction in the books and records of the OTC derivatives dealer; 380 • Periodic reviews (which may be performed by internal audit staff) and annual reviews (which must be conducted by independent certified public accountants) of the OTC derivatives dealer’s risk management systems; 381 and • Definitions of risk, risk monitoring, and risk management.382 Rule 15c3–4 further provides that the elements of the internal risk management control system must include written guidelines, approved by the OTC derivatives dealer’s governing body, that cover various topics, including, for example: • Quantitative guidelines for managing the OTC derivatives dealer’s overall risk exposure; 383 • The type, scope, and frequency of reporting by management on risk exposures; 384 • The procedures for and the timing of the governing body’s periodic review of the risk monitoring and risk 375 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. 376 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 377 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4; 17 CFR 240.15a-1. 378 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c). 379 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(1). 380 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(2). 381 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(3). The annual review must be conducted in accordance with procedures agreed to by the firm and the independent certified public accountant conducting the review. 382 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(4). 383 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(iii). 384 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(iv). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules management written guidelines, systems, and processes; 385 • The process for monitoring risk independent of the business or trading units whose activities create the risks being monitored; 386 • The performance of the risk management function by persons independent from or senior to the business or trading units whose activities create the risks; 387 • The authority and resources of the groups or persons performing the risk monitoring and risk management functions; 388 • The appropriate response by management when internal risk management guidelines have been exceeded; 389 • The procedures to monitor and address the risk that an OTC derivatives transaction contract will be unenforceable; 390 • The procedures requiring the documentation of the principal terms of OTC derivatives transactions and other relevant information regarding such transactions; 391 and • The procedures authorizing specified employees to commit the OTC derivatives dealer to particular types of transactions.392 Rule 15c3–4 also requires management to periodically review, in accordance with the written procedures, the business activities of the OTC derivatives dealer for consistency with risk management guidelines.393 In 2004, when adopting the ANC broker-dealer oversight program, the Commission included a requirement that an ANC broker-dealer must comply with Rule 15c3–4.394 The Commission explained this requirement: Participants in the securities markets are exposed to various risks, including market, credit, funding, legal, and operational risk. These risks result, in part, from the diverse range of financial instruments that brokerdealers now trade. Risk management controls within a broker-dealer promote the stability of the firm and, consequently, the stability of the marketplace. A firm that adopts and follows appropriate risk management 385 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(v). 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(vi). 387 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(vii). 388 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(viii). 389 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(ix). 390 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(x). 391 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(xi). 392 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(xii). 393 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(d). 394 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(iii); Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. ANC broker-dealers—because they are not subject to Rule 15a–1—do not need to comply with the provisions of Rule 15c3–4 relating to Rule 15a– 1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–4; 17 CFR 240.15a–1. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 386 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 controls reduces its risk of significant loss, which also reduces the risk of spreading the losses to other market participants or throughout the financial markets as a whole.395 The Commission is proposing to require that nonbank SBSDs comply with Rule 15c3–4 because their activities will involve risk management concerns similar to those faced by other firms subject to the rule.396 In particular, dealing in OTC derivatives, including security-based swaps, creates various types of risk that need to be carefully managed.397 These risks are due, in part, to the characteristics of OTC derivative products and the way OTC derivative markets have evolved in comparison to the markets for exchangetraded securities.398 For example, individually negotiated OTC derivative products, including security-based swaps, generally are less liquid than exchange-traded instruments and involve a high degree of leverage. Furthermore, market participants face risks associated with the financial and legal ability of counterparties to perform under the terms of specific transactions. Consequently, a firm that is active in dealing in these types of instruments should have an internal risk management control system that helps the firm identify and mitigate the risks it is facing. Rule 15c3–4 is designed to require an OTC derivatives dealer and ANC broker-dealer to take prudent measures to protect the firm from losses that can result from failing to account for and control risk. Requiring nonbank SBSDs to comply with Rule 15c3–4 is designed to promote the establishment of effective risk management control systems by these firms.399 Moreover, based on Commission staff experience, it is expected that many nonbank SBSDs will be affiliates of firms already subject to these requirements. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed risk management requirements. In addition, 395 Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34449. 396 Like ANC broker-dealers, nonbank SBSDs would not need to comply paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii), (c)(5)(xiv), (d)(8), and (d)(9) of Rule 15c3–4. These are the provisions that specifically reference Rule 15a–1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 397 See OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures And Counterparty Risk Management at 11–15. 398 See OTC Derivatives Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 39454 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 67940 (Dec. 30, 1997). 399 See paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1 (which would apply Rule 15c3–4 to stand-alone SBSDs); proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1 (which would apply Rule 15c3–4 to brokerdealer SBSDs); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(iii) (which applies Rule 15c3–4 to ANC broker-dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70251 the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are the types of management controls required by Rule 15c3–4 appropriate for addressing the risks associated with engaging in a securitybased swap business? If not, explain why not. 2. Are there types of risk management controls not identified in Rule 15c3–4 that would be appropriate to prescribe for nonbank SBSDs? If so, identify the controls and explain why they would be appropriate for nonbank SBSDs. 3. Are the factors listed in paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3–4 appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 4. Are there any additional factors that a nonbank SBSD should consider when adopting its internal control system guidelines, policies, and procedures, in addition to the factors listed in paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3–4? If so, identify the factors and explain why they should be included. 5. Are the elements prescribed in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3–4 appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 6. Are there any additional elements that a nonbank SBSD should include in its internal risk management system in addition to the applicable elements prescribed in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3–4? If so, identify the elements and explain why they should be included. 7. Are there any elements in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3–4 that should not be applicable to nonbank SBSDs other than elements in paragraphs (c)(xiii) and (xiv)? If so, identify the elements and explain why they should not be applicable. 8. Are the factors management would need to consider in its periodic review of the nonbank SBSD’s business activities for consistency with the risk management guidelines appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. 9. Should management consider any additional factors in its periodic review of the nonbank SBSD’s business activities for consistency with the risk management guidelines other than those listed in paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3–4? If so, identify the factors and explain why they should be included. 10. Are there any factors in paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3–4 that management should not consider other than the factors in paragraphs (d)(8) and (9)? If so, identify the factors and explain why they should not be considered. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement The Commission is proposing that ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal models be subject to liquidity risk management requirements. Funding liquidity risk has been defined as the risk that a firm will not be able to efficiently meet both expected and unexpected current and future cash flow and collateral needs without adversely impacting either the daily operations or the financial condition of the firm.400 The consequences of liquidity funding strains for financial institutions active in a securities business include the inability to continue to issue unsecured long-term debt to finance illiquid assets and requirements to deliver additional collateral to continue to finance liquid assets on a secured basis.401 The causes of funding liquidity strain for a financial institution include firm-specific events such as credit rating downgrades and other negative news leading to a loss of market confidence in the firm.402 Funding liquidity also can come under stress such as occurred during the financial crisis.403 Traditionally, financial institutions have used liquidity funding stress tests as a means to measure liquidity risk.404 For institutions active in securities trading, liquidity funding stress tests generally estimate cash and collateral needs over a period of time and assume that sources to meet those needs (e.g., 400 See Joint Forum, Bank of International Settlements, The management of liquidity risk in financial groups, (May 2006), at 1, note 1 (‘‘The management of liquidity risk in financial groups’’). See also Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision (Sept. 2008), at 1, note 2 (‘‘Funding liquidity risk is the risk that the firm will not be able to meet efficiently both expected and unexpected current and future cash flow and collateral needs without affecting either daily operations or the financial condition of the firm. Market liquidity risk is the risk that a firm cannot easily offset or eliminate a position at the market price because of inadequate market depth or market disruption.’’); Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 55432 (Mar. 9, 2007), 72 FR 12862, 12870, note 72 (Mar. 19, 2007) (‘‘Liquidity risk includes the risk that a firm will not be able to unwind or hedge a position or meet cash demands as they become due.’’); Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, Federal Reserve, 77 FR 594 (Jan. 5, 2012) (proposing a rule to require certain large financial institutions to conduct liquidity stress testing at least monthly). 401 See The management of liquidity risk in financial groups at 10. 402 See id. at 6–8. 403 See Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of 2008, Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) (Oct. 21, 2009) (‘‘Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of 2008’’). 404 The management of liquidity risk in financial groups at 8–12. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 issuance of long and short unsecured term debt, secured funding lines, and lines of credit) will become impaired or be unavailable.405 To manage funding liquidity risk, these firms maintain pools of liquid unencumbered assets that can be used to raise funds during a liquidity stress event to meet cash needs.406 The size of the liquidity pool is based on the firm’s estimation of how much funding will be lost from external sources during a stress event and the duration of the event.407 The financial crisis demonstrated that the funding liquidity risk management practices of certain individual financial institutions were not sufficient to handle a liquidity stress event of that magnitude.408 In particular, it has been observed that the stress tests utilized by financial institutions had weaknesses 409 and the amount of contingent liquidity they maintained to replace external sources of funding was insufficient to cover the institutions’ liquidity needs.410 As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of this release, nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal models would be subject to Rule 15c3–4, which currently applies to ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers.411 Rule 15c3–4 requires each firm subject to the rule to ‘‘establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist it in managing the risks associated with its business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.’’ 412 The Commission’s supervision of ANC broker-dealers consists of regular 405 Id. at 10–11. 406 Id. 407 Id. 408 See Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of 2008. 409 Id. at 14 (‘‘Market conditions and the deteriorating financial state of firms exposed weaknesses in firms’ approaches to liquidity stress testing, particularly with respect to secured borrowing and contingent funding needs. These deteriorating conditions underscored the need for greater consideration of the overlap between systemic and firm-specific events and longer time horizons, and the connection between stress tests and business-as-usual liquidity management.’’). 410 Id. at 15 (‘‘Interviewed firms typically calculated and maintained a measurable funding cushion, such as ‘months of coverage,’ which is conceptually similar to rating agencies’ twelvemonth liquidity alternatives analyses. Some institutions were required to maintain a liquidity cushion that could withstand the loss of unsecured funding for one year. Many institutions found that this metric did not capture important elements of stress that the organizations faced, such as the loss of secured funding and demands for collateral to support clearing and settlement activity and to mitigate the risks of accepting novations.’’) (emphasis in the original). 411 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 412 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 meetings with firm personnel to review each firm’s financial results, the management of the firm’s balance sheet, and, in particular, the liquidity of the firm’s balance sheet.413 Emphasis is placed on funding and liquidity risk management plans and liquidity stress scenarios.414 The Commission staff also meets regularly with the firm’s financial controllers to review and discuss price verification results and other financial controls, particularly concerning illiquid or hard-to-value assets or large asset concentrations.415 Given the large size of ANC brokerdealers and the potentially substantial role that stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models may play in the security-based swap markets, these firms would be required to take steps to manage funding liquidity risk.416 Specifically, these firms would be required to perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly and, based on the results of that test, maintain liquidity reserves to address potential funding needs during a stress event.417 Under the proposal, an ANC brokerdealer and stand-alone SBSD using internal models would need to perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days.418 The results of the liquidity stress test would need to be provided within ten business days of the month end to senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm. In addition, the assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test would need to be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm and at least annually by senior management of the firm. These provisions are designed to 413 A more detailed description of the Commission’s ANC broker-dealer program is available on the Commission’s Web site at https:// www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdaltnetcap.htm. 414 Id. 415 Id. 416 See proposed new paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3– 1; paragraph (f) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 417 Id. The requirement to conduct the liquidity stress test on at least a monthly basis is designed to ensure that the test is conducted at sufficiently regular intervals to account for material changes that could impact the firm’s liquidity profile. In this regard, the ANC broker-dealers are required to prepare and file monthly financial reports, which are designed to allow securities regulators to monitor their financial condition. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5; compare Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594 (Jan. 5, 2012) (Federal Reserve’s proposed rule to require a ‘‘covered company’’ to conduct liquidity stress testing at least monthly). 418 Based on the Commission staff’s experience, ANC broker-dealers currently perform regular liquidity stress tests. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules promote the engagement of senior level risk managers and managers of the firm in the implementation of the liquidity stress test and senior level risk managers in monitoring the results of the liquidity stress test. These required assumed conditions are designed to be consistent with the liquidity stress tests performed by the ANC broker-dealers (based on Commission staff experience supervising the firms) and to address the types of liquidity outflows experienced by ANC broker-dealers and other broker-dealers in times of stress. The required assumed conditions would be: • A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness of the firm severe enough to trigger contractual credit-related commitment provisions of counterparty agreements; • The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded committed lines of credit; • The potential for a material net loss of secured funding; • The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement financing for less liquid assets; • The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net worth or which is not funded by customer assets; • A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at registered clearing agencies of which the firm is a member; and • The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses, positions, and commitments of the firm, including those related to customer businesses of the firm.419 These proposed minimum elements are designed to ensure that ANC brokerdealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models employ a stress test that is severe enough to produce an estimate of a potential funding loss of a magnitude that might be expected in a severely stressed market. As discussed below, the results of the stress test would be used by the firm to determine the amount of contingent liquidity to be maintained. The proposals would require that the ANC broker-dealer and stand-alone SBSD itself must maintain 419 See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 at all times liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress test.420 The liquidity reserves would need to be comprised of unencumbered cash or U.S. government securities.421 This limitation with respect to the assets that can be used for the liquidity reserves requirement is designed to ensure that only the most liquid instruments are held in the reserves, given that the market for less liquid instruments is generally disproportionately volatile during a time of market stress. The results of stress tests play a key role in shaping an entity’s liquidity risk contingency planning.422 Thus, stress testing and contingency planning are closely intertwined.423 Under the proposals, the ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD using internal models would be required to establish a written contingency funding plan.424 The plan would need to clearly set out the strategies for addressing liquidity shortfalls in emergency situations,425 and would need to address the policies, roles, and responsibilities for meeting the liquidity needs of the firm and communicating with the public and other market participants during a liquidity stress event.426 420 See proposed new paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 421 See proposed new paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 422 See, e.g., Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA, Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management 7, SR 10– 6 (Mar. 17, 2010). 423 Id. 424 Based on staff experience supervising the ANC broker-dealers, all of the ANC broker-dealers that are part of a holding company generally have a written contingency funding plan, generally at the holding company level. This proposed rule would require that each ANC broker-dealer and standalone SBSD using internal models maintain a written contingency funding plan at the entity level (in addition to any holding company plan). See also Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR at 604. The Federal Reserve stated that the objectives of the contingency funding plan are to provide a plan for responding to a liquidity crisis, to identify alternate liquidity sources that a covered company can access during liquidity stress events, and to describe steps that should be taken to ensure that the covered company’s sources of liquidity are sufficient to fund its operating costs and meet its commitments while minimizing additional costs and disruptions. Id. at 610. 425 See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 426 See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. To promote the flow of necessary information during a liquidity stress, the Federal Reserve’s proposed rule would require the event management process to include a mechanism that ensures effective reporting and communication within the covered company and with outside parties, including the Federal Reserve and other relevant supervisors, counterparties, and other stakeholders. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70253 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed liquidity stress test requirement. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are the proposed funding liquidity requirements appropriate for ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs that use internal models? If not, explain why not. Are there modifications that would improve the funding liquidity provisions? If so, explain them. 2. Should the proposed funding liquidity requirements apply to a broader group of broker-dealers (e.g., all broker-dealers that hold customer securities and cash or all broker-dealer with total assets in excess of minimum threshold)? Explain why or why not. 3. Should the proposed funding liquidity requirements apply to all nonbank SBSDs? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 4. Is monthly an appropriate frequency for the liquidity stress test? For example, would it be preferable to require the liquidity stress test on a more frequent basis such as weekly, or, alternatively, on a less frequent basis such as quarterly? If so, explain why. 5. Is the requirement to provide the results of the liquidity stress test within ten business days to senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should results be provided in a shorter or longer timeframe than ten business days? For example, is ten business days sufficient time to run the stress tests, generate the results, and provide them to senior management? If the time-frame should be longer or shorter, identify the different timeframe and explain why it would be more appropriate than ten business days. 6. Is the requirement that the assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm and at least annually by senior management of firm appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should the reviews be more or less frequent? If so, identify the frequency and explain why it would be more appropriate than quarterly and annually. 7. Are the required assumptions of the funding liquidity stress test appropriate? If not, explain why not. Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR at 611. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8. Are there additional or alternative assumptions that should be required in the funding liquidity stress test? If so, identify the additional or alternative assumptions and explain why they should be included. 9. Are the required assumptions of the funding liquidity stress test understandable? If not, identify the elements that require further explanation. 10. Should other types of securities in addition to U.S. government securities be permitted for the liquidity pool? If so, identify the types of securities and explain why they should be permitted. 11. Are the requirements for the written contingency funding plan appropriate? If not, explain why not. 12. Should additional or alternative requirements for the written contingency funding plan be required? If so, identify the additional or alternative requirements and explain why they should be required. e. Other Rule 15c3–1 Provisions Incorporated into Rule 18a–1 Rule 15c3–1 has four other sets of provisions that are proposed to be included in new Rule 18a–1: (1) Debtequity ratio requirements; 427 (2) capital withdrawal notice requirements; 428 (3) subsidiary consolidation requirements (Appendix C); 429 and (4) subordinated loan agreement requirements (Appendix D).430 i. Debt-Equity Ratio Requirements Rule 15c3–1 sets limits on the amount of a broker-dealer’s outstanding subordinated loans.431 The limits are prescribed in terms of debt-to-equity amounts.432 The debt-to-equity limits are designed to ensure that a brokerdealer has a base of permanent capital in addition to any subordinated loans, which—as discussed above—are permitted to be added back to net worth when computing net capital.433 Proposed new Rule 18a–1 would contain the same debt-to-equity limits.434 The objective of this parallel 427 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(d). 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e). 429 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c. 430 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. 431 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(d). 432 Id. 433 See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 9891 (Dec. 5, 1972), 38 FR 56, 59 (Jan. 3, 1973) (‘‘The Commission has discovered a large number of instances in which broker-dealers were able to comply with the net capital although the firms [sic] net worth been entirely depleted. Compliance with the rule was possible only because subordinated debt is a permissible form of capital. Such conditions rendered the firm technically insolvent since its liabilities exceeded its assets.’’). 434 See paragraph (h) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 428 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 provision in Rule 18a–1 is to require nonbank SBSDs to maintain a base of permanent capital. Stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to the same provisions, with one difference.441 In 2007, the Commission proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 Request for Comment to eliminate certain of the conditions The Commission generally requests required in an order restricting the comment on the proposal to incorporate withdrawals or the making of loans or the debt-equity ratio provisions of Rule advances to stockholders, insiders, and 15c3–1 into proposed new Rule 18a–1. affiliates.442 More specifically, under In addition, the Commission requests Rule 15c3–1, the Commission can, by comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the order, restrict a broker-dealer for a period up to 20 business days from following question: making capital withdrawals, loans, and 1. Are the debt-equity ratio advances only to the extent the requirements in Rule 15c3–1 withdrawal, loan, or advance would appropriate standards for stand-alone SBSDs? If not, explain why not and exceed 30% of the broker-dealer’s suggest an alternative standard. excess net capital when aggregated with other such transactions over a 30-day ii. Capital Withdrawal Requirements period.443 The current requirement Rule 15c3–1 requires that a brokerraises a concern, based on Commission dealer provide notice when it seeks to staff experience, that to the extent the withdraw capital in an amount that books and records of a broker-dealer exceeds certain thresholds.435 For that is in financial distress are example, a broker-dealer must give the incomplete or inaccurate it can be Commission a two-day notice before a difficult for regulators to determine the withdrawal that would exceed 30% of the firm’s excess net capital and a notice firm’s actual net capital and excess net capital amounts.444 An order that limits within two days after a withdrawal that 436 The withdrawals to a percentage of excess exceeded 20% of that measure. net capital may be difficult to enforce as notice provisions are designed to alert it may not always be clear when that the Commission and the firm’s threshold had been reached.445 Given designated examining authority that these concerns and consistent with the capital is being withdrawn to assist in the monitoring of the financial proposed amendment to Rule 15c3–1, condition of the broker-dealer. Rule the Commission is proposing that its 15c3–1 also restricts capital ability to restrict withdrawals of capital, withdrawals that could have certain loans or advances by stand-alone SBSDs financial impacts on the firm, including not be limited based on the amount of withdrawals that reduce net capital the withdrawal, loan or advance in below certain numerical levels.437 These relation to the amount of the firms’ restrictions are designed to ensure that excess net capital.446 the broker-dealer maintains a buffer of net capital above its minimum required 441 See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a– amount. Finally, under the rule, the 1. 442 Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules Commission may issue an order for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR 12862. temporarily restricting a broker-dealer 443 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(3)(i). To issue an from withdrawing capital or making order, the Commission must, based on the facts and loans or advances to stockholders, information available, conclude that the insiders, and affiliates under certain withdrawal, advance or loan may be detrimental to circumstances.438 This provision and the financial integrity of the broker-dealer, or may unduly jeopardize the broker-dealer’s ability to several of the notice and restriction repay its customer claims or other liabilities which provisions were put in place after the may cause a significant impact on the markets or failure of the investment bank Drexel expose the customers or creditors of the brokerBurnham Lambert, Inc. (‘‘Drexel’’).439 dealer to loss without taking into account the application of the Securities Investor Protection Act Drexel, prior to its bankruptcy, of 1970 (‘‘SIPA’’). See 17 CFR 240.15c3– transferred significant funds from its 1(e)(3)(i)(B). Furthermore, the rule provides that an broker-dealer subsidiary to the holding order temporarily prohibiting the withdrawal of company without notice to the capital shall be rescinded if the Commission determines that the restriction on capital Commission or Drexel’s designated withdrawal should not remain in effect and that the examining authority.440 hearing will be held within two business days from 435 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(1). 436 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(1). 437 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(2). 438 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(3). 439 See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 28927 (Feb. 28, 1991), 56 FR 9124 (Mar. 5, 1991). 440 Id. at 9125. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the date of the request in writing by the brokerdealer. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e)(3)(ii). 444 See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12873. 445 Id. 446 See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1; Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12873. . E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to incorporate the capital withdrawal provisions of Rule 15c3–1 into proposed new Rule 18a–1. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are the capital withdrawal requirements in Rule 15c3–1 appropriate standards for stand-alone SBSDs? If not, explain why and suggest an alternative standard. 2. Under Rule 15c3–1, a broker-dealer must give the Commission notice two days before a withdrawal that would exceed 30% of the firm’s excess net capital and two days after a withdrawal that exceeded 20% of that measure. Are these thresholds appropriate for standalone SBSDs? If not, explain why not and suggest alternative thresholds. 3. Rule 15c3–1 also restricts capital withdrawals that would have certain financial impacts on a broker-dealer such as lowering net capital below certain levels. Are these same requirements appropriate standards for stand-alone SBSDs? 4. Under the proposed amendments, the 30% of excess net capital limitation currently contained in Rule 15c3–1 with respect to Commission orders restricting withdrawals would be eliminated. However, under the proposed amendments, the Commission in issuing an order restricting withdrawals could impose such terms and conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the protection of investors. Please identify terms and conditions that the Commission should consider to be included in such orders. For example, under certain circumstances, would it be appropriate for the current limitation in Rule 15c3– 1 to be included in the order? Alternatively, should the 30% of excess net capital limitation currently contained in Rule 15c3–1 be retained in proposed new Rule 18a–1? If so, please explain why. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 iii. Appendix C Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1 requires a broker-dealer in computing its net capital and aggregate indebtedness to consolidate in a single computation assets and liabilities of any subsidiary or affiliate for which it guarantees, endorses or assumes directly or indirectly obligations or liabilities.447 The assets and liabilities of a subsidiary or affiliate whose liabilities and 447 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 obligations have not been guaranteed, endorsed, or assumed directly or indirectly by the broker-dealer may also be consolidated.448 By including the assets and liabilities of a subsidiary in its net capital computation, a firm may receive flow-through net capital benefits because the consolidation may serve to increase the firm’s net capital and thereby assist it in meeting the minimum requirements of Rule 15c3–1. Appendix C sets forth the requirements that must be met to consolidate in a single net capital computation the assets and liabilities of subsidiaries and affiliates in order to obtain flow-through capital benefits for a parent brokerdealer.449 Specifically, the broker-dealer must possess majority ownership and control over the consolidated subsidiary or affiliate and obtain an opinion of counsel essentially stating that at least the portion of the subsidiary’s or affiliate’s net asset value related to the broker-dealer’s ownership interest therein may be distributed to the brokerdealer (or a trustee in a SIPA liquidation) within thirty days, at the request of the distributee.450 In addition, subordinated obligations of the subsidiary or affiliate may not serve to increase the net worth of the brokerdealer unless the obligations also are subordinated to the claims of present and future creditors of the brokerdealer.451 Appendix C also requires that liabilities and obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate of the broker-dealer that are guaranteed, endorsed, or assumed either directly or indirectly by the brokerdealer must be reflected in the firm’s net capital computation.452 Based on Commission staff experience and information from an SRO, very few broker-dealers consolidate subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain the flow-through capital benefits under Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1. The review and information from the SRO indicate that the limited use results from the 448 Id. 449 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c(b). FINRA Rule 4150(a) requires that prior written notice be given to FINRA whenever a FINRA member guarantees, endorses or assumes, directly or indirectly, the obligations or liabilities of another person. Paragraph (b) of the rule requires that prior written approval must be obtained from FINRA whenever any member seeks to receive flow-through capital benefits in accordance with Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1. This makes compliance with the rule more stringent because FINRA must pre-approve the subordinated debt for FINRA member firms who wish to take advantage of the capital benefits available under Appendix C of Rule 15c3–1. As of June 1, 2012, of the 4,711 broker-dealers registered with the Commission, 4,437 were FINRA member firms. 451 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c(c)(2). 452 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c(d). 450 See PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70255 difficulty in obtaining the required opinion of counsel. Consequently, Appendix C to proposed new Rule 18a– 1 would contain only the requirement that a stand-alone SBSD include in its net capital computation all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate of the stand-alone SBSD that the SBSD guarantees, endorses, or assumes either directly or indirectly. Thus, stand-alone SBSDs would not be able to claim flowthrough capital benefits for consolidated subsidiaries or affiliates. The Commission does not expect that this difference in approach between Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1 would create any competitive disadvantage for stand-alone SBSDs vis` a-vis broker-dealer SBSDs, given the limited use of the flow-through benefits provision under the current rule. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on Appendix C of both Rule 15c3–1 and proposed Rule 18a–1. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Should the flow-through capital benefit provisions of Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1 be eliminated? If so, explain why. Alternatively, should the flow-through capital benefit provisions in Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1 be incorporated into proposed Rule 18a–1? If so, explain why. 2. Would stand-alone SBSDs be subject to a competitive disadvantage ` vis-a-vis broker-dealer SBSDs as a result of the differences between proposed Appendix C of Rule 18a–1 and Appendix C of Rule 15c3–1? Would these differences provide an incentive for an entity to register a nonbank SBSD as a broker-dealer SBSD? Please explain. iv. Appendix D Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1 sets forth the minimum and non-exclusive requirements for satisfactory subordination agreements.453 A subordination agreement is a contract between a broker-dealer and a third party pursuant to which the third party lends money or provides a collateralized note to the broker-dealer. Generally, broker-dealers use subordination agreements to borrow from third parties (typically affiliates) to increase the broker-dealer’s net capital.454 Nonbank SBSDs also are expected to use subordinated debt to obtain financing for their activities and the proposals discussed below would prescribe when 453 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(ii). 454 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules such loans would receive favorable capital treatment. In order to receive beneficial regulatory capital treatment under Rule 15c3–1, the obligation to the third party must be subordinated to the claims of creditors pursuant to a satisfactory subordination agreement, as defined under Appendix D.455 Among other things, a satisfactory subordination agreement must prohibit, except under strictly defined limitations, prepayments or any payment of an obligation before the expiration of at least one year from the effective date of the subordination agreement.456 This provision was designed to ensure the adequacy as well as the permanence of capital in the industry.457 There are two types of subordination agreements under Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1: (1) a subordinated loan agreement, which is used when a third party lends cash to a broker-dealer; 458 and (2) a secured demand note agreement, which is a promissory note in which a third party agrees to give cash to a broker-dealer on demand during the term of the note and provides cash or securities to the broker-dealer as collateral.459 A broker-dealer SBSD would be subject to the provisions of Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1 through parallel provisions in Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1.460 However, only the subordinated loan agreement provisions would be included in Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1. Thus, stand455 Id. 456 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b)(1). Net Capital Requirements for BrokerDealers; Amended Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 18417 (Jan. 13, 1982), 47 FR 3512, 3516 (Jan. 25, 1982). 458 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(a)(2)(ii). 459 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(a)(2)(v)(A). Under a secured demand note agreement, the third party cannot sell or otherwise use the collateral unless the third party substitutes securities of equal value for the deposited securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1d(a)(2)(v)(D). 460 Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1d has provisions that apply if an action (e.g., repayment of the subordinated loan) would cause the broker-dealer’s net capital to fall below certain thresholds (e.g., 120% of the broker-dealer’s minimum net capital requirement) and a provision that applies if the broker-dealer’s net capital has fallen below its minimum net capital requirement. See paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8)(i), (b)(10)(ii)(B), (c)(2), and (c)(5)(i)(B) of 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. Proposed new Rule 18a– 1 would contain analogous provisions that would be based on the proposed minimum net capital and tentative net capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs. See paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(ii)(A), (c)(2), and (c)(4)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1d. In addition, in order to reflect the minimum net capital requirements that would apply to brokerdealer SBSDs, conforming amendments are being proposed for Rule 15c3–1d. See proposed amendments to paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8)(i), (b)(10)(ii)(B), (c)(2), and (c)(5)(i)(B) of 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 457 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 alone SBSDs would not be able to use secured demand note agreements to obtain beneficial regulatory capital treatment under proposed Appendix D to Rule 18a–1. Based on Commission staff experience, broker-dealers infrequently utilize secured demand notes as a source of capital, and the amounts of these notes are relatively small in size. Therefore, this form of regulatory capital is not being proposed for stand-alone SBSDs. Accordingly, Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a– 1 would refer solely to ‘‘subordinated loan agreements’’ in the provisions where Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1 refers more broadly to ‘‘subordination agreements.’’ 461 Subordination agreements under Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1 are approved by a broker-dealer’s designated examining authority.462 A broker-dealer also is required to notify its designated examining authority upon the occurrence of certain events under Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1.463 Because the term ‘‘designated examining authority’’ applies only to registered broker-dealers (i.e., stand-alone SBSDs would not have a designated examining authority), the provisions of Appendix D to Rule 18a–1 refer to the ‘‘Commission’’ instead of the ‘‘designated examining authority.’’ Specifically, under paragraph (c)(5) of Appendix D to proposed Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to file two copies of any proposed subordinated loan agreement (including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) at least 30 days prior to the proposed execution date of the agreement with the Commission.464 The rule would also require an SBSD to file with the Commission a statement setting forth the name and address of the lender, the business relationship of the lender to the SBSD, and whether the SBSD carried an account for the lender effecting transactions in security-based swaps at or about the time the proposed agreement was filed.465 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on Appendix D to both Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1. 461 The term ‘‘subordination agreements’’ as used in Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1 references both subordinated loan agreements and secured demand note agreements. 462 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(c)(6)(i). See also FINRA Rule 4110(e)(1), which provides that subordinated loans and secured demand notes must be approved by FINRA in order to receive beneficial regulatory capital treatment. 463 See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b)(6). 464 See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–1d. 465 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Should the secured demand note provisions of Appendix D to Rule 15c3– 1 be eliminated? Alternatively, should the secured demand note provisions be incorporated into Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1? If so, explain why. 2. Would stand-alone SBSDs be ` disadvantaged vis-a-vis broker-dealer SBSDs as a result of the differences between proposed Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1 and Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1? Would these differences provide an incentive for an entity to register a nonbank SBSD as a broker-dealer SBSD? Please explain. 3. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank MSBSPs Proposed new Rule 18a–2 would establish capital requirements for nonbank MSBSPs. In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required at all times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.466 A tangible net worth standard is being proposed for nonbank MSBSPs, rather than the net liquid assets test in Rule 15c3–1, because the entities that may need to register as nonbank MSBSPs may engage in a diverse range of business activities different from, and broader than, the securities activities conducted by broker-dealers or SBSDs (otherwise they would be required to register as an SBSD and/or broker-dealer). For example, these entities may engage in commercial activities that require them to have substantial fixed assets to support manufacturing and/or result in them having significant assets comprised of unsecured receivables. Requiring them to adhere to a net liquid assets test could result in their having to obtain significant additional capital or engage in costly restructurings. The term tangible net worth would be defined to mean the nonbank MSBSP’s net worth as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, excluding goodwill and other intangible assets.467 In determining net worth, all long and short positions in securitybased swaps, swaps, and related positions would need to be marked to 466 See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. If a broker-dealer is required to register as a nonbank MSBSP, it would need to continue to comply with Rule 15c3–1 in addition to proposed new Rule 18a–2. 467 See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 their market value.468 Further, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to include in its computation of tangible net worth all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate that the participant guarantees, endorses, or assumes, either directly or indirectly.469 The proposed definition of tangible net worth would allow nonbank MSBSPs to include as regulatory capital assets that would be deducted from net worth under Rule 15c3–1, such as property, plant, equipment, and unsecured receivables. At the same time, it would require the deduction of goodwill and other intangible assets.470 Because nonbank MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage in a substantial security-based swap business, they would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4 with respect to their security-based swap and swap activities.471 As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of this release, Rule 15c3–4 requires OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with their business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.472 The proposal that nonbank MSBSPs be subject to Rule 15c3–4 is designed to promote sound risk management practices with respect to the risks associated with OTC derivatives. Finally, the risk that the failure of a nonbank MSBSP could have a destabilizing market impact is being addressed in part by the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3—as discussed below in section II.B.2.c.ii. of this release—that would require a nonbank MSBSP to deliver collateral to counterparties to cover the counterparty’s current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. The proposed requirement that nonbank MSBSPs deliver collateral to counterparties is designed to address a risk that arose during the 2008 credit crisis (i.e., the existence of large uncollateralized exposures of market participants to a 468 Id. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3–1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(B)(1). See also paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 469 See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 470 The proposed definition of tangible net worth is consistent with the CFTC’s proposed definition of tangible net equity. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27828 (defining tangible net equity as ‘‘equity as determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and excludes goodwill and other intangible assets.’’). 471 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 472 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 single entity). The proposed requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–2 that a nonbank MSBSP maintain positive tangible net worth and establish risk management controls are designed to serve as an extra measure of protection but be flexible enough to account for the potential range of business activities of these entities. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital requirements for nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is a tangible net worth test an appropriate standard for a nonbank MSBSP? Would a net liquid assets test capital standard be more appropriate? If so, describe the rationale for such an approach. 2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be permitted to calculate their tangible net worth using generally accepted accounting principles in jurisdictions other than U.S., such as where the nonbank MSBSP is incorporated, organized, or has its principal office? If so, explain why. 3. Can the risks to market stability presented by nonbank MSBSPs be largely addressed through margin requirements? 4. Should proposed new Rule 18a–2 require that a nonbank MSBSP maintain a minimum fixed-dollar amount of tangible net equity, for example, equal to $20,000,000 or some greater or lesser amount? If so, explain the merits of imposing a fixed-dollar amount and identify the recommended fixed-dollar amount. 5. Should proposed new Rule 18a–2 require that a nonbank MSBSP compute capital charges for market risk and credit risk? For example, should such a requirement be modeled on the CFTC’s proposed market and credit risk charges for nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants that are not using internal models and are not FCMs? 473 If nonbank SBSDs should be required to take market and credit risk charges, explain why. If not, explain why not. 6. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to a leverage test and if so, how should it be designed? Explain the rationale for such a test. 7. Should a nonbank MSBSP be subject to a minimum tangible net worth requirement that is proportional to the amount of risk incurred by the MSBSP 473 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27809–27812. PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70257 through its outstanding security-based swap transactions? More specifically, should an MSBSP calculate an ‘‘adjusted tangible net worth’’ by subtracting market risk deductions for their security-based swaps (either based on the standardized haircuts or on approved models) from their tangible net worth and be required to maintain sufficient capital such that this adjusted tangible net worth figure is positive? B. Margin 1. Introduction As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, dealers in OTC derivatives manage credit risk to their OTC derivatives counterparties through collateral and netting agreements.474 The two types of credit exposure arising from OTC derivatives are current exposure and potential future exposure. The current exposure is the amount that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the dealer if all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were terminated (i.e., it is the amount of the current receivable from the counterparty). This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the counterparty may default on the obligation to pay the current receivable. The potential future exposure is the amount that the current exposure may increase in favor of the dealer in the future. This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the counterparty may default before providing the dealer with additional collateral to cover the incremental increase in the current exposure or that the current exposure will increase after a default when the counterparty has ceased to provide additional collateral to cover such increases and before the dealer can liquidate the position. Dealers may require counterparties to provide collateral to cover their current and potential future exposures to the counterparty.475 On the other hand, they may not require collateral for these purposes because, for example, the counterparty is deemed to be of low 474 See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices; OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures and Counterparty Risk Management. 475 In the Dodd-Frank Act, collateral collected to cover current exposure is referred to as variation margin and collateral collected to cover potential future exposure is referred to as initial margin. See, e.g., section 15F(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)) and section 4s(e)(1)(A)–(B) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A)–(B)), added by the Dodd-Frank Act. In this release, collateral collected to cover potential future exposure is referred to as margin collateral. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 credit risk.476 Alternatively, agreements between a dealer and its counterparties could require the counterparties to begin delivering collateral during the pendency of the transaction if certain ‘‘trigger events,’’ e.g., a downgrade of the counterparty’s credit rating, occur. Prior to the financial crisis, the ability to enter into OTC derivatives transactions without having to deliver collateral allowed counterparties to enter into OTC derivatives transactions without the necessity of using capital to support the transactions.477 So, when ‘‘trigger events’’ occurred during the financial crisis, counterparties faced significant liquidity strains in seeking to meet the requirements to deliver collateral.478 As a result, some dealers experienced large uncollateralized exposures to counterparties experiencing financial difficulty, which, in turn, risked exacerbating the already severe market dislocation.479 The Dodd-Frank Act seeks to address the risk of uncollateralized credit risk exposure arising from OTC derivatives by, among other things, mandating margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps and swaps. In particular, section 764 of the DoddFrank Act added new section 15F to the Exchange Act.480 Section 15F(e)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall adopt rules for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs imposing ‘‘both initial and variation margin requirements on all securitybased swaps that are not cleared by a registered clearing agency.’’ 481 Section 15F(e)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe initial and variation margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swap transactions applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.482 Section 15F(e)(3)(A) also 476 See, e.g., Orice M. Williams, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, General Accountability Office (‘‘GAO’’), Systemic Risk: Regulatory Oversight and Recent Initiatives to Address Risk Posed by Credit Default Swaps, GAO– 09–397T (Mar. 2009), available at https:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d09397t.pdf (testimony before the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises). 477 Id. at 13. 478 Id. See also GAO, Financial Crisis: Review of Federal Reserve System Financial Assistance to American International Group, Inc., GAO–11–616 (Sept. 2011), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/ 590/585560.pdf (‘‘Financial Crisis: Review of Federal Reserve System Financial Assistance to American International Group, Inc.’’). 479 See Financial Crisis: Review of Federal Reserve System Financial Assistance to American International Group, Inc. at 5–6. 480 See Public Law 111–203 § 764. 481 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2)(B). 482 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2)(A). The prudential regulators have proposed margin rules with respect VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 provides that ‘‘[t]o offset the greater risk to the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant and the financial system arising from the use of security-based swaps that are not cleared,’’ the margin requirements proposed by the Commission and prudential regulators shall ‘‘help ensure the safety and soundness’’ of the SBSDs and the MSBSPs, and ‘‘be appropriate for the risk associated with non-cleared security-based swaps held’’ by an SBSD or MSBSP.483 Similarly, sections 4s(e)(1)(A) and (B) of the CEA provide that the prudential regulators and the CFTC shall prescribe margin requirements for, respectively, bank swap dealers and bank major swap participants, and nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants.484 Further, section 4s(e)(3)(A) of the CEA provides, among other things, that ‘‘[t]o offset the greater risk to the swap dealer or major swap participant and the financial system arising from the use of swaps that are not cleared,’’ the margin requirements adopted by the prudential regulators and the CFTC shall ‘‘help ensure the safety and soundness’’ of swap dealers and major swap participants, and ‘‘be appropriate for the risk associated with non-cleared swaps held’’ by these entities.485 The margin requirements that must be established with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps and non-cleared swaps will operate in tandem with provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act requiring that security-based swaps and swaps must be cleared through a registered clearing agency or registered DCO, respectively, unless an exception to mandatory clearing exists.486 More to non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps that would apply to bank swap dealers, bank major swap participants, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. The prudential regulators refer to collateral to cover current exposure as variation margin and collateral to cover potential future exposure as initial margin. Id. 483 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(3)(A). 484 See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A) and (B). The CFTC has proposed margin requirements with respect to noncleared swaps that would apply to nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. The CFTC refers to collateral to cover current exposure as variation margin and collateral to cover potential future exposure as initial margin. Id. 485 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(3)(A). 486 See Public Law 111–203 § 763 (adding section 3C(a)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–3(a)(1) (mandatory clearing of security-based swaps)) and Public Law 111–203 § 723 (adding section 2(h) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 2(h) (mandatory clearing of swaps)). The mandatory clearing provisions in the Exchange Act and CEA contain exceptions from the mandatory clearing requirement for certain types of entities, security-based swaps, and swaps. See Process for Submissions for Review of SecurityBased Swaps for Mandatory Clearing and Notice PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 specifically, section 3C of the Exchange Act,487 as added by section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, creates, among other things, a clearing requirement with respect to certain security-based swaps. Specifically, this section provides that ‘‘[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to engage in a security-based swap unless that person submits such security-based swap for clearing to a clearing agency that is registered under this Act or a clearing agency that is exempt from registration under this Act if the security-based swap is required to be cleared.’’ 488 Clearing agencies and DCOs that operate as central counterparties (‘‘CCPs’’) manage credit and other risks through a range of controls and methods, including prescribed margin rules for their members.489 Thus, the Filing Requirements for Clearing Agencies; Technical Amendments to Rule 19b–4 and Form 19b–4 Applicable to All Self-Regulatory Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 67286 (June 28, 2012), 77 FR 41602 (July 13, 2012) (explaining exceptions to mandatory clearing for security-based swaps) (‘‘Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps’’); Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (Dec. 30, 2010) (explaining exceptions to mandatory clearing for swaps). Security-based swaps and swaps that are not required to be cleared would be non-cleared security-based swaps and swaps. 487 15 U.S.C. 78c–3 et seq. 488 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(a)(1) (as added by section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act). The requirement that a security-based swap must be cleared will stem from the determination to be made by the Commission. Such determination may be made in connection with the review of a clearing agency’s submission regarding a security-based swap, or any group, category, type or class of security-based swap, the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing. See 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(b)(2)(C)(ii) (as added by section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act) (‘‘[t]he Commission shall * * * review each submission made under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and determine whether the security-based swap, or group, category, type, or class of security-based swaps, described in the submission is required to be cleared’’.). In addition, section 3C(b)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that ‘‘[t]he Commission on an ongoing basis shall review each security-based swap, or any group, category, type, or class of security-based swaps to make a determination that such security-based swap, or group, category, type, or class of security-based swaps should be required to be cleared.’’ 489 See Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, Exchange Act Release No. 64017 (Mar. 3, 2011), 76 FR 14472 (Mar. 16, 2011) (‘‘Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance’’). A CCP interposes itself between two counterparties to a transaction. See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77 FR at 41603. For example, when an OTC derivatives contract between two counterparties that are members of a CCP is executed and submitted for clearing, it is typically replaced by two new contracts—separate contracts between the CCP and each of the two original counterparties. At that point, the original counterparties are no longer counterparties to each other. Instead, each acquires the CCP as its counterparty, and the CCP assumes the counterparty credit risk of each of the original counterparties that are members of the CCP. To address the credit risk of acting as a CCP, clearing E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 mandatory clearing requirements established by the Dodd-Frank Act for security-based swaps and swaps, in effect, will establish margin requirements for cleared security-based swaps and cleared swaps and, thereby, complement the margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps and non-cleared swaps established by the Commission, the prudential regulators, and the CFTC.490 Pursuant to section 15F(e) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–3 to establish margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. The provisions of proposed Rule 18a–3 are based on the margin rules applicable to broker-dealers (the ‘‘broker-dealer margin rules’’).491 The goal of modeling proposed new Rule 18a–3 on the broker-dealer margin rules is to promote consistency with existing rules and to facilitate the portfolio margining of security-based swaps with other types of securities. In the securities markets, margin rules have been set by relevant regulatory authorities (the Federal Reserve and the SROs) since the 1930s.492 The agencies and DCOs require their clearing members to post collateral for proprietary and customer positions of the member cleared by the clearing agency or DCO. They also may require their clearing members to collect collateral from their customers. In addition, as discussed below, the Federal Reserve and the broker-dealer SROs prescribe margin rules requiring broker-dealers to collect margin collateral from their customers for financed securities transactions and facilitated short sales of securities. Id. 490 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27567 (‘‘In the derivatives clearing process, central counterparties (CCPs) manage the credit risk through a range of controls and methods, including a margining regime that imposes both initial margin and variation margin requirements on parties to cleared transactions. Thus, the mandatory clearing requirement established by the Dodd-Frank Act for swaps and security-based swaps will effectively require any party to any transaction subject to the clearing mandate to post initial and variation margin to the CCP in connection with that transaction.’’) (footnote omitted). See also Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, 76 FR at 14482 (proposing a requirement that clearing agencies acting as CCPs must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit credit exposures to members in normal market conditions, use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements, and review the models and parameters at least monthly). 491 Broker-dealers are subject to margin requirements in rules promulgated by the Federal Reserve (12 CFR 220.1, et seq.), SROs (see, e.g., FINRA Rules 4210–4240), and, with respect to security futures, jointly by the Commission and the CFTC (17 CFR 242.400–406). 492 The Federal Reserve originally adopted Regulation T pursuant to section 7 of the Exchange Act shortly after the enactment of the Exchange Act. See 1934 Fed. Res. Bull. 675. The purposes of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 requirement that an SRO file proposed margin rules with the Commission has promoted the establishment of consistent margin levels across the SROs, which mitigates the risk that SROs (as well as their member firms) will compete by implementing lower margin levels and also helps ensure that margin levels are set at sufficiently prudent levels to reduce systemic risk.493 Basing proposed Rule 18a–3 on the broker-dealer margin rules is intended to achieve these same objectives in the market for securitybased swaps. Under the broker-dealer margin rules, an accountholder is required to maintain a specified level of equity in a securities account at a broker-dealer (i.e., the market value of the assets in the account must exceed the amount of the accountholder’s obligations to the broker-dealer by a prescribed amount).494 This equity serves as a buffer in the event the accountholder fails to meet an obligation to the brokerdealer and the broker-dealer must liquidate the assets in the account to satisfy the obligation.495 The equity also provides liquidity to the broker-dealer with which to fund the credit extended to the accountholder. The amount of the equity required to be maintained in the account depends on the securities transactions being facilitated through the resources of the broker-dealer because the equity requirement increases as the risk of the securities purchased with borrowed funds or sold Federal Reserve’s margin rules include: (1) Regulation of the amount of credit directed into securities speculation and away from other uses; (2) protection of the securities markets from price fluctuations and disruptions caused by excessive margin credit; (3) protection of investors against losses arising from undue leverage in securities transactions; and (4) protection of broker-dealers from the financial exposure involved in excessive margin lending to customers. See Charles F. Rechlin, Securities Credit Regulation § 1:3 (2d ed. 2008). 493 Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, each SRO must file with the Commission any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from the rules of the exchange electronically on a Form 19b–4 through the Electronic Form 19b–4 Filing System, which is a secure Web site operated by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1); 17 CFR 240.19b– 4. 494 See, e.g., 12 CFR 220.2; FINRA Rule 4210(a)(5); 17 CFR 242.401(a)(8). Accountholder obligations to the broker-dealer generally arise from the accountholder borrowing funds from the brokerdealer to finance securities purchases and the accountholder relying on the broker-dealer to borrow securities or use its own securities to make delivery on short sales of securities by the accountholder. 495 The account equity requirement, in effect, mandates that the account contain sufficient collateral to cover the broker-dealer’s current exposure to the accountholder plus a buffer to address potential future exposure. PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70259 short with borrowed securities increases. Proposed new Rule 18a–3 is based on these same principles and is intended to form part of an integrated program of financial responsibility requirements, along with the proposed capital and segregation standards. For example, proposed new Rule 18a–1 would impose a capital charge in certain cases for uncollateralized exposures arising from security-based swaps. The segregation requirements are intended to ensure that initial margin collected by SBSDs is protected from their proprietary business risks.496 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to model the nonbank SBSD margin rule for noncleared security-based swaps on the broker-dealer margin rules. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are there other margin standards that would more appropriately address the risks of non-cleared security-based swaps and/or be more practical margining programs for non-cleared security-based swaps? If so, identify them and explain how they would be more appropriate and/or practical. 2. What are the current margining practices of dealers in OTC derivatives with respect to contracts that likely would be security-based swaps subject to proposed new Rule 18a–3? How do those margining practices differ from the proposed requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3? 3. As a practical matter, would the structure of proposed new Rule 18a–3 accommodate portfolio margining of security-based swaps and swaps? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 2. Proposed Margin Requirements for Nonbank SBSDs and Nonbank MSBSPs a. Scope of Rule 18a–3 Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs.497 As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from their counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both current exposure and potential future exposure to the counterparty (i.e., the rule would require the account to have prescribed minimum levels of equity); however, there would be exceptions to 496 See proposed new Rules 18a–1, 18a–3, and 18a–4. 497 See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules these requirements for certain types of counterparties and for certain types of transactions. The collateral collected to address the potential future exposure (the margin collateral) would need to be sufficient to meet the level of account equity required by the proposed rule. The required level of account equity would be based on the risk of the positions in the account. Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank MSBSP to collect collateral from counterparties to which the nonbank MSBSP has current exposure and deliver collateral to counterparties that have current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP; however, there would be exceptions to these requirements for certain types of counterparties. These requirements would apply only to current exposure (i.e., nonbank MSBSPs and their counterparties would not be required to exchange collateral to cover potential future exposure to each other). The proposed rule would not identify the types of instruments that must be delivered as collateral (e.g., U.S. government securities). However, it would place limitations on the collateral that could be collected by nonbank SBSDs. First, the rule would require the nonbank SBSD to take haircuts on the collateral equal to the amounts of the deductions required under Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD. Second, the rule would prescribe conditions with respect to the collateral modeled on the conditions in Appendix E to Rule 15c3– 1, discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, that determine when collateral can be taken into account for purposes of determining a potential credit risk charge for exposure to certain counterparties.498 Finally, the provisions in proposed new Rule 18a–3 are intended to establish minimum margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps. A nonbank SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP could establish ‘‘house’’ margin requirements that are more conservative than those specified in the proposed new rule.499 For example, a nonbank SBSD could require that a minimum level of equity must be maintained in the accounts of counterparties that exceed the level of equity required to be maintained pursuant to the proposed new rule. In addition, a nonbank SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP could 498 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(v)(A)–(H). broker-dealer margin rules, brokerdealers also can establish ‘‘house’’ margin requirements as long as they are at least as restrictive as the Federal Reserve and SRO margin rules. See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(d). 499 Under VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 specifically identify and thereby limit the types of instruments they will accept as collateral. b. Daily Calculations i. Nonbank SBSDs Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from their counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both current exposure and potential future exposure, subject to certain exceptions discussed below.500 Consequently, proposed new Rule 18a– 3 would require a nonbank SBSD to perform two calculations as of the close of each business day with respect to each account carried by the firm for a counterparty to a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction.501 A nonbank SBSD would be required to increase the frequency of the calculations (i.e., perform intra-day calculations) during periods of extreme volatility and for accounts with concentrated positions.502 These more frequent calculations would be designed to monitor the nonbank SBSD’s counterparty risk exposure in situations where a default by a counterparty or multiple counterparties would have a more significant adverse impact on the financial condition of the nonbank SBSD than under more normal circumstances.503 One consequence of the more frequent calculations could be that the nonbank SBSD requests that a counterparty deliver collateral during the day pursuant to a ‘‘house’’ margin requirement to account for changes in the value of the securities and money market instruments held in the account. As discussed below in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, the daily calculations would form the basis for the nonbank SBSD to determine the amount of collateral the counterparty would need to deliver to cover any 500 See paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 501 See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. For purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, the term account would mean an account carried by a nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP for a counterparty that holds non-cleared security-based swaps. See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. In addition, the term counterparty would mean a person with whom the nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP has entered into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction. See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 502 See paragraph (c)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 503 Compare FINRA Rule 4210(d) which states that procedures shall be established by members to: ‘‘(1) review limits and types of credit extended to all customers; (2) formulate their own margin requirements; and (3) review the need for instituting higher margin requirements, mark-tomarkets and collateral deposits than are required by this [margin rule] for individual securities or customer accounts.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 current exposure and potential future exposure the nonbank SBSD has to the counterparty. The proposed rule would except certain counterparties from this requirement. Even if the counterparty is not required to deliver collateral, the calculations—by measuring the current and potential future exposure to the counterparty—would assist the nonbank SBSD in managing its credit risk and understanding the extent of its uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty and across all counterparties. In addition, as discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, the calculations would be used for determining the risk margin amount for purposes of calculating the 8% margin factor to determine the nonbank SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement.504 The first calculation would be to determine the amount of equity in the account.505 For purposes of the rule, the term equity would mean the total current fair market value of securities positions in an account of a counterparty (excluding the time value of an over-the-counter option), plus any credit balance and less any debit balance in the account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect to gross derivatives payables and receivables.506 Consequently, the first step in calculating the equity would be to mark-to-market all of the securities positions in the account, including noncleared security-based swap positions. The second step would be to add to that amount any credit balance in the account or subtract from that amount any debit balance in the account. Credit balances would include payables the nonbank SBSD owed to the counterparty. Payables could relate to cash deposited into the account, the proceeds of the sales of securities held in the account, and/or interest and dividends earned from securities held in the account. In addition, payables could relate to derivatives in the account, including non-cleared security-based swaps with a net replacement value in the favor of the counterparty. Debit balances would be receivables to the nonbank SBSD owed by the 504 See proposed new paragraph (c)(16) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 505 See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 506 See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The time value of an OTC option is the amount that the current market value of the option exceeds the in-the-money amount of the option. See also, generally, FINRA Rule 4210(a)(5) (defining equity to mean the customer’s ownership interest in the account, computed by adding the current market value of all securities ‘‘long’’ and the amount of any credit balance and subtracting the current market value of all securities ‘‘short’’ and the amount of any debit balance). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 counterparty, including any net replacement values in favor of the nonbank SBSD arising from derivatives positions and any other amounts owed to the nonbank SBSD by the counterparty. As indicated by the proposed definition of equity, the nonbank SBSD could offset payables and receivables relating to derivatives in the account by applying a qualifying netting agreement with the counterparty. To qualify for this treatment, a netting agreement would need to meet the minimum requirements prescribed in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 to qualify for purposes of the credit risk charge discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release.507 These requirements are designed to ensure that the netting agreement between the nonbank SBSD and the counterparty permits the nonbank SBSD to reduce the receivables and payables relating to derivatives between the two entities to a single net payment obligation. The equity is the amount that results after marking-to-market the securities positions and adding the credit balance or subtracting the debit balance (including giving effect to qualifying netting agreements). If the value of the securities positions in the account exceeds the amount of any debit balance, the account would have a positive equity.508 On the other hand, if the amount of the debit balance is greater, the account would have a negative equity.509 The negative equity in an account would be equal to the nonbank SBSD’s current exposure to the counterparty. The second calculation would be to determine a margin amount for the account to address potential future exposure.510 The proposed rule would prescribe a standardized method and a model-based method for calculating the margin amount.511 The method for 507 See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iv). 508 The proposed rule would define the term positive equity to mean equity of greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 509 The proposed rule would define the term negative equity to mean equity of less than $0. See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 510 See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 511 See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. Similarly, the prudential regulators have proposed that bank SBSDs and bank swap dealers have the option of using internal models to calculate initial margin requirements for noncleared security-based swaps. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27567–27568 (‘‘With respect to initial margin, the proposed rule permits a covered swap entity to select from two alternatives to calculate its initial margin requirements. A covered swap entity may calculate its initial margin requirements using a standardized ‘lookup’ table that specifies the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 determining the margin amount would be similar to the approach a nonbank SBSD would need to use to determine haircuts on proprietary security-based swap positions when computing net capital.512 This approach would maintain consistency between the proposed margin and capital rules. Specifically, paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would divide securitybased swaps into two classes: CDS security-based swaps and all other security-based swaps. Paragraph (d) would define the standardized methodology for determining the margin amount for each class of security-based swap by reference to the standardized haircuts that would apply to the class in proposed new Rule 18a– 1 (if a stand-alone SBSD) or Rule 15c3– 1, as proposed to be amended (if a broker-dealer SBSD).513 Paragraph (d) minimum initial margin that must be collected, expressed as a percentage of the notional amount of the swap or security-based swap. These percentages depend on the broad asset class of the swap or security-based swap. Alternatively, a covered swap entity may calculate its minimum initial margin requirements using an internal margin model that meets certain criteria and that has been approved by the relevant prudential regulator.’’) (footnotes omitted). On the other hand, the CFTC, because of concerns about the resources necessary to approve the use of internal models for margining purposes and the fact that nonbank swap dealers may not have internal models, proposed that nonbank swap dealers must use either external models or a standardized approach to determine initial margin (though the CFTC did propose a provision under which the CFTC could approve the use of an internal model should the CFTC obtain sufficient resources). See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23737. The external models proposed by the CFTC are: (1) a model currently in use for margining cleared swaps at a DCO; (2) a model currently in use for modeling non-cleared swaps by an entity subject to regular assessment by a prudential regulator; or (3) a model available for licensing to any market participant by a vendor. Id. The use of external models is not being proposed for nonbank SBSDs because the basis for permitting firms to use VaR models to compute net capital is to align their internally developed (i.e., not venderdeveloped) risk management processes with the process for computing net capital. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34428 (the option to use VaR models is ‘‘intended to reduce regulatory costs for broker-dealers by allowing very highly capitalized firms that have developed robust internal risk management practices to use those risk management practices, such as mathematical risk measurement models, for regulatory purposes’’). 512 See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3; proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 513 See paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–1 and Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, would prescribe standardized haircuts for security-based swaps. See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. Consequently, for CDS security-based swaps, the nonbank SBSD would use the proposed maturity/spread grid in proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1) of Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 to PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70261 would provide further that, if the nonbank SBSD was approved to use internal models to compute net capital, the firm could use its internal VaR model to determine the margin amount for security-based swaps for which the firm had been approved to use the model, except that the margin amount for equity security-based swaps would need to be determined exclusively using the standardized haircuts.514 Consequently, for debt security-based swaps, a nonbank SBSD approved to use internal models could calculate the margin amount using the firm’s VaR model to the extent the firm is approved to include these types of positions in the model for the purposes of computing net capital. For all other positions, a nonbank SBSD would need to use the standardized haircut approach. Nonbank SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models to compute net capital would need to use the standardized haircuts for all positions to calculate the margin amount. As noted above, a nonbank SBSD (regardless of whether it is approved to use internal models to compute net capital) would be required to calculate the margin amount for equity securitybased swaps using the standardized haircuts, which includes the ability to use the methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1. This proposal is designed to establish a margin requirement for equity security-based swaps that is consistent with SRO portfolio margin rules for equity securities, which are based on the Appendix A methodology.515 This provision would determine the margin amount. See paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. While the required standardized haircuts would be the same in Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1, the nonbank SBSD would refer to Rule 15c3–1 if it is a broker-dealer SBSD and proposed new Rule 18a–1 if it is a standalone SBSD. For all equity security-based swaps and debt security-based swaps (other than CDS security-based swaps), the nonbank SBSD would use the method of multiplying the notional amount of the position by the standardized haircut that would apply to the underlying security as specified in proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. See paragraph (d)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. For equity security-based swaps, this would include being able to use the methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and in Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD. For debt security-based swaps, this would include being able to use the offsets that are permitted in the debt maturity grids in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3– 1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). 514 See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 515 See FINRA Rule 4210(g); CBOE Rule 12.4. See also FINRA, Portfolio Margin Frequently Asked Questions, available at www.finra.org. As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1 permits a broker-dealer to group E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules allow broker-dealer SBSDs to include equity security-based swaps in the portfolios of equity securities positions for which they calculate margin requirements using the SRO portfolio margin rules.516 The proposal also would ensure a consistent portfolio margin approach for equity security products across nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not SBSDs, and thereby reduce opportunity for regulatory arbitrage. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed daily calculation requirements for nonbank SBSDs in proposed new Rule 18a–3. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the proposed definition of equity appropriate? For example, would the proposed definition be practical in terms of determining the net equity in an account holding non-cleared security-based swaps? If the proposed definition is not appropriate, explain why and provide suggested alternative definitions. 2. Should the definition of equity include the time value of an over-thecounter option? If so, explain why. 3. Should the terms current market value, credit balance, and debit balance be defined for the purpose of proposed new Rule 18a–3? For example, would defining these terms provide greater clarity to the definition of equity in the proposed rule? If these terms should be defined, explain why and provide suggested definitions. 4. Are the proposed requirements for netting agreements to qualify for purposes of determining the amount of equity in an account appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there additional or alternative provisions that should be options, futures, long securities positions, and short securities positions involving the same underlying security and stress the current market price for each position at ten equidistant points along a range of positive and negative potential future market movements, using an approved theoretical options pricing model that satisfies certain conditions specified in the rule. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a. The gains and losses of each position in the portfolio offset each other to yield a net gain or loss at each stress point. The stress point that yields the largest potential net loss for the portfolio would be used to calculate the aggregate haircut for all the positions in the portfolio. Id. 516 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(g)(2)(G) (defining the term ‘‘unlisted derivative’’ for purposes of inclusion in the Appendix A methodology as used in the rule to calculate a portfolio margin requirement to mean ‘‘any equity-based or equity index-based unlisted option, forward contract, or security-based swap that can be valued by a theoretical pricing model approved by the [Commission].’’) (emphasis added). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 contained in the netting agreement requirements? If so, identify and explain them. 5. Is the proposed method for calculating the margin amount appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, is it appropriate to use the techniques in Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1 to determine the margin amount? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative methods for calculating the margin amount that would be preferable? If so, identify them and explain why they would be preferable. 6. Should proposed new Rule 18a-3 allow an alternative method of calculating the margin amount that would permit a nonbank SBSD to determine the margin amount for a noncleared security-based swap based on the margin required by a registered clearing agency for a cleared securitybased swap whose terms and conditions closely resemble the terms and conditions of the non-cleared securitybased swap (similar to the CFTC’s proposal)? Would there be sufficient similarity between certain cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps to make this approach workable? In addition, if this alternative approach was permitted, how could the potential differences in margin requirements across clearing agencies be addressed? 7. In addition to internal models, should external models be permitted such as: (1) a model currently in use for margining cleared security-based swaps at a clearing agency; (2) a model currently in use for modeling noncleared swaps by an entity subject to regular assessment by a prudential regulator; or (3) a model available for licensing to any market participant by a vendor? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of permitting external models? 8. How would the proposed standardized approaches to determining the margin amount differ from the standardized approaches the prudential regulators proposed for determining the initial margin amount? 9. The provisions for using VaR models to compute net capital require that the model use a 99%, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a ten-business-day movement in rates and prices. This means the VaR model used for the purpose of determining a counterparty’s margin amount also would need to use a 99%, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a tenbusiness-day movement in rates and prices. The ten-business-day requirement is designed to account for market movements that occur over a PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 period of time as opposed to a single day. This is designed to ensure that the VaR model uses potential market moves that are large enough to capture multiday moves in rates and prices. Given this purpose, should the VaR model be required to use a longer period of time (e.g., 15, 20, 25, or 30 business days) to establish a potentially greater margin collateral requirement for customers given that they may not be subject to capital and other prudential requirements? Would the 3-times multiplication factor proposed to be required for VaR models used by nonbank SBSDs (which, under the proposal, would need to be increased in response to back-testing exceptions) be necessary if the time period were longer than 10 business days? If not, explain why not. ii. Nonbank MSBSPs Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require nonbank MSBSPs to collect collateral from counterparties to which the nonbank MSBSP has current exposure and provide collateral to counterparties that have current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP.517 Consequently, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to calculate as of the close of business each day the amount of equity in each account of a counterparty.518 Consistent with the proposal for nonbank SBSDs, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to increase the frequency of its calculations (i.e., perform intra-day calculations) during periods of extreme volatility and for accounts with concentrated positions.519 517 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. 518 See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. A nonbank MSBSP would apply the definitions in paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 for the purposes of complying with the requirements in the rule. See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The term equity would be defined to mean the total current fair market value of securities positions in an account of a counterparty (excluding the time value of an overthe-counter option), plus any credit balance and less any debit balance in the account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect to gross derivatives payables and receivables. See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The time value of an OTC option is the amount that the current market value of the option exceeds the in-themoney amount of the option. In addition, the term account is proposed to be defined to mean an account carried by a nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP for a counterparty that holds non-cleared security-based swaps. See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. Furthermore, the term counterparty is proposed to mean a person with whom the nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP has entered into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction. See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 519 See paragraph (c)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. These more frequent calculations would be designed to monitor the nonbank MSBSP’s E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As would be the case for a nonbank SBSD, the first step for a nonbank MSBSP in calculating the equity in an account would be to mark-to-market all of the securities positions in the account, including non-cleared securitybased swap positions. The second step would be to add to that amount any credit balance in the account or subtract from that amount any debit balance.520 The nonbank MSBSP could offset payables and receivables relating to derivatives in the account by applying a qualifying netting agreement with the counterparty. To qualify for this treatment, a netting agreement would need to meet the minimum requirements prescribed in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 to qualify for purposes of the credit risk charge discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release.521 These requirements, set forth in paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 18a–3, are designed to ensure that the netting agreement between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty permits the nonbank MSBSP to reduce the receivables and payables between the two entities to a single net payment obligation.522 If the value of the securities positions plus the amount of any cash in the account exceeds the amount of the debit balance, the account would have positive equity.523 This would mean the counterparty has current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. On the other hand, if the amount of the debit balance is greater, the account would have counterparty risk exposure in situations where a default by a counterparty or multiple counterparties would have a more significant adverse impact on the financial condition of the nonbank MSBSP than under more normal circumstances. One consequence of the more frequent calculations could be that the nonbank MSBSP requests that a counterparty deliver collateral during the day pursuant to a ‘‘house’’ margin requirement to account for changes in the value of the securities and money market instruments held in the account. 520 Credit balances would include payables the nonbank MSBSP owed to the counterparty. Payables could relate to cash deposited into the account, the proceeds of the sales of securities held in the account, and interest and dividends earned from securities held in the account. In addition, payables could relate to derivatives in the account such as non-cleared security-based swaps with a net replacement value in the favor of the counterparty. Debit balances would be receivables to the nonbank MSBSP owed by the counterparty. Receivables could relate to derivatives in the account such as non-cleared security-based swaps with a net replacement value in the favor of the nonbank MSBSP. 521 See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iv). 522 See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 523 The proposed rule would define the term positive equity to mean equity of greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 negative equity.524 This would mean the nonbank MSBSP has current exposure to the counterparty. Nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to deliver or collect margin collateral to collateralize potential future exposure.525 For that reason, Rule 18a–3 would not require nonbank MSBSPs to calculate a margin amount, and the rule would not require counterparties to provide margin collateral to nonbank MSBSPs to maintain equity levels above the nonbank MSBSP’s current exposure. When a counterparty provides margin collateral to collateralize potential future exposure, the counterparty is exposed to credit risk in the amount that the collateral provided to the dealer exceeds the dealer’s current exposure to the counterparty. With respect to nonbank SBSDs, collateralizing potential future exposure is intended to promote the financial responsibility of the nonbank SBSD, as the margin collateral received from the counterparty protects the nonbank SBSD from the risks arising from fluctuations in the value of the underlying positions before the collateral can be sold. The counterparty, in turn, would be protected by the net liquid assets test standard applicable to the nonbank SBSD,526 which is significantly more conservative than the tangible net worth capital standard proposed for nonbank MSBSPs.527 The counterparties also would be protected by the proposed segregation requirements with respect to the margin collateral delivered by counterparties.528 The proposed margin requirements for nonbank MSBSPs are designed to ‘‘neutralize’’ the credit risk between a nonbank MSBSP and a counterparty. The collection of collateral from counterparties would strengthen the liquidity of the nonbank MSBSP by collateralizing its current exposure to counterparties. Nonbank MSBSPs, in contrast to nonbank SBSDs, would be required to deliver collateral to counterparties to collateralize their current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP, which would lessen the impact on the counterparties if the nonbank MSBSP failed, and is intended to account for the fact that nonbank 524 The proposed rule would define the term negative equity to mean equity of less than $0. See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 525 See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (only requiring calculation of the equity in the account of each counterparty). 526 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1; proposed new Rule 18a–1. 527 See proposed new Rule 18a–2. 528 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70263 MSBSPs would be subject to less stringent capital requirements than nonbank SBSDs. In addition, as discussed in section II.A.3. of the release, the entities that may need to register as nonbank MSBSPs could include companies that engage in commercial activities that are not necessarily financial in nature (e.g., manufacturing, agriculture, and energy) and for which a net liquid assets test could be impractical. Finally, because of these differences in business models, nonbank MSBSPs may not have the systems and personnel necessary to operate daily margin collateral programs to address potential future exposure. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed daily calculation requirements for nonbank MSBSPs. Commenters are referred to the questions about the daily calculation requirements for nonbank SBSDs above in section II.B.2.b.i. of this release to the extent those questions address provisions in proposed new Rule 18a– 3 that also apply to nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Which types of counterparties would be expected to transact with nonbank MSBSPs? Which types of security-based swap transactions would these counterparties enter into with nonbank MSBSPs? 2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to calculate a daily margin amount for each counterparty? For example, even if they were not required to collect collateral to cover potential future exposure, would the calculation of the margin amount better enable them to measure and understand their counterparty risk? 3. If nonbank MSBSPs should calculate a daily margin amount, how should such amount be calculated? Should a nonbank MSBSP be required to calculate a margin amount using the methods prescribed in paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 or some other method? For example, should nonbank MSBSPs be permitted to use external models to determine a margin amount? 4. Would nonbank MSBSPs have the systems and personnel necessary to operate daily margin collateral programs to calculate a daily margin amount? c. Account Equity Requirements i. Nonbank SBSDs A nonbank SBSD would be required to calculate as of the close of each business day: (1) the amount of equity E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70264 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 in the account of each counterparty; and (2) a margin amount for the account of each counterparty.529 On the next business day following the calculations, the nonbank SBSD would be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from the counterparty in an amount at least equal to the negative equity (current exposure) in the account plus the margin amount (potential future exposure).530 The collateral collected would be designed to ensure that the counterparty maintains a minimum level of positive net equity in the account. The proposed rule would require the nonbank SBSD to collect collateral for this purpose from each counterparty, except as discussed below. A nonbank SBSD would need to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to meet the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3. Other types of assets would not be eligible as collateral. In addition, under proposed new Rule 18a–3, the fair market value of securities and money market instruments held in the account of a counterparty would need to be reduced by the amount of the deductions the nonbank SBSD would apply to the positions pursuant to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, or proposed new Rule 18a–1, as applicable, for the purpose of determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the minimum requirement.531 Accordingly, securities and money market instruments with no ‘‘ready market’’ or which cannot be publicly offered or sold because of statutory, regulatory, or contractual arrangements or other restrictions would be subject to a 100% deduction and, therefore, these types of securities and money market instruments would have no value in terms of meeting the account equity requirement.532 All other securities and money market instruments in the account would be reduced in value by the amount of the deductions required in Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a–1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD.533 The amount of the deductions would increase for securities and money market instruments with greater market risk and, thereby, 529 See paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. See also paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 (defining the term equity). 530 See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. 531 See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. 532 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vii); paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 533 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)–(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 account for the risk that the nonbank SBSD may not be able to liquidate the securities and money market instruments at current market values to satisfy the obligation of a defaulted counterparty.534 These deductions would limit the types of securities and money market instruments a counterparty could provide as collateral and require a counterparty to increase the amount of collateral delivered to account for the deductions taken on securities collateral in the account.535 The prudential regulators and the CFTC are proposing to specifically identify the asset classes that would be eligible collateral for purposes of their margin rules.536 Proposed new Rule 534 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)–(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 535 For example, assume an account holds securities and money market instruments valued at $50, a credit balance of $10, and a debit balance of $58. The equity in the account would be $2 ($50 of securities and money market instruments’ value + $10 in credits¥$58 in debits = $2). Assume that the margin amount calculated for the account is $10. This would mean that the account needs to have positive equity of at least $10 (it currently has positive equity of only $2). Assume that the deduction under Rule 15c3–1 for the $50 of securities and money market positions held in the account is $7. This would mean that the counterparty would need to deliver $15 in cash (i.e., not $8) to meet the minimum $10 account equity requirement ($50 of securities and money market instruments’ value¥$7 deduction + $10 in credits¥$58 in debits + $15 cash collateral deposit = $10). Moreover, if the counterparty delivered securities and/or money market instruments to meet the account equity requirement, the fair market value of the securities and money market instruments would need to be greater than $15 because their value would be reduced by the amount of the deduction in Rule 15c3–1 or proposed new Rule 18a–1, as applicable. 536 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. The proposal of the prudential regulators would limit eligible collateral to cash, foreign currency to the extent the payment obligation under the security-based swap or swap is denominated in the currency, obligations guaranteed by the United States as to principal and interest, and, with respect to initial margin only, a senior debt obligation of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any obligation that is an ‘‘insured obligation,’’ as the term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 2277a(3), of a Farm Credit System bank. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27589. The proposal of the CFTC would limit eligible collateral for initial margin to cash, foreign currency to the extent the payment obligation under the security-based swap or swap is denominated in the currency, obligations guaranteed by the United States as to principal and interest, and a senior debt obligation of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any obligation that is an ‘‘insured obligation,’’ as the term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 2277a(3), of a Farm Credit System bank. CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23747. The CFTC’s proposal would limit eligible collateral for variation margin to cash and obligations guaranteed by the United States as to principal and interest. Id. PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18a-3 would not limit collateral in this way. However, comment is sought below in section II.B.3. of this release on the question of whether to define the term eligible collateral in a manner that is similar to the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC. The reason for not proposing a definition of eligible collateral is that counterparties are expected to engage in a wide range of trading strategies that include security-based swaps. Consequently, the account of a counterparty may hold, for example, the security underlying a security-based swap, as well as a short position, option, and single stock future on the underlying security.537 Because of the relationship between security-based swaps and these other security positions, permitting various types of securities to count as collateral may be more practical for margin arrangements involving security-based swaps than for other types of derivatives. A more limited definition of eligible collateral could require a counterparty that has positive equity in an account equal to or in excess of the margin amount to deliver additional collateral to the extent the positions in the account did not meet the definition. The counterparty’s credit exposure to the nonbank SBSD therefore would be increased in a way that may not be necessary to account for the nonbank SBSD’s potential future exposure to the counterparty.538 The Commission is proposing certain additional requirements for eligible collateral, which are modeled on the existing collateral requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.539 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, collateral ‘‘ideally’’ is ‘‘an asset of stable and predictable value, an asset that is not linked to the value of the transaction in any way, and an asset that can be sold quickly and easily if the need arises.’’ 540 The requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 are designed to achieve these objectives.541 The proposed additional requirements include: • The collateral must be subject to the physical possession or control of the nonbank SBSD; 537 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(g) (permitting customer portfolio margining); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–1. 538 A counterparty will have credit exposure to a nonbank SBSD to the extent that collateral held in the account of the counterparty has a mark-tomarket value in excess of the nonbank SBSD’s current exposure to the counterparty. 539 See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. 540 Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral Collateralization Practices at 5. 541 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(v). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 • The collateral must be liquid and transferable; • The collateral must be capable of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD without intervention by any other party; • The collateral agreement between the nonbank SBSD and the counterparty must be legally enforceable by the nonbank SBSD against the counterparty and any other parties to the agreement; • The collateral must not consist of securities issued by the counterparty or a party related to the nonbank SBSD, or to the counterparty; and • If the Commission has approved the nonbank SBSD’s use of a VaR model to compute net capital, the approval allows the nonbank SBSD to calculate deductions for market risk for the type of collateral.542 These proposed collateral requirements are designed to ensure that the treatment of collateral requirements remains consistent between the proposed capital and margin requirements. As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would be required to take a capital charge if a counterparty does not deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to the nonbank SBSD to meet an account equity requirement within one business day of the requirement being triggered. In addition, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require the nonbank SBSD to take prompt steps to liquidate securities and money market instruments in the account to the extent necessary to eliminate the account equity deficiency.543 Under this provision, which is modeled on a similar requirement in the broker-dealer margin rules,544 a nonbank SBSD could need to liquidate positions in the account to reduce debits arising from those transactions. The rule would not require that the liquidations must be completed within a specific timeframe.545 Instead, the rule is designed to give the nonbank SBSD the flexibility to conduct an orderly liquidation, taking into account market conditions and the risk profile of the account. 542 See paragraphs (c)(4)(i)–(c)(4)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 543 See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 544 See 12 CFR 220.4(d) (providing that if a margin call is not met within the required time, the broker-dealer must liquidate securities sufficient to meet the margin call or to eliminate any margin deficiency existing on the day such liquidation is required, whichever is less). 545 See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 There would be four exceptions to the account equity requirements.546 The first would apply to counterparties that are commercial end users.547 The second would apply to counterparties that are SBSDs.548 The third would apply to counterparties that are not commercial end users and that require their margin collateral to be segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.549 The fourth would apply to accounts of counterparties that are not commercial end users and that hold legacy non-cleared security-based swaps.550 Under these exceptions, applicable accounts would not need to meet certain account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 and, therefore, the nonbank SBSD would be exempted from the requirements to take prompt steps to liquidate securities in the account to the extent necessary to eliminate the account equity deficiency. However, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, in these cases the nonbank SBSD would need to take capital charges in lieu of meeting the account equity requirements in certain circumstances.551 Exception for Commercial End Users Under the first exception to the account equity requirements, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to cover the negative equity (current exposure) or margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty that is a commercial end user.552 As discussed 546 See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A)–(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 547 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 548 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)—Alternative A of proposed new Rule 18a–3. An alternative approach is being proposed that would not be an exception to the account equity requirement under which a nonbank SBSD would need to collect collateral from another SBSD to cover the negative equity in the account and the margin amount for the account. In addition, the collateral collected to cover the margin amount would need to be held by an independent third-party custodian. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)—Alternative B of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 549 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 550 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 551 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 552 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a–3. The exception would apply to negative equity in the account and the margin amount calculated for the account. However, a nonbank SBSD would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth for the amount of the uncollateralized negative equity and take the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70265 above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this proposed exception to the requirement to collect collateral is intended to address concerns that have been expressed by commercial end users and others that the imposition of margin requirements on commercial companies that use derivatives to mitigate the risk of business activities that are not financial in nature could unduly disrupt their ability to enter into hedging transactions. The proposed exception is intended to permit nonbank SBSDs and commercial end users to negotiate individual agreements that would reflect the credit risk of the commercial end user and the nature and extent of the non-cleared security-based swap transactions with the end user, without creating an undue impediment to the ability of the commercial end user to hedge its commercial risks.553 The proposed exception for commercial end users also is intended to account for the different risk profiles of commercial end users as compared with financial end users.554 When credit markets are under strain, as in 2008, financial end users, such as hedge funds, can face liquidity stress, which increases their risk of default. Further, See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (deductions for unsecured receivables); paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 (deductions for unsecured receivables); proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1 (proposed capital charge in lieu of margin); paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–1 (proposed capital charge in lieu of margin). As an alternative to these capital charges, ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models could take the credit risk charge discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release. See amendments to paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 553 The margin rule proposed by the prudential regulators would require the entities subject to the rule to establish credit exposure limits for each nonfinancial end user ‘‘under appropriate credit processes and standards,’’ and to collect collateral to the extent that individual exposures exceed those limits. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27587. The margin rule proposed by the CFTC would permit entities subject to the rule and nonfinancial end users ‘‘to set initial margin and variation margin requirements in their discretion’’ but each entity subject to the proposed rule would be required to calculate daily exposure amounts for nonfinancial end users for risk management purposes. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27736. 554 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571 (‘‘Among end users, financial end users are considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.’’). See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (‘‘The Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.’’). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 financial end users as a group, due to the nature of their business, may engage in security-based swap transactions in greater volume than commercial end users, increasing the risk of substantial concentration of counterparty exposure to nonbank SBSDs, and potentially creating greater systemic risk from the failure of a single entity.555 For purposes of the rule, the term commercial end user means any person (other than a natural person) that: (1) Engages primarily in commercial activities that are not financial in nature and that is not a financial entity as that term is defined in section 3C(g)(3) of the Exchange Act; 556 and (2) is using non555 The margin rules proposed by the prudential regulators and the CFTC would differentiate collateral requirements based on whether a financial end user is ‘‘high risk’’ or ‘‘low risk.’’ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571–27572; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23736–23737. A ‘‘low risk’’ financial end user is defined in their proposals as an entity that: (1) is subject to capital requirements established by a prudential regulator or a state insurance regulator; (2) predominantly uses OTC derivatives for hedging purposes; and (3) does not have significant OTC derivatives exposure. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27572; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23735–23736. A low risk financial end user would not be required to deliver initial or variation margin if the amounts required are less than certain prescribed thresholds. See id. While not all financial end users present the same degree of counterparty risk, an exception from the account equity requirements based on the risk profile of the financial end user is not being proposed. This is because margin collateral is an important means of managing credit risk and the concerns expressed with respect to commercial end users being required to deliver margin collateral generally do not apply to financial end users as they customarily deliver margin collateral. As discussed in sections II.A.1. and II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs is based on the net liquid assets test embodied in Rule 15c3–1. Under this test, most unsecured receivables are deducted in full when computing net capital because of their illiquidity. Proposed new Rule 18a–3 is designed to complement this treatment of unsecured receivables by limiting the exceptions to the requirement to collect collateral from counterparties to circumstances that provide a compelling reason for the trade-off between the risk-mitigating benefits of collateral and practical impediments to delivering collateral. With respect to nonbank SBSDs, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to establish a two-tiered approach for financial end users. First, financial end users generally pose more risk than commercial end users. Second, the different credit risk profiles of financial end users may not always be clear, which may make it difficult to differentiate between high and low risk financial end users. Third, market participants have told the Commission staff that financial end users entering into security-based swap transactions generally already deliver collateral to dealers to cover current and potential future exposure. 556 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(g)(3). Section 3C(g) of the Exchange Act defines the term financial entity to mean: (1) a swap dealer; (2) an SBSD; (3) a major swap participant; (4) an MSBSP; (5) a commodity pool as defined in section 1a(10) of the CEA; (6) a private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940; (7) an employee benefit plan as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 cleared security-based swaps to hedge or mitigate risk relating to the commercial activities.557 The proposed definition of commercial end user is modeled on the exception to the mandatory clearing provisions for security-based swaps in section 3C of the Exchange Act.558 Among other things, to qualify for the mandatory clearing exception, one of the counterparties to the security-based swap transaction must not be a financial entity and must be using security-based swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk.559 Under the proposed definition, an individual could not qualify as a commercial end user. In addition, because the proposed definition provides that a commercial end user must engage primarily in commercial activities that are not financial in nature and must not be a financial entity as defined in section 3C(g)(3) of the Exchange Act, entities such as banks, broker-dealers, FCMs, SBSDs, swap dealers, MSBSPs, swap participants, mutual funds, private funds, commodity pools, and employee benefit plans would not qualify as a commercial end user.560 Furthermore, the proposed definition provides that the commercial end user must be using non-cleared of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002); or (8) a person predominantly engaged in activities that are in the business of banking, or in activities that are financial in nature as defined in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. 557 See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 558 Compare 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(g)(1), with paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 559 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(g)(1). 560 See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(g)(3). The prudential regulators and the CFTC have proposed definitions of financial end user and financial entity, respectively, in their non-cleared security-based swap margin rules in addition to their proposed definitions of nonfinancial end user. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571 (defining financial end user), and CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23736 (defining financial entity). As discussed above, the CFTC and prudential regulators are proposing margin requirements that would differentiate collateral requirements based on whether a financial end user or financial entity is ‘‘high risk’’ or ‘‘low risk.’’ Id. In other words, their proposals would provide for potentially different treatment for three classes of entities: (1) Nonfinancial end users; (2) financial end users (low risk and high risk); and (3) entities that are neither a nonfinancial end user nor a financial end user. Therefore, they need to define the terms financial end user and financial entity, respectively. Because proposed new Rule 18a–3 would treat financial end users no differently than entities that are neither a commercial end user nor a financial end user, the Commission’s proposed margin rule does not contain a definition of financial end user. However, as discussed below, the proposed rule would provide different treatment for counterparties that are SBSDs. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 security-based swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk. The rationale for exempting commercial end users from the requirement to deliver collateral to meet the account equity requirements is that these end users often do not deliver collateral by current practice, and requiring them to do so could adversely impact their ability to mitigate the risk of their commercial activities by entering into hedging transactions. If an end user is using non-cleared securitybased swaps for purposes other than hedging (e.g., to take directional investment positions), the rationale for exempting the end user from the account equity requirements would not apply. An end user that is using noncleared security-based swaps for investment purposes is not acting like a commercial end user, and, as such, no exemption would be available under the rule. As discussed below in section II.B.2.e. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would be required to establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts holding non-cleared security-based swaps.561 Among other things, a nonbank SBSD would be required to have procedures and guidelines for determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap.562 Consequently, if a nonbank SBSD does not collect collateral from a commercial end user, it would need to establish a credit limit for the end user and periodically review the credit limit in accordance with its risk monitoring guidelines.563 The rule would not prohibit a nonbank SBSD from requiring margin collateral from a commercial end user. 561 See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. 562 See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. This is also consistent with the broker-dealer margin rules. See FINRA Rule 4210(d), which requires that FINRA member firms establish procedures to: (1) Review limits and types of credit extended to all customers; (2) formulate their own margin requirements; and (3) review the need for instituting higher margin requirements, mark-tomarkets and collateral deposits than are required by the Rule for individual securities or customer accounts. See also FINRA Interpretation 4210(d)/01, available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/ industry/@ip/@reg/@rules/documents/industry/ p122203.pdf (noting that FINRA Rule 4210(d) ‘‘requires that members determine the total dollar amount of credit to be extended to any one customer or on any one security to limit the potential loss or exposure to the member. It is important that specific limits be established to prevent any one customer or group of customers from endangering the member’s capital.’’). 563 See id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Exception for Counterparties That Are SBSDs The second exception to the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 would apply to counterparties that are SBSDs.564 Two alternatives with respect to SBSD counterparties are being proposed. Under the first alternative, a nonbank SBSD would not need to collect cash, securities, and/or money instruments to collateralize the margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty that is another SBSD (‘‘Alternative A’’). This approach is consistent with the broker-dealer margin rules, which generally do not require a broker-dealer to collect margin collateral from another broker-dealer. Under the second alternative, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect cash, securities and/or money market instruments to collateralize both the negative equity (current exposure) and the margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty that is another SBSD (‘‘Alternative B’’).565 Moreover, the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments would be required to be segregated in an account at an independent third-party custodian pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.566 Alternative B is consistent with the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC.567 The two alternatives are being proposed in order to elicit detailed comment on each approach in terms of comparing how they would meet the goals of the Dodd-Frank Act,568 address systemic issues relating to non-cleared security-based swaps, raise practical issues, alter current market practices 564 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 565 Alternative B is not an exception to the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 because it would require collateral to cover the negative equity and margin amount in an account of another SBSD. However, its requirement for how the collateral must be held—at an independent third-party custodian on behalf of the counterparty—is different from how the proposed rule requires that collateral from other types of counterparties be held (other than counterparties that elect segregation under section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)). 566 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f). 567 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. 568 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(3)(A) (‘‘[t]o offset the greater risk to the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant and the financial system arising from the use of securitybased swaps that are not cleared,’’ the margin requirements proposed by the Commission and prudential regulators shall ‘‘help ensure the safety and soundness’’ of the SBSD and the MSBSP and ‘‘be appropriate for the risk associated with noncleared security-based swaps held’’ by an SBSD and MSBSP). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 and conventions, result in benefits and costs, and impact the security-based swap markets and the participants in those markets. Under Alternative A, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from another SBSD only to cover the amount of negative equity (the current exposure) in the account of the counterparty.569 Accordingly, under this approach, the nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from another SBSD to collateralize the margin amount (the potential future exposure).570 In other words, a counterparty that is another SBSD would not be required to maintain a minimum level of positive equity in the counterparty’s account. Requiring a nonbank SBSD to deliver collateral to cover potential future exposure could impact its liquidity. As discussed above in sections II.A.1. and II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs are based on a net liquid assets test. The objective of the test is to require the firm to maintain in excess of a dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of liabilities in order to facilitate the liquidation of the firm if necessary and without the need for a formal proceeding. When assets are delivered to another party as margin collateral, they become unsecured receivables from the party holding the margin collateral. Consequently, they no longer are readily available to be liquidated by the delivering party. In times of market stress, a nonbank SBSD may need to liquidate assets to raise funds and reduce its leverage. However, if assets are in the control of another nonbank SBSD, they would not be available for this purpose. For this reason, the assets would need to be deducted from net worth when the nonbank SBSD computes net capital under the proposed capital requirements.571 As a result, the nonbank SBSD would need to maintain the required minimum amount 569 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3–Alternative A. To the extent the margin amount was not collateralized, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. 570 Id. Like all counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps, counterparties that are SBSDs would be subject to the risk monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 571 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv)(B); paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 18a–1. Collateral provided to another party as margin would be subject to this 100% deduction. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70267 of net capital after taking into account these deductions. Promoting the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs is the policy consideration underlying Alternative A. In addition, the prudential regulators and the CFTC have received comments on this issue in response to their proposals raising concerns about requiring bank SBSDs and swap dealers to exchange collateral to cover potential future exposure and to have the collateral held by an independent third-party custodian. For example, some commenters assert that imposing segregated initial margin requirements on trades between swap entities would result in a tremendous cost to the financial system in the form of a massive liquidity drain, and that swap dealers will lose the ability to reinvest this collateral to finance other lending or derivatives transactions, thereby reducing capital formation and increasing costs.572 One commenter stated that, in general, with respect to non-cleared swaps, charging more initial margin (as compared to cleared swaps) could have unintended consequences, including the inefficient use of capital by sophisticated market participants in highly regulated industries, which could create a drag on the financial system, slow economic 572 See, e.g., letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, ISDA, and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), to David Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https:// comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ ViewComment.aspx?id=47802&SearchText=SIFMA (‘‘SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the CFTC’’); letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, ISDA, and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA, to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve, et al. (July 6, 2011), available at https://www.fdic.gov/ regulations/laws/federal/2011/11c22ad79.PDF (‘‘SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators’’); letter from the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, to Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Federal Reserve et al. (July 22, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc. gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id= 47943&SearchText=issa, and letter from Mark Scanlan, Vice President, Agriculture and Rural Policy, Independent Community Bankers of America, to the CFTC et al. (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/Public Comments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47762&Search Text=scanlan. One commenter noted that there is no statutory requirement for covered swap entities to hold initial margin of other covered swap entities at an independent third party custodian. See letter from Christine Cochran, President, Commodity Markets Council, to the OCC et al. (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/Public Comments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47777&Search Text=cochran. Here and below, this release refers to public comments on the margin proposals by the CFTC and the prudential regulators to more fully reflect the available views without endorsing those comments or expressing a view as to the validity of the comments. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 growth, and diminish customer choice.573 Another commenter stated that a combination of daily variation margin, robust operational procedures, legally enforceable netting and collateral agreements, and regulatory capital requirements provide comprehensive risk mitigation for collateralized derivatives, and that any additional initial margin requirements for swaps between swap entities would be unnecessary and unwarranted.574 A commenter argued that the proposed initial margin requirements are inconsistent with proven market practice, ignore significant differences in credit quality among swap dealers and financial entities which justify different margining treatment, and will lead to excessive amounts of collateral being required in comparison to the actual risks of the underlying swap transactions and portfolios.575 Finally, a commenter argued that initial margin requirements should differentiate based on credit quality, and that the prudential regulators’ margin rulemaking identifies no risk-based justification for layering zero threshold, bilateral initial margin requirements for all swap dealers above and beyond their existing variation margin requirements.576 On the other hand, a number of comments submitted in response to the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC supported bilateral margining and argued that it should be extended to require SBSDs and swap dealers to exchange margin collateral 573 See letter from Mark R. Thresher, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Nationwide, to the OCC (June 24, 2011), available at https://www. federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/June/20110628/R– 1415/R–1415_062311_81363_349039663039_1.pdf. 574 See SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the CFTC; SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators. This commenter also stated that precedent exists in the broker-dealer margin rules for not imposing any initial margin requirements on trades between swap entities. Id. 575 See letter from Don Thompson, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., to the OCC et al. (June 24, 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/ SECRS/2011/June/20110627/R–1415/R–1415_ 062311_81366_349039350535_1.pdf (‘‘J.P. Morgan Letter’’). Another commenter pointed out that life insurers also typically do not post initial margin and recommended that initial margin requirements be appropriately sized to reflect the potential exposure during the close out of a defaulting party. See letter from Carl B. Wilkerson, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Securities and Litigation, American Council of Life Insurers, to the OCC et al. (July 11, 2011), available at https://www.federal reserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110728/R–1415/R– 1415_071111_81817_507164831320_1.pdf. 576 See J.P. Morgan Letter. This commenter stated that initial margin is appropriate in some circumstances, but it must take into account the credit quality of counterparties. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 with all counterparties.577 For example, one commenter stated that the financial crisis demonstrated that the premise of one-way margin is flawed.578 This commenter stated that two-way margin requirements would aid safety and soundness by helping a swap dealer and its counterparty offset their exposures and prevent them from building up exposures they cannot fulfill.579 The prudential regulators explained the reasoning behind their proposal as follows: Non-cleared swaps transactions with counterparties that are themselves swap entities pose risk to the financial system because swap entities are large players in swap and security-based swap markets and therefore have the potential to generate systemic risk through their swap activities. Because of their interconnectedness and large presence in the market, the failure of a single swap entity could cause severe stress throughout the financial system. Accordingly, it is the preliminary view of the Agencies that all non-cleared swap transactions with swap entities should require margin.580 Alternative B is being proposed in light of the policy considerations 577 See, e.g., letter from Scott C. Goebel, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, FMR Co., to John Walsh, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, OCC (July 11, 2011); letter from Kevin M. Budd, Associate General Counsel, and Todd F. Lurie, Assistant General Counsel, MetLife, to OCC et al. (July 11, 2011); letter from John R. Gidman, on behalf of the Association of Institutional Investors, to Ms. Jennifer Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve, et al. (July 11, 2011); letter from R. Glenn Hubbard, Co-Chair, John L. Thornton, Co-Chair, and Hal S. Scott, Director, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, to John Walsh, Acting Comptroller, OCC (July 11, 2011), available at https://www.federal reserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110719/R–1415/R– 1415_071111_81821_322996697020_1.pdf; letter from Dennis M. Kelleher, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Wallace C. Turbeville, Derivatives Specialist, Better Markets, Inc., to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve (July 11, 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve. gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110728/R–1415/R–1415_ 071111_81861_504963784471_1.pdf; letter from Americans for Financial Reform, to John Walsh, Acting Comptroller, OCC (July 11, 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/ 20110728/R–1415/R–1415_071111_81864_4487 38394756_1.pdf. 578 Letter from Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, Investment Company Institute, to David Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at is https://www.ici.org/pdf/25344.pdf (‘‘ICI Letter’’). 579 See the ICI Letter. 580 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27570–27571 (footnote omitted). See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23735 (‘‘It is the nature of the dealer business that dealers are at the center of the markets in which they participate. Similarly, a major swap participant, by its terms, is a significant trader. Collectively, [swap dealers and major swap participants] pose greater risk to the markets and the financial system than other swap market participants. Accordingly, under the mandate of Section 4s(e), the Commission believes that they should be required to collect margin from one another.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 underlying the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC.581 Under Alternative B, a nonbank SBSD would be required to obtain cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from another SBSD to cover the negative equity (current exposure) and margin amount (potential future exposure) in the other SBSD’s account.582 In addition, the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments delivered to cover the margin amount would need to be carried by an independent third party custodian pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.583 Therefore, not only would there be no exception to the account equity requirement for counterparties that are SBSDs, but the treatment of the collateral would be different than for other types of counterparties in that it would be required to be held by an independent third-party custodian.584 Exception for Counterparties That Elect Segregation Under Section 3E(f) Under the third exception to the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to hold the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments delivered by a counterparty that is not a commercial end user to cover the margin amount (potential future exposure), if the counterparty elects to have the cash, securities, and/ or money market instruments segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.585 Section 3E(f) sets forth provisions under which a counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap with an SBSD can require that collateral to cover potential future exposure must be segregated.586 Among other things, section 3E(f) provides that the collateral must be segregated in an account carried by an independent third-party custodian and designated as a segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty.587 As discussed below in section II.C. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would establish certain conditions that 581 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23744. 582 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 18a–3—Alternative B. 583 Id. 584 Id. 585 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. This exception would not apply to negative equity in the counterparty’s account, which would need to be collateralized by cash, securities, and/or money market instruments held by the nonbank SBSD. See 15 U.S.C. 78c– 5(f)(2)(B)(i) (providing that the segregation provisions in section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act do not apply to variation margin payments). 586 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 587 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(3). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules collateral would need to meet before its value could be included in the determination of the amount of equity in an account.588 Among other conditions, the collateral would need to be subject to the physical possession or control of the nonbank SBSD and capable of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD without intervention by any other party.589 Margin collateral segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act would not meet either of these conditions. First, the collateral would be in the physical possession or control of an independent third-party custodian rather than the nonbank SBSD. Second, the collateral could not be liquidated by the nonbank SBSD without the intervention of the independent third-party custodian. For these reasons, the value of the margin collateral held by the independent third-party custodian could not be included when determining the amount of equity in the account of the counterparty at the nonbank SBSD. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Exception for Accounts Holding Legacy Security-Based Swaps Under the fourth exception to the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to cover the negative equity (current exposure) or margin amount (potential future exposure) in a securitybased swap legacy account.590 Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would define securitybased swap legacy account to mean an account that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the effective date of the rule and that is used to hold only security-based swaps entered into prior to the effective date of the rule, as well as collateral for those securitybased swaps.591 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this exception would be designed to address the impracticality of renegotiating contracts governing security-based swap 588 See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 589 See paragraphs (c)(4)(i)–(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 590 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. While this exception would apply to negative equity in the account and the margin amount calculated for the account, a nonbank SBSD would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth for the amount of the uncollateralized current exposure and take the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. In addition, like all counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps, these counterparties would be subject to the risk monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 591 See paragraph (b)(9) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 transactions that predate the effectiveness of proposed new Rule 18a– 3 in order to come into compliance with the account equity requirements in the rule.592 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed account equity requirements for counterparties of nonbank SBSDs in proposed new Rule 18a–3.593 In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Would it be appropriate to limit the assets that could be used to collateralize the negative equity and margin amounts in an account to cash, securities, and money market instruments? Are there other types of assets that should be permitted to meet the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3? If so, identify the other asset types and compare their liquidity to cash, securities, and money market instruments. 2. Is the proposed requirement to take deductions on securities and money market instruments in calculating the amount of equity in an account appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there other measures that a nonbank SBSD could be required to take to address the risk that securities and money market instruments may not be able to be liquidated at current market values to cover the obligations of a defaulted counterparty? If so, explain how the other measures would be an adequate substitute to deductions. 3. Are the proposed conditions (modeled on the Appendix E conditions) for taking into account collateral in determining the amount of equity in an account appropriate for proposed new Rule 18a–3? If not, explain why not. Should any individual condition be eliminated? If so, explain why. Are there additional conditions that should be added? If so, identify them and explain how they would promote the goal of ensuring that collateral can be promptly liquidated to 592 As noted above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, the CFTC has proposed a similar exception for legacy swaps. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23734. The prudential regulators proposed to permit a covered swap entity to exclude pre-effective swaps from initial margin calculations, while requiring these entities to collect variation margin, consistent with industry practice. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27569. 593 As discussed earlier, the Commission is soliciting comment below in section II.B.3. of this release on whether to define the term eligible collateral in a manner similar to the prudential regulators and the CFTC. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70269 cover the obligation of a defaulted counterparty. 4. Is the proposed requirement that a nonbank SBSD take prompt steps to liquidate securities in an account to the extent necessary to eliminate an account equity deficiency appropriate? For example, should there be a specific time-frame (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or some other number of business days) in which the nonbank SBSD is required to liquidate securities in the account? If so, explain why a specific time-frame would be preferable to requiring the nonbank SBSD to act promptly. 5. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for commercial end users appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should commercial end users be required to collateralize negative equity and the margin amount in their accounts? Explain why or why not. Should the exception apply only to the margin amount (i.e., should commercial end users be required to collateralize the negative equity in their accounts)? Explain why or why not. 6. Is the proposed definition of commercial end user appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, would the proposed definition of commercial end user be too broad, or too narrow, in terms of capturing types of counterparties for which the exception would not be appropriate? If so, explain why and suggest how the definition could be modified to address this issue. 7. Should the rule contain a proposed definition of financial end user? If so, explain why. For example, would a definition of financial end user similar to the definitions of the prudential regulators and CFTC provide needed clarity to the definition of commercial end user (i.e., by specifying certain entities that are not commercial end users)? 8. Do commercial end users use security-based swaps to hedge commercial risk? If so, identify the type of commercial risk they hedge with security-based swaps and explain how security-based swaps are used to hedge this risk. 9. Should proposed new Rule 18a–3 define the term commercial risk for the purpose of providing greater clarity as to the meaning of the term commercial end user? If so, how should the term commercial risk be defined? 10. Should there be a two-tiered approach with respect to the account equity requirements for financial end users based on whether they are low risk or high risk, similar to the proposed approach of the prudential regulators and the CFTC? If so, explain why. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11. How do non-commercial end users presently use security-based swaps? For example, do they use them to hedge commercial risk? If so, identify the type of commercial risk they hedge with security-based swaps. 12. With respect to counterparties that are SBSDs, how would Alternatives A and B compare in terms of promoting the goals of the Dodd-Frank Act, including limiting the risks posed by non-cleared security-based swaps? How would each address or fail to address systemic issues relating to non-cleared security-based swaps? 13. What would be the impact of Alternatives A and B on the efficient use of capital? 14. What would be the practical effects of Alternatives A and B on the capital and liquidity positions, or the financial health generally, of nonbank SBSDs? How would each alter current market practices and conventions with respect to collateralizing credit exposures arising from non-cleared security-based swaps? Are there practical issues with respect to Alternatives A and B? If so, identify and explain them. 15. How would the benefits of Alternatives A and B compare? How would the costs compare? 16. How would Alternatives A and B impact the market for security-based swaps? How would they impact participants in those markets? 17. How would Alternatives A and B promote the clearing of security-based swaps? For example, would Alternative B—because of the requirement to fund margin collateral requirements— incentivize nonbank SBSDs to transact in cleared security-based swaps? If so, explain why. 18. What would be the potential impact if the Commission adopted Alternative A and the prudential regulators and the CFTC adopted rules similar to Alternative B? Consider and explain the impact competitively and practically. 19. Would the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for counterparties that elect segregation under section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act be appropriate? If not, explain why not. 20. Would the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for accounts that elect to hold legacy security-based swaps be appropriate? If not, explain why not. 21. Would it be appropriate to permit legacy security-based swaps to be held in an entity that is not an SBSD? If so, why, and what conditions should be imposed on such an entity? 22. Should counterparties be required to post variation margin with respect to VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 legacy swaps? Is this consistent with current market practice? 23. Should there be an exception from the account equity requirements for small banks, savings associations, farm credit system institutions, and credit unions from the account equity requirements (e.g., for entities with assets of $10 billion or less)? 594 Explain why or why not. 24. Should there be an exception from the account equity requirements for affiliates of the nonbank SBSD? For example, do affiliates present less credit risk than non-affiliates? If there should be an exception for affiliates, should it be limited to certain affiliates? For example, should the exception only apply to affiliates that are subject to capital and other regulatory requirements? Please explain. 25. Should there be an exception for foreign governmental entities? Explain why or why not. Should types of foreign governmental entities be distinguished for purposes of an exception? For example, are there objective benchmarks based on creditworthiness that could be used to distinguish between foreign governmental entities for which the exception to the account equity requirements would and would not be appropriate? If so, identify the benchmarks and explain how they could be incorporated into the rule. 26. Do dealers in OTC derivatives currently collect collateral from foreign governmental entities for their OTC derivatives transactions? If so, from which types of foreign governmental entities? 27. Do national foreign governments typically guarantee the obligations of political subdivisions and agencies? If so, identify the types of political subdivisions and agencies that are guaranteed and are not guaranteed. ii. Nonbank MSBSPs A nonbank MSBSP would be required to calculate as of the close of each business day the amount of equity in the account of each counterparty to a noncleared security-based swap.595 On the next business day following the calculation, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to either collect or deliver 594 See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78c–3(g)(3)(B) (requiring the Commission to consider whether to exempt small banks, savings associations, farm credit system institutions and credit unions from the definition of ‘‘financial entity’’ contained in Exchange Act section 3C(g)(3)(A) for the purposes of mandatory clearing of security-based swaps). See also End-User Exception to Mandatory Clearing of Security-Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 63556 (Dec. 15, 2010), 75 FR 79992, 80000–80002 (Dec. 21, 2010). 595 See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to the counterparty depending on whether there was negative or positive equity in the account of the counterparty.596 Specifically, if the account has negative equity as calculated on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to the negative equity.597 Conversely, if the account has positive equity as calculated on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to the counterparty in an amount equal to the positive equity.598 Nonbank MSBSPs may not maintain two-sided markets or otherwise engage in activities that would require them to register as an SBSD.599 They will, however, by definition, maintain substantial positions in particular categories of security-based swaps.600 These positions could create significant risk to counterparties to the extent the counterparties have uncollateralized current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. In addition, they could pose significant risk to the nonbank MSBSP to the extent it has uncollateralized current exposure to its counterparties. The proposed account equity requirements for nonbank MSBSPs are designed to address these risks by imposing a requirement that nonbank MSBSPs on a daily basis must ‘‘neutralize’’ the credit risk between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty either by collecting or delivering cash, securities, and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to the positive or negative equity in the account. Unlike nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to reduce the fair market value of securities and money market instruments held in the account of a counterparty (or delivered to a counterparty) for purposes of determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the minimum 596 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As indicated, the nonbank MSBSP would need to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments and, consequently, other types of assets would not be eligible as collateral. 597 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. In this case, the nonbank MSBSP would have current exposure to the counterparty in an amount equal to the negative equity. 598 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 599 See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596. 600 See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67); Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 requirement. As discussed above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, the reductions taken by a nonbank SBSD would be based on the deductions that would apply to the positions pursuant to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a– 1, as applicable.601 Nonbank MSBSPs would not be subject to these rules and, consequently, would not be required to comply with them for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3. Like nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs would be subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3, which are modeled on the existing collateral requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.602 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv of this release, these requirements are designed to ensure that the collateral is an asset of stable and predictable value, an asset that is not linked to the value of the transaction in any way, and an asset that can be sold quickly and easily if the need arises. Nonbank MSBSPs would be required to take prompt steps to liquidate securities and money market instruments in the account to the extent necessary to eliminate an account equity deficiency.603 These steps could include liquidating non-cleared security-based swap positions in the account to reduce debits arising from those transactions. The rule would not require that the liquidations must be completed within a specific timeframe in order to provide the nonbank MSBSP flexibility to conduct an orderly liquidation, taking into account market conditions and the risk profile of the account. There would be three exceptions to the account equity requirements for nonbank MSBSPs.604 The first exception would apply to counterparties that are commercial end users.605 Under this exception, the nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect collateral from a commercial end user when the account of the end user has negative equity.606 This exception would be consistent with the proposed exception from the account equity requirements for accounts of commercial end users at nonbank SBSDs. However, nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to take 601 See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 602 See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(v). 603 See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 604 See paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. MSBSPs could choose to collect collateral in these cases. 605 See paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 606 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 a credit risk charge or capital charge relating to the amount of the uncollected margin.607 The reason for this proposed exception is the concern that requiring commercial end users to deliver collateral could impair their ability to manage commercial risks through hedging transactions. A nonbank MSBSP would be required to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to a commercial end user as necessary to collateralize the end user’s current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. Under the second exception, a nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from an SBSD to collateralize the amount of the negative equity in the account of the SBSD. Under the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral from a nonbank MSBSP to cover the negative equity and margin amount in the account of the nonbank MSBSP carried by the nonbank SBSD.608 Once a nonbank SBSD collected these amounts, a nonbank MSBSP would have current exposure to the nonbank SBSD, at a minimum, equal to the amount of the positive equity required to be maintained in the nonbank MSBSP’s account at the nonbank SBSD. A regulatory requirement that the nonbank MSBSP must collect collateral from the nonbank SBSD to collateralize the amount of the positive equity in the account at the nonbank SBSD could defeat the purpose of proposed new Rule 18a–3; namely, that nonbank SBSDs collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to collateralize their potential future exposure to the counterparties, including nonbank MSBSPs.609 In essence, the proposed 607 Compare paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3, with paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule new 18a–3. 608 See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 3. As discussed above, MSBSPs would not be included in the definition of commercial end user. Consequently, an MSBSP would be required to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to collateralize the negative equity and the margin amount in its security-based swap account at a nonbank SBSD. 609 For example, assume a nonbank SBSD calculates that the account of a nonbank MSBSP has a negative equity of $20 (current exposure) and a margin amount of $50 (potential future exposure) pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. On the next business day, the nonbank SBSD would need to collect cash, securities, and/ or money market instruments to collateralize these amounts pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. Assume the nonbank MSBSP delivers cash as collateral. It would need to deliver $70 in cash, of which $50 (as collateral for the margin amount) would be a receivable from the nonbank SBSD to the nonbank MSBSP. In other PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70271 requirements reflect a general preference in favor of requiring counterparties to nonbank SBSDs to fully collateralize their obligations to the nonbank SBSDs. The third exception would apply to a security-based swap legacy account.610 Under this exception, consistent with the proposed corresponding exception applying to accounts with nonbank SBSDs, a nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/ or money market instruments to collateralize the negative equity in a security-based swap legacy account. In addition, the MSBSP would not be required to deliver collateral to cover the positive equity in the account. This exception would be designed to address the impracticality of renegotiating contracts governing security-based swap transactions that predate the effectiveness of proposed new Rule 18a– 3 in order to come into compliance with the account equity requirements in the rule. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed account equity requirements for counterparties of nonbank MSBSPs in proposed Rule 18a–3. Commenters are referred to the questions about the account equity requirements for nonbank SBSDs above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release to the extent those questions address provisions in proposed new Rule 18a– 3 that also apply to nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are the proposed account equity requirements for nonbank MSBSPs appropriate? If not, explain why not. 2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to reduce the fair market value of securities and money market instruments for purposes of determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the minimum requirement? What would be the impact of not requiring nonbank MSBSPs to reduce the fair market value of words, the $50 (as a receivable from the nonbank SBSD) would be the nonbank MSBSP’s current exposure to the nonbank SBSD. If the nonbank MSBSP was required to collect collateral from the nonbank SBSD to cover this amount, the account of the nonbank MSBSP at the nonbank SBSD would not meet the minimum equity requirement of $50. 610 See paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. The term security-based swap legacy account would be defined to mean an account that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the effective date of the rule and that is used only to hold security-based swaps entered into prior to the effective date of the rule and collateral for those security-based swaps. See paragraph (b)(9) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 securities and money market instruments for purposes of determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the minimum requirement? 3. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to collect or deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to collateralize a margin amount (potential future exposure) in addition to the negative equity amount (current exposure)? Should they be required to deliver cash, securities, and/ or money market instruments to a commercial end user to collateralize a margin amount? Please explain. 4. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for credit exposures to commercial end users appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, because nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to take a credit risk charge or capital charge relating to the amount of uncollected margin collateral, would nonbank MSBSPs be subject to additional risks not applicable to nonbank SBSDs? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 5. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for credit exposures to SBSDs appropriate? If not, explain why not. 6. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for credit exposures in security-based swap legacy accounts appropriate? If not, explain why not. d. $100,000 Minimum Transfer Amount Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would establish a minimum transfer amount of $100,000 with respect to a particular counterparty.611 Under this provision, a nonbank SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect or deliver collateral to meet an account equity requirement if the amount required to be collected or delivered is equal to or less than $100,000. If the minimum transfer amount is exceeded, the entire account equity requirement would need to be collateralized, not just the amount of the requirement that exceeds $100,000. The proposed minimum transfer provision is designed to establish a threshold so that the degree of risk reduction achieved by requiring account equity requirements to be collateralized is sufficiently small that the costs of delivering collateral may not be justified. The proposed $100,000 threshold is based on the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC.612 611 See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed Rule 18a–3. Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27575; CFTC Margin 612 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the minimum transfer amount in proposed new Rule 18a–3. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is it appropriate to have a minimum transfer amount? If not, explain why not. For example, should an account equity requirement be collateralized regardless of the amount of cash, securities, and/or money market instruments that would need to be transferred to meet the requirement? 2. Is $100,000 an appropriate minimum transfer amount? Should the amount be greater than $100,000 (e.g., $150,000, $200,000, $500,000, or some other amount)? If so, identify the amount and explain why it would be a better threshold. Should the amount be less than $100,000 (e.g., $75,000, $50,000, $25,000, or some other amount)? If so, identify the amount and explain why it would be a better threshold. e. Risk Monitoring and Procedures A nonbank SBSD would be required to monitor the risk of each account of a counterparty to a non-cleared securitybased swap and establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of such accounts.613 Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23735 (‘‘In order to reduce transaction costs, proposed § 23.150 would establish a ‘minimum transfer amount’ of $100,000. Initial and variation margin payments would not be required to be made if below that amount. This amount was selected in consultation with the prudential regulators. It represents an amount sufficiently small that the level of risk reduction might not be worth the transaction costs of moving the money. It only affects the timing of collection; it does not change the amount of margin that must be collected once the $100,000 level is exceeded.’’). Some commenters to the CFTC and Prudential Regulators proposed margin rules, while generally supporting the use of minimum transfer amounts, stated that they should have the flexibility to set higher minimum transfer amounts and that minimum transfer amounts up to $250,000 were more consistent with prevailing industry practice. See letter from the Coalition for Derivatives EndUsers, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/ PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47804; letter from Carl B. Wilkerson, Vice President & Chief Counsel, Securities & Litigation, American Council of Life Insurers, to the Prudential Regulators and David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https:// comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ ViewComment.aspx?id=47742; letter from Lisa M. Ledbetter, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Freddie Mac, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/ PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47771. 613 See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. Paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would not apply to nonbank MSBSPs. As discussed below, the proposed risk monitoring procedures are PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The nonbank SBSD also would be required to review, in accordance with written procedures, and at reasonable periodic intervals, its non-cleared security-based swap activities for consistency with the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines.614 The risk monitoring procedures and guidelines would need to include, at a minimum, procedures and guidelines for: • Obtaining and reviewing the account documentation and financial information necessary for assessing the amount of current and potential future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the nonbank SBSD; • Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties; • Monitoring credit risk exposure to the security-based swap dealer from non-cleared security-based swaps, including the type, scope, and frequency of reporting to senior management; • Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to a single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified range of possible market movements over a specified time period; • Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-cleared security-based swaps on the nonbank SBSD’s overall risk exposure; • Determining the need to collect collateral from a particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the specific noncleared security-based swap contracts with the counterparty; • Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and during periods of extreme volatility; and • Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future exposure of a non-cleared security-based swap carried in the account of the counterparty as measured by computing the largest maximum possible loss that could result from the exposure. designed to address the risk that results from dealing in non-cleared security-based swaps (i.e., the type of activity that would require a nonbank MSBSP to register as an SBSD). See 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(a)(1); Entity Definitions Proposing Release, 75 FR at 80174. As discussed above in section II.A.3 of this release, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4, which requires an entity subject to its provisions to establish a risk management control system. 614 See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 These proposed requirements are modeled on similar requirements in FINRA Rule 4240, which establishes an interim pilot program imposing margin requirements for transactions in credit default swaps executed by a FINRA member.615 As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of this release, nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4.616 Rule 15c3–4 requires an OTC derivatives dealer to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with its business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.617 Risk management systems are designed to help ensure an awareness of, and accountability for, the risks taken throughout a firm and to develop tools to address those risks.618 A key objective of a risk management system is to ensure that a firm does not ignore any material source of risk.619 The procedures and guidelines that a nonbank SBSD would establish pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be a part of the broader system of risk management controls the nonbank SBSD would establish pursuant to Rule 15c3–4.620 The requirement in proposed new Rule 18a– 3 is designed to require specific risk management procedures and guidelines with respect to the risks of acting as a dealer in non-cleared security-based swaps, which could result in a nonbank SBSD carrying accounts for significant numbers of counterparties and effecting numerous transactions for counterparties on a daily basis. For example, the nonbank SBSD would be required to have procedures and guidelines for determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties.621 In addition, the nonbank SBSD would be required to have procedures and guidelines for determining the need to collect collateral from a particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty 615 See FINRA Rule 4240. The risk monitoring requirements in FINRA Rule 4240 were, in turn, modeled on risk monitoring requirement in SRO portfolio margining rules. See FINRA Rule 4210(g); Rules 12.4 and 15.8A of the CBOE. 616 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 617 Id. 618 See Joint Forum, Bank of International Settlements, Trends in Risk Integration and Aggregation, (Aug. 2003), available at https:// www.bis.org/publ/joint07.pdf. 619 Id. 620 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 621 See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 and/or the risk of the specific noncleared security-based swap contracts with the counterparty.622 As discussed above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, nonbank SBSDs would not be required to collect collateral from a commercial end user to meet the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3.623 However, the firm would be required to determine credit limits for the end user and analyze the need for collecting collateral from the end user. These risk monitoring procedures and guidelines are designed to prevent the nonbank SBSD from allowing its credit exposure to the end user to reach a level that creates a substantial risk that the default of the end user could have a material adverse impact on the nonbank SBSD. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 to monitor risk and to have risk monitoring procedures and guidelines. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are the required elements of the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should there be additional or alternative required elements to the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines? If so, identify them and explain why they should be included. 2. Are the descriptions of the required elements of the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 sufficiently clear in terms of what is proposed to be required of nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not and suggest changes to make the elements more clear. 3. Is it appropriate to require that the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines be a part of the system of risk management control prescribed in Rule 15c3–4? If not, explain why not. 4. What are the current practices of dealers in OTC derivatives in terms of monitoring the risk of counterparties? Are the requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 consistent with current practices? Are they more limited or are they broader than current practices? 5. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to the requirements of paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a–3? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 622 See paragraph (e)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 623 See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70273 3. Specific Request for Comment To Limit the Use of Collateral Proposed new Rule 18a–3 does not specifically identify classes of assets that could be used to meet the account equity requirements in the rule. The Commission, however, is considering whether it would be appropriate to adopt limits on eligible collateral similar to those the prudential regulators and the CFTC proposed.624 Specifically, comment is sought on whether proposed new Rule 18a–3 should define the term eligible collateral in order to narrowly prescribe the classes of assets that would qualify as collateral to meet the account equity requirements. For example, one approach would be to limit eligible collateral to cash and U.S. government securities. Limiting eligible collateral to cash and U.S. government securities could be a way to ensure that a nonbank SBSD will be able to liquidate the collateral promptly and at current market prices if necessary to cover the obligations of a defaulting counterparty. During a period of market stress, the value of collateral other than cash pledged as margin also may come under stress through rapid market declines and systemic liquidations and deleveraging by financial institutions. Generally, U.S. government securities are substantially less susceptible to this risk than other types of securities and, in fact, may become the investment of choice during a period of market stress as investors seek the relative safety of these securities.625 Another approach would be to adopt the definition of eligible collateral proposed by the prudential regulators or to adopt the ‘‘forms of margin’’ proposed by the CFTC.626 Both of these proposed approaches would extend eligible collateral beyond cash and U.S. government securities but would not permit the use of certain securities (e.g., listed equities that would be permitted by proposed Rule 18a–3). The Commission also seeks comment in response to the following questions, including empirical data in support of comments: 1. Should the types of assets that could be used to meet the nonbank 624 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27578; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23738–23739. 625 See IMF, Global Financial Stability Report, The Quest for Lasting Stability (Apr. 2012), available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ gfsr/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf. 626 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27578; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23738–23739 (proposing that only certain types of financial instruments be eligible collateral). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules SBSD account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 be more limited? Explain why or why not. For example, are the proposed provisions that would require a nonbank SBSD to mark-to-market the value of the collateral, apply haircuts to the collateral, and adhere to the collateral requirements incorporated from Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 sufficient to ensure that collateral is able to serve the purpose of protecting the nonbank SBSD from the credit exposure of a counterparty to a non-cleared securitybased swap? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 2. Explain the risk to nonbank SBSDs if they are permitted to accept a broader range of securities and money market instruments (as proposed in new Rule 18a–3) to meet the account equity requirements. 3. Should the types of assets that could be used to meet the nonbank MSBSP account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 be more limited? Explain why or why not. Since nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to apply haircuts to the collateral or adhere to the collateral requirements incorporated from Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1, should the types of collateral they are allowed to accept be more limited? Explain why or why not. 4. Explain the risk to nonbank MSBSPs if they are permitted to accept a broader range of securities and money market instruments (as proposed in new Rule 18a–3) to meet the account equity requirements. 5. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, should the definition include securities of governmentsponsored entities? If so, identify the government-sponsored entities and explain why the securities of the identified entity would be appropriate collateral. Alternatively, explain why securities of government-sponsored entities generally or individually should not be included in a potential definition of eligible collateral. 6. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, should the definition include immediately-available cash funds denominated in a foreign currency when the currency is the same currency in which payment obligations under the security-based swap are required to be settled? If so, should eligible collateral be limited to specific foreign currencies? If so, identify the currencies and explain why the identified currencies would be appropriate collateral. Alternatively, explain why foreign currencies generally or individually should not be VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 included in a potential definition of eligible collateral. 7. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, should the definition include immediately-available cash funds denominated in foreign currency even in cases where the currency is not the same currency in which payment obligations under the security-based swap are required to be settled? If so, should eligible collateral be limited to specific foreign currencies? If so, identify the currencies and explain why the identified currencies would be appropriate collateral in this circumstance. Alternatively, explain why foreign currencies in this circumstance should not be included in a potential definition of eligible collateral. 8. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, should the definition include securities of foreign sovereign governments? If so, identify the foreign sovereign governments and explain why the securities of the identified foreign sovereign governments would be appropriate collateral. Alternatively, explain why securities of foreign sovereign governments should not be included in the definition of eligible collateral. 9. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–3, should the definition include a fully paid margin equity security, as that term is defined in 12 CFR 220.2,627 in the case where a noncleared equity security-based swap references the margin equity security? If so, explain why margin equity securities would be appropriate collateral in this circumstance. Alternatively, explain why margin equity securities in this circumstance should not be included in the definition of eligible collateral. 10. Should there be separate eligible collateral requirements for collateralizing negative equity and the margin amount? For example, should the assets permitted to collateralize negative equity be limited to cash and U.S. government securities, while the assets permitted to collateralize the margin amount encompass a broader range of securities? C. Segregation 1. Background The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides special protections for customers of stockbrokers (the ‘‘stockbroker 627 Regulation T defines margin equity security as a margin security that is an equity security (as defined in section 3(a)(11) of the Exchange Act). See 12 CFR 220.2. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 liquidation provisions’’).628 Among other protections, customers share ratably with other customers ahead of all other creditors in the customer property held by the failed stockbroker.629 Segregation requirements are designed to identify customer property as distinct from the proprietary assets of the firm and to protect customer property by, for example, preventing the firm from using it to make proprietary investments. The goal of segregation is to facilitate the prompt return of customer property to customers either before or during a liquidation proceeding if the firm fails.630 The Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions designed to ensure that cash and securities held by an SBSD relating to security-based swaps will be deemed customer property under the stockbroker liquidation provisions.631 In particular, section 3E(g) of the Exchange Act provides, among other things, that a security-based swap shall be considered to be a security as such term is ‘‘used in section 101(53A)(B) and subchapter III of title 11, United States Code’’ 632 and in the stockbroker liquidation provisions.633 Section 3E(g) also provides that an account that holds a security-based swap shall be considered to be a securities account as that term is ‘‘defined’’ in the stockbroker liquidation provisions.634 In addition, section 3E(g) provides that the terms purchase and sale as defined in sections 3(a)(13) and (14) of the Exchange Act, respectively, shall be applied to the terms purchase and sale as used in the 628 See 11 U.S.C. 741–753. SIPA provides similar protections for ‘‘customers’’ of registered brokerdealers. See 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. However, SIPA also provides additional protections such as the right for each customer to receive an advance of up to $500,000 to facilitate the prompt satisfaction of a claim for securities and cash ($250,000 of the $500,000 may be used to satisfy the cash portion of a claim). 629 See 11 U.S.C. 752. 630 See Michael P. Jamroz, The Customer Protection Rule, 57 Bus. Law. 1069 (May 2002). 631 See Public Law 111–203 § 763(d) adding section 3E(g) to the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c– 5(g)). 632 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 101(53A)(B). Section 101(53A)(B) defines a stockbroker to mean a person—(1) with respect to which there is a customer, as defined in section 741, subchapter III, title 11, United States Code (the definition section of the stockbroker liquidation provisions); and (2) that is engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities—(i) for the account of others; or (ii) with members of the general public, from or for such person’s own account. 11 U.S.C. 101(53A)(B). 633 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741–753. 634 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741. There is no definition of securities account in 11 U.S.C. 741. The term securities account is used in 11 U.S.C. 741(2) and (4) in defining the terms customer and customer property. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 stockbroker liquidation provisions.635 Finally, section 3E(g) provides that the term customer as defined in the stockbroker liquidation provisions excludes any person to the extent the person has a claim based on a noncleared security-based swap transaction except to the extent of any margin delivered to or by the customer with respect to which there is a customer protection requirement under section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act or a segregation requirement.636 The provisions of section 3E(g) of the Exchange Act apply the customer protection elements of the stockbroker liquidation provisions to cleared security-based swaps, including related collateral, and, if subject to segregation requirements, to collateral delivered as margin for non-cleared security-based swaps.637 The Dodd-Frank Act established segregation requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps and provided the Commission with the authority to adopt rules with respect to segregation. In particular, section 763 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Exchange Act to add new section 3E.638 Section 3E sets forth requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs with respect to the segregation of cleared and non-cleared securitybased swap collateral and provides the Commission with rulemaking authority in this area.639 The Commission also has concurrent authority under section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act to prescribe segregation requirements for brokerdealers.640 635 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741–753. Section 3(a)(13) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111–203 § 761(a)), defines the term purchase to mean, in the case of security-based swaps, the execution, termination (prior to its scheduled maturity date), assignment, exchange, or similar transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of rights or obligations under, a security-based swap, as the context may require. 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(13). Section 3(a)(14) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111–203 § 761(a)), defines the term sale to mean, in the case of security-based swaps, the execution, termination (prior to its scheduled maturity date), assignment, exchange, or similar transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of rights or obligations under, a security-based swap, as the context may require. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(14). 636 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741(2). 637 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741–753. 638 See Public Law 111–203 § 763; 15 U.S.C. 78c– 5. 639 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. Unlike the grants of capital and margin rulemaking authority in the Dodd-Frank Act, section 3E does not divide rulemaking authority for segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs between the Commission and the prudential regulators. Compare 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(1), with 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. Consequently, the Commission’s rulemaking authority in this area extends to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. 640 See 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3). See also Public Law 111–203 § 771 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 78o– VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Section 3E(b)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that a broker, dealer, or SBSD shall treat and deal with all money, securities, and property of any securitybased swap customer received to margin, guarantee, or secure a cleared security-based swap transaction as belonging to the customer.641 Section 3E(b)(2) provides that the money, securities, and property shall be separately accounted for and shall not be commingled with the funds of the broker, dealer, or SBSD or used to margin, secure, or guarantee any trades or contracts of any security-based swap customer or person other than the person for whom the money, securities, or property are held.642 Section 3E(c)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that, notwithstanding section 3E(b), money, securities, and property of cleared security-based swap customers of a broker, dealer, or SBSD may, for convenience, be commingled and deposited in the same one or more accounts with any bank, trust company, or clearing agency.643 Section 3E(c)(2) further provides that the Commission may by rule, regulation, or order prescribe terms and conditions under which money, securities, and property of a customer with respect to cleared security-based swaps may be commingled and deposited with any other money, securities, and property received by the broker, dealer, or SBSD and required by the Commission to be separately accounted for and treated and dealt with as belonging to the securitybased swap customer of the broker, dealer, or SBSD.644 With respect to non-cleared securitybased swaps, section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that an SBSD and an MSBSP shall be required to notify a counterparty of the SBSD or MSBSP at the beginning of a noncleared security-based swap transaction 10(e)(3)(B)). Section 771 of the Dodd-Frank Act states that unless otherwise provided by its terms, its provisions relating to the regulation of the security-based swap markets do not divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the Commission, the CFTC, or any other Federal or State agency, of any authority derived from any other provision of applicable law. See Public Law 111–203 § 771. In addition, section 15F(e)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that nothing in section 15F ‘‘shall limit, or be construed to limit, the authority’’ of the Commission ‘‘to set financial responsibility rules for a broker or dealer * * * in accordance with Section 15(c)(3).’’ 15 U.S.C. 78o– 8(e)(3)(B). 641 See section 3E(b)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(b)(1)). As indicated, the provisions of section 3E(b) do not apply to MSBSPs. 642 See section 3E(b)(2) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(b)(2)). 643 See section 3E(c)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(c)(1)). 644 See section 3E(c)(2) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(c)(2)). PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70275 that the counterparty has the right to require the segregation of the funds or other property supplied to margin, guarantee, or secure the obligations of the counterparty.645 Section 3E(f)(1)(B) provides that, if requested by the counterparty, the SBSD or MSBSP shall segregate the funds or other property for the benefit of the counterparty and, in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may promulgate, maintain the funds or other property in a segregated account separate from the assets and other interests of the SBSD or MSBSP.646 Section 3E(f)(3) provides that the segregated account shall be carried by an independent third-party custodian and be designated as a segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty (‘‘individual segregation’’).647 In the case of noncleared security-based swaps, therefore, each counterparty has the right to require its collateral to be isolated in an account at an independent custodian that identifies the counterparty by name, rather than commingled with collateral of other counterparties. The objective of individual segregation is for the funds and other property of the counterparty to be carried in a manner that will keep these assets separate from the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD or MSBSP if it fails financially and becomes subject to a liquidation proceeding. Having these assets carried in a bankruptcy-remote manner protects the counterparty from the costs of retrieving assets through a bankruptcy proceeding caused, for example, because another counterparty of the SBSD or MSBSP defaults on its obligations to the SBSD or MSBSP. Section 3E(f)(2)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act provides that the segregation requirements for non-cleared securitybased swaps do not apply to variation margin payments, so that the right of a counterparty to require individual account segregation applies only to initial and not variation margin.648 It also provides that the segregation requirements shall not preclude any commercial arrangement regarding the investment of segregated funds or other property that may only be invested in such investments as the Commission may permit by rule or regulation, and the related allocation of gains and losses 645 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(A). See also section 3E(f)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the provisions of section 3E(f)(1) apply only to a security-based swap between a counterparty and SBSD or MSBSP that is not submitted for clearing to a clearing agency. See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(2)(A). 646 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(B). 647 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(3). 648 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(2)(B)(i). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70276 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 resulting from any investment of the segregated funds or other property.649 Finally, section 3E(f)(4) provides that if the counterparty does not choose to require segregation of funds or other property, the SBSD or MSBSP shall send a quarterly report to the counterparty that the firm’s back office procedures relating to margin and collateral requirements are in compliance with the agreement of the counterparties.650 Pursuant, in part, to the grants of rulemaking authority in sections 3E and 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–4 to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs with respect to cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps that would supplement the requirements in section 3E.651 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., it would apply to bank SBSDs, stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs).652 As discussed in more detail below, proposed new Rule 18a–4 would prescribe detailed requirements for how cash, securities, and money market instruments of a customer with cleared security-based swaps must be segregated when an SBSD commingles those assets with the cash and securities of other customers (‘‘omnibus segregation’’) pursuant to section 3E(c)(1) of the Exchange Act.653 In addition, the proposed rule would require that cash, securities, and money market instruments of a customer with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps must be treated in the same manner as cash, securities, and money market instruments of a customer with respect to cleared security-based swaps in cases where the counterparty does not elect individual segregation 654 and does not affirmatively waive segregation altogether.655 In other words, proposed new Rule 18a–4 would establish an alternative omnibus, or ‘‘commingled’’, segregation approach for non-cleared security-based swaps. This approach would be the default requirement under which an SBSD would be required to segregate securities and funds relating to 649 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(2)(B)(ii). No requirements are being proposed at this time pursuant to the authority in section 3E(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act. 650 See section 3E(f)(4) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4)). 651 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5; 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3). 652 Unlike section 15F of the Exchange Act that divides responsibility for capital and margin rules between the Commission and the prudential regulators, section 3E of the Exchange Act provides authority solely to the Commission. Compare 15 U.S.C. 78o–10, with 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. 653 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(c)(1). 654 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 655 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 non-cleared security-based swaps and, therefore, apply in the absence of a counterparty electing individual segregation or affirmatively waiving segregation.656 The omnibus segregation requirements in Rule 18a–4 would not apply to MSBSPs.657 Consequently, if an MSBSP holds collateral from a counterparty with respect to noncleared security-based swaps, it would be subject only to the segregation requirements in section 3E of the Exchange Act with respect to the collateral, and would not be required to segregate the collateral unless the counterparty required individual segregation under section 3E.658 The omnibus segregation requirements in Rule 18a–4 may not be practical for MSBSPs for the same reasons discussed in sections II.A.3. and II.B.2. of this release with respect to the proposed capital and margin requirements for MSBSPs (i.e., the potentially wide range of business models under which nonbank MSBSPs may operate under the proposed rule, and the uncertain impact that requirements designed for broker-dealers could have on these entities). MSBSPs will instead be subject to the provisions in section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, which provide certain baseline segregation requirements for non-cleared securitybased swaps.659 In addition, counterparties would be able to negotiate customized segregation agreements with MSBSPs, subject to these provisions.660 As discussed in more detail below, the omnibus segregation requirements of Rule 18a–4 are modeled on the provisions of the broker-dealer segregation rule—Rule 15c3–3.661 Rule 15c3–3 is designed ‘‘to give more specific protection to customer funds and securities, in effect forbidding 656 As discussed below in section II.C.2.c. of this release, an SBSD would be required to obtain a subordination agreement from a counterparty that waives segregation. By entering into the subordination agreement, the counterparty would affirmatively waive segregation. The absence of a subordination agreement would mean that the counterparty is presumed not to have waived segregation and the SBSD would need to treat the counterparty’s cash, securities, and/or money market instruments pursuant to the omnibus segregation requirements of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 657 As discussed in more detail below, MSBSPs would be subject to a notification requirement. See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 658 The provisions of section 3E of the Exchange Act governing cleared security-based swaps do not apply to nonbank MSBSPs. See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(b) (referring specifically to a ‘‘broker, dealer, or security-based swap dealer’’ and not to an MSBSP.). 659 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f). 660 Id. 661 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3. PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 brokers and dealers from using customer assets to finance any part of their businesses unrelated to servicing securities customers; e.g., a firm is virtually precluded from using customer funds to buy securities for its own account.’’ 662 To meet this objective, Rule 15c3–3 requires a broker-dealer that maintains custody of customer securities and cash (a ‘‘carrying brokerdealer’’) to take two primary steps to safeguard these assets. The steps are designed to protect customers by segregating their securities and cash from the broker-dealer’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails financially, the securities and cash should be readily available to be returned to the customers. In addition, if the failed broker-dealer is liquidated in a formal proceeding under SIPA, the securities and cash should be isolated and readily identifiable as ‘‘customer property’’ and, consequently, available to be distributed to customers ahead of other creditors.663 The first step required by Rule 15c3– 3 is that a carrying broker-dealer must maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities.664 Physical possession or control means the brokerdealer must hold these securities in one of several locations specified in Rule 15c3–3 and free of liens or any other 662 See Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 21651 (Jan. 11, 1985), 50 FR 2690, 2690 (Jan. 18, 1985). See also Broker-Dealers; Maintenance of Certain Basic Reserves, Exchange Act Release No. 9856 (Nov. 10, 1972), 37 FR 25224, 25224 (Nov. 29, 1972). 663 See 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. 664 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d). The term fully paid securities includes all securities carried for the account of a customer in a special cash account as defined in Regulation T promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as well as margin equity securities within the meaning of Regulation T which are carried for the account of a customer in a general account or any special account under Regulation T during any period when section 8 of Regulation T (12 CFR 220.8) specifies that margin equity securities shall have no loan value in a general account or special convertible debt security account, and all such margin equity securities in such account if they are fully paid: provided, however, that the term ‘‘fully paid securities’’ shall not apply to any securities which are purchased in transactions for which the customer has not made full payment. 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(3). The term margin securities means those securities carried for the account of a customer in a general account as defined in Regulation T, as well as securities carried in any special account other than the securities referred to in paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 15c3–3. 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(4). The term excess margin securities means those securities referred to in paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3–3 carried for the account of a customer having a market value in excess of 140 percent of the total of the debit balances in the customer’s account or accounts encompassed by paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3–3 which the brokerdealer identifies as not constituting margin securities. 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(5). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 interest that could be exercised by a third-party to secure an obligation of the broker-dealer.665 Permissible locations include a bank, as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act, and a clearing agency.666 The second step is that a carrying broker-dealer must maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities in an account at a bank that is at least equal in value to the net cash owed to customers.667 The account must be titled ‘‘Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers of the Broker-Dealer’’ (‘‘customer reserve account’’).668 The amount of net cash owed to customers is computed pursuant to a formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3 (‘‘Exhibit A formula’’).669 Under the Exhibit A formula, the broker-dealer adds up customer credit items (e.g., cash in customer securities accounts) and then subtracts from that amount customer debit items (e.g., margin loans).670 If credit items exceed debit items, the net amount must be on deposit in the customer reserve account in the form of cash and/or qualified securities.671 A broker-dealer cannot make a withdrawal from the customer reserve account until the next computation and even then only if the computation shows that the 665 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c). Customer securities held by the carrying broker-dealer are not assets of the firm. Rather, the carrying broker-dealer holds them in a custodial capacity and the possession and control requirement is designed to ensure that the carrying broker-dealer treats them in a manner that allows for their prompt return. 666 Id. 667 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e). The term ‘‘qualified security’’ is defined in Rule 15c3–3 to mean a security issued by the United States or a security in respect of which the principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States (‘‘U.S. government security’’). See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(6). 668 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e)(1). The purpose of giving the account this title is to alert the bank and creditors of the broker-dealer that this reserve fund is to be used to meet the broker-dealer’s obligations to customers (and not the claims of general creditors) in the event the broker-dealer must be liquidated in a formal proceeding. 669 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. 670 See id. 671 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e). Customer cash is a balance sheet item of the carrying broker-dealer (i.e., the amount of cash received from a customer increases the amount of the carrying broker-dealer’s assets and creates a corresponding liability to the customer). The reserve formula is designed to isolate these broker-dealer assets so that an amount equal to the net liabilities to customers is held as a reserve in the form of cash or U.S. government securities. The requirement to establish this reserve is designed to effectively prevent the carrying broker-dealer from using customer funds for proprietary business activities such as investing in securities. The goal is to put the carrying brokerdealer in a position to be able to readily meet its cash obligations to customers by requiring the firm to make deposits of cash and/or U.S. government securities into the customer reserve account in the amount of the net cash owed to customers. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 reserve requirement has decreased.672 The broker-dealer must make a deposit into the customer reserve account if the computation shows an increase in the reserve requirement. In addition, the Exhibit A formula permits the broker-dealer to offset customer credit items only with customer debit items.673 This means the broker-dealer can use customer cash to facilitate customer transactions such as financing customer margin loans and borrowing securities to make deliveries of securities customers have sold short.674 As discussed above in section II.B. of this release, the broker-dealer margin rules require securities customers to maintain a minimum level of equity in their securities accounts. In addition to protecting the broker-dealer from the consequences of a customer default, this equity serves to overcollateralize the customers’ obligations to the broker-dealer. This buffer protects the customers whose cash was used to facilitate the broker-dealer’s financing of securities purchases and short-sales by customers. For example, if the brokerdealer fails, the customer debits, because they generally are overcollateralized, should be attractive assets for another broker-dealer to purchase or, if not purchased by another broker-dealer, they should be able to be liquidated to a net positive equity.675 The proceeds of the debits sale or liquidation can be used to repay the customer cash used to finance the customer obligations. This cash plus the funds and/or U.S. government securities held in the customer reserve account should equal or exceed the total amount of customer credit items (i.e., the total amount owed by the broker-dealer to its customers).676 672 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e). 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. 674 For example, if a broker-dealer holds $100 for customer A, the broker-dealer can use that $100 to finance a security purchase of customer B. The $100 the broker-dealer owes customer A is a credit in the formula and the $100 customer B owes the brokerdealer is a debit in the formula. Therefore, under the Exhibit A formula there would be no requirement to maintain cash and/or U.S. government securities in the customer reserve account. However, if the broker-dealer did not use the $100 held in customer A’s account for this purpose, there would be no offsetting debit and, consequently, the broker-dealer would need to have on deposit in the customer reserve account cash and/or U.S. government securities in an amount at least equal to $100. 675 The attractiveness of the over-collateralized debits facilitates the bulk transfer of customer accounts from a failing or failed broker-dealer to another broker-dealer. 676 See Net Capital Requirements for BrokerDealers; Amended Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 18417 (Jan. 13, 1982), 47 FR 3512, 3513 (Jan. 25, 1982) (‘‘The alternative approach is founded on the concept that, if the debit items in the Reserve Formula can be liquidated at or near their contract 673 See PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70277 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would contain certain provisions that are modeled on corresponding provisions of Rule 15c3–3.677 Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would define key terms used in the rule.678 Paragraph (b) would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral (a term defined in paragraph (a)) and specify certain locations where excess securities collateral could be held and would be deemed to be in the SBSD’s control.679 Paragraph (c) would require an SBSD to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers and have on deposit in that account at all times an amount of cash and/or qualified securities (a term defined in paragraph (a)) determined through a computation using the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4.680 A brokerdealer SBSD would need to treat security-based swap accounts separately from other securities accounts and, consequently, would need to perform separate possession and control and reserve account computations for security-based swap accounts and other securities accounts. The former would be subject to the possession and control and reserve account requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 and the latter would continue to be subject to the analogous requirements in Rule 15c3–3. This would keep separate the segregated customer property related to securitybased swaps from customer property related to other securities, including property of retail securities customers. Paragraph (d) of Rule 18a–4 would contain certain additional provisions that do not have analogues in Rule 15c3–3. First, it would require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty.681 Second, it would require the SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that opt out of the segregation requirements in proposed value, these assets along with any cash required to be on deposit under the [customer protection] rule, will be sufficient to satisfy all liabilities to customers (which are represented as credit items in the Reserve Formula).’’). 677 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3, with proposed new Rule 18a–4. 678 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a), with paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 679 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(b)–(d), with paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 680 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 681 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70278 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 new Rule 18a–4 because they either elect individual segregation pursuant to the provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act 682 or agree that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.683 As discussed in more detail below, the omnibus segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 are designed to accommodate the operational aspects of an SBSD collecting cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from security-based swap customers to margin cleared security-based swaps and delivering cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to registered clearing agencies to meet margin requirements of the clearing agencies with respect to the customers’ transactions. Similarly, the omnibus segregation requirements are designed to accommodate the current practice of dealers in OTC derivatives to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from a counterparty to cover current and potential future exposure arising from an OTC derivatives transaction with the counterparty and concurrently deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to another dealer as collateral for an OTC derivatives transaction that hedges (takes the opposite side of) the OTC derivatives transaction with the counterparty. At the same time, the omnibus segregation requirements are designed to isolate, identify, and protect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments received by the SBSD as collateral for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps, whether the collateral is held by the SBSD, a registered clearing agency, or another SBSD. Finally, the Commission is proposing a conforming amendment to add new paragraph (p) to Rule 15c3–3 to state that a broker-dealer that is registered as an SBSD pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act must also comply with the provisions of Rule 18a–4.684 This proposed amendment would clarify that a broker-dealer SBSD must comply with both Rule 15c3–3 and Rule 18a–4. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the approach of proposed new Rule 18a–4. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Should there be rules under section 3E(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act with 682 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). 684 See proposed paragraph (p) of Rule 15c3–3. 683 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 respect to how an SBSD and an MSBSP must segregate funds and other property relating to non-cleared security-based swaps to supplement the individual segregation provisions in section 3E(f)? If so, describe the types of requirements the rules should impose. 2. Should there be rules under section 3E(f)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the Exchange Act with respect to how an SBSD and an MSBSP may invest funds or other property relating to non-cleared security-based swaps to supplement the individual segregation provisions in section 3E(f)? If so, describe the types of requirements the rules should impose. For example, should the rules require that the funds may be invested only in U.S. government securities or in qualified securities as that term is defined in paragraph (a)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–4? Explain why or why not. 3. Is it appropriate to model the segregation provisions for securitybased swap customers on the provisions of Rule 15c3–3? If not, explain why and identify another segregation model. 4. Should MSBSPs be required to comply with all the omnibus segregation requirements of proposed new Rule 18a–4? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 5. Should the omnibus segregation requirements accommodate the ability to hold swaps in security-based swap customer accounts to facilitate a portfolio margin treatment for related or offsetting positions in the account? What practical or legal impediments may exist to doing so? If swaps could be held in the account along with securitybased swaps, how would the existence of differing bankruptcy regimes for securities and commodities instruments impact the ability to unwind positions or distribute assets to customers in the event of insolvency of the SBSD? 2. Proposed Rule 18a–4 a. Possession and Control of Excess Securities Collateral Paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers.685 Physical possession or control as used in Rule 15c3–3 means a broker-dealer cannot lend or hypothecate securities subject to the requirement and must hold them itself or, as is more common, 685 This paragraph is modeled on paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c3–1. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(b)(1), with paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 in a satisfactory control location.686 As discussed below, physical possession or control is intended to have the same meaning in proposed new Rule 18a–4. The term security-based swap customer would be defined to mean any person from whom or on whose behalf the SBSD has received or acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap transaction.687 The definition would exclude a person to the extent that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the SBSD or is subordinated to all claims of security-based swap customers of the SBSD.688 This proposed definition of security-based swap customer is modeled on the current definition of customer in Rule 15c3– 3.689 As discussed above, an SBSD would be required to obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that elect individual segregation pursuant to the selfexecuting provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act 690 or that waive segregation.691 Because these counterparties would enter into subordination agreements, they would not meet the definition of security-based swap customer and, consequently, the omnibus segregation requirements of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would not apply to their funds and other property.692 686 See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR 12862. 687 See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–4 would define the term cleared security-based swap to mean a security-based swap that is, directly or indirectly, submitted to and cleared by a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q– 1). Any other security-based swap would be a noncleared security-based swap. 688 See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 689 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(1), with paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. The proposed definition also is based on the definitions of ‘‘customer’’ in 11 U.S.C. 741(2) and 15 U.S.C. 78lll(2), which, respectively, apply to liquidations of stockbrokers under the stockbroker liquidation provisions and broker-dealers under the SIPA. As discussed above in section II.C.1 of this release, under these liquidation provisions, customers receive special protections such as priority claims to customer property over general creditors. See 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. 690 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 691 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). 692 Counterparties that elect individual segregation would not need the protections of the omnibus segregation requirements because their funds and other property would be held by an independent third-party custodian and, therefore, the third-party custodian—rather than the SBSD— would owe the securities and funds to the counterparty. Counterparties that waive segregation, E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would define the term excess securities collateral to mean securities and money market instruments carried for the account of a security-based swap customer that have a market value in excess of the current exposure of the SBSD to the customer, excluding: (1) Securities and money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the customer; and (2) securities and money market instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD resulting from the SBSD entering into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction between the SBSD and the customer. The proposed definition of excess securities collateral is based on the provisions of Rule 15c3– 3 requiring a broker-dealer to maintain physical possession or control of fully paid and excess margin securities (i.e., securities that are not being used to secure the obligations of the customer to the broker-dealer).693 Under the proposed definition of excess securities collateral, securities and money market instruments of a security-based swap customer of the SBSD that are not being used to collateralize the SBSD’s current exposure to the customer would need to be in the physical possession or control of the SBSD unless one of the two exceptions in the definition applies to the securities and money market instruments. The first exception in the definition refers to securities and money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the customer. This exception is designed to accommodate the margin requirements of clearing agencies, which will require SBSDs to in effect, have agreed that their funds and other property can be used by the SBSD for its proprietary business purposes. Therefore, they have agreed to forego the benefits of segregation. 693 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d); 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(a)(3) (defining the term fully paid securities); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(4) (defining the term margin securities); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(5) (defining the term excess margin securities). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 deliver margin collateral to the clearing agency to cover exposures arising from cleared security-based swaps of the SBSD’s security-based swap customers.694 Customer securities and money market instruments provided to the clearing agency for this purpose would not meet the definition of excess securities collateral and, therefore, would not be subject to the physical possession or control requirement.695 This exception would allow the clearing agency to hold the securities as collateral against obligations of the SBSD’s customers arising from their cleared security-based swaps. The term qualified clearing agency account would be defined to mean an account of an SBSD at a clearing agency established to hold funds and other property in order to purchase, margin, guarantee, secure, adjust, or settle cleared security-based swaps of the SBSD’s security-based swap customers that meets the following conditions: • The account is designated ‘‘Special Clearing Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the SBSD]’’; 696 • The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property in the account are being held by the clearing agency for the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of the SBSD in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the clearing agency; 697 and • The account is subject to a written contract between the SBSD and the clearing agency which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any 694 As discussed above, security-based swap clearing agencies will require SBSDs to deliver margin collateral for the security-based swap transactions of the SBSD’s customers that are cleared by the clearing agency. 695 While the Commission is proposing this exemption, these customer securities and money market instruments would still be required to be included in the SBSD’s reserve formula calculation under proposed new Rule 18a–4a. 696 See paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a brokerdealer to maintain a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 697 See paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where it maintains a customer reserve account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70279 kind in favor of the clearing agency or any person claiming through the clearing agency, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a cleared security-based swap transaction effected in the account.698 These provisions are designed to ensure that securities and money market instruments of security-based swap customers related to cleared securitybased swaps provided to a clearing agency are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as property of the security-based swap customers. The second exception in the definition of excess securities collateral is for securities and money market instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD resulting from the SBSD entering into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction between the SBSD and the customer. This exception is designed to accommodate the practice of dealers in OTC derivatives transactions maintaining ‘‘matched books’’ of transactions in which an OTC derivatives transaction with a counterparty is hedged with an offsetting transaction with another dealer. SBSDs, as dealers in securitybased swaps, are expected to actively manage the risk of their non-cleared security-based swap positions by entering into offsetting transactions with other SBSDs.699 These other SBSDs may require margin collateral from the SBSD.700 Customer securities and 698 See paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank where it maintains a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 699 For example, assume an SBSD and a counterparty enter into a CDS security-based swap on XYZ Company with a notional amount of $10 million and term of five years and in which the SBSD is the seller of protection and counterparty is the buyer of protection. The SBSD could enter into a matching transaction (a CDS security-based swap on XYZ Company with a notional amount of $10 million and term of five years) with another SBSD in which the SBSD is the buyer of protection and the other SBSD is the seller of protection. This would match the transaction with the counterparty with the transaction with the other SBSD and hedge the SBSD’s risk resulting from the transaction with the customer. 700 As discussed above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, an SBSD would not be required to collect collateral equal to the margin amount if the counterparty was another SBSD under the E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70280 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 money market instruments provided to another SBSD for this purpose would be excepted from the definition of excess securities collateral and, therefore, would not be subject to the physical possession or control requirement. Thus, this provision would allow an SBSD to finance customer transactions in non-cleared security-based swaps by using customer collateral to secure offsetting transactions with another SBSD, provided that the collateral is held in an account with the other SBSD that meets certain requirements. The term qualified registered securitybased swap dealer account (‘‘qualified SBSD account’’) would be defined to mean an account at another SBSD registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act that is not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets the following conditions: • The account is designated ‘‘Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the SBSD]’’; 701 • The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the other SBSD provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property held in the account are being held by the other SBSD for the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of the SBSD in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the other SBSD; 702 Alternative A account equity requirement in proposed new Rule 18a–3. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)—Alternative A of proposed new Rule 18a–3. Consequently, an SBSD would not be required to maintain a minimum level of positive equity in its account at another SBSD with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. This would mean that the SBSD may not need to provide collateral to the other SBSD other than an amount necessary to cover the current exposure of the other SBSD, which, in turn could reduce the need to use securities and money market instruments of security-based swap customers to collateralize hedging transactions. However, under the Alternative B account equity requirement, an SBSD would be required to provide collateral equal to the margin amount to the other SBSD. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)—Alternative B of proposed new Rule 18a–3. This could increase the need to use securities and money market instruments of security-based swap customers to collateralize hedging transactions. 701 See paragraph (a)(4)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to maintain a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 702 See paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where it maintains a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 • The account is subject to a written contract between the SBSD and the other SBSD which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the other SBSD or any person claiming through the SBSD, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a noncleared security-based swap transaction effected in the account; 703 and • The account and the assets in the account are not subject to any type of subordination agreement.704 These conditions are largely identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and are similarly designed to ensure that securities and money market instruments of securitybased swap customers relating to noncleared security-based swaps provided to another SBSD are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and are identified as property of the securitybased swap customers. Further, the account and the assets in the account could not be subject to any type of subordination agreement. This condition is designed to ensure that if the other SBSD holding the qualified SBSD account fails, the SBSD accountholder will be treated as a security-based swap customer in a liquidation proceeding and, therefore, could make a pro rata claim for customer property with other customers ahead of all other creditors.705 Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would identify five satisfactory control locations for excess securities collateral.706 Rule 15c3–3 identifies the same locations as satisfactory control locations.707 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(f), with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 703 See paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank where it maintains a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(f), with paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 704 See paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 705 See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 (excluding persons who subordinate their claims against the SBSD to all other creditors from the definition of security-based swap customer). 706 See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 707 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c), with paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Rule 15c3–3 identifies two control locations that the Commission is not proposing be identified in proposed new Rule 18a–4. First, paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 15c3–3 identifies as a control location ‘‘a special omnibus account in the name of such broker or dealer with another broker or dealer in PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 would provide that an SBSD has control of excess securities collateral only if the securities and money market instruments: • Are represented by one or more certificates in the custody or control of a clearing corporation or other subsidiary organization of either national securities exchanges, or of a custodian bank in accordance with a system for the central handling of securities complying with the provisions of Exchange Act Rule 8c–1(g) and Exchange Act Rule 15c2–1(g) the delivery of which certificates to the SBSD does not require the payment of money or value, and if the books or records of the SBSD identify the security-based swap customers entitled to receive specified quantities or units of the securities so held for such security-based swap customers collectively; 708 • Are the subject of bona fide items of transfer; provided that securities and money market instruments shall be deemed not to be the subject of bona fide items of transfer if, within 40 calendar days after they have been transmitted for transfer by the SBSD to the issuer or its transfer agent, new certificates conforming to the instructions of the SBSD have not been received by the SBSD, the SBSD has not compliance with the requirements of section 4(b) of Regulation T under the Act (12 CFR 220.4(b)), such securities being deemed to be under the control of such broker or dealer to the extent that he has instructed such carrying broker or dealer to maintain physical possession or control of them free of any charge, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of such carrying broker or dealer or any persons claiming through such carrying broker or dealer.’’ See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c)(2). Stand-alone SBSDs are not expected to maintain such accounts. Second, Rule 15c3–3 identifies as a control location ‘‘a foreign depository, foreign clearing agency or foreign custodian bank which the Commission upon application from a broker or dealer, a registered national securities exchange or a registered national securities association, or upon its own motion shall designate as a satisfactory control location for securities.’’ See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c)(4). See also Interpretative Release: Guidelines for Control Locations for Foreign Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 10429 (Oct. 12, 1973), 38 FR 29217, 29217 (Oct. 23, 1973). As discussed below, the last control location identified in Rule 15c3–3 and proposed to be identified in new Rule 18a–4 is such other location ‘‘as the Commission shall upon application from a broker or dealer find and designate to be adequate for the protection of customer securities.’’ See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c)(7) and paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Under the Commission’s proposal, SBSDs seeking to have a foreign depository, foreign clearing agency, or foreign custodian bank identified as a satisfactory control location would need to apply to the Commission under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 708 See paragraph (b)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(c)(1), with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 received a written statement by the issuer or its transfer agent acknowledging the transfer instructions and the possession of the securities and money market instruments, or the security-based swap dealer has not obtained a revalidation of a window ticket from a transfer agent with respect to the certificate delivered for transfer; 709 • Are in the custody or control of a bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act, the delivery of which securities and money market instruments to the SBSD does not require the payment of money or value and the bank having acknowledged in writing that the securities and money market instruments in its custody or control are not subject to any right, charge, security interest, lien or claim of any kind in favor of a bank or any person claiming through the bank; 710 • Are held in or are in transit between offices of the SBSD; or are held by a corporate subsidiary if the SBSD owns and exercises a majority of the voting rights of all of the voting securities of such subsidiary, assumes or guarantees all of the subsidiary’s obligations and liabilities, operates the subsidiary as a branch office of the SBSD, and assumes full responsibility for compliance by the subsidiary and all of its associated persons with the provisions of the Federal securities laws as well as for all of the other acts of the subsidiary and such associated persons; 711 or • Are held in such other locations as the Commission shall upon application from an SBSD find and designate to be adequate for the protection of customer securities.712 709 See paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(3) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(c)(3), with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 710 See paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(c)(5), with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 711 See paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(6) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(c)(6), with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 712 See paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(c)(7), with paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. See Guidelines for Control Locations for Foreign Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 10429 (Oct. 12, 1973, 38 FR 29217 (Oct. 23, 1973) (prescribing the process under Rule 15c3–3 for a broker-dealer to apply to the Commission to utilize a foreign control location). Among other things, certain conditions must be met for the foreign control location to be deemed satisfactory. A broker-dealer must represent in an application to the Commission that the conditions are satisfied. An application submitted shall be considered VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 The identification of these locations as satisfactory control locations is designed to limit where the SBSD can hold excess securities collateral. The identified locations are places from which the securities and money market instruments can promptly be retrieved and returned to the security-based swap customers. Paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 18a–4 would require that each business day the SBSD must determine from its books and records the quantity of excess securities collateral that the firm had in possession and control as of the close of the previous business day and the quantity of excess securities collateral the firm did not have in possession or control on that day.713 The paragraph would provide further that the SBSD must take steps to retrieve excess securities collateral from certain specifically identified non-control locations if securities and money market instruments of the same issue and class are at these locations.714 Specifically, paragraph (b)(3) would provide that if securities or money market instruments of the same issue and class are: • Subject to a lien securing an obligation of the SBSD, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market instruments from the lien and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities and money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; 715 • Held in a qualified clearing agency account, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market instruments by the clearing agency and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; 716 accepted unless the Commission rejects the application within 90 days of receipt by the Commission. Id. 713 See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. The provisions in this paragraph are modeled on the provisions in paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d), with paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 714 See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 715 See paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(d)(1), with paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 716 See paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. As discussed above, securities held in a qualified clearing agency account are not excess securities collateral, but only to the extent the securities are being used to meet a margin PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70281 • Held in a qualified SBSD account maintained by another SBSD, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities and money market instruments by the other SBSD and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; 717 • Loaned by the SBSD, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the return of the loaned securities and money market instruments and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within five business days following the date of the instructions; 718 • Failed to receive more than 30 calendar days, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or otherwise; 719 • Receivable by the SBSD as a security dividend, stock split or similar distribution for more than 45 calendar days, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must take requirement of the clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the customer. See paragraph (a)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a– 4. Consequently, if securities held in a qualified clearing agency account are not necessary to meet a margin requirement of the clearing agency, they would be excess securities collateral and the SBSD would need to move them to a satisfactory control location. 717 See paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. As discussed above, securities held in a qualified SBSD account are not excess securities collateral but only to the extent the securities are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD resulting from the SBSD entering into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-cleared security-based swap transaction between the SBSD and the customer. See paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Consequently, if securities held in a qualified clearing agency account are not necessary to meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD and/or are not collateralizing a transaction that offsets the risk of n non-cleared security-based swap with the customer, they would be excess securities collateral and the SBSD would need to move them to a satisfactory control location. 718 See paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(d)(1), with paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 719 See paragraph (b)(3)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(2) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(d)(2), with paragraph (b)(3)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or otherwise; 720 or • Included on the books or records of the SBSD as a proprietary short position or as a short position for another person more than 10 business days (or more than 30 calendar days if the SBSD is a market maker in the securities), then the SBSD must, not later than the business day following the day on which the determination is made, take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of such securities or money market instruments.721 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed physical possession and control requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are possession and control requirements modeled on Rule 15c3–3 appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. 2. Is the proposed definition of security-based swap customer appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. 3. Is the proposed definition of excess securities collateral appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. 4. Is the proposed exception in the definition of excess securities collateral for securities and money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account appropriate? If not, explain why not. Would this proposed exception raise practical or legal issues? If so, explain why. 5. Is the proposed definition of qualified clearing agency account appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. 6. Is the proposed exception in the definition of excess securities collateral for securities and money market instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account appropriate? If not, explain 720 See paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(3) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(d)(3), with paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 721 See paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on a proposed amendment to Rule 15c3–3 that is still pending. See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12895. The provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 are intended to achieve the same objectives of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–3. See id. at 12865–66 (explaining the basis for the proposed amendment to Rule 15c3–3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 why not. Would this proposed exception raise practical or legal issues? If so, explain why. 7. Is the proposed definition of qualified registered security-based swap dealer account appropriate? For example, is the condition that the qualified registered security-based swap dealer account not be held by an affiliate of the SBSD appropriate? If the definition is not appropriate, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. 8. How do dealers in OTC derivatives that will be security-based swaps use offsetting transactions to hedge the risk of these positions? Would the proposed possession and control requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps adversely affect the ability of SBSDs to enter into hedging transactions? If so, explain why and suggest modifications to the requirements that could address this issue. 9. Are the control locations identified in proposed new Rule 18a–4 appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. Should the two additional control locations in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of Rule 15c3–3 that are not being incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a–4 be included in the rule? If so, explain why. 10. Should the process for applying to the Commission to have a location designated to be adequate for the protection of customer securities and money market instruments under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 be similar to the current process for a broker-dealer to utilize a foreign control location under Rule 15c3–3 (i.e., a process in which the SBSD must submit an application representing that certain conditions are met and in which an application is deemed accepted if not specifically rejected by the Commission within 90 days)? Alternatively, should the Commission be required to formally act on each application through the issuance of an order? 11. Are the steps in paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 that an SBSD would be required to take to move securities and money market instruments from non-control locations to control locations appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. 12. Are there any possession and control provisions in Rule 15c3–3 that are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a–4 that should be included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why they should be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 b. Security-Based Swap Customer Reserve Account Paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD, among other things, to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers separate from any other bank account of the SBSD.722 The term special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers (‘‘Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account’’) would be defined to mean an account at a bank that is not the SBSD or an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets the following conditions: • The account is designated ‘‘Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the SBSD]’’; 723 • The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the bank provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property held in the account are being held by the bank for the exclusive benefit of the securitybased swap customers of the SBSD in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the bank; 724 and • The account is subject to a written contract between the SBSD and the bank which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall at no time be used directly or indirectly as security for a loan or other extension of credit to the SBSD by the bank and, shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the bank or any person claiming through the bank.725 722 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a– 4. The provisions of paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 are modeled on paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 723 See paragraph (a)(7)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to maintain a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers’’ (the ‘‘Rule 15c3–3 Customer Reserve Account’’). Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (a)(7)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 724 See paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where it maintains a Rule 15c3–3 Customer Reserve Account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(f), with paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 725 See paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written contract from a bank where it maintains a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 These conditions are largely identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and qualified SBSD account and are similarly designed to ensure that cash and qualified securities deposited into the special bank account (as discussed below) are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as property of the securitybased swap customers. Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 18a–4.726 The formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 is modeled on the formula in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3– 1, which requires a broker-dealer to add up various credit items and debit items.727 The credit items include credit balances in customer accounts and funds obtained through the use of customer securities.728 The debit items include money owed by customers (e.g., from margin lending), securities borrowed by the broker-dealer to effectuate customer short sales, and required margin posted to certain clearing agencies as a consequence of customer securities transactions.729 If, Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(f), with paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 726 See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4; Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. 727 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, with Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. 728 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, Items 1–9. Brokerdealers are permitted to use customer margin securities to, for example, obtain bank loans to finance the funds used to lend to customers to purchase the securities. The amount of the bank loan is a credit in the formula because this is the amount that the broker-dealer would need to pay the bank to retrieve the securities. Similarly, brokerdealers may use customer margin securities to make stock loans to other broker-dealers in which the lending broker-dealer typically receives cash in return. The amount payable to the other brokerdealer on the stock loan is a credit in the formula because this is the amount the broker-dealer would need to pay the other broker-dealer to retrieve the securities. 729 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, Items 10–14. Item 13 identifies as a debit item margin required and on deposit with the Options Clearing Corporation for all option contracts written or purchased in accounts of securities customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, Item 13. Similarly, Item 14 identifies as a debit item margin related to security futures products written, purchased, or sold in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and on deposit with a clearing agency registered with the Commission under section 17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1) or a DCO registered with the CFTC under section 5b of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 78q–1). These debits reflect the fact that customer options and security futures transactions that are cleared generate margin requirements in which the broker-dealer must deliver collateral to the Options Clearing Corporation in the case of VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 under the formula, customer credit items exceed customer debit items, the broker-dealer must maintain cash and/ or qualified securities in that net amount in a Rule 15c3–3 Customer Reserve Account. The formula in Exhibit A for determining the amount to be maintained in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account similarly would require an SBSD to add up credit items and debit items.730 If, under the formula, the credit items exceed the debit items, the SBSD would be required to maintain cash and/or qualified securities in that net amount in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account.731 The credit and debit items identified in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 are the same as the credit and debit items in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–1, though Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 would identify two additional debit items.732 As discussed above, SBSDs will be required to deliver collateral to meet margin requirements of clearing agencies arising from cleared security-based swap transactions of their customers. In addition, SBSDs may deliver collateral to other SBSDs to meet margin requirements under proposed new Rule 18a–3 and, possibly, to meet ‘‘house’’ margin requirements of the other SBSD with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps the SBSD is using to hedge the risk of customer noncleared security-based swaps. Consequently, Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 would identify the following debit items that are not identified in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3: • Margin related to cleared securitybased swap transactions in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and on deposit at a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1); and • Margin related to non-cleared security-based swap transactions in options or a clearing agency or DCO in the case of security futures products. Identifying the collateral delivered to the Options Clearing Corporation, a clearing agency, or a DCO as a debit item permits the broker-dealer to use customer cash or securities to meet margin requirements generated by customer transactions. 730 See proposed new Rule 18a–4a. Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3 has a number of ‘‘Notes’’ that provide further explanation of the credit and debit items. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, Notes A–G. Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 would have substantially similar notes. See Notes A–G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. 731 As discussed above, the account would need to be at a bank that is not the SBSD or an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets certain additional conditions. See paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 732 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, with Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70283 accounts carried for security-based swap customers held in a qualified registered SBSD account at another SBSD. These debit items would serve the same purpose as the debit items in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3 that identify margin required and on deposit at the Options Clearing Corporation, a registered clearing agency, and a DCO.733 If the total credits exceed the total debits, an SBSD would need to maintain that amount on deposit in a Rule 18a– 4 Customer Reserve Account in the form of funds and/or qualified securities.734 An SBSD would be permitted under the proposed rule to use qualified securities to meet this account deposit requirement to implement section 3E(d) of the Exchange Act.735 Section 3E(d) provides that money of security-based swap customers received by an SBSD to margin, guarantee, or secure a cleared security-based swap may be invested in obligations of the United States, obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States, general obligations of a State or any subdivision of a State (‘‘municipal securities’’), and in any other investment that the Commission may by rule or regulation prescribe.736 Section 3E(d) further provides that such investments shall be made in accordance with such rules and regulations and subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe.737 The term qualified security as used in proposed new Rule 18a–4 would be defined to mean: (1) Obligations of the United States; (2) obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and (3) general obligations of any State or subdivision of a State that are not traded flat or are not in default, were part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater, and were issued by an issuer that has published audited financial statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end.738 Rule 15c3–3 contains a similar definition of qualified security, except the definition does not include municipal securities.739 While section 3E(d) of the Exchange Act permits the use of municipal 733 See 734 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a, Items 13–14. paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 735 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(d). 736 Id. 737 Id. 738 See paragraph (a)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 739 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(6) (defining the term qualified security to mean a security issued by the United States or a security in respect of which the principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 securities, the rule imposes conditions on their use designed to ensure that only municipal securities with the most reliable valuations—and therefore greater safety and liquidity—are permitted to meet the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account funding requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 (consistent with the objective of the current definition of ‘‘qualified security’’ in Rule 15c3–3).740 Because of the diversity and breadth of the municipal market, the availability of issuer information and the related ability to value and trade a particular municipal security can vary considerably.741 The objective of segregation requirements is to isolate customer assets from a firm’s proprietary business and, therefore, enable the firm to quickly return the assets to the customers if the firm fails. Rule 15c3–3 limits the definition of qualified securities to U.S. government securities to ensure that securities deposited in a customer reserve account can be liquidated quickly at current market values even in stressed market conditions. The proposed conditions for depositing municipal securities into the SBSD’s Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account are designed to help ensure that only securities that are likely to have significant issuer information available and that can be valued and liquidated quickly at current market values are permitted to meet the 740 See paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(A)–(C) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 741 Despite its size and importance, the municipal securities market has not been subject to the same level of regulation as other sectors of the U.S. capital markets. See Commission, Report on the Municipal Securities Market (July 31, 2012) (‘‘Municipal Securities Report’’), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/ munireport073112.pdf. The Municipal Securities Report notes concerns about access to issuer information; the presentation and comparability of information; and the existence/adequacy of disclosure controls and procedures. Id. at iv, 108– 09. For example, the Municipal Securities Report notes that studies have shown that disclosure of audited annual financial statements by many municipal issuers is particularly slow. Id. at 76. By the time annual financial statements are filed or otherwise publicly available, many municipal market analysts and investors believe that the financial information has diminished usefulness or has lost relevance in assessing the current financial position of a municipal issuer. Id. Correspondingly, weaker or more distressed entities are more likely to have later audit completion times. Id. In addition, the Municipal Securities Report notes that although there have been improvements in the availability of pricing information about completed trades (i.e., post-trade information), the secondary market for municipal securities remains opaque. Investors have very limited access to information regarding which market participants would be interested in buying or selling a municipal security, and at which prices (i.e., pre-trade information). Id. at vi, 115. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 minimum account deposit requirement.742 The first proposed condition for municipal securities is that they must be general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit and/or taxing authority of the issuer.743 They normally are issued to finance non-revenue producing public works projects (e.g., schools and roads) and generally are paid off with funds from taxes or fees. Issuers typically have the ability to raise taxes in order to service the debt obligations of these municipal securities. In contrast, revenue bonds are issued to fund projects that will eventually generate revenue (e.g., a toll road). The anticipated revenue is used to make payments of principal and interest owing on the bonds. Revenue bonds generally do not permit the bondholders to compel taxation or legislative appropriation of funds not pledged for the purpose of servicing the debt obligations of these municipal securities.744 Consequently, the creditworthiness of revenue bonds depends on the success of the project being financed, whereas the creditworthiness of general obligation bonds ultimately depends on the taxing authority of the issuer. Therefore, general obligation bonds tend to have lower rates of default than other types of municipal securities.745 In order to limit the use of municipal securities in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account to the most creditworthy instruments,746 the proposed definition 742 See Municipal Securities Report at 113–115 (recognizing the municipal securities market’s ‘‘relatively low liquidity’’ and the ‘‘relatively opaque’’ pre-trade information about municipal securities’ prices). 743 See Municipal Securities Report at 7. 744 Id. 745 See, e.g., Moody’s Investor Services (‘‘Moody’s’’), Special Comment: U.S. Municipal Bonds Defaults and Recoveries, 1970–2011, at 1 (Mar. 7, 2012), available at https:// www.moodys.com/research documentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_140114. See also Municipal Securities Report, at 7 (noting reports indicate that a majority of defaults in the municipal securities market are in conduit revenue bonds issued for nongovernmental purposes, such as multi-family housing, healthcare (hospitals and nursing homes), and industrial development bonds (for economic development and manufacturing purposes). 746 See Fitch Ratings (‘‘Fitch’’), Default Risk and Recovery Rates on U.S. Municipal Bonds, note 116, at 1 (Jan. 9, 2007), available at https://www.cdfa.net/ cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/ordredirect.html?open& id=fitchdefaultreport.html Fitch is not aware of any state or local municipality of size that has experienced a permanent or extended default on its general obligation bonds since the Great Depression, so that in one of its studies, Fitch assumed a 100% recovery rate on general obligation bonds). Id. See also Moody’s, Special Comment: Moody’s US Municipal Bond Rating Scale, 11 (Nov. 2002), available at https://www.moodys.com/sites/ PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of qualified security would limit the use of municipal securities to general obligation bonds. The second proposed condition for the use of municipal securities is that they must be part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater. The size of the initial offering is an indication of the size of the market for a particular issuer’s municipal securities. Additionally, the secondary market for a municipal security is generally smaller than for the initial offering.747 The $500 million threshold is designed to be large enough to ensure that the market for a particular issuer’s securities is large enough that the securities can be liquidated quickly and at their current market price in order to raise cash to return to an SBSD’s customers. The third proposed condition for the use of municipal securities is that they must be issued by an issuer that has published audited financial statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end.748 Prices for municipal securities issued by issuers that have published relatively current information about their financial condition may tend to be more transparent than prices for municipal securities issued by issuers for which such financial information is not available, because investors and analysts have more current information to assess the creditworthiness of the issuer and to inform pricing decisions.749 products/DefaultResearch/2001700000407258.pdf. Similarly, Moody’s acknowledged the ‘‘anticipated near 100% recovery rate on any defaulted general obligation bond,’’ because there have been no defaults among Moody’s-rated issuers of general obligation bonds since at least 1970. Id. 747 While almost all municipal bonds trade in the first month following the initial offering, only 15% trade in the second month, and even fewer trade in subsequent months. Municipal Securities Report at 113–14 (citing Richard C. Green, Burton Hollifield ¨ and Normal Schurhoff, Financial Intermediation and the Costs of Trading in an Opaque Market, 20 Rev. Fin. Stud. 275, 282 (2007)). 748 See, e.g., Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Additional Voluntary Submissions by Issuers to the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System (‘‘EMMA®’’), Exchange Act Release No. 62183 (May 26, 2010), 75 FR 30876 (June 2, 2010) (‘‘MSRB Rule Filing’’). The MSRB stated that, ‘‘issuers that seek to make their financial information available under the voluntary annual filing undertaking also would be bringing the timing of their disclosures into closer conformity with the timeframes that investors in the registered securities market have come to rely upon.’’ Id. at 30882. 749 See MSRB Notice 2010–15 (June 2, 2010), available at https://www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/Regulatory-Notices/2010/2010– 15.aspx?n=1 (requesting voluntary submissions of audited financial statements within 120 calendar days of the fiscal year-end, or as a transitional alternative available through December 31, 2013, within 150 calendar days of the fiscal year-end). Timely financial reporting ‘‘is critical to the E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As discussed above, an SBSD would be required to add up credit items and debit items pursuant to the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–1. If, under the formula, the credit items exceed the debit items, the SBSD would be required to maintain cash and/or qualified securities in that net amount in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account. Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to take certain deductions for purposes of this requirement.750 The amount of cash and/or qualified securities in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account would need to equal or exceed the amount required pursuant to the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–1after applying the deductions. First, the SBSD would need to deduct the percentage of the value of municipal securities specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3–1.751 Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3–1 prescribes the standardized haircuts a broker-dealer must apply to municipal securities when computing net capital. For the purposes of proposed new Rule 18a–4, the SBSD would need to apply the standardized haircuts to municipal securities held in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account even if the firm is approved to use VaR models for purposes of computing its net capital under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, or proposed new Rule 18a–1. The purpose of these deductions would be to account for potential market losses that may be incurred when municipal securities held in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account are liquidated to return funds to security-based swap customers. Second, the SBSD would need to deduct the aggregate value of the municipal securities of a single issuer to the extent the value exceeds 2% of the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account. The Commission preliminarily believes that this deduction would serve as a reasonable benchmark designed to avoid the potential that the SBSD might use customer funds to establish a concentrated position in municipal securities of a single issuer. A concentrated position could be more functioning of an efficient trading market,’’ especially since bond ratings are only updated when a significant change is about to occur, and credit reports represent a costly alternative. Municipal Securities Report at 74 (citing Jeff L. Payne and Kevin L. Jensen, An Examination of Municipal Audit Delay, J. Acc. & Pub. Pol’y, Vol. 21, Issue 1, 3 (2002)). 750 See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 751 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(B). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 difficult to liquidate at current market values. Third, the SBSD would need to deduct the aggregate value of all municipal securities to the extent the amount of the securities exceeds 10% of the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account. The Commission preliminarily believes that this deduction would serve as a reasonable benchmark designed to limit the amount of customer funds an SBSD could invest in municipal securities.752 As noted above, the segregation provisions are designed to prevent an SBSD from using customer property for proprietary business purposes such as paying expenses. The purpose of the deposits into the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account is to create a reserve to protect the funds of security-based swap customers. The deposits are not intended as a means for the SBSD to earn investment returns by, for example, establishing positions in higher yielding municipal securities. The 10% threshold is designed to limit the ability of the SBSD to use the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account deposit requirement to invest in municipal securities, for the purpose of obtaining higher yields than U.S. government securities. Fourth, the SBSD would be required to deduct the amount of funds held in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account at a single bank to the extent the amount exceeds 10% of the equity capital of the bank as reported by the bank in its most recent Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (‘‘Call Report’’).753 This provision is consistent with a pending proposed amendment to Rule 15c3–3.754 752 Compare to Rule 15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(M)(1) (imposing undue concentration charges on certain securities in the proprietary account of a brokerdealer whose market value exceeds more than 10% of the ‘‘net capital’’ of a broker-dealer before application of haircuts). 753 With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the supervision of savings associations was transferred from the Office of Thrift Supervision to the OCC for federal savings associations and to the FDIC for state savings associations on the ‘‘transfer date,’’ which is defined as one year after enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, subject to an additional six month extension. See section Public Law 111–203 §§ 300– 378. See also List of OTS Regulations to be Enforced by the OCC and the FDIC Pursuant to the DoddFrank Act, OCC, FDIC, 76 FR 39246 (July 6, 2011). Supervision of savings and loan holding companies and their subsidiaries (other than depository institutions) was transferred from the OTS to the Federal Reserve. Therefore, in February 2011, the OTS, the OCC, and the FDIC proposed to require, ‘‘savings associations currently filing the Thrift Financial Report to convert to filing the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income or Call Reports beginning with the reporting period ending on March 31, 2012.’’ Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request, 76 FR 7082, 7082 (Feb. 8, 2011). 754 Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12864. PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70285 As the Commission stated when proposing the amendment to Rule 15c3– 3: Broker-dealers must deposit cash or ‘‘qualified securities’’ into the customer reserve account maintained at a ‘‘bank’’ under Rule 15c3–3(e). Rule 15c3–3(f) further requires the broker-dealer to obtain a written contract from the bank in which the bank agrees not to re-lend or hypothecate securities deposited into the reserve account. Consequently, the securities should be readily available to the broker-dealer. Cash deposits, however, are fungible with other deposits carried by the bank and may be freely used in the course of the bank’s commercial lending activities. Therefore, to the extent a broker-dealer deposits cash in a reserve bank account, there is a risk the cash could be lost or inaccessible for a period if the bank experiences financial difficulties. This could adversely impact the brokerdealer and its customers if the balance of the reserve deposit is concentrated at one bank in the form of cash.755 The deduction in proposed new Rule 18a–4 is designed to address the same risk to SBSDs that the Commission identified with respect to concentrating in a single bank cash deposits in a customer reserve account maintained under Rule 15c3–1. Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that it is unlawful for an SBSD to accept or use credits identified in the items of the formula set forth in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 except to establish debits for the specified purposes in the items of the formula.756 This provision would prohibit the SBSD from using customer cash and cash realized from the use of customer securities for purposes other than those identified in the debit items in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a– 4. Thus, the SBSD would be prohibited from using customer cash to, for example, pay expenses. Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the computations necessary to determine the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account must be made daily as of the close of the previous business day and any deposit required to be made into the account must be made on the next business day following the computation no later than one hour after the opening of the bank that maintains the account.757 Paragraph (c)(3) also would provide that the SBSD may make a 755 Id. 756 See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(e)(2), with paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 757 See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules withdrawal from the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account only if the amount remaining in the account after the withdrawal is equal to or exceeds the amount required to be maintained in the account.758 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require a daily computation as opposed to the weekly computation that is required by Rule 15c3–3. The margin requirements of clearing agencies and other SBSDs for security-based swaps are expected generally to be determined on a daily basis, which will require SBSDs to deliver collateral to, and receive the return of collateral from, clearing agencies and other SBSDs on a daily basis.759 If the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account computation were performed on a weekly basis, the SBSD might need to fund margin requirements relating to customer security-based swaps using its own funds for up to a week because the customer cash necessary to meet the requirement is ‘‘locked up’’ in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account and cannot be withdrawn for a number of days, which could cause liquidity strains on the SBSD. Finally, paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to promptly deposit funds or qualified securities into a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account of the SBSD if the amount of funds and/or qualified securities held in one or more Rule 18a– 4 Customer Reserve Accounts falls below the amount required to be maintained pursuant to the rule.760 This proposal is designed to require an SBSD to use its own resources to fund the deposit requirement if there is a shortfall in the amount of cash or qualified securities maintained in its Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account. Request for Comment emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The Commission generally requests comment on the requirements for the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account in proposed new Rule 18a–4. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Are Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account requirements modeled on Rule 758 Id. 759 As discussed above in section II.B.2.b.i. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to calculate the equity in the account of each counterparty on a daily basis and to collect collateral needed to collateralize an account equity requirement on the next business day. See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)–(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 760 See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 15c3–3 appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. 2. Is the proposed definition of special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. 3. Are the proposed credit and debit items in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative or additional credit and debit items that should be included in the formula? If so, describe them and explain why they should be included in the formula. 4. How would the formula computation for a broker-dealer SBSD differ from the formula computation for a stand-alone SBSD? For example, the debit items relating to financing securities transactions would not apply to stand-alone SBSDs as financing securities transactions would need to be conducted in a broker-dealer. Consequently, should there be a separate Exhibit A formula for standalone SBSDs? 5. Are the two additional debit items in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a– 4 relating to margin collateral required and on deposit at clearing agencies, DCOs, and other SBSDs appropriate? If not, explain why not. 6. Note G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 is analogous to Note G to Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3. Note G to Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3 prescribes (and Note G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–1 would prescribe) the conditions for when a clearing agency or DCO can qualify for purposes of including debits in the reserve formula under Item 14 (margin related to security futures products). Should these conditions apply to when a clearing agency would qualify for purposes of including debits in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account formula under Item 15? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, could the Note G conditions, if applied to Item 15, be used instead of the proposed definition of qualified clearing agency account in proposed new Rule 18a–4? Would the Note G conditions be a workable alternative to the proposed definition? Would the Note G conditions achieve the same customer protection objectives as the proposed definition? 7. Is the proposed definition of qualified security appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. For example, should additional types of securities be included in the definition? If so, identify the types of securities and explain why they should be included in the definition and how their inclusion PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 would meet the objective of segregation that customer cash is not used to make proprietary investments. 8. Is the proposed condition to the definition of qualified security that municipal securities be general obligation bonds in the definition appropriate? If not, explain why not. Identify other types of municipal securities that should be included and explain how their inclusion would be consistent with the objective that only the most highly liquid securities (i.e., securities capable of being liquidated at market value even during times of market stress) be permitted to meet the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account deposit requirement. 9. It is expected that the proposed condition that municipal securities be part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater in the definition of qualified security would limit qualifying securities to a very small percentage of general obligation municipal security issuances.761 Would the $500 million threshold be appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should this threshold be a greater amount (e.g., $750 million, $1 billion, or some other amount) or a lesser amount (e.g., $250 million, $100 million, or some other amount)? If so, indicate the recommended threshold and explain why it would be preferable. 10. Is the proposed condition that municipal securities must be issued by an issuer that has published audited financial statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end in the definition of qualified security appropriate? If not, explain why not. 11. The MSRB Rule Filing contemplates those issuers who are engaged in the voluntary annual filing undertaking will be able to provide the information to the MSRB’s Electronic Muni Market Access System within 150 calendar days after the end of the applicable fiscal year prior to January 1, 2014. The 150 calendar day time frame is an interim measure and would no longer be available after January 1, 2014. Should municipal securities that otherwise meet the definition of qualified securities be permitted if the issuer submits financial information within 150 calendar days after the end of the applicable fiscal year during this transitional period that would end on January 1, 2014? 12. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities held in a Rule 18a– 4 Customer Reserve Account equal to the percentage specified in paragraph 761 Data source: Mergent’s Municipal Bond Securities Database. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3–1 appropriate? If not, explain why not. 13. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities of a single issuer held in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account in excess of 2% of the amount required to be maintained in the account appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the threshold be greater (e.g., 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, or some other amount) or lesser (e.g., 1.5%, 1%, 0.5%, or some other amount)? If so, identify the recommended threshold and explain why it would be preferable. 14. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities held in a Rule 18a– 4 Customer Reserve Account in excess of 10% of the amount required to be maintained in the account appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the threshold be greater (e.g., 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or some other amount) or lesser (e.g., 7%, 5%, 3%, or some other amount)? If so, identify the recommended threshold and explain why it would be preferable. 15. Is the proposed deduction for the amount that funds held in a Rule 18a– 4 Customer Reserve Account at a single bank exceed 10% of the equity capital of the bank as reported by the bank in its most recent Call Report appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the threshold be greater (e.g., 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or some other amount) or lesser (e.g., 7%, 5%, 3%, or some other amount)? If so, identify the recommended threshold and explain why it would be preferable. 16. Is it appropriate to require that the computations to determine the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account must be made daily as of the close of the previous business day and any deposit required to be made into the account must be made on the next business day following the computation? If not, explain why not. For example, should the computations be required on a weekly basis consistent with Rule 15c3– 3? If so, explain why. 17. Are there any customer reserve account provisions in Rule 15c3–1 that are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a–4 that should be included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why they should be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a–4. 18. More generally, are there any provisions in Rule 15c3–1 that are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a–4 that should be included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why they should be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 c. Special Provisions for Non-Cleared Security-Based Swap Counterparties Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap with the counterparty.762 Paragraph (d) also would require an SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that opt out of the omnibus segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 because they either elect individual segregation pursuant to the self-executing provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act 763 or agree that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.764 70287 therefore, would give the counterparty an opportunity to determine whether to elect individual segregation, waive segregation, or, by not electing individual segregation or waiving segregation, to have the collateral segregated pursuant to the omnibus segregation provisions of proposed new Rule 18a–4. Subordination Agreements Paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to obtain agreements from counterparties that either elect individual segregation or waive segregation altogether that such counterparties subordinate all of their claims against the SBSD to the claims of security-based swap customers.768 By entering into subordination agreements, these Notice Requirement counterparties would not meet the The provisions in section 3E(f) of the definition of security-based swap Exchange Act allow a program by which customer in proposed new Rule 18a– a counterparty to non-cleared security4.769 They also would not be entitled to based swaps with an SBSD or an share ratably with security-based swap MSBSP can choose individual customers in the fund of customer segregation.765 These provisions provide property held by the SBSD if it is a framework of baseline requirements liquidated. This provision would be that can be supplemented by consistent with text in Rule 15c3–3 commercial arrangements between concerning the exclusion of persons counterparties and SBSDs and MSBSPs. whose interests are subordinated from Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would the definition of ‘‘customer.’’ 770 augment these provisions by prescribing As discussed in section II.C.1. of this when the notice specified in section release, segregation requirements are 3E(f)(1)(A) must be provided to the designed to identify customer property counterparty by the SBSD or MSBSP. as distinct from the proprietary assets of Section 3E(f)(1)(A) provides that an the firm and to protect the customer SBSD and an MSBSP shall be required property by, for example, preventing the to notify the counterparty at the firm from using it to make proprietary ‘‘beginning’’ of a non-cleared securityinvestments. The goal of segregation is based swap transaction about the right to facilitate the prompt return of to require segregation of the funds or customer property to customers either other property supplied to margin, before or during a liquidation guarantee, or secure the obligations of proceeding if the firm fails. However, if the counterparty.766 To provide greater a counterparty’s property is held by a clarity as to the meaning of ‘‘beginning’’ third-party custodian because the as used in the statute, paragraph (d)(1) counterparty elects individual of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would segregation or if the counterparty waives require an SBSD or MSBSP to provide segregation, there is no need to isolate the notice in writing to a counterparty the counterparty’s property since it is prior to the execution of the first nonwith the third-party custodian in the cleared security-based swap transaction former case or the counterparty has with the counterparty occurring after agreed that the SBSD can use it for the effective date of the rule.767 proprietary purposes in the latter case. Consequently, the notice would need to The subordination provisions in be given in writing to the counterparty proposed new Rule 18a–4 are designed prior to the execution of a transaction to clarify the rights of counterparties and, therefore, before the counterparty 768 See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule is required to deliver margin collateral 18a–4. to the SBSD or MSBSP. The notice, 762 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 763 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 764 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). 765 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 766 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). 767 See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 769 See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 770 See paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3–3 defining ‘‘customer’’ for purposes of Rule 15c3–3 to specifically exclude ‘‘any other person to the extent that person has a claim for property or funds which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the brokerdealer or is subordinated to the claims of creditors of the broker-dealer. 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(1). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules that have their property held by the SBSD and elect segregation and the rights of counterparties that either elect to have their property held by a thirdparty custodian or waive segregation. An SBSD would need to obtain a conditional subordination agreement from a counterparty that elects individual segregation.771 The agreement would be conditional because the subordination agreement required under the proposed rule would not be effective in a case where the counterparty’s assets are included in the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD. Specifically, the proposed rule would provide that the counterparty would need to subordinate claims but only to the extent that funds or other property provided by the counterparty to the independent third-party custodian are not treated as customer property under the stockbroker liquidation provisions in a liquidation of the security-based swap dealer.772 Counterparties that choose individual segregation are opting to have their funds and other property held in a manner that makes the counterparty’s property bankruptcy remote from the SBSD. If the arrangement is effective, the counterparties should not have any customer claims to cash, securities, or money market instruments used to margin their non-cleared security-based swap transactions in a liquidation of the SBSD, as their property will be held by the independent third party custodian. However, because there is a possibility that an individual segregation arrangement would not be effective, the subordination agreement of a counterparty that chooses individual segregation would be conditioned on the funds and other property of the counterparty not being included in the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD. If a counterparty elects individual segregation but the election is not effective in keeping the counterparty’s assets bankruptcy remote, then the counterparty should be treated as a security-based swap customer with a pro rata priority claim to customer property. An SBSD also would need to obtain an unconditional subordination agreement from a counterparty that waives segregation altogether.773 By opting out of segregation, the counterparty agrees that cash, securities, and money market instruments delivered to the SBSD can be used by 771 See paragraph (d)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 772 Id. 773 See paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 the SBSD for proprietary purposes and need not be isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD. Therefore, these counterparties are foregoing the protections of segregation, which include the right to share ratably with other customers in customer property held by the SBSD. If these counterparties were deemed securitybased swap customers, they could have a pro rata priority claim on customer property. This result could disadvantage the security-based swap customers that did not waive segregation by diminishing the amount of customer property available to be distributed to customers. property are individually segregated at a third party custodian. 4. Is it appropriate to require counterparties who waive all right to segregation to subordinate their claims to security-based swap customers? If not, explain why not and describe other measures that could be taken to ensure that security-based swap customers whose cash, securities, and money market instruments are subject to the omnibus segregation requirements have a first priority claim to these assets over counterparties who waive all right to segregation. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the special provisions for non-cleared security-based swaps in proposed new Rule 18a–4. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions: 1. Is the requirement to have notice be given in writing prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty occurring after the effective date of the rule appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should the notice be required on a periodic basis such as monthly or annually? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the notice be required before every transaction? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 2. Describe the current practices and arrangements for individual segregation. For example, are these arrangements based on tri-party agreements between the SBSD, counterparty, and independent third-party custodian? If so, describe the terms of the these thirdparty agreements. Under these agreements, how would the SBSD perfect its security interest in the funds and other property held by the thirdparty custodian? What terms would the counterparty require that are designed to ensure that funds or property held by the independent third-party custodian at the time of a liquidation proceeding of the SBSD are not included in the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD? 3. Is it appropriate to require counterparties electing individual segregation to subordinate their claims to security-based swap customers? If not, explain why not and describe other measures that could be taken to ensure that security-based swap customers whose cash, securities, and money market instruments are subject to the omnibus segregation requirements have a first priority claim to these assets over counterparties whose funds and other In responding to the specific requests for comment above, interested persons are encouraged to provide supporting data and analysis and, when appropriate, suggest modifications to proposed rule text. Responses that are supported by data and analysis provide great assistance to the Commission in considering the practicality and effectiveness of proposed new requirements as well as weighing the benefits and costs of proposed requirements. In addition, commenters are encouraged to identify in their responses a specific request for comment by indicating the section number of the release. The Commission also seeks comment on the proposals as a whole. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment, including empirical data in support of comments, on the following: 1. Are there financial responsibility programs other than the broker-dealer financial responsibility program that could serve as a better model for establishing financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs? If so, identify the program and explain how it would be a better model for implementing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act mandating capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. 2. Should any of the proposed quantitative requirements (e.g., minimum capital thresholds, margin risk factor, standardized haircuts) be modified? If so, how? Are there new quantitative requirements that should be used? What would be the financial or other consequences for individual firms and the financial markets of such modified or new quantitative requirements and how would such consequences differ from the proposed requirements? Please provide detailed data regarding such consequences and describe in detail any econometric or other mathematical models, or economic analyses of data, that would PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 III. General Request for Comment E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 be relevant for evaluating or modifying any quantitative requirements. 3. How would the proposals integrate with provisions in other titles and subtitles of the Dodd-Frank Act and any regulations or proposed regulations under those other titles and subtitles? 4. How would the proposals integrate with other proposals applicable to SBSDs or MSBSPs in the Exchange Act and any applicable regulations adopted under authority in the Exchange Act? 5. As discussed throughout this release, many of the proposed amendments are based on dollar amounts that are prescribed in existing requirements. Should any of these proposed dollar amounts be adjusted to account for inflation? 6. What should the implementation timeframe be for the proposed amendments and new rules? For example, should the compliance date be 90, 120, 150, 180, or some other number of days after publication? Should the proposed requirements have different time frames before their compliance dates are triggered? For example, would it take longer to come into compliance with certain of these proposals than others? If so, rank the requirements in terms of the length of time it would take to come into compliance with them and propose a schedule of compliance dates. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Certain provisions of the proposed rule amendments and proposed new rules would contain a new ‘‘collection of information’’ within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’).774 The Commission is submitting the proposed rule amendments and proposed new rules to the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review in accordance with the PRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The titles for the collections of information are: (1) Rule 18a–1 and related appendices, Net capital requirements for security-based swap dealers for which there is not a prudential regulator (a proposed new collection of information); (2) Rule 18a–2, Capital requirements for major security-based swap participants for which there is not a prudential regulator (a proposed new collection of information); (3) Rule 18a–3, Non-cleared securitybased swap margin requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants for 774 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 5 CFR 1320.11. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 which there is not a prudential regulator (a proposed new collection of information); (4) Rule 18a–4, Segregation requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new collection of information); and (5) Rule 15c3–1 Net capital requirements for brokers or dealers (OMB Control Number 3235–0200). The burden estimates contained in this section do not include any other possible costs or economic effects beyond the burdens required to be calculated for PRA purposes. A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments 1. Proposed Rule 18a–1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3–1 Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange Act.775 Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. Proposed new Rule 18a–1 776 would establish minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs and the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 777 would augment the current capital requirements for brokerdealers to address broker-dealers that register as SBSDs and to enhance the provisions applicable to ANC brokerdealers (all of which the Commission preliminarily estimates would register as SBSDs). The proposed new rule and amendments would establish a number of new collection of information requirements. First, under proposed Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD would need to apply to the Commission to be authorized to use internal models to compute net capital.778 As part of the application process, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to provide the Commission staff with, among other things: (1) A comprehensive description of the firm’s internal risk management control system; (2) a description of the VaR models the firm will use to price positions and compute deductions for market risk; (3) a description of the firm’s internal risk management controls 775 See Public Law 111–203 § 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10. 776 See proposed new Rule 18a–1. See also section II.A. of this release. 777 See proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1. See also section II.A. of this release. 778 See paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. This collection of information requirement already exists in Rule 15c3–1 and applies to broker-dealers seeking to become ANC broker-dealers. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70289 over the VaR models, including a description of each category of person who may input data into the models; and (4) a description of the back-testing procedures that that firm will use to review the accuracy of the VaR models.779 In addition, under proposed Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD authorized to use internal models would review and update the models it uses to compute market and credit risk, as well as backtest the models. Second, under proposed Rule 18a–1 and amendments to Rule 15c3–1, nonbank SBSDs that are approved to use models to compute deductions for market and credit risk under Rule 18a– 1 and ANC broker-dealers would be required to perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly and, based on the results of that test, maintain liquidity reserves to address funding needs.780 The result of the test must be provided within 10 business days to senior management that has the responsibility to oversee risk management of the nonbank SBSD or ANC broker-dealer. The assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test must be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the nonbank SBSD and at least annually by senior management of the nonbank SBSD.781 In addition, if such a nonbank SBSD or ANC brokerdealer is part of a consolidated entity using liquidity stress tests, the nonbank SBSD or ANC broker-dealer would need to justify and document any differences in the assumptions used in their liquidity stress tests from those used in the liquidity stress tests of the consolidated entity.782 Furthermore, the nonbank SBSDs and ANC broker-dealers would be required to establish a written contingency funding plan.783 The plan would need to address the policies and roles and responsibilities of relevant personnel for meeting the liquidity needs of the firm and communications with the public and other market participants during a liquidity stress event.784 Third, nonbank SBSDs, including broker-dealer SBSDs, would be required to comply with certain requirements of 779 See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 780 See proposed new paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3– 1; paragraph (f) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 781 See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 782 See proposed new paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 783 See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 784 Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Rule 15c3–4.785 Rule 15c3–4 requires OTC derivatives dealers and firms subject to its provisions, to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist the firm in managing the risks associated with business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.786 Fourth, under paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1, broker-dealers, brokerdealers registered as SBSDs, and standalone SBSDs not using models would be required to use an industry sector classification system that is documented and reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics, used for credit default swap reference names for purposes of calculating ‘‘haircuts’’ on security-based swaps under the applicable net capital rules.787 These firms could use a classification system of a third-party or develop their own classification system, subject to these limitations, and would need to be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of the system they use.788 Fifth, under paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–1, stand-alone SBSDs would be required to provide the Commission with certain written notices with respect to equity withdrawals.789 Finally, under paragraph (c)(5) of Appendix D to proposed Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to file with the Commission two copies of any proposed subordinated loan agreement (including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) at least 30 days prior to the proposed execution date of the agreement.790 The rule would also require an SBSD to file with the Commission a statement setting forth the name and address of the lender, the business relationship of the lender to the SBSD, and whether the SBSD carried an account for the lender effecting transactions in security-based swaps at or about the time the proposed agreement was filed.791 785 See 17 CFR 240.18a–1(g); 15c3–1(a)(10)(ii). See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 786 Id. 787 See paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3– 1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 788 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vii)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 789 See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 790 See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–1d. 791 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 2. Proposed Rule 18a–2 Proposed new Rule 18a–2 would establish capital requirements for nonbank MSBSPs.792 In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required at all times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.793 The proposed definition of tangible net worth would allow nonbank MSBSPs to include as regulatory capital assets that would be deducted from net worth under Rule 15c3–1, such as property, plants, equipment, and unsecured receivables. At the same time, it would require the deduction of goodwill and other intangible assets.794 Because MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage in a substantial security-based swap business, the Commission is proposing that they be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4,795 which requires OTC derivatives dealers and other firms subject to its provisions to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist the firm in managing the risks associated with their business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.796 3. Proposed Rule 18a–3 Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would establish minimum margin requirements for non-cleared securitybased swap transactions entered into by nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs.797 Proposed Rule 18a–3 would prescribe the requirements for nonbank SBSDs or nonbank MSBSPs to collect or post collateral with regard to noncleared security-based swap transactions. The provisions of proposed Rule 18a–3 contain a collection of information requirement for nonbank SBSDs. Specifically, paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to monitor the risk of each account and establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts as part 792 See proposed new Rule 18a–2. See also section II.A.3 of this release. 793 See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a–2. 794 The proposed definition of tangible net worth under proposed new Rule 18a–2 is consistent with the CFTC’s proposed definition of tangible net equity. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27828 (Defining tangible net equity as ‘‘equity as determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and excludes goodwill and other intangible assets.’’). 795 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–2. 796 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 797 See proposed new Rule 18a–3. See also section II.B. of this release for a more detailed description of the proposed rule. PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of the risk management control system required by Rule 15c3–4.798 In addition, the rule would require a nonbank SBSD to review, in accordance with written procedures and at reasonable periodic intervals, its non-cleared security-based swap activities for consistency with the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines required by paragraph (e) of Rule 18a–3. The nonbank SBSD would also be required to determine whether information and data necessary to apply the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines required by paragraph (e) of Rule 18a–3 are accessible on a timely basis and whether information systems are available to adequately capture, monitor, analyze, and report relevant data and information. Finally, the rule would require that the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines must include, at a minimum, procedures and guidelines for: • Obtaining and reviewing account documentation and financial information necessary for assessing the amount of current and potential future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the SBSD; • Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties; • Monitoring credit risk exposure to the SBSD from non-cleared securitybased swaps, including the type, scope, and frequency of reporting to senior management; • Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to a single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified range of possible market movements over a specified time period; • Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-cleared security-based swaps on the SBSD’s overall risk exposure; • Determining the need to collect collateral from a particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the specific noncleared security-based swap contracts with the counterparty; • Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and during periods of extreme volatility; and • Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future exposure of a non-cleared security-based swap carried in the 798 See paragraph (e) to proposed new Rule 18a–3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules account of the counterparty as measured by computing the largest maximum possible loss that could result from the exposure. 4. Proposed Rule 18a–4 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would establish segregation requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., they would apply to bank SBSDs, nonbank standalone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs), as well as notification requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.799 The provisions of proposed Rule 18a–4 are modeled on Rule 15c3–3, the broker-dealer segregation rule.800 Paragraph (a) of the proposed new rule would define key terms used in the rule.801 Paragraph (b) would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral (a term defined in paragraph (a)) and specify certain locations where excess securities collateral could be held and deemed in the SBSD’s control.802 Paragraph (c) would require an SBSD to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers and have on deposit in that account at all times an amount of cash and/or qualified securities (a term defined in paragraph (a)) determined through a computation using the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a– 4.803 Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would contain provisions that are not modeled specifically on Rule 15c3– 1. First, it would require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act to a counterparty in writing prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty.804 Second, it would require the SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that opt out of the segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 because they either elect individual segregation pursuant to the self-executing provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act 805 or agree emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 799 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. See also section II.C. of this release for a more detailed description of the proposal. 800 17 CFR 240.15c3–3. 801 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a), with paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 802 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(b)–(d), with paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 803 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 804 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(A); proposed paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 805 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.806 Additionally, paragraph (a)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would define qualified clearing agency account to mean an account of an SBSD at a clearing agency established to hold funds and other property in order to purchase, margin, guarantee, secure, adjust, or settle cleared security-based swaps of the SBSD’s security-based swap customers that meets the following conditions (which would contain collection of information requirements): • The account is designated ‘‘Special Clearing Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the SBSD]’’; 807 • The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property in the account are being held by the clearing agency for the exclusive benefit of the cleared security-based swap customers of the SBSD in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the clearing agency; 808 and • The account is subject to a written contract between the SBSD and the clearing agency which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the clearing agency or any person claiming through the clearing agency, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a cleared security-based swap transaction effected in the account.809 Under paragraph (a)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–4, a qualified SBSD account would be defined to mean an account at another SBSD registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15F 806 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a brokerdealer to maintain a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 808 See paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where it maintains a customer reserve account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 809 See paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. This provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–3, which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank where it maintains a ‘‘Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.’’ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3– 3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 807 See PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70291 of the Exchange Act that is not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets conditions that are largely identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing agency account. Finally, paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD, among other things, to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers separate from any other bank account of the SBSD.810 The term special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers would be defined under paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 to mean an account at a bank that is not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets conditions that are largely identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing agency account and qualified SBSD account.811 Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in a Rule 18a–4 Customer Reserve Account, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 18a–4.812 The formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4 is modeled on the formula in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3– 3.813 Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the computations necessary to determine the amount required to be maintained in the special bank account must be made daily as of the close of the previous business day and any deposit required to be made into the account must be made on the next business day following the computation no later than 1 hour after the opening of the bank that maintains the account.814 B. Proposed Use of Information As discussed more fully above, the Commission and SROs, as applicable, would use the information collected under new Rules 18a–1, 18a–2, 18a–3 and 18a–4, as well as the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 to determine whether an SBSD, MSBSP, or ANC broker-dealer, as applicable, is in compliance with each applicable rule and to help fulfill their oversight responsibilities. The 810 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a– 4. The provisions of paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–1 are modeled on paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 811 See paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. See also Section II.C.1. of this release for a more detailed description of the proposed requirements. 812 See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4; Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. 813 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. 814 See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new rule 18a–4. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70292 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules collections of information would also help to ensure that SBSD, MSBSPs and broker-dealers are meeting their obligations under the proposed rules and rule amendments and have the required policies and procedures in place. Proposed new Rules 18a–1 and 18a– 2, as well as the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would be integral parts of the Commission’s financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs, and ANC broker-dealers, respectively. Proposed Rule 18a–1 and Rule 15c3–1 are designed to ensure that nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers (including broker-dealer SBSDs), respectively, have sufficient liquidity to meet all unsubordinated obligations to customers and counterparties and, consequently, if the SBSD or brokerdealer fails, sufficient resources to wind-down in an orderly manner without the need for a formal proceeding. The collections of information in proposed new Rule 18a– 1, Rule 18a–2 and the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would facilitate the monitoring of the financial condition of nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs and broker-dealers by the Commission. Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would prescribe, among other things, requirements for nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral with regard to noncleared security-based swap transactions. Under proposed Rule 18a– 3, a nonbank SBSD would be required to establish and implement risk monitoring procedures with respect to counterparty accounts.815 The purpose of the proposed rule is to limit risks to individual firms and systemic risk arising from non-cleared security-based swaps. The collections of information in proposed Rule 18a–3 would assist examiners in determining whether SBSDs are in compliance with requirements in the rule. Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would establish segregation requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., they would apply to bank SBSDs, nonbank standalone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs), as well as establish notice requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would be an integral part of the Commission’s financial responsibility program for SBSDs. Its purpose is to protect the rights of security-based swap customers and their ability to promptly obtain their property from an SBSD. The collection of information requirements in the 815 See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 proposed new rule would facilitate the process by which the Commission monitors how SBSDs are fulfilling their custodial responsibilities to SBSD customers. Proposed Rule 18a–4 also would require that an SBSD provide certain notices to counterparties.816 These notices would alert counterparties to the alternatives available to them with respect to segregation of non-cleared securitybased swaps. The Commission staff would use this new collection of information in its examination and oversight program. C. Respondents Consistent with the Entity Definitions Adopting Release, the Commission staff estimates that 50 or fewer entities ultimately may have to register with the Commission as SBSDs.817 In addition, consistent with the Entity Definitions Adopting Release, based on available data regarding the single-name credit default swap market—which the Commission believes will comprise the majority of security-based swaps—the Commission staff estimates that the number of MSBSPs likely will be five or fewer and, in actuality, may be zero.818 Therefore, to capture the likely number of MSBSPs that may be subject to the collections of information for purposes of this PRA, the Commission staff estimates for purposes of this PRA that 5 entities will register with the Commission as MSBSPs. Accordingly, for the purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates there are 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs respondents. 816 See paragraphs (a) and (c) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 817 Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30725. This estimate—which potentially overstates the number of potential entities that ultimately have to register with the Commission as SBSDs—is consistent with the data regarding activities and positions of participants in the single-name credit default swap market summarized in a memorandum of the Commission staff. See Memorandum (Mar. 15, 2012), available at https://www.sec.gov/ comments/s7-39-10/s73910-154.pdf (‘‘CDS Data Analysis’’). Depending on the final capital requirements as well as other requirements for SBSDs and how businesses choose to respond to such requirements, the actual number of SBSDs may be significantly fewer. See Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major-Security Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 64766 (June 29, 2011), 76 FR 42396, 42442 (July 18, 2011) (‘‘Business Conduct Release’’). See also SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR at 65808. 818 Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30727, 30729. The number of MSBSPs likely will depend on the final capital requirements and other requirements for MSBSPs and how businesses choose to respond to such requirements. See Business Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42442. See also SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR at 65808. PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The Commission previously estimated that 16 broker-dealers would likely seek to register as SBSDs.819 The Commission is retaining this estimate for purposes of this release.820 Accordingly, for the purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates there are 16 broker-dealer SBSDs. Because proposed Rules 18a–1 and 18a–3 would apply only to nonbank SBSDs, including nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies the Federal Reserve regulates, the number of respondents subject to these proposed rules would be less than the 50 entities expected to register with the Commission as an SBSD, as many of the dealers that currently engage in OTC derivative activities are banks, and would therefore be ‘‘bank SBSDs.’’ 821 Because the Commission staff estimates that 16 broker-dealers would likely register as SBSDs, there would be an estimated maximum of 34 bank SBSDs.822 However, because of business planning purposes, risk management purposes, potential regulatory requirements, or other reasons, some of these entities would likely register with the Commission as nonbank stand-alone SBSDs. Therefore, as stated above, because many of the dealers that currently engage in OTC derivatives activities are banks, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 75% of the maximum estimated bank SBSDs will register as bank SBSDs, and the remainder (approximately 25%) will register as stand-alone nonbank SBSDs. As a result, for purposes of the reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 9 entities will register as stand-alone SBSDs.823 Therefore, for purposes of the reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates 819 See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR at 65808. No comments were received on this estimate. 820 Id. 821 See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012 (May 2012), at Appendix 1, available at https:// www2.isda.org/functional-areas/research/surveys/ margin-surveys/ (‘‘ISDA Margin Survey 2012’’). ISDA is a global trade association for OTC derivatives. The ISDA margin survey is conducted annually to examine the state of collateral use and management among derivatives dealers and endusers. See id.; ISDA Margin Survey 2011, available at https://www2.isda.org/functional-areas/research/ surveys/margin-surveys/ (‘‘ISDA Margin Survey 2011’’). Appendix 1 to the survey lists firms that responded to the survey including the largest dealer banks. See ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at Appendix 1; ISDA Margin Survey 2011 at Appendix 1. See also Economic Analysis in section V.A. of this release (discussing overview of OTC derivatives market). 822 50 SBSDs¥16 broker-dealer SBSDs = 34 maximum estimated bank SBSDs. 823 34 maximum estimated bank SBSDs × 25% = 8.5, rounded to 9 stand-alone nonbank SBSDs. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules that approximately 25 nonbank SBSDs would be subject to Rules 18a–1 and 18a–3.824 Of the 9 stand-alone SBSDs, the Commission staff estimates that, based on its experience with ANC brokerdealers and OTC derivatives dealers, the majority of stand-alone SBSDs would apply to use internal models.825 Consequently, the Commission is estimating that 6 of the 9 stand-alone SBSDs would apply to use internal models under Rule 18a–1. Because the Commission staff estimates that 6 standalone SBSDs would apply to the Commission to use internal models, the Commission staff estimates that three stand-alone SBSDs would not use models.826 For purposes of estimating the number of respondents with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, the Commission staff estimates that there would be 10 respondents currently subject to the collection of information as it relates to Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.827 Finally, because the Commission staff estimates that 10 of the broker-dealers registered as SBSDs would be ANC broker-dealers, the Commission staff estimates that 6 broker-dealers registered as SBSDs would not use internal models.828 Type of respondent Number of respondents emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 SBSDs .................................... Bank SBSDs ........................... Nonbank SBSDs ..................... Broker-Dealer SBSDs ............. Stand-Alone SBSD ................. ANC Broker-Dealer SBSDs .... Broker-Dealer SBSDs (Not Using Models) ..................... Stand-Alone SBSDs (Using Models) ............................... Stand-Alone SBSDs (Not Using Models) ..................... Nonbank MSBSPs .................. 50 25 25 16 9 10 6 6 3 5 824 16 broker-dealer SBSDs + 9 stand-alone SBSDs = 25 nonbank SBSDs. 825 See section II.A.2.a.iii. of this release (discussing minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs); section II.A.2.b.iii. of this release (discussing the use of VaR models). VaR models, while more risk sensitive than standardized haircuts, tend to substantially reduce the amount of the deductions to tentative net capital in comparison to the standardized haircuts because the models recognize more offsets between related positions than the standardized haircuts. Therefore, the Commission expects that stand-alone SBSDs that have the capability to use internal models to calculate net capital would chose to do so. 826 9 stand-alone SBSDs¥6 stand-alone SBSDs using internal models = 3 stand-alone SBSDs not using models. 827 These 10 broker-dealer respondents likely would also register as SBSDs because these entities are expected to engage in a broad range of activities. 828 16 broker-dealers registered as SBSDs¥10 ANC broker-dealer SBSDs = 6 broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal models. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 The Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of these estimates of the number of respondents. Commenters should provide specific data and analysis to support any comments they submit with respect to the number of respondents, including identifying any sources of industry information that could be used to estimate the number of respondents. D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden 1. Proposed Rule 18a–1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3–1 Proposed Rule 18a–1 and the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would have collection of information requirements that result in one-time and annual hour burdens for nonbank SBSDs and ANC broker-dealers. The estimates in this section are based in part on the Commission’s experience with burden estimates for similar collections of information requirements, including the current collection of information requirements for Rule 15c3–1.829 First, under paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–1, the Commission is proposing that a stand-alone SBSD be required to file an application for authorization to compute net capital using internal models.830 The requirements for the application would be set forth in paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–1, which is modeled on the application requirements of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.831 ANC brokerdealers—the number of which would include broker-dealer SBSDs that seek to use internal models—currently are subject to this application requirement. Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the proposed requirements of paragraph (d) of Rule 18a–1 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens for stand-alone SBSDs.832 Based on its experience with ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers, the Commission expects that stand-alone SBSDs that apply to the Commission to use internal models to 829 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. broker-dealer SBSD seeking Commission authorization to use internal models to compute market and credit risk charges would apply under the existing provisions of Appendix E to Rule 15c3– 1, which apply to ANC broker-dealers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e. 831 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a) and paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–1. Consequently, the Commission is using the current collection of information for Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 as a basis for this new collection of information. 832 The requirements that would be imposed on paragraphs (d) and (e) of proposed Rule 18a–1 are consistent with the requirements of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. 830 A PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70293 calculate net capital will already have developed models to calculate market and credit risk and will already have developed internal risk management control systems. On the other hand, the Commission notes that proposed Rule 18a–1 contains additional requirements that stand-alone SBSDs may not yet have incorporated into their models and control systems.833 Therefore, standalone SBSDs would incur one-time hour burdens and start-up costs in order to develop their VaR models in accordance with the requirements of proposed Rule 18a–1, as well as to submit such models along with its application under paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–1 to the Commission for approval. These estimates are based on currently approved PRA estimates for the ANC firms and OTC derivatives dealers.834 While these estimates are averages, the burdens may vary depending on the size and complexity of each stand-alone SBSD. The Commission staff estimates that each of the 6 stand-alone nonbank SBSDs that apply to use the internal models would spend approximately 1,000 hours to develop and submit its VaR model and the description of its risk management control system to the Commission as well as to create and compile the various documents to be included with the application and to work with the Commission staff through the application process.835 This includes approximately 100 hours for an in-house attorney to complete a review of the application.836 Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the total burden associated with the application process for the stand-alone SBSDs would result in an industry-wide onetime hour burden of approximately 6,000 hours.837 In addition, the Commission staff allocated 75% (4,500 hours) of these one-time burden hours 838 to internal burden and the 833 See sections II.A.2.b.iii., II.A.2.c., and II.A.2.d. of this release (describing requirements for VaR models and other requirements under proposed Rule 18a–1 for stand-alone SBSDs). 834 See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362; Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34452. 835 This estimate is based on the current hour burdens under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. 836 Id. See also OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940; Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34452. 837 6 stand-alone SBSDs × 1,000 hours = 6,000 hours. 838 The internal hours likely would be performed by an in-house attorney (1,500 hours), a risk management specialist (1,500 hours), and compliance manager (1,500 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((in-house attorney for E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70294 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 remaining 25% (1,500 hours) to external burden to hire outside professionals to assist in preparing and reviewing the stand-alone SBSD’s application for submission to the Commission.839 The Commission staff estimates $400 per hour for external costs for retaining outside consultants, resulting in a onetime industry-wide external cost of $600,000.840 The Commission staff estimates that a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models would spend approximately 5,600 hours per year to review and update the models and approximately 160 hours each quarter, or approximately 640 hours per year, to backtest the models.841 Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the total burden associated with reviewing and back-testing the models for the 6 stand-alone SBSDs would result in an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 37,440 hours per year.842 In addition, the Commission staff has allocated 75% (28,080) 843 of these burden hours to internal burden and the remaining 25% (9,360) to external burden to hire outside professionals to assist in reviewing, updating and backtesting the models.844 The 1,500 hours at $378 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 1,500 hours at $259 per hour) + (compliance manager for 1,500 hours at $279 per hour)) = $1,374,000. The hourly rates use for internal professionals used throughout this section IV. of the release are taken from SIFMA’s Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2011, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. 839 6,000 hours × .75 = 4,500 hours; 6,000 hours × .25 = 1,500 hours. This allocation is based on the Commission’s experience in implementing the ANC rules for broker-dealers. Larger firms tend to perform these tasks in-house due to the proprietary nature of these models as well as the high fixedcosts in hiring an outside consultant. However, smaller firms may need to hire an outside consultant to perform certain of these tasks. 840 1,500 hours × $400 per hour = $600,000. See PRA Analysis in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48334 (providing an estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside attorney). See also Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 64514 (May 18, 2011) 76 FR 33430, 33504 (June 8, 2012) (providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage outside attorneys and outside professionals). 841 These hour burdens are consistent with the current hour burdens under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 for ANC broker-dealers. 842 6 Stand-alone SBSDs × [5,600 hours + 640 hours] = 37,440 hours. 843 These functions likely would be performed by a risk management specialist (14,040 hours) and a senior compliance examiner (14,040 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((risk management specialist for 14,040 hours at $259 per hour) + (senior compliance examiner for 14,040 hours at $230 per hour)) = $6,865,560. 844 37,440 hours × .75 = 28,080; 37,440 hours × .25 = 9,360 hours. This allocation is based on the Commission’s experience in implementing the ANC VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Commission staff estimates $400 per hour for external costs for retaining outside professionals, resulting in an industry-wide external cost of $3.7 million annually.845 Stand-alone SBSDs electing to file an application with the Commission to use a VaR model will incur start-up costs including information technology costs to comply with proposed Rule 18a–1. Because each stand-alone SBSD’s information technology systems may be in varying stages of readiness to enable these firms to meet the requirements of the proposed rules, the cost of modifying their information technology systems could vary significantly. Based on the estimates for the ANC brokerdealers,846 it is expected that a standalone SBSD would incur an average of approximately $8.0 million to modify its information technology systems to meet the VaR requirements of the proposed new Rule 18a–1, for a total one-time industry-wide cost of $48 million.847 Second, under paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–1 and proposed new paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3–1, standalone SBSDs that are approved to use models to compute deductions for market and credit risk under Rule 18a– 1 and ANC broker-dealers would be subject to liquidity stress test requirements. The Commission staff estimates that the proposed requirements resulting from these provisions would result in a one-time burden to applicable stand-alone SBSDs and ANC broker-dealers as they would need to develop models for the liquidity stress test, document the results of the test to provide to senior management, document differences in the assumptions used in the liquidity stress test of the firm from those used in a consolidated entity of which the firm is a part, and develop a written contingency funding plan.848 Based on experience supervising ANC brokerrules for broker-dealers. Larger firms tend to perform these tasks in-house due to the proprietary nature of these models as well as the high fixedcosts in hiring an outside consultant. However, smaller firms may need to hire an outside consultant to perform these tasks. 845 9,360 hours × $400 per hour = $3,744,000. See PRA Analysis in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48334 (providing an estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside attorney). See also Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, 76 FR at 33504 (providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage outside attorneys and outside professionals). 846 Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 847 6 stand-alone SBSDs × $8 million = $48 million. 848 See section II.A.2.d. of this release (discussing liquidity stress test and written contingency funding plan). PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 dealers,849 the Commission staff estimates that each of the 6 stand-alone SBSDs and 10 ANC broker-dealers would spend an average of approximately 200 hours to comply with these requirements, resulting in an average industry-wide one-time internal hour burden of approximately 3,200 hours.850 In terms of annual hour burden, the Commission staff estimates that a standalone SBSD or ANC broker-dealer would spend an average of approximately 50 hours 851 per month testing and documenting the results of its liquidity stress test and reviewing its contingency funding plan, resulting in a total industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 9,600 hours.852 Third, under paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4 (except for certain provisions of that rule) as if it were an OTC derivatives dealer.853 ANC brokerdealers currently are required to comply with Rule 15c3–4.854 Nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4, which requires the establishment of a risk management 849 Based on Commission staff experience supervising the ANC broker-dealers, all of the ANC broker-dealers that are part of a holding company generally have a written contingency funding plan, generally at the holding company level. This proposed rule would require that each ANC brokerdealer and stand-alone SBSD using internal models maintain a written contingency funding plan at the entity level (in addition to any holding company plan). Therefore, the proposed hour burdens are averages for all firms, including the ANC brokerdealers, which may already conduct these activities within their organizations, and smaller firms, including stand-alone broker-dealers which may not currently undertake these proposed activities. 850 [10 ANC broker-dealers + 6 stand-alone SBSDs] × 200 hours = 3,200 hours. Based on Commission staff experience supervising the ANC broker-dealers, the Commission staff expects that these functions would likely be performed internally by an in-house attorney (1,600 hours) and a risk management specialist (1,600). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((in-house attorney for 1,600 hours at $378 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 1,600 hours at $259 per hour)) = $1,019,200. 851 This PRA estimate is based, in part, on the 160 hours per quarter it would take an ANC brokerdealer to review and backtest its models under the current collection of information in Rule 15c3–1. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34452. 852 [6 Stand-alone SBSDs + 10 ANC brokerdealers] × 50 hours × 12 months = 9,600 hours. These functions would be performed by a senior compliance examiner (4,800 hours) and a risk management specialist (4,800 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((senior compliance examiner for 4,800 hours at $230 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 4,800 hours at $259 per hour)) = $2,347,200. 853 See paragraph (g) to proposed new Rule 18a– 1. 854 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(iii). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 control system.855 The Commission adopted Rule 15c3–4 in 1998 as part of the OTC derivatives dealer oversight program.856 The rule requires an OTC derivatives dealer to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with its business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.857 It also requires OTC derivatives dealers to establish, document, and maintain procedures designed to prevent the firm from engaging in securities activities that are not permitted by OTC derivatives dealers pursuant to Rule 15a–1.858 Rule 15c3–4 identifies a number of elements that must be part of an OTC derivatives dealer’s internal risk management control system.859 These include, for example, that the system have: • A risk control unit that reports directly to senior management and is independent from business trading units; 860 • Separation of duties between personnel responsible for entering into a transaction and those responsible for recording the transaction in the books and records of the OTC derivatives dealer; 861 • Periodic reviews (which may be performed by internal audit staff) and annual reviews (which must be conducted by independent certified public accountants) of the OTC derivatives dealer’s risk management systems; 862 and • Definitions of risk, risk monitoring, and risk management.863 Rule 15c3–4 further provides that the elements of the internal risk management control system must include written guidelines, approved by the OTC derivatives dealer’s governing body, that discuss a number of matters, including for example: • Quantitative guidelines for managing the OTC derivatives dealer’s overall risk exposure; 864 • The type, scope, and frequency of reporting by management on risk exposures; 865 855 See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1 (17 CFR 240.15c3–1); paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 856 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. 857 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 858 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4; 17 CFR 240.15a–1. 859 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c). 860 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(1). 861 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(2). 862 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(3). 863 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(4). 864 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(iii). 865 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(iv). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 • The procedures for and the timing of the governing body’s periodic review of the risk monitoring and risk management written guidelines, systems, and processes; 866 • The process for monitoring risk independent of the business or trading units whose activities create the risks being monitored; 867 • The performance of the risk management function by persons independent from or senior to the business or trading units whose activities create the risks; 868 • The authority and resources of the groups or persons performing the risk monitoring and risk management functions; 869 • The appropriate response by management when internal risk management guidelines have been exceeded; 870 • The procedures to monitor and address the risk that an OTC derivatives transaction contract will be unenforceable; 871 • The procedures requiring the documentation of the principal terms of OTC derivatives transactions and other relevant information regarding such transactions; 872 and • The procedures authorizing specified employees to commit the OTC derivatives dealer to particular types of transactions.873 Rule 15c3–4 also requires management to periodically review, in accordance with the written procedures, the business activities of the OTC derivatives dealer for consistency with risk management guidelines.874 Based on the nature of the written guidelines described above, the Commission staff estimates that the requirement to comply with Rule 15c3– 4 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens to nonbank SBSDs. The Commission staff estimates that the average amount of time a firm would spend implementing its risk management control system would be 2,000 hours,875 resulting in an industrywide one-time hour burden of 30,000 866 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(v). 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(vi). 868 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(vii). 869 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(viii). 870 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(ix). 871 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(x). 872 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(xi). 873 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(5)(xii). 874 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(d). 875 This estimates is based on the one-time burden estimated for an OTC derivatives dealer to implement is controls under Rule 15c3–1. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940. This also is included in the current PRA estimate for Rule 15c3–4. 867 See PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70295 hours across the 15 nonbank SBSDs not already subject to Rule 15c3–4.876 The proposed rule would require a nonbank SBSD to consider a number of issues affecting its business environment when creating its risk management control system. For example, a nonbank SBSD would need to consider, among other things, the sophistication and experience of relevant trading, risk management, and internal audit personnel, as well as the separation of duties among these personnel, when designing and implementing its internal control system’s guidelines, policies, and procedures. This would help to ensure that the control system that is implemented would adequately address the risks posed by the firm’s business and the environment in which it is being conducted. In addition, this would enable a nonbank SBSD derivatives dealer to implement specific policies and procedures unique to its circumstances. In implementing its policies and procedures, a nonbank SBSD would be required to document and record its system of internal risk management controls. In particular, a nonbank SBSD would be required to document its consideration of certain issues affecting its business when designing its internal controls. A nonbank SBSD would also be required to prepare and maintain written guidelines that discuss its internal control system, including procedures for determining the scope of authorized activities. The Commission staff estimates that each of these 15 nonbank SBSDs 877 would spend approximately 250 hours per year reviewing and updating their risk management control systems to comply with Rule 15c3–4, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 3,750 hours.878 876 25 nonbank SBSDs—10 ANC broker-dealer SBSDs = 15 nonbank SBSDs. 15 nonbank SBSDs × 2,000 hours = 30,000 hours. This number is incremental to the current collection of information for Rule 15c3–1 with regard to complying with the provisions of Rule 15c3–4 and, therefore, excludes the 10 respondents included in the collection of information for that rule. These hours would likely be performed by a combination of an in-house attorney (10,000 hours), a risk management specialist (10,000 hours), and an operations specialist (10,000 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((in-house attorney for 10,000 hours at $378 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 10,000 hours at $259 per hour) + (operations specialist for 10,000 hours at $117 per hour)) = $7,540,000. 877 25 nonbank SBSDs¥10 ANC broker-dealer/ SBSDs = 15 nonbank SBSDs. 878 15 nonbank SBSDs × 250 hours = 3,750 hours. These hour burden estimates are consistent with similar collections of information under Appendix E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70296 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Nonbank SBSDs may incur start-up costs to comply with the provisions of Rule 15c3–4 incorporated into proposed Rule 18a–1, including information technology costs. The information technology systems of nonbank SBSDs may be in varying stages of readiness to enable these firms to meet the requirements of the proposed rules so the cost of modifying their information technology systems could vary significantly. Based on the estimates for similar collections of information,879 it is expected that a nonbank SBSDs would incur an average of approximately $16,000 for initial hardware and software expenses, while the average ongoing cost would be approximately $20,500 per nonbank SBSD to meet the requirements of the proposed new Rule 18a–1, for a total industry-wide initial cost of $240,000 and ongoing cost of $307,500 per year.880 Fourth, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1, broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs not using models would be required to use an industry sector classification system that is documented and reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics used for credit default swap reference obligors for purposes of calculating ‘‘haircuts’’ on security-based swaps under applicable net capital rules. As discussed above, the Commission staff estimates that 6 broker-dealer SBSDs and 3 nonbank SBSDs not using models would utilize the credit default swap haircut provisions under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1, respectively. Consequently, these firms would use an industry sector classification system that is documented for the credit default swap reference obligors. The Commission expects that these firms would utilize external classifications systems because of reduced costs and ease of use as a result of the common usage of several of these classification systems in the financial services industry. The Commission staff estimates that nonbank SBSDs not using E to Rule 15c3–1. These hours likely would be performed by a risk management specialist. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Risk management specialist for 3,750 hours at $259 per hour = $971,250. 879 Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, Exchange Act Release No. 63421 (Nov. 3, 2010), 75 FR 69792, 69814 (Nov. 15, 2010). 880 15 nonbank SBSDs × $16,000 = $240,000; 15 nonbank SBSDs × $20,500 =$307,500. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 models would spend approximately 1 hour per year documenting these industry sectors, for a total annual hour burden of 9 hours.881 Fifth, under paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a–1, a nonbank SBSD would be required to file certain notices with the Commission relating to the withdrawal of equity capital.882 Brokerdealers—which would include brokerdealer SBSDs—currently are required to file these notices under paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–1.883 The Commission staff estimates that the notice requirements would result in annual hour burdens to stand-alone SBSDs. The Commission staff estimates that each of the 9 standalone SBSDs would file approximately 2 notices annually with the Commission.884 In addition, the Commission staff estimates that it would take a stand-alone SBSD approximately 30 minutes to file these notices, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of 4.5 hours.885 Finally, under Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1, a nonbank SBSD would be required to file a proposed subordinated loan agreement with the Commission (including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements).886 Broker-dealers—which would include broker-dealer SBSDs— currently are subject to such a requirement. The Commission staff estimates this proposed requirement would result in one-time and annual hour burdens for stand-alone SBSDs. Based on staff experience with Rule 15c3–1, the Commission staff estimates that each of the 9 stand-alone SBSDs would spend approximately 20 hours of internal employee resources drafting or updating its subordinated loan agreement template to comply with the 881 (3 nonbank SBSDs not using models × 1 hour) + (6 broker-dealer SBSDs × 1 hour) = 9 hours. This function would likely be performed by an internal compliance attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Internal compliance attorney for 9 hours at $322 per hour = $2,898. 882 See proposed new Rule 18a–1(i). 883 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(e). 884 This estimate is based on the number of notices currently filed by broker-dealers under the current collection of information under Rule 15c3– 1. 885 [9 stand-alone SBSDs × 2 notices] × 30 minutes = 4.5 hours. This estimate is based on the 30 minutes it is estimated to take a broker-dealer to file a similar notice under Rule 15c3–1. The Commission believes the stand-alone SBSDs would likely perform these functions internally using an internal compliance attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Internal compliance attorney for 4.5 hours at $322 per hour = $1,449. 886 See proposed new paragraph (c)(5) to proposed Rule 18a–1. Broker-dealer SBSDs would be subject to the provisions of Appendix D to Rule 15c3–1. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d. PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 proposed requirement, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 180 hours.887 In addition, based on staff experience with Rule 15c3–1, the Commission staff estimates that each stand-alone SBSD would file 1 proposed subordinated loan agreement with the Commission per year and that it would take a firm approximately 10 hours to prepare and file the agreement, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 90 hours.888 2. Proposed Rule 18a–2 Proposed new Rule 18a–2 would establish capital requirements for nonbank MSBSPs.889 In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required at all times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.890 Because MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage in a substantial security-based swap business, under the proposed rules, they would be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4,891 which requires OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with their business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.892 The Commission staff estimates that the requirement to comply with Rule 15c3–4 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens to nonbank MSBSPs. The Commission staff estimates that the average amount of time a firm would spend implementing its risk management control system would be 2,000 hours,893 resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of 10,000 hours.894 887 9 stand-alone SBSDs × 20 hours = 180 hours. This function would likely be performed by an inhouse attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: in-house attorney for 180 hours at $378 per hour = $68,040. 888 9 stand-alone SBSDs × 1 loan agreement × 10 hours = 90 hours. This function would likely be performed by an in-house attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: In-house attorney for 90 hours at $378 per hour = $34,020. 889 See proposed new Rule 18a–2. 890 See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 891 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 892 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 893 This estimate is based on the one-time burden estimated for an OTC derivatives dealer to implement is controls under Rule 15c3–1. OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940. This also is included in the current PRA estimate for Rule 15c3–4. 894 5 MSBSPs × 2,000 hours = 10,000 hours. These hours would likely be performed by a combination of an internal compliance attorney (3,333.33 hours), a risk management specialist (3,333.33 hours), and an operations specialist E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The proposed rule would require a nonbank MSBSP to consider a number of issues affecting its business environment when creating its risk management control system. For example, a nonbank MSBSP would need to consider, among other things, the sophistication and experience of relevant trading, risk management, and internal audit personnel, as well as the separation of duties among these personnel, when designing and implementing its internal control system’s guidelines, policies, and procedures. This would help to ensure that the control system that is implemented would adequately address the risks posed by the firm’s business and the environment in which it is being conducted. In addition, this would enable a nonbank MSBSP to implement specific policies and procedures unique to its circumstances. In implementing its policies and procedures, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to document and record its system of internal risk management controls. In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to document its consideration of certain issues affecting its business when designing its internal controls. A nonbank MSBSP would also be required to prepare and maintain written guidelines that discuss its internal control system, including procedures for determining the scope of authorized activities. The Commission staff estimates that each of the 5 MSBSPs would spend approximately 250 hours per year reviewing and updating their risk management control systems to comply with Rule 15c3–4, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,250 hours.895 Because nonbank MSBSPs may not initially have the systems or expertise internally to meet the risk management requirements of proposed new Rule 18a–2, these firms would likely hire an outside risk management consultant to assist them in implementing their risk management systems. The Commission staff estimates that a nonbank MSBSP may hire an outside management (3,333.33 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((internal compliance attorney for 3,333.33 hours at $322 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 3,333.33 hours at $259 per hour) + (operations specialist for 3,333.33 hours at $117 per hour)) = $2,326,664.34. 895 5 MSBSPs × 250 hours = 1,250 hours. These hour burden estimates are consistent with similar collections of information under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1. These hours would likely be performed by a risk management specialist. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Risk management specialist for 1,250 hours at $259 per hour = $323,750. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 consultant for approximately 200 hours to assist the firm for a total start-up cost to the nonbank MSBSP of $80,000 per MSBSP, or a total of $400,000 for all nonbank MSBSPs.896 Nonbank MSBSPs may incur start-up costs to comply with proposed Rule 18a–2, including information technology costs. The information technology systems of a nonbank MSBSP may be in varying stages of readiness to enable these firms to meet the requirements of the proposed rules so the cost of modifying their information technology systems could vary significantly. Based on the estimates for similar collections of information,897 the Commission staff expects that a nonbank MSBSP would incur an average of approximately $16,000 for initial hardware and software expenses, while the average ongoing cost would be approximately $20,500 per nonbank MSBSP to meet the requirements of the proposed new Rule 18a–2, for a total industry-wide initial cost of $80,000 and ongoing cost of $102,500.898 3. Proposed Rule 18a–3 Proposed paragraph (e) of new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to establish and implement risk monitoring procedures with respect to counterparty accounts.899 Therefore, paragraph (e) to proposed Rule 18a–3 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens for nonbank SBSDs. In this regard, nonbank SBSDs would need to develop a comprehensive written risk analysis methodology for assessing the potential risk to the firm over a specified range of possible market movements over a specified time period that would meet the requirements of the rule. Because these firms would already be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4,900 the Commission staff estimates that each of the 25 nonbank SBSDs would spend an average of approximately 210 hours establishing the written risk analysis methodology, resulting in an industrywide one-time hour burden of 896 5 nonbank MSBSPs × $80,000 = $400,000. See also PRA Analysis in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48344 (providing an estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside attorney); Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, 76 FR at 33504 (providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage outside attorneys and outside professionals). 897 Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, 75 FR at 69814. 898 5 nonbank MSBSPs × $16,000 = $80,000; 5 nonbank MSBSPs × $20,500 = $102,500. 899 See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. 900 See section II.A.2.c. of this release (describing risk management provisions of Rule 15c3–4). PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70297 approximately 5,250 hours.901 In addition, based on staff experience, the Commission staff estimates that a nonbank SBSD would spend an average of approximately 60 hours per year reviewing the written risk analysis methodology and updating it as necessary, resulting in an average industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,500 hours.902 The 25 respondents subject to the collection of information may incur start-up costs in order to comply with this collection of information. These costs may vary depending on the size and complexity of the nonbank SBSD. In addition, the start-up costs may be less for the 16 nonbank SBSD respondents also registered as brokerdealers because these firms may already be subject to similar requirements with respect to other margin rules.903 For the remaining 9 nonbank SBSDs, because these written procedures may be novel undertakings for these firms, the Commission staff assumes these nonbank SBSDs would have their written risk analysis methodology reviewed by outside counsel. As a result, the Commission staff estimates that these nonbank SBSDs would likely incur $2,000 in legal costs, or $18,000 in the aggregate initial burden to review and comment on these materials.904 4. Proposed Rule 18a–4 Under proposed new Rule 18a–4, SBSDs would be required to establish special accounts with banks and obtain written acknowledgements from, and 901 25 nonbank SBSDs × 210 hours = 5,250 hours. See generally Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, 76 FR at 14510 (estimating 210 one-time burden hours and 60 annual hours to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit a clearing agency’s credit exposures to participants in normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set and review margin requirements.). These hours would likely be performed internally by an assistant general counsel (1,750 hours), a compliance attorney (1,750 hours), and a risk management specialist (1,750 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((assistant general counsel for 1,750 hours at $407 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 1,750 hours at $259 per hour) + (compliance attorney for 1,750 hours at $322 per hour)) = $1,729,000. 902 25 stand-alone SBSDs × 60 hours = 1,500 hours. These hours would likely be performed by a compliance attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Compliance attorney for 1,500 hours at $322 per hour = $483,000. 903 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210 and 4240. See also Business Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42445 (noting burden for paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 15Fh–3 is based on existing FINRA rules). 904 The Commission staff estimates the review of the written risk analysis methodology would require 5 hours of outside counsel time at a cost of $400 per hour. See also Business Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42445. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70298 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 enter into written contracts with, the banks. These special accounts would include: (1) The qualified clearing agency account under paragraph (a)(3); (2) the qualified SDSD account under paragraph (a)(4); and the special account for the exclusive benefit of securitybased swap customers under paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a–4, (collectively, the ‘‘special accounts’’). Based on staff experience with Rule 15c3–3, the Commission staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs would establish six special accounts at banks (two for each type of special account). Further, based on staff experience with Rule 15c3–3, the Commission staff estimates that each SBSD would spend approximately 30 hours to draft and obtain the written acknowledgement and agreement for each account, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 9,000 hours.905 The Commission staff estimates that 25% 906 of the 50 SBSDs or approximately 13 would establish a new special account each year because, for example, they change their banking relationship, for each type of special account. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,170 hours.907 Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in a special account, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 18a–4,908 modeled on the formula in Appendix A to Rule 15c3–3. Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would provide that the computations necessary to determine the amount required to be maintained in the special bank account must be made on a daily basis. Variation in size and complexity between these SBSDs would make it very difficult to develop a meaningful figure for the amount of time required to calculate each reserve computation. Based on experience with the Rule 15c3–3 reserve computation 905 50 SBSDs × 6 special accounts × 30 hours = 9,000 hours. A compliance attorney would likely perform this function. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Compliance attorney for 9,000 hours at $322 per hour = $2,898,000. 906 This number is based on the currently approved PRA collection for Rule 15c3–3. 907 13 SBSDs × 3 types of special accounts × 30 hours = 1,170 hours. A compliance attorney would likely perform this function. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Compliance attorney for 1,170 hours at $322 per hour = $376,740. 908 See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 and Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 PRA burden hours and with the OTC derivatives industry, the Commission staff estimates that it would take between one and five hours to compute each reserve computation, and that the average time spent across all the SBSDs would be approximately 2.5 hours. Accordingly, the Commission staff estimates that the resulting annual hour burden for paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would be approximately 31,250 hours.909 Under paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4, an SBSD or an MSBSP would be required to provide a notice to a counterparty pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty occurring after the effective date of the proposed rule.910 All 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would be required to provide these notices to their counterparties. The Commission staff estimates that these 55 entities would engage outside counsel to draft and review the notice at a cost of $400 per hour for an average of 10 hours per respondent, resulting in a one-time cost burden of $220,000 for all of these 55 entities.911 The number of notices sent in the first year the rule is effective would depend on the number of counterparties with which each SBSD and MSBSP engages in security-based swap transactions. The number of counterparties an SBSD and MSBSP would have would vary depending on the size and complexity of the firm and its operations. The Commission staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would have approximately 1,000 counterparties at any given time.912 909 50 SBSDs × 250 business days × 2.5 hours/day = 31,250 hours. This task would likely be performed by a financial reporting manager. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Financial reporting manager for 31,250 hours at $309 per hour = $9,656,250. 910 See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 911 [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] × $400 per hour × 10 hours = $220,000. The Commission expects that these functions would likely be performed by outside counsel with an expertise in financial services law to help ensure that counterparties are receiving the proper notice under the statutory requirement. 912 The Commission previously estimated that there are approximately 8,500 market participants in security-based swap transactions. See Business Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42443. Based on the 8,500 market participants and Commission staff experience relative to the securities and OTC derivatives industry, the Commission staff estimates that each SBSD and MSBSP would have 1,000 counterparties at any given time. The number of counterparties may widely vary depending on the size of the SBSD or MSBSP. A large firm may have thousands or counterparties at one time, while a smaller firm may have substantially less than 1,000. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 55,000 notices would be sent in the first year the rule is effective.913 The Commission staff estimates that the each of the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would spend approximately 10 minutes sending out the notice, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 9,167 hours.914 The Commission staff further estimates that the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would establish account relationships with 200 new counterparties per year. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 11,000 notices would be sent annually,915 resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,833 hours.916 Under proposed new Rule 18a– 4(d)(2), an SBSD would be required to obtain agreements from counterparties that do not choose to require segregation of funds or other property pursuant to Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act or paragraph (c)(3) of Rule 18a–4 in which the counterparty agrees to subordinate all of its claims against the SBSD to the claims of security-based swap customers of the SBSD.917 The Commission staff estimates that an SBSD would spend, on average, approximately 200 hours to draft and prepare standard subordination agreements, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of 10,000 hours.918 Because the SBSD would enter into these agreements with The Commission staff also estimates, based on staff experience, that these entities would establish account relationships with approximately 200 new counterparties a year, or approximately 20% of a firm’s existing counterparties. 913 [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] × 1,000 counterparties = 55,000 notices. 914 (55,000 notices × 10 minutes)/60 minutes = 9,167 hours. A compliance clerk would likely send these notices. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: Compliance clerk for 9,167 hours at $60 per hour = $550,020. The hourly rates use for internal office employees used throughout this section are taken from SIFMA’s Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2011, modified by the Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. 915 [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] × 200 counterparties = 11,000 notices. 916 (11,000 notices × 10 minutes)/60 minutes = 1,833 hours. A compliance clerk would likely send these notices. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: compliance clerk for 1,833 hours at $60 per hour = $109,980. 917 See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 918 200 hours × 50 SBSDs = 10,000 hours. An inhouse attorney would likely draft these agreements because the Commission staff expects that drafting contracts would be one of the typical job functions of an in-house attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: In-house attorney for 10,000 hours at $378 per hour = $3,780,000. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules security-based swap customers, after the SBSD prepares a standard subordination agreement in-house, the Commission staff also estimates that an SBSD would have outside counsel a review the standard subordination agreements and that the review would take approximately 20 hours at a cost of approximately $400 per hour. As a result, the Commission staff estimates that each SBSD would incur one-time costs of approximately $8,000,919 resulting in an industry-wide one-time cost of approximately $400,000.920 As discussed above, the Commission staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs would have approximately 1,000 counterparties at any given time. The Commission staff further estimates that approximately 50% of these counterparties would either elect individual segregation or waive segregation altogether.921 The Commission staff estimates that an SBSD would spend 20 hours per counterparty to enter into a written subordination agreement, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 500,000 hours.922 Further, as discussed the Commission staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs would establish account relationships with 200 new counterparties per year. The Commission staff further estimates that 50% or 100 of these counterparties would either elect individual segregation or waive segregation altogether. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates an industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 100,000 hours.923 × 20 hours = $8,000. × 50 = $400,000. 921 Based on discussions with market participants, the Commission staff understands that many large buy-side financial end users currently ask for individual segregation and the Commission staff assumes that many of these end users will continue to do so. However, Commission staff believes that some smaller end users may not choose to incur additional cost that may come with individual segregation. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 50% of counterparties will either elect individual segregation or waiver segregation altogether. 922 50 SBSDs × 500 counterparties × 20 hours = 500,000 hours. These functions would likely be performed by a compliance attorney (250,000 hours) and a compliance clerk (250,000 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((compliance attorney for 250,000 hours at $322 per hour) + (compliance clerk for 250,000 hours at $60 per hour)) = $95,500,000. 923 50 SBSDs × 100 counterparties × 20 hours = 100,000 hours. These functions would likely be performed by a compliance attorney (50,000 hours) and a compliance clerk 50,000 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((compliance attorney for 50,000 hours at $322 per hour) + (compliance clerk for 50,000 hours at $60 per hour)) = $19,100,000. 919 $400 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 920 $8,000 VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 E. Collection of Information Is Mandatory The collections of information pursuant to the proposed amendments and new rules are mandatory, as applicable, for ANC broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs. F. Confidentiality The Commission expects to receive confidential information in connection with the proposed collections of information. To the extent that the Commission receives confidential information pursuant to these collections of information, the Commission is committed to protecting the confidentiality of such information to the extent permitted by law.924 G. Retention Period for Recordkeeping Requirements ANC broker-dealers are required to preserve for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, certain records required under Rule 15c3–4 and certain records under Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1.925 Rule 17a–4 specifies the required retention periods for a brokerdealer.926 Many of a broker-dealer’s records must be retained for three years; certain other records must be retained for longer periods.927 As noted above, the recordkeeping burdens with respect to some requirements in proposed new Rules 18a–1 through 18a–4 will be addressed in the SBSD and MSBSP recordkeeping requirements, which will the subject of a separate release. H. Request for Comment Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3306(c)(2)(B), the Commission requests comment on the proposed collections of information in order to: • Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 924 See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78 × (governing the public availability of information obtained by the Commission); 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. (Freedom of Information Act—‘‘FOIA’’). See also paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1(d). FOIA provides at least two pertinent exemptions under which the Commission has authority to withhold certain information. FOIA Exemption 4 provides an exemption for ‘‘trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). FOIA Exemption 8 provides an exemption for matters that are ‘‘contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). 925 See 17 CFR 17a–4(b)(9), (10), and (12). 926 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 927 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70299 whether the information would have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission’s estimates of the burden of the proposed collections of information; • Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct their comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090, and refer to File No. S7–08–12. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register; therefore, comments to OMB are best assured of having full effect if OMB receives them within 30 days of this publication. Requests for the materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7–08–12, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. V. Economic Analysis The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules. Some of these costs and benefits stem from statutory mandates, while others are affected by the discretion exercised in implementing the mandates. The following economic analysis seeks to identify and consider the benefits and costs—including the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation—that would result from the proposed capital, margin, and segregation rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs and from the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1. The costs and benefits considered in proposing these new rules and amendments are discussed below and have informed the policy choices described throughout this release. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70300 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules The Commission discusses below a baseline against which the rules may be evaluated. For the purposes of this economic analysis, the baseline is the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today prior to the effectiveness of the statutory and regulatory provisions that will govern these markets in the future pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. With respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, the baseline for purposes of this economic analysis is the current capital regime for broker-dealers under Rule 15c3–1.928 While the Commission does not have comprehensive information on the U.S. OTC derivatives markets, the Commission is using the limited data currently available in considering in this economic analysis the effects of the proposals, including their intended benefits and anticipated possible costs.929 Additionally, the Commission requests that commenters identify sources of data and information as well as provide data and information to assist the Commission in analyzing the economic consequences of the proposed rules. More generally, the Commission requests comment on all aspects of this initial economic analysis, including on whether the analysis has: (1) Identified all benefits and costs, including all effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation; (2) given due consideration to each benefit and cost, including each effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and (3) identified and considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed new rules and rule amendments. If these proposed rules and rule amendments are adopted, their benefits and costs would affect competition, efficiency, and capital formation in the security-based swap market broadly, with the impact not being limited to SBSDs and MSBSPs. Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act provides that whenever the Commission engages in rulemaking under the Exchange Act and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the Commission shall also consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.930 In addition, section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the 928 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. that is available for the purposes of this economic analysis includes an analysis of the market for single-name credit default swaps performed by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation. See CDS Data Analysis. 930 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Exchange Act, to consider the effect such rules would have on competition.931 Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.932 As discussed more fully in section II. above, the Commission is proposing: (1) Rules 18a–1 and 18a–2, and amendments to Rule 15c3–1, to establish capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs; (2) Rule 18a–3 to establish customer margin requirements applicable to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs for non-cleared security-based swaps; and (3) Rule 18a–4 to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and MSBSPs.933 Some of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would apply to broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs or MSBSPs to the extent that they hold positions in security-based swaps and swaps. The Commission also is proposing to amend Rule 15c3–1 to increase the minimum capital requirements for ANC brokerdealers. Finally, the Commission is proposing a liquidity requirement for ANC broker-dealers and for nonbank stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models to compute net capital. The sections below present an overview of the OTC derivatives markets, a discussion of the general costs and benefits of the proposed financial responsibility requirements, and a discussion of the costs and benefits of each proposed amendment and new rule. The sections that follow also incorporate a consideration of the potential effects of the proposed amendments and new rules on competition, efficiency, and capital formation. A. Baseline of Economic Analysis 1. Overview of the OTC Derivatives Markets—Baseline for Proposed Rules 18a–1 Through 18a–4 As stated above, to assess the costs and benefits of these rules, a baseline must be established against which the rules may be evaluated. For the purposes of this economic analysis, the baseline is the OTC derivatives 929 Information VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 931 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2). 932 Id. 933 The Commission is also proposing a conforming amendment to Rule 15c3–3 to clarify that broker-dealer SBSDs must comply with Rule 15c3–3 and Rule 18a–4, as applicable. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 markets 934 as they exist today prior to the effectiveness of the statutory and regulatory provisions that will govern these markets in the future pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.935 The markets as they exist today are dominated, both globally and domestically, by a small number of firms, generally entities affiliated with or within large commercial banks.936 The OTC derivatives markets have been described as opaque because, for example, transaction-level data about OTC derivatives trading generally is not publicly available.937 This economic analysis is supported, where possible, by data currently available to the Commission from The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation Trade Information Warehouse (‘‘DTCC–TIW’’). This evaluation takes into account data regarding the security-based swap market and especially data regarding the activity—including activity that may be suggestive of dealing behavior—of participants in the single-name credit default swap market.938 While a large segment of the security-based swap market is comprised of single-name credit default swaps, these derivatives do not comprise the entire securitybased swap market.939 Moreover, credit 934 OTC derivatives may include forwards, swaps and options on foreign exchange, and interest rate, equity and commodity derivatives. 935 The baseline, however, for amendments to Rule 15c3–1 is the current financial responsibility regime for broker-dealers under this rule. 936 See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012. 937 See Orice M. Williams, GAO, Systemic Risk: Regulatory Oversight and Recent Initiatives to Address Risk Posed by Credit Default Swaps at 2, 5, 27. See also Robert E. Litan, The Brookings Institution, The Derivatives Dealers’ Club and Derivatives Market Reform: A Guide for Policy Makers, Citizens and Other Interested Parties 15– 20 (Apr. 7, 2010), available at https:// www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/files/papers/ 2010/4/07%20derivatives%20litan/ 0407_derivatives_litan.pdf; Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 77306, 77354 (Dec. 10, 2010); IOSCO, The Credit Default Swap Market, Report FR05/12, (June 2012), available at https:// www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ IOSCOPD385.pdf (stating although the amount of public information on CDS has increased over recent years, the CDS market is still quite opaque). 938 The CDS Data Analysis provides reasonably comprehensive information regarding the credit default swap activities and positions of U.S. market participants, but the Commission notes that the data does not encompass those credit default swaps that both: (i) Do not involve U.S. counterparties; and (ii) are based on non-U.S. reference entities. Reliance on this data should not be interpreted to indicate our views as to the nature or extent of the application of Title VII to non-U.S. persons; instead, it is anticipated that issues regarding the extraterritorial application of Title VII will be addressed in a separate release. 939 In addition, it is reasonable to believe that the implementation of Title VII itself will change the security-based swap market, and, with the full implementation of Title VII—which in part is E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 default swaps are a small percentage of the overall OTC derivatives market, which, in addition to security-based swaps, includes foreign currency swaps and interest rate swaps. Available information about the global OTC derivatives markets suggests that swap transactions, in contrast to security-based swap transactions, dominate trading activities, notional amounts, and market values.940 For example, the BIS estimates that the total notional amounts outstanding and gross market value of global OTC derivatives were over $648 trillion and $27.2 trillion, respectively, as of the end of 2011.941 Of these totals, the BIS estimates that foreign exchange contracts, interest rate contracts, and commodity contracts comprised approximately 88% of the total notional amount and 84% of the gross market value.942 Credit default swaps, including index credit default swaps, comprised approximately 4.4% of the total notional amount and 5.8% of the gross market value. Equity-linked contracts, including forwards, swaps and options, comprised approximately an additional 1.0% of the total notional amount and 2.5% of the gross market value.943 Because the financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs would apply to dealers and participants in the security-based swap markets, they are expected to affect a substantially smaller portion of the U.S. OTC derivatives conditioned on the implementation of the proposed financial responsibility program—more information will be available for this analysis. 940 See BIS, Statistical Release: OTC derivatives statistics at end-December 2011, 5 (May 2012), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1205.pdf (reflecting data reported by central banks in 14 countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, England, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Spain). 941 Id. at 12 (‘‘Nominal or notional amounts outstanding are defined as the gross nominal or notional value of all deals concluded and not yet settled on the reporting date * * * Gross market values are defined as the sums of the absolute values of all open contracts with either positive or negative replacement values evaluated at market prices prevailing on the reporting date * * * gross market values supply information about the potential scale of market risk in derivatives transactions. Furthermore, gross market value at current market prices provides a measure of economic significance that is readily comparable across markets and products.’’). 942 Id. 943 Id. Similarly, the OCC has found that interest rate products comprised 81% of the total notional amount of OTC derivatives held by bank dealers whereas credit derivative contracts comprised 6.4% and equity contracts comprised 1% of that notional amount. See OCC, Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, Fourth Quarter 2011, available at https://www.occ.gov/topics/ capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/ derivatives/dq411.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 markets than the proposed financial responsibility rules for swap dealers and major swap participants proposed by the CFTC and prudential regulators.944 In addition, though the proposed capital, segregation and margin rules apply to all security-based swaps, not just single-name credit default swaps, the data on single-name credit default swaps are currently sufficiently representative of the market to help inform this economic analysis because currently an estimated 95% of all security-based swap transactions appear likely to be single-name credit default swaps.945 The majority of these singlename credit default swaps, both in terms of aggregate total notional amount and total volume by product type, are based on corporate and sovereign reference entities.946 While the number of transactions is larger in single-name credit default swaps than in index credit default swaps, the aggregate total notional amount of the latter exceeds that of single-name credit default swaps.947 For example, the total aggregate notional amount for single-name credit default swaps was $6.2 trillion, while the aggregate total notional amount for index credit default swaps was $16.8 trillion over the sample period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. For the same sample period, however, single-name credit default swaps totaled 69% of transactional volume, while index credit default swaps comprised 31% of the total transactional volume.948 The majority of trades in both notional amount and volume for both single-name and index credit default swaps over the 2011 sample period were new trades in contrast to assignments, increases, terminations or exits.949 The analysis of the 2011 data further shows that by total notional amount and total volume the majority of single-name and index credit default contracts have a tenor of 5 years.950 In addition, the data from the sample period indicates that the geographical distribution of counterparties’ parent 944 See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802; Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. 945 See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30636. See also Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48205 (defining the term securitybased swap). 946 Data compiled by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions from the DTCC–TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. 947 Id. This data also shows the average mean and median single-name and index credit default swap notional transaction size in millions is 6.47 and 4.12, and 39.22 and 14.25, respectively. 948 Id. 949 Id. 950 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70301 country domiciles in single name contracts are concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Switzerland.951 As described more fully in the CDS Data Analysis,952 based on 2011 transaction data, Commission staff identified entities currently transacting in the credit default swap market that may register as SBSDs by analyzing various criteria of their dealing activity. The results suggest that there is currently a high degree of concentration of potential dealing activity in the single-name credit default swap market. For example, using the criterion that dealers are likely to transact with many counterparties who themselves are not dealers, the analysis of the 2011 data show that only 28 out of 1,084 market participants have three or more counterparties that themselves are not recognized as dealers by ISDA.953 In addition, the analysis suggests that dealers appear, based on the percentage of trades between buyer and seller principals, in the majority of all trades on either one or both sides in singlename and index credit default swaps.954 This concentration to a large extent appears to reflect the fact that those larger entities are well-capitalized and therefore possess competitive advantages in engaging in OTC securitybased swap dealing activities by providing potential counterparties with adequate assurances of financial performance.955 As such, it is 951 Id. 952 See CDS Data Analysis. at Table 3c. The analysis of this transaction data is imperfect as a tool for identifying dealing activity, given that the presence or absence of dealing activity ultimately turns upon the relevant facts and circumstances of an entity’s securitybased swap transactions, as informed by the dealertrader distinction. Criteria based on the number of an entity’s counterparties that are not recognized as dealers nonetheless appear to be useful for identifying apparent dealing activity in the absence of full analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances, given that engaging in securitybased swap transactions with non-dealers would be consistent with the conduct of seeking to profit by providing liquidity to others, as anticipated by the dealer-trader distinction. 954 Data compiled by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions from the DTCC–TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. Additionally, according to the OCC, at the end of the first quarter of 2012, derivatives activity in the U.S. banking system continues to be dominated by a small group of large financial institutions. Four large commercial banks represent 93% of the total banking industry notional amounts and 81% of industry net current credit exposure. See OCC, Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, First Quarter 2012, available at https:// www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financialmarkets/trading/derivatives/dq112.pdf. 955 See, e.g., Craig Pirrong, Rocket Science, Default Risk and The Organization of Derivatives 953 Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 reasonable to conclude that currently there likely are high barriers to entry in terms of capitalization in connection with security-based swap dealing activity.956 Other than OTC derivatives dealers, which are subject to significant limitations on their activities, brokerdealers historically have not participated in a significant way in security-based swap trading for at least two reasons. First, because the Exchange Act has not previously defined securitybased swaps as ‘‘securities,’’ they have not been required to be traded through registered broker-dealers.957 And second, a broker-dealer engaging in security-based swap activities is currently subject to existing regulatory requirements with respect to those activities, including capital, margin, segregation, and recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, the existing broker-dealer capital requirements make it relatively costly to conduct these activities in broker-dealers, as discussed in section II.A.2. of this release. As a result, security-based swap activities are currently mostly concentrated in entities that are affiliated with the parent companies of broker-dealers, but not in broker-dealers themselves.958 End users enter into OTC derivatives transactions to take investment positions or to hedge commercial and financial risk. These non-dealer end users of OTC derivatives are, for example, commercial companies, governmental entities, financial institutions, investment vehicles, and individuals. Available data suggests that the largest end users of credit default swaps are, in descending order, hedge funds, asset managers, and banks, which may have a commercial need to hedge their credit exposures to a wide variety of entities or may take an active view on credit risk.959 Based on the available Markets, Working Paper 17–18 (2006), available at https://www.cba.uh.edu/spirrong/Derivorg1.pdf (noting that counterparties seek to reduce risk of default by engaging in credit derivative transactions with well-capitalized firms). See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30739– 30742. 956 See id. at 18–19 (noting lack of success among new entrants into derivatives dealing market due to perception that AAA rating for subsidiary is less desirable than a slightly lower rating for a larger entity, and suggesting that there are ‘‘economies of scale in bearing default risk’’ that may induce ‘‘substantial concentration in dealer activities’’). See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30739–30742. 957 See definition of ‘‘security’’ in section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act and ‘‘security-based swap’’ in section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act. 958 See ISDA Margin Survey 2012. 959 This information is based on available market data from DTCC–TIW compiled by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation. For example, data compiled VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 data, the Commission further estimates that commercial end users currently participate in the security-based swap markets on a very limited basis.960 Finally, this baseline for proposed new Rules 18a–1 through 18a–4 will be further discussed in the applicable sections of the release below. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its preliminary estimates of the scale and composition of the OTC derivatives market, including the relative size of the security-based swap segment of that market. In addition, the Commission requests that commenters provide data and sources of data to quantify: 1. The average daily and annual volume of OTC derivatives transactions; 2. The volume of transactions in each class of OTC derivatives (e.g., interest rate swaps, index credit default swaps, single-name credit default swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, and equity-based swaps); 3. The total notional amount of all pending swap transactions; 4. The total current exposure of all pending swap transactions; 5. The total notional amount of all pending security-based swap transactions; 6. The total current exposure of all pending security-based swap transactions; 7. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives (e.g., banks, brokerdealers, unregulated entities); 8. The capital levels of dealers, particularly those not subject to regulatory capital requirements; 9. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives dealers that engage in both a swap and security-based swap business; 10. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives that engage only in a swap business; 11. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives that engage only in a security-based swaps business; by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions from the DTCC–TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 suggests that for single-name credit default swap transactions, dealer to dealer transactions composed 68.26% of trades between buyer and seller principals over the sample period. 960 For example, data compiled by the Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions from the DTCC–TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 suggest that the total percentage of trades between buyer and seller principals over the sample period for single-name credit default swaps was only 0.03% of the total trade counterparty distribution for non-financial end users, which are composed of non-financial companies and family trusts. PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 12. The classes of end users (e.g., commercial end users, financial end users, and others) and the number of end users in each class; 13. The types of OTC derivatives transactions that each class of end user commonly engages in; 14. The amount of assets posted for OTC derivatives to collateralize current exposure; 15. The amount of assets posted for OTC derivatives to collateralize potential future exposure; 16. The type of assets used as collateral; and 17. The amount of assets that are held under the different types of collateral arrangements (e.g., held by the dealer but not segregated, held by the dealer in omnibus segregation, held by a thirdparty custodian). 2. Baseline for Amendments to Rule 15c3–1 As discussed in more detail above, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 15c3–1.961 These amendments would establish minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealers that register as SBSDs, increase the minimum net capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers, narrow the current treatment of credit risk charges for ANC broker-dealers to apply only to uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swaps, and establish liquidity requirements for ANC brokerdealers and nonbank SBSDs using internal models. Some of those proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would also apply to broker-dealers not registering as SBSDs or MSBSPs to the extent they hold security-based swap positions or non-security-based swap positions. As discussed in section II.A.1. of this release, the existing broker-dealer capital requirements are contained in Rule 15c3–1 962 and seven appendices to Rule 15c3–1.963 The baseline for this economic analysis with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 is 961 See section II.B. of this release. CFR 240.15c3–1. 963 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a (Options); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b (Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain commodities transactions); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c (Consolidated computations of net capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain subsidiaries and affiliates; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d (Satisfactory subordination agreements); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e (Deductions for market and credit risk for certain brokers or dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f (Optional market and credit risk requirements for OTC derivatives dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1g (Conditions for ultimate holding companies of certain brokers or dealers). 962 17 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules the broker-dealer capital regime as it exists today. Specifically, current Rule 15c3–1 requires broker-dealers to maintain a minimum level of net capital (meaning highly liquid capital) at all times.964 The rule requires that a broker-dealer perform two calculations: (1) A computation of the minimum amount of net capital the broker-dealer must maintain; 965 and (2) a computation of the amount of net capital the brokerdealer is maintaining.966 The minimum net capital requirement is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio.967 In computing net capital, the brokerdealer must, among other things, make certain adjustments to net worth such as deducting illiquid assets and taking other capital charges and adding qualifying subordinated loans.968 ‘‘Tentative net capital’’ is defined as the amount remaining after these deductions.969 The final step in computing net capital is to deduct from the mark-to-market values of the proprietary positions (e.g. in securities, money market instruments, and commodities) that are included in its tentative net capital prescribed percentages (‘‘standardized haircuts’’).970 The standardized haircuts are designed to account for the market risk inherent in these proprietary positions and to create a buffer of liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities business.971 With Commission approval, ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivative dealers are permitted to calculate deductions for market risk and credit risk from tentative net capital using internal models in lieu of the standardized haircuts.972 Because the 964 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). 966 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2). The computation of net capital is based on the definition of ‘‘net capital’’ in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 15c3–1. Id. 967 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). 968 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(i)–(xiii). 969 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(15). 970 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). 971 See, e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, 42 FR 31778 (‘‘[Haircuts] are intended to enable net capital computations to reflect the market risk inherent in the positioning of the particular types of securities enumerated in [the rule]’’). 972 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. As part of the application to use internal models, an entity seeking to become an ANC broker-dealer or an OTC derivatives dealer must identify the types of positions it intends to include in its model calculation. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3e(a)(1)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f(a)(1)(ii). After approval, the ANC emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 965 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 use of internal models to compute net capital generally can substantially reduce the deductions for proprietary positions compared to standardized haircuts and only certain risks are addressed by these internal models, current Rule 15c3–1 imposes substantially higher minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers as compared to other types of brokerdealers.973 For example, under current Rule 15c3–1, ANC broker-dealers are required to at all times maintain tentative net capital of not less than $1 billion and net capital of not less than $500,000,974 and they are required to provide notice to the Commission if their tentative net capital falls below $5 billion.975 The current rule requires that a broker-dealer must ensure that its net capital exceeds its minimum net capital requirement at all times.976 Finally, the baseline of the current capital regime will be further discussed in the applicable sections of the release below. B. Analysis of the Proposals and Alternatives 1. Overview—The Proposed Financial Responsibility Program Generally, the financial responsibility requirements the Commission is proposing today are intended to enhance the financial integrity of SBSDs and MSBSPs. As discussed more fully below, in proposing these requirements, the Commission is seeking to appropriately consider both the potential benefits of minimizing the risk that the failure of one firm will cause financial distress to other firms and disrupt financial markets and the U.S. financial system and the potential costs to that firm, the financial markets, and the U.S. financial system if SBSDs and MSBPs are required to comply with overly restrictive capital, margin and segregation requirements. This introductory section reviews at a general level certain considerations regarding the economic analysis of the proposed rules that is set forth in greater detail below. As discussed in section I. of the release, the current broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements serve as the template for the proposals for several reasons. First, the financial broker-dealer or OTC derivatives dealer must obtain Commission approval to make a material change to the model, including a change to the types of positions included in the model. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(a)(8); 17 CFR 240.15c3–f(a)(3). 973 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5) and (a)(7). 974 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(i). 975 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(ii). 976 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70303 markets in which SBSDs and MSBSPs are expected to operate are similar to the financial markets in which brokerdealers operate in the sense that they are driven in significant part by dealers that buy and sell on a regular basis and that take principal risk. Second, like nonbank dealers in securities but unlike bank SBSDs, nonbank SBSDs will not be able to rely on a backstop provider of liquidity but rather need to be able to liquidate assets quickly in the event of a counterparty default. Third, the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements have existed for many years and have facilitated the prudent operation of broker-dealers.977 Fourth, some broker-dealers likely will be registered as nonbank SBSDs so as to be able to offer customers a broader range of services than would be permitted as a stand-alone SBSD. Therefore, establishing consistent financial responsibility requirements would avoid potential competitive disparities between stand-alone SBSDs and brokerdealer SBSDs. And fifth, by placing an emphasis on maintaining liquid assets and requiring the segregation of customer funds, the current brokerdealer financial responsibility requirements have generally been successful in limiting losses to customers due to broker-dealer defaults.978 Consequently, the current broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements provide a reasonable template for building a financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs. However, the Commission recognizes that there may be other appropriate 977 For example, one of the objectives of the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements is to protect customers from the consequences of the financial failure of a broker-dealer in terms of safeguarding customer securities and funds held by the broker-dealer. In this regard, SIPC, since its inception in 1971, has initiated customer protection proceedings for only 324 broker-dealers, which is less than 1% of the approximately 39,200 brokerdealers that have been members of SIPC during that timeframe. During the same period, only $1.1 billion of the $117.5 billion of cash and securities distributed for accounts of customers came from the SIPC fund rather than debtors’ estates. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report. 978 For example, of the more than 625,200 claims satisfied in completed or substantially completed cases since SIPC’s inception in 1971, as of December 31, 2011, a total of 351 were for cash and securities whose value was greater than the limits of protection afforded by SIPA. The 351 claims, unchanged during 2011, represent less than onetenth of one percent of all claims satisfied. The unsatisfied portion of claims, $47.2 million, is unchanged in 2011. These remaining claims approximate three-tenths of one percent of the total value of securities and cash distributed for accounts of customers in those cases. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report. These figures do not include the SIPA liquidations of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Lehman Brothers Inc., which are not complete. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules approaches to establishing financial responsibility requirements—including, for example, requirements based on the Basel Standard in the case of entities that are part of a bank holding company, as has been proposed by the CFTC.979 Generally, the bank capital model requires the holding of specified levels of capital as a percentage of ‘‘risk weighted assets.’’ 980 In general, it does not require a full capital deduction for unsecured receivables, given that banks, as lending entities, are in the business of extending credit to a range of counterparties. This approach could promote a consistent view and management of capital within a bank holding company structure. However, it would not be a net liquid assets standard. In addition, applying capital rules designed for banks to a non-bank entity would raise various practical and policy issues that are not directly implicated by the proposed approach. First, it would need to be clear whether a regulator with primary responsibility for the non-bank entity would defer to bank regulators with respect to the interpretation of Basel standards as applied to the entity, or instead develop its own interpretation of those standards. Further, it would need to be clear how trading and other risks of the non-bank entity and its bank affiliate or affiliates would be expected to be managed, whether such risks would be managed holistically at the holding company level or separately at the entity level, and what limitations, if any, would apply to transfers of risks from a bank to its non-bank entity affiliate, or vice versa. In addition, to the extent that bank capital standards would permit the non-bank entity to hold more illiquid assets as regulatory capital, an additional liquidity standard might be required at the entity level in order to assure that the entity maintained sufficient liquidity to support its trading activity. Similarly, if the non-bank entity were an SBSD that held assets for customers, the impact of any reduced liquidity associated with the application of bank capital standards on the ability of the entity to quickly wind down 979 CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. prudential regulators also have proposed capital rules that would require a covered swap entity to comply with the regulatory capital rules already made applicable to that covered swap entity as part of its prudential regulatory regime. Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27568. The prudential regulators note that they have ‘‘had risk-based capital rules in place for banks to address over-the-counter derivatives since 1989 when the banking agencies implemented their risk-based capital adequacy standards * * * based on the first Basel Accord.’’ Id. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 980 The VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 operations and distribute assets to customers would need to be considered. The Commission specifically seeks comment as to whether to adapt Basel capital standards to non-bank affiliates of banks, and how such a regime would work in practice—including how it would address the issues described above and similar challenges. The Commission also recognizes that in determining appropriate financial responsibility requirements—whether based on current broker-dealer rules or other alternative approaches described above—it must assess and consider a number of different costs and benefits, and the determinations it ultimately makes can have a variety of economic consequences for the relevant firms, markets, and the financial system as a whole. On the one hand, the capital and margin requirements in particular are broadly intended to work in tandem to strengthen the financial system by reducing the potential for default to an acceptable level and limiting the amount of leverage that can be employed by SBSDs and other market participants. Requiring particular firms to hold more capital or exchange more margin may reduce the risk of default by one or more market participants and reduce the amount of leverage employed in the system generally, which in turn may have a number of important benefits. The failure of an SBSD could result in immediate financial loss to its counterparties or customers, particularly those that are not able to avoid losses by liquidating collateral or those that have delivered assets for custody by the SBSD. Since the primary benefit of the capital and margin requirements is to reduce the probability of a SBSD failure, potential counterparties may be more willing to transact when they have greater assurance that they will be paid following a credit event. Depending on the size of the SBSD and its interconnectedness with other market participants, such a default also could have adverse spillover or contagion effects that could create instability for the financial markets more generally, such as limiting the willingness of healthy market participants to extend credit to each other, and thus substantially reduce liquidity and valuations for particular types of financial instruments.981 Further, to the extent that market participants generally perceive that the prudential requirements are sufficient to protect them from losses due to a counterparty’s default, the security-based swap market may experience increased trading activity, reduced transaction costs, improved liquidity, enhanced capital formation, and an improved ability to manage risk. On the other hand, as described below, higher financial responsibility requirements for individual firms also give rise to direct costs for the firms involved and potentially significant collective costs for the markets and the financial system as a whole. For example, overly restrictive requirements that increase the cost of trading by individual firms could reduce their willingness to engage in such trading, adversely affecting liquidity in the security-based swaps markets and increasing transaction costs for market participants. Similarly, capital requirements that are set high enough to limit or restrict the willingness or ability of new firms to enter the market may impair or reduce competition in the markets, which in turn could also adversely affect liquidity and price discovery and increase transaction costs. Any such reduction in liquidity or price discovery, or increase in transaction costs, could adversely affect efficiency and impose direct costs on those market participants who rely on security-based swaps to manage or hedge the risks arising from their business activities that may support or promote capital formation. Even if the cost of overly restrictive financial responsibility requirements were shouldered only by those market participants that are subject to them, the excess amount of capital or margin tied up as a result of those requirements would not be available for potentially more efficient uses, which thereby could impair effective capital allocation and formation. Although, in establishing appropriate financial responsibility requirements that are neither insufficient nor excessive, the Commission must seek to consider these and other potential benefits and costs, the Commission notes that it is difficult to quantify such benefits and costs. For example, although the adverse spillover effects of defaults on liquidity and valuations were evident during the financial crisis,982 it is difficult to quantify the 981 See, e.g., Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen, Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity, Review of Financial Studies, 22 Review of Financial Studies 2201 (2009); Denis Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos, A Model of Financial Market Liquidity Based on Intermediary Capital, 8 Journal of the European Economic Association 456 (2010). 982 See aggregate derivatives claims on Lehman Brothers Special Finance initially filed by the top 30 financial institution counterparties was estimated to be approximately $22 billion, available at https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/ document/ GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1386611 and PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules effects of measures intended to reduce the default probability of the individual intermediary, the ensuing prevention of contagion, and the adverse effects on liquidity and valuation. More broadly, it is difficult to quantify the costs and benefits that may be associated with steps to mitigate or avoid a future financial crisis. Similarly, although capital, margin, or segregation requirements may, among other things, affect liquidity and transaction costs in the security-based swap markets, and result in a different allocation of capital than may otherwise occur, it is difficult to quantify the extent of these effects, or the resulting effect on the financial system more generally. These difficulties are further aggravated by the fact that only limited public data related to the security-based swap market, in general, and to securitybased swap market participants in particular, exist, all of which could assist in quantifying certain benefits and costs. It also is difficult to demonstrate empirically that the customer protections associated with the proposed financial responsibility requirements would alter the likelihood that any specific market participant would suffer injury, or the degree to which the participant would suffer injury, from participating in an underor over-regulated security-based swap market. In light of these challenges, much of the discussion of the proposed rules in this economic analysis will remain qualitative in nature, although where possible the economic analysis attempts to quantify these benefits and costs. The inability to quantify these benefits and costs, however, does not mean that the benefits and costs of the proposals are any less significant. In addition, as noted above, the proposed rules include a number of specific quantitative requirements—such as numerical thresholds, limits, deductions and ratios. The Commission recognizes that the specificity of each such quantitative requirement could be read by some to imply a definitive conclusion based on quantitative analysis of that requirement and its alternatives. These quantitative requirements have not been derived directly from econometric or mathematical models. Instead, they reflect a preliminary assessment by the Commission, based on qualitative analysis, regarding the appropriate financial standard for an identified issue, drawing (as noted above) from the Commission’s long-term experience in administering its existing broker-dealer https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/ GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1430484. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 financial responsibility regime as well as its general experience in regulating broker-dealers and markets and from comparable quantitative requirements in its own rules and those of other regulators. Accordingly, the discussion generally describes in a qualitative way the primary costs, benefits and other economic effects that the Commission has identified and taken into account in developing these specific quantitative requirements. The Commission emphasizes that it invites comment, including relevant data and analysis, regarding all aspects of the various quantitative requirements reflected in the proposed rules. Finally, the Commission notes that the proposals ultimately adopted, like other requirements under the DoddFrank Act, could have a substantial impact on international commerce and the relative competitive position of intermediaries operating in various, or multiple, jurisdictions. U.S. or foreign firms could be advantaged or disadvantaged depending on how the rules ultimately adopted by the Commission compare with corresponding requirements in other jurisdictions. Such differences could in turn affect cross-border capital flows and the ability of global firms to most efficiently allocate capital among legal entities to meet the demands of their counterparties. The Commission intends to address the potential international implications of the proposed capital, margin and segregation requirements, together with the full spectrum of other issues relating to the application of Title VII to cross-border security-based swap transactions, in a separate proposal. a. Nonbank SBSDs In addition to fulfilling a statutory requirement, it is expected that the proposed capital, margin and segregation rules should be beneficial to market participants by advancing market transparency, risk reduction and counterparty protection as Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act intended.983 It can be further expected that these benefits manifest themselves over the long-term and benefit the market as a whole. To the extent that the proposed rules increase the safety and soundness of entities that register as nonbank SBSDs and not just codify current practice, the proposals should specifically reduce the likelihood of default by an intermediary with substantial positions in securitybased swaps and possible negative spillover effects. This would further imply that without the proposed rules in place, such an event could result in 983 See PO 00000 section I. of this release. Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70305 significant losses to counterparties whose exposures to the defaulting dealer are not sufficiently secured, which, depending on the size of individual counterparty exposures, could lead to defaults of those counterparties. Such events could then deter intermediaries from entering into financing transactions,984 even with creditworthy counterparties, which could ultimately adversely affect valuation and liquidity in the broader financial markets.985 Apart from the positive impact on the safety and soundness of the securitybased swap market, the proposed new rules and rule amendments could create the potential for regulatory arbitrage to the extent that they differ from corresponding rules other regulators adopt. As noted above in section I. of this release, the Commission is proposing capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs that differ in some respects from the prudential regulators’ proposed capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs.986 Depending on the final rules the Commission adopts, the financial responsibility requirements could make it more or less costly to conduct security-based swaps trading in banks as compared to nonbank SBSDs. For example, if the application of the proposed 8% margin risk factor substantially increases capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs compared to the risk-based capital requirements imposed by the prudential regulators on the same activity, bank holding companies could be incentivized to conduct these activities in their bank affiliates.987 On the other hand, if the Commission does not require nonbank SBSDs to collect initial margin in their transactions with each other, as is generally current market practice,988 while the prudential regulators require the collection of initial margin for the same trades as their proposed rules suggest, intermediaries could have an incentive 984 See, e.g., Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen, Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity, Review of Financial Studies at 22; Denis Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos, A Model of Financial Market Liquidity Based on Intermediary Capital at 8. 985 See aggregate derivatives claims on Lehman Brothers Special Finance initially filed by the top 30 financial institution counterparties was estimated to be approximately $22 billion, available at https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/ document/ GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1386611 and https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/ GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1430484. 986 See section I. of this release. 987 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. 988 See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 to conduct business through nonbank entities.989 These differences could create competitive inequalities and affect the allocation of trading activities within a holding company structure. The proposed financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs would also result in costs to individual market participants and may affect the amount of capital available to support securitybased swap transactions generally.990 As described in section V.B.1 immediately above, if SBSDs are required to maintain an excessive amount of capital, that amount may result in certain costs for the markets and the financial system, including the potential for the reduced availability of security-based swaps for market participants who would otherwise use such transactions to hedge the risks of their business, or engage in other activities that would promote capital formation. In addition, in some cases, these costs may include costs to financial conglomerates to restructure their security-based swap activities or move them into affiliates that register as SBSDs.991 Nonbank SBSDs as well as other market participants would also incur costs to hire compliance personnel and to establish internal systems, procedures and controls designed to ensure compliance with the new requirements. Some of these costs were discussed in the PRA analysis in section IV of this release. Finally, the full cost impact of the proposed financial responsibility requirements will depend to some extent on other rules related to SBSDs (e.g., registration) that the Commission has not yet adopted.992 Costs related to specific sections of the proposed new rules and rule amendments are discussed below. Some of these costs may be largely fixed in nature; other costs (such as minimum capital requirements and margin costs) may be variable as they reflect the level of the nonbank SBSD’s security-based swap activity. End users also may incur increased transaction costs in connection with the proposals as SBSDs are likely to pass on the financial burden of any increased capital, margin or segregation requirements to customers.993 This economic analysis considers the overall benefits and costs of the 989 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. 990 See section II. of this release. 991 See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR 65784. 992 Id. 993 If the rules succeed in improving competition among dealers in the security-based swap market rules this pass-through behavior should be less of a concern. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 proposed new rules and amendments, keeping in mind that the benefits may be distributed across market participants, accrue over the long-term, and are difficult to quantify or to measure as easily as certain costs. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the general costs and benefits of the proposed rules. The Commission requests data to quantify and estimates of the costs and the value of the benefits of the proposals described above. The Commission also requests data to quantify the impact of the proposals against the baseline. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to the following questions: 1. In general terms, how effectively would the proposed rules limit systemic risk arising from security-based swap transactions? Please explain. 2. In general, how would the proposed rules and rule amendments impact the capital of entities that would need to register as nonbank SBSDs? For example, would they require these entities to hold more capital? If so, what would be the impact of the availability of sources of funding to these entities? 3. How important is parity of treatment between nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs in terms of regulatory requirements, and how should parity be understood? For example, should nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs be required to hold the same amounts of capital to support a certain level of security-based swaps business? 4. To what extent would the proposed regulatory requirements impact the amount of liquidity provided for or required by security-based swap market participants, and to what extent will that affect the funding cost for the financial sector in particular and the economy in general? Please quantify. b. Nonbank MSBSPs As with their application to nonbank SBSDs, in addition to fulfilling a statutory requirement, it is expected that the proposed capital, margin and notification requirements under the segregation rules for MSBSPs will advance market transparency, risk reduction and counterparty protection as Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act intended.994 However, in contrast to capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs, the proposed rules for nonbank MSBSPs are intended to limit the impact on counterparties of a potential default by a nonbank MSBSP, rather than to create prudential 994 See PO 00000 section I. of this release. Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 standards that would render the possibility of its failure more remote. Capital standards of the type that would apply to SBSDs 995 may not be practical for nonbank MSBSPs, depending on their individual business models and whether they are subject to any other prudential requirements. Accordingly, the proposals are intended to ensure that nonbank MSBSPs meet a minimum capital standard by maintaining a positive tangible net worth,996 collateralize their current exposures to end users, and post collateral to counterparties that covers at least the amount of the current exposure of those counterparties to them.997 These proposed requirements are expected to have a relatively smaller aggregate effect than the proposed financial responsibility requirements for nonbank SBSDs because they are likely to affect relatively fewer entities. The Commission expects that only 5 or fewer entities will register as nonbank MSBSPs with the Commission.998 Another approach, discussed further below, would subject MSBSPs to a capital regime similar to that proposed for nonbank SBSDs. The proposed financial responsibility requirements for MSBSPs would also result in costs to individual market participants and may affect the amount of capital available to support securitybased swap transactions overall and the financial markets generally. To the extent that the proposed capital and margin requirements are too restrictive, it could limit capital formation and the use of security-based swaps to hedge risks associated with the MSBSP’s business activities.999 The proposed requirements may also impose more limited compliance burdens on MSBSPs. For example, nonbank MSBSPs as well as other market participants would also incur costs to hire compliance personnel and to establish internal systems, procedures and controls designed to ensure compliance with the new requirements.1000 Some of these costs are discussed in the PRA analysis in section IV. of this release. Finally, the full cost impact of the proposed financial responsibility requirements will depend to some extent on other rules related to MSBSPs (e.g., registration) that the Commission has not yet adopted.1001 995 See proposed new Rule 18a–1. proposed new Rule 18a–2. 997 See proposed new Rule 18a–3. 998 See section IV.C. of this release. 999 See section II. of this release. 1000 See section V.C. of this release. 1001 See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR 65784. 996 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Costs related to specific sections of the proposed new rules and rule amendments are discussed below. Some of these costs may be largely fixed in nature; other costs (such as minimum capital requirements and margin costs) may be variable as they reflect the level of the nonbank MSBSP’s security-based swap activity. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the general costs and benefits of the proposed rules on MSBSPs. The Commission requests data to quantify and estimates of the costs and the value of the benefits of the proposals for MSBSPs described above. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. The Proposed Capital Rules a. Nonbank SBSDs and ANC BrokerDealers As discussed above in section II.A. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a–1 would prescribe capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs, and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would prescribe capital requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs and increase existing capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers.1002 The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would apply to broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs to the extent they hold positions in security-based swaps and swaps. In addition, the Commission is proposing liquidity requirements for ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models to compute net capital.1003 Finally, the Commission is proposing to require that all nonbank SBSDs comply with Rule 15c3–4, which requires the establishment of a risk management control system.1004 As described above, the capital and other financial responsibility requirements for broker-dealers generally provide a reasonable template for crafting the corresponding requirements for nonbank SBSDs. For example, among other considerations, the objectives of capital standards for both types of entities are similar. Rule 15c3–1 is a net liquid assets test that is designed to require a broker-dealer to maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet all obligations to customers and counterparties and have adequate additional resources to wind-down its business in an orderly manner without 1002 See proposed new Rule 18a–1. proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 1004 See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 1003 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 70307 the need for a formal proceeding if it fails financially. The objective of the proposed capital standards for nonbank SBSDs is the same. In addition, as discussed in section II.A.1. above, the Dodd-Frank Act divided responsibility for SBSDs and MSBSPs by providing the prudential regulators with authority to prescribe the capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and the Commission with authority to prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs.1005 This division also suggests it may be appropriate to model the capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs on the capital standards for broker-dealers, while the capital requirements for bank SBSDs are modeled on capital standards for banks (as reflected in the proposal by the prudential regulators).1006 As discussed in section II.A.1. above, certain differences in the activities of securities firms, banks, and commodities firms, differences in the products at issue, or the balancing of relevant policy choices and considerations, appear to support this distinction between nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs. First, based on the Commission staff’s understanding of the activities of nonbank dealers in OTC derivatives, nonbank SBSDs are expected to engage in a securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is more similar to the dealer activities of broker-dealers than to the activities of banks; indeed, some brokerdealers likely will be registered as nonbank SBSDs.1007 Second, existing capital standards for banks and brokerdealers reflect, in part, differences in their funding models and access to certain types of financial support, and those same differences also will exist between bank SBSDs and nonbank SBSDs. For example, banks obtain funding through customer deposits and can obtain liquidity through the Federal Reserve’s discount window; whereas broker-dealers do not—and nonbank SBSDs will not—have access to these sources of funding and liquidity. Third, Rule 15c3–1 currently contains provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by broker-dealers and, therefore, to some extent already can accommodate this type of activity (although, as discussed below, proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would be designed to more specifically address the risks of security-based swaps and the potential for increased involvement of broker-dealers in the security-based swaps markets).1008 For these reasons, the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs is a net liquid assets test modeled on the broker-dealer capital standard in Rule 15c3–1. The net liquid assets test is designed to allow a broker-dealer to engage in activities that are part of conducting a securities business (e.g., taking securities into inventory) but in a manner that places the firm in the position of holding at all times more than one dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities (e.g., money owed to customers, counterparties, and creditors). For example, Rule 15c3–1 allows securities positions to count as allowable net capital, subject to standardized or internal model-based haircuts.1009 The rule, however, does not permit most unsecured receivables to count as allowable net capital.1010 This aspect of the rule severely limits the ability of broker-dealers to engage in activities, such as unsecured lending, that generate unsecured receivables. The rule also does not permit fixed assets or other illiquid assets to count as allowable net capital, which creates disincentives for broker-dealers to own real estate and other fixed assets that cannot be readily converted into cash. For these reasons, Rule 15c3–1 incentivizes broker-dealers to confine their business activities and devote capital to activities such as underwriting, market making, and advising on and facilitating customer securities transactions. Proposed new Rule 18a–1 and the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would provide a number of benefits, as well as impose certain costs on nonbank SBSDs, broker-dealer SBSDs, and broker-dealers, which are described below. In considering costs, in cases where the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 15c3–1, the baseline is the current broker-dealer capital regime under Rule 15c3–1.1011 The proposed rule also will have possible effects on competition, efficiency, and capital formation, which will be discussed further below. 1005 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10, in general; 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2)(A)–(B), in particular. 1006 The prudential regulators have proposed capital requirements for bank SBSDs and bank swap dealers that are based on the capital requirements for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27582. 1007 Id. 1008 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f and 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e. See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362. 1009 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 1010 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv). 1011 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules i. Minimum Capital Requirements capital requirements under the proposed new Rule 18a–1 and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1: The following table provides a summary of the proposed minimum emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models, that is, are neither ANC broker-dealers nor OTC derivatives dealers, would be required to maintain net capital of the larger of $20 million or 8% of the firm’s margin factor. The proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement would be consistent with the fixed-dollar minimum requirement applicable to OTC derivatives dealers and already familiar to existing market participants.1012 OTC derivatives dealers are limited purpose brokerdealers that are authorized to trade in certain derivatives, including securitybased swaps, use internal models to calculate net capital, and they are required to maintain minimum tentative net capital of $100 million and minimum net capital of $20 million.1013 These current fixed-dollar minimums have been the minimum capital standards for OTC derivative dealers for over a decade and to date, there have been no indications that these minimums are not adequately meeting the objective of requiring OTC derivatives dealers to maintain sufficient levels of regulatory capital to 1012 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5). The CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement for FCMs that are registered as swap dealers, regardless of whether the firm is approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. Further, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar ‘‘tangible net equity’’ minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not FCMs and are not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company. Finally, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixeddollar Tier 1 capital minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not FCMs and are affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company (the term ‘‘Tier 1 capital’’ refers to the regulatory capital requirement for U.S. banking institutions). Id. 1013 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 account for the risks inherent in their activities. However, the proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement for stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models to calculate net capital would be substantially higher than the fixeddollar minimums in Rule 15c3–1 currently applicable to broker-dealers that do not use internal models.1014 The proposed more stringent minimum capital requirement of $20 million for stand-alone SBSDs not approved to use models reflects the facts that these firms: (1) Unlike broker-dealers, will be able to deal in security-based swaps, which, in general, pose risks that are different from, and in some respects greater than, those arising from dealing in securities; but (2) unlike OTC derivative dealers have direct customer relationships and have custody of customer funds.1015 Therefore, without the increased requirements, a failure of a stand-alone SBSD would, ceteris paribus, be more likely than a failure of an OTC derivatives dealer and, as a consequence of the relationships with customers, would have a broader adverse impact on a larger number of market participants, including customers and counterparties.1016 1014 For example, a broker-dealer that carries customer accounts has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $250,000; a broker-dealer that does not carry customer accounts but engages in proprietary securities trading (defined as more than ten trades a year) has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $100,000; and a broker-dealer that does not carry accounts for customers or otherwise receive or hold securities and cash for customers, and does not engage in proprietary trading activities, has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $5,000. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(2). 1015 See 17 CFR 240.3b–12; 17 CFR 240.15a–1. 1016 The proposal is consistent with the CFTC’s proposed capital requirements for nonbank swap dealers, which impose $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirements regardless of whether the PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Consequently, these heightened requirements should enhance the safety and soundness of the nonbank SBSDs, and thereby reduce systemic risk, as well as increase market participants’ confidence in the security-based swap markets. Stand-alone SBSDs not approved to use internal models would not, however, be subject to a minimum tentative net capital requirement, which is applied to only firms that use internal models to account for risks not fully captured by the models.1017 Stand-alone SBSDs using models would be required to maintain minimum net capital of the higher of $20 million or the 8% margin factor, as well as a minimum tentative net capital of $100 million, a requirement that also applies to OTC derivatives dealers. Models to calculate deductions from tentative net capital for proprietary positions take only market and credit risk into account and therefore generally lead to lower deductions and higher levels of net capital.1018 The minimum firm is approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 1017 OTC derivatives dealers are subject to a $100 million minimum tentative net capital requirement. ANC broker-dealers are currently subject to a $1 billion minimum tentative net capital requirement. The minimum tentative net capital requirements are designed to address risks that may not be captured when using internal models rather than standardized haircuts to compute net capital. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384; Alternative Net Capital Requirements for BrokerDealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities; Proposed Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 48690 (Oct. 24, 2003), 68 FR 62872, 62875 (Nov. 6, 2003). 1018 See, e.g., Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34455 (describing benefits of alternative net capital requirements for broker-dealers using models stating a ‘‘major benefit for the broker-dealer will be lower deductions from net capital for market and credit risk that we expect will result from the use of the alternative method.’’). Therefore, it is likely E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 EP23NO12.001</GPH> 70308 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules tentative net capital requirement for firms using models is intended to provide an additional assurance of adequate capital to reflect this concern. However, because the tentative net capital calculation does not take account of market risk deductions, the minimum $100 million tentative net capital requirement might be a less effective standard in cases where a dealer maintains a substantial amount of less liquid positions that require relatively large deductions for market risk. As an alternative, the Commission could impose a minimum requirement that increases according to the nature and size of the positions held, for example, 25% of the market risk deductions that are required to be taken in determining actual net capital. This approach could better scale the tentative net capital requirement according to the risk of the proprietary positions held by an SBSD. On the other hand, a variable tentative net capital test would not serve as an accurate measure of risk if the model did not appropriately capture all material risks of the positions or the assumptions underlying the use of the model were no longer appropriate. The variable tentative net capital test also could increase the tentative net capital requirement in some cases to a level that could limit or discourage the entry of firms that do not presently compete in the security-based swap markets. Further, as noted above, the minimum net capital requirement in each case would increase in accordance with an increase in the amount of business conducted as a result of the 8% margin factor. The Commission is specifically seeking comment on this alternative in section II.A.1. of this release. Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, ANC broker-dealers would be required to maintain: (1) Tentative net capital of not less than $5 billion; and (2) net capital of not less than the greater of $1 billion or the financial ratio amount required pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3–1 plus the 8% margin factor.1019 These relatively high minimum capital requirements for ANC dealers (as compared with the requirements for other types of brokerdealers) reflect the substantial and diverse range of business activities engaged in by ANC broker-dealers and their importance as intermediaries in that for new entrants to capture substantial volume in security-based swaps they will need to use VaR models. See also OTC Derivatives Dealer Release, 63 FR 59362 (discussing benefits of minimum capital requirements as an additional measure of protection). 1019 See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule 15c3–1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 the securities markets.1020 Further, the heightened capital requirements reflect the fact that, as noted above, VaR models are more risk sensitive but also generally permit substantially reduced deductions to tentative net capital as compared to the standardized haircuts as well as the fact that VaR models may not capture all risks.1021 Based on financial information reported by the ANC broker-dealers in their monthly FOCUS Reports filed with the Commission, the six current ANC broker-dealers maintain capital levels in excess of these proposed increased minimum requirements. For example, at the end of 2011, the interquartile range of net capital and tentative net capital levels among the six ANC broker-dealers were from $1.11 billion to $7.77 billion and from $1.32 billion to $9.69 billion, respectively. Further, ANC brokerdealers are currently required to notify the Commission if their tentative net capital falls below $5 billion.1022 This notification provision is used by the Commission to trigger increased supervision of the firm’s operations and to take any necessary corrective action and is similar to corollary ‘‘early warning’’ requirements for OTC derivatives dealers.1023 Consequently, this $5 billion ‘‘early warning’’ level currently acts as the de facto minimum tentative net capital requirement since the ANC broker-dealers seek to avoid providing this regulatory notice that their tentative net capital has fallen below the early warning level.1024 Although increases to minimum tentative and minimum net capital requirements are being proposed, the proposals may not present a material cost to the current ANC broker-dealers, because they already hold more than the proposed minimum requirements in the amendments to Rule 15c3–1. The more relevant number is the proposed increase in the early warning notification threshold from $5 billion to $6 billion. The existing early warning requirement for OTC derivatives dealers triggers a notice when the firm’s tentative net capital falls below an 1020 As noted above, the six ANC broker-dealers collectively hold in excess of one trillion dollars’ worth of customer securities. 1021 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 1022 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(ii). 1023 OTC derivatives dealers are required to provide notification promptly (but within 24 hours) if their tentative net capital falls below 120% of the firm’s required minimum tentative net capital amount. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(3). Rule 17a–11 also requires ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers to provide same day notification if their tentative net capital falls below required minimums. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b)(2). 1024 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(i). PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70309 amount that is 120% of the firm’s required minimum tentative net capital amount of $100 million ($120 million = 1.2 × $100 million).1025 The proposed new ‘‘early warning’’ threshold for ANC broker-dealers of $6 billion (= 1.2 × $5 billion) in tentative net capital is modeled on this requirement. In general, because the amount of actual net capital is subject to volatility commensurate with market volatility in proprietary instruments, the Commission expects ANC brokerdealers to maintain a reasonable cushion in excess of the minimum. Since, based on the Commission staff’s supervision of the ANC broker-dealers, the current ANC broker-dealers report tentative net capital levels generally well in excess of $6 billion, the costs to the ANC broker-dealers to comply with this new requirement are not expected to be material.1026 However, these costs may be prohibitive to new entrants that wish to register as broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models if they currently do not, or cannot, maintain these proposed capital levels. As noted below, such barriers to entry may prevent or reduce competition among SBSDs, which in turn can lead to higher transaction costs and less liquidity than would otherwise exist. In addition to the proposed minimum fixed tentative and minimum net capital requirements, the proposed 8% margin factor would be part of determining a nonbank SBSD’s minimum net capital requirement.1027 The 8% margin factor is intended to establish a minimum capital requirement that scales with the level of a nonbank SBSD’s securitybased swap activity and to limit the amount of leverage a nonbank SBSD can employ by requiring an increase in capital commensurate with the amount of leverage extended. The 8% margin factor ratio requirement also is similar to an existing requirement in the CFTC’s net capital rule for FCMs,1028 and the CFTC has proposed a similar requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants registered as FCMs.1029 1025 See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(3). 1026 Id. 1027 Since the 8% margin factor would be additive to the minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers conducting a security-based swap business, the cost impact to an ANC broker-dealer using its current minimum capital requirements under Rule 15c3–1 and 15c3–1e as a baseline, would at minimum, increase by the 8% margin factor. 1028 See 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(B). 1029 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The 8% calculation under the CFTC’s proposal relates to cleared swaps or futures transactions, whereas the 8% margin factor E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM Continued 23NOP2 70310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Under the CFTC’s proposal, an FCM would be required to maintain adjusted net capital 1030 that is equal to or greater than 8% of the risk margin required for customer and non-customer exchangetraded futures and swaps positions that are cleared by a DCO.1031 Because exchange-traded futures, however, are generally more liquid and give rise to lower margins than non-cleared security-based swaps with the same notional amount, the proposed 8% margin factor (which includes margin for both cleared and non-cleared swaps) would require allocating substantially more capital to support a non-cleared security-based swap contract compared to a futures contract. Requiring such additional capital could impose the types of costs on these firms and the markets more generally that are described above in section V.B.1. of this release. On the other hand, applying the 8% margin factor to non-cleared security-based swaps (rather than just cleared security-based swaps) would permit the nonbank SBSD’s minimum capital requirement to vary based on this aspect of its business, which can entail similar leverage and present proposed in new Rule 18a–1 would be based on cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps. 1030 The CFTC has proposed that swap dealers and major swap participants that are also FCMs would be required to meet the existing FCM requirement to hold minimum levels of adjusted net capital, and also would be required to calculate the required minimum level as the greatest of the following: (1) A fixed dollar amount which under the CFTC’s proposed rules would be $20 million; (2) the amount required for FCMs that also act as retail foreign exchange dealers; (3) 8% of the proposed risk margin; (4) the amount required by a registered futures association of which the FCM is a member; or (4) for an FCM, that is also a brokerdealer, the amount required by Commission rules. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. 1031 See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The CFTC’s proposed 8% margin requirement is intended to establish a minimum capital requirement that corresponds to the level of risk arising from the FCM’s swap activity. Id. at 27807. One commenter objected to the inclusion of the 8% test in the CFTC’s capital proposal, noting that margin and capital are complementary concepts in that both incorporate counterparty risk, and accordingly, the higher the initial margin requirement for a particular swap, the less regulatory capital a swap dealer should need to carry the client’s position. The commenter believed that the CFTC’s 8% charge would lead to allocations of dealer and client funding and capital to client portfolios in amounts disproportionately large in comparison to the risks of the relevant transactions. This commenter recommended to the CFTC that the CFTC defer incorporating swaps into the 8% margin multiplier for capital until after margin and capital requirements are finalized and the CFTC and market participants have had an opportunity to evaluate margin levels and the interrelationship between swap margin and capital. Letter from John M. Damgard, President, Futures Industry Association, Robert G. Pickel, Chief Executive Officer, ISDA and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA, to the CFTC (July 7, 2011) (‘‘FIA/ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter to the CFTC’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 greater credit risk than cleared securitybased swaps. This would have the benefit of further promoting the goals of the financial responsibility rules described above in section V.B.1. of this release. Based on FOCUS Report information as of year-end 2011, approximately ten broker-dealers, including the current ANC broker-dealers, maintain tentative net capital in excess of $5 billion,1032 approximately 31 broker-dealers maintain net capital in excess of $1 billion, approximately 145 brokerdealers maintain tentative net capital in excess of $100 million, and approximately 270 broker-dealers maintain net capital in excess of $20 million. Although the proposed increase in minimum capital and early warning requirements for ANC broker-dealers will not affect firms that already have this classification, it would reduce the number of additional firms (from 31 to 4, according to FOCUS Report data) that would currently qualify for this designation and hence represents a significant potential cost for additional registrants. As noted above, these costs may be prohibitive to new entrants that wish to register as ANC broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models. If these additional costs were not imposed or were lower, there might be greater opportunities for more competition in the security-based swap markets, which in turn could lower transaction costs and increase liquidity in these markets. However, setting capital levels that allow new entrants that do not have sufficient capital to engage in the diverse business of ANC broker dealers could be disruptive to the market. In addition, to the extent that potential new entrants are able to operate effectively in these markets as standalone SBSDs (i.e., swap dealers that are not registered as broker-dealers), they would be eligible for lower minimum capital requirements and competition could further increase without compromising the heightened requirements for ANC broker-dealers. With respect to the derivatives markets in particular, it is difficult to quantify the impact of the proposed capital requirements against the baseline of the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today because prior to the adoption of Title VII, swaps and security-based swaps were by and large unregulated.1033 As discussed above in 1032 These 10 broker-dealers also maintain tentative net capital in excess of $6.0 billion based on FOCUS Report information as of year-end 2011. 1033 See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207. PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 section V.A. of this release, however, most trading in security-based swaps and other derivatives is currently conducted by large banks and their affiliates. Among these entities are the current ANC broker-dealers. Other broker-dealers affiliated with firms presently conducting business in security-based swaps may be among the 270 broker-dealers that maintain net capital in excess of $20 million. Consequently, broker-dealers presently trading in security-based swaps may not need to raise significant new amounts of capital in order to register as nonbank SBSDs. At the same time, the proposed minimum capital requirements could discourage entry by entities other than the approximately 270 broker-dealers that already have capital in excess of the required minimums. As discussed above in section II.A.1. of this release, the Commission is seeking comment on possible modifications to the capital requirements in ways that may lessen potential compliance costs. First, to the extent that a nonbank SBSD that is approved to use models may be required to register as a broker-dealer solely to conduct certain brokerage activity, e.g., sending customer orders for execution to a security-based swap execution facility, the Commission could modify the capital requirements by setting lower minimum capital requirements for such firms than apply to ANC broker-dealers. Further, the requirements for OTC derivatives dealers could be amended to allow these firms to conduct a broader range of activities. This modification could increase the ability of firms that are not capitalized at minimum capital requirements proposed for the ANC firms to use models and compete for business in security-based swaps. The Commission also could consider modifications that would increase the flexibility for a broader group of firms to conduct a derivatives business that extends beyond security-based swaps. For example, the Commission could determine to allow a firm to register jointly as an OTC derivatives dealer and SBSD. This modification could allow the registrant to conduct a broader range of derivatives activities than dealing only in security-based swaps, and to be able to use internal models for capital purposes without being subject to much higher capital requirements that apply to ANC broker-dealers. On the other hand, there could be practical difficulties in merging the registration regimes. For example, because OTC derivatives dealers are prohibited from having custody of customers’ assets, while nonbank SBSDs would be E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules permitted to do so, subject to compliance with new Rule 18a–4, dual registrants could be required to maintain separate sets of compliance processes and procedures, based on product type. Alternatively, the Commission could provide conditional relief on a case-bycase basis to allow a firm that is registered as an SBSD to conduct dealing activity in derivatives other than security-based swaps. This also could provide a means for an entity to do business in a broad set of derivative instruments, subject to the basic capital standards that would apply to SBSDs. This approach also could allow the Commission to fashion exemptive relief on a case-by-case basis, pending further consideration of how and whether to reconcile the SBSD and OTC derivatives dealer regimes. On the other hand, allowing SBSDs to deal in products that OTC derivatives dealers can deal in, without the restrictions that apply to their activities, could undermine the purpose for the restrictions. The Commission is specifically soliciting comment on these potential approaches above in section II.A.1. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ii. Standardized Haircuts As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, under proposed new Rule 18a–1 and the amendments to Rule 15c3–1, a nonbank SBSD would be required to apply standardized haircuts to its proprietary positions, unless the Commission approved it to use internal models for specific positions. In general, all haircut regimes are intended to be conservative estimates of risk as they tend to overcompensate for the actual risks and hence generally impose higher costs in terms of capital compared to VaR models.1034 As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, for positions that are not security-based swaps, broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs also would be required to apply the standardized haircuts currently set forth in Rule 15c3–1.1035 Standardized ‘‘haircuts’’ for credit default swaps would be based on a maturity grid 1034 Commenters to the proposed CFTC capital rule for swap dealers stated that they believe that model-based approaches are generally superior to grid-based approaches. One commenter argued that grid-based approaches are generally insufficiently risk sensitive, are not part of integrated risk management systems, and are hard to keep up-todate to include innovative product and trading strategies. FIA/ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter to the CFTC. Grid-based approaches, however, provide alternatives to firms that are unable to or chose not to use models. 1035 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. See also section II.A.2.b.vi. of this release (discussing the treatment of swaps). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 approach. Modeled after similar ‘‘haircut’’ approaches currently employed under Rule 15c3–1, the proposed approach for credit default swaps is designed to be more risksensitive than a haircut approach that determines market deductions based on the type of each position without recognizing offsets among securities with similar risk characteristics (the proposed rules also permit firms to reduce the required haircut for certain netted positions). The number of maturity and spread categories in the proposed grid for credit default swaps is based on staff experience with the maturity grids for other securities in Rule 15c3–1 and, in part, on FINRA Rule 4240.1036 While the haircut grid design takes into account that positions in credit defaults swaps with larger spreads or longer tenors are riskier and hence should be supported by larger haircuts, the Commission is specifically seeking comment on the design of the grid and particularly whether the haircuts appropriately reflect the risk inherent in long and short positions of credit defaults swaps across the spread and tenor spectrum. Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps can be divided into two broad categories: Those that reference equity securities and those that reference debt instruments. Since each type of security-based swap can be viewed as being equivalent to a highlylevered synthetic position in the referenced instrument and therefore has the same price volatility as the referenced instrument, the standardized haircut for these categories of securitybased swaps would be the deduction currently prescribed in Rule 15c3–1 applicable to the instrument referenced by the security-based swap multiplied by the contract’s notional amount.1037 It 1036 See Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No. 66527 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR–FINRA–2012– 015) (in which FINRA amended the maturity grid in Rule 4240 in the interest of regulatory clarity and efficiency, and based upon FINRA’s experience in the administration of the rule). While FINRA Rule 4240 is one reference point, the maturity grid it specifies does not appear to have been widely used by market participants, in part because a significant amount of business in the current credit default swap market is conducted by entities that are not members of FINRA. 1037 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. For example, if a dealer maintained a position in a security-based swap with a notional amount of $1 million that provided the dealer with long exposure to a nonconvertible debt security maturing in 21⁄2 years (assuming no offsetting short positions), the dealer would look to Rule 15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(F) to find the applicable haircut percentage (5%) and the firm would be required to take a capital deduction of $50,000. PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70311 is likely that a nonbank SBSD that maintains substantial positions in such instruments would maintain portfolios of multiple instruments in such categories with offsetting long and short positions to hedge its risk. Under the Commission’s proposed standardized haircuts for these categories of security-based swaps, nonbank SBSDs would also be able to recognize the offsets currently permitted under Rule 15c3–1.1038 In particular, as discussed below, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat equity securitybased swaps under the provisions of Appendix A to Rule 15c3–1, which produces a single haircut for portfolios of equity options and related positions.1039 This method would permit a nonbank SBSD to compute deductions for a portfolio of equity security-based swaps using a comprehensive risk perspective by accounting for the risk of the entire portfolio, rather than the risk of each position within the portfolio.1040 Appendix A provides a relatively less costly mechanism for a nonbank SBSD to calculate haircuts (in contrast to the standardized haircuts) since it is used for other equity derivatives and generally may reduce haircuts for a nonbank SBSD by allowing a swap referencing an equity security to be considered as part of a related portfolio. This, in turn, may permit a nonbank SBSD to more efficiently deploy this capital savings in other areas of its operations, as well as enhance operational efficiencies. Similarly, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat a debt security-based swap in the same manner as debt instruments are treated in the Rule 15c3–1 grids in terms of allowing offsets between long and short positions where the instruments are in the same maturity categories, subcategories, and in some cases, adjacent categories.1041 Consequently, nonbank SBSDs could recognize the offsets and hedges that those provisions permit to reduce the deductions on portfolios of debt security-based swaps, and thereby reduce their capital costs. This, in turn, may permit a nonbank SBSD to more efficiently deploy this capital savings in other areas of its operations. The proposed approaches, like other types of standardized haircuts, likely will require a higher amount of capital to conduct security-based swaps 1038 See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 1039 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–1. 1040 See section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release. 1041 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70312 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules business, in contrast to a VaR model. While the standardized haircuts and proposed CDS grid recognize certain offsets, standardized haircuts generally result in higher costs of capital because the standardized approaches do not recognize other ways in which a nonbank SBSD may mitigate its exposures, including unwinding unprofitable trades, entering into certain hedges that would not be recognized under the proposed capital rules, and portfolio diversification. The higher amounts that may result from using the standardized haircut and a grid-based approach 1042 may be acceptable for nonbank SBSDs that occasionally trade in security-based swaps but not in a substantial enough volume to justify the initial and ongoing systems and personnel costs to develop, implement, and monitor the performance of internal models. On the other hand, firms that conduct a substantial business in securities-based swaps in general will need to use the more cost-efficient models to measure and manage the risks of their positions over time. The benefit of the standardized haircut approach of measuring market risk, besides its inherent simplicity, is that it may reduce the likelihood of default or failure by nonbank SBSDs that have not demonstrated that they have the risk management capabilities, of which VaR models are an integral part, or capital levels to support the use of VaR models. Therefore, the standardized haircut approach, in turn, may improve customer protections and reduce systemic risk. In addition, a standardized haircut approach may reduce costs for the nonbank SBSD related to the risk of failing to observe or correct a problem with the use of VaR models that could adversely impact the firm’s financial condition, because the use of VaR models would require the allocation by the nonbank SBSD of additional firm resources and personnel. Conversely, if the proposed standardized haircuts are too conservative, they could make the conduct of security-based swaps business too costly, preventing or impairing the ability of firms to engage in security-based swaps, increasing transaction costs, reducing liquidity, and reducing the availability of securitybased swaps for risk mitigation by end users. iii. Capital Charge in Lieu of Margin Collateral As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain capital charges in lieu 1042 See section II.A.2.b.2. of this release. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 of margin. Generally, margin collateral is designed to serve as a buffer to account for a decrease in the market value of the counterparty’s positions between the time of default and liquidation. If the amount of the margin collateral is insufficient to make up the difference, the nonbank SBSD will incur losses. The proposal requires the nonbank SBSD to hold sufficient net capital to enable it to, first, withstand such losses and to cover counterparty exposures that are not sufficiently secured with liquid collateral, and, second, to create a strong incentive for dealers to collateralize these exposures. Consequently, this proposed capital charge may serve as an alternative to margin collateral, enhance the financial soundness of the nonbank SBSD and, in turn, ultimately reduce systemic risk. With respect to cleared security-based swaps, the rules would impose a capital charge if a nonbank SBSD collects margin collateral from a counterparty in an amount that is less than the deduction that would apply to the security-based swap if it were a proprietary position of the nonbank SBSD (i.e., less than an amount determined by using the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and in proposed new Rule 18a–1 or a VaR model, as applicable).1043 As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, the proposed capital charge, therefore, is designed to protect the nonbank SBSDs against this risk, and thereby, serves to increase the safety and soundness of the nonbank SBSD. This proposed charge, however, could impose additional capital costs on cleared transactions where the amount of the additional costs would depend on the differences between amounts required under Rule 18a–1 and margin amounts the clearing agency sets. It is difficult to estimate the cost impact of this proposal because there is currently a lack of trading for customers in cleared security-based swaps that could be used for comparative purposes.1044 In 1043 See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(A) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 1044 See Process for Submissions of SecurityBased Swaps, 77 FR 41602 (although the volume of interdealer CDS cleared to date is quite large, many security-based swap transactions are still ineligible for central clearing, and many transactions in security-based swaps eligible for clearing at a CCP continue to settle bilaterally. Voluntary clearing of security-based swaps in the U.S. is currently limited to CDS products. Central clearing of security-based swaps began in March 2009 for index CDS products, in December 2009 for singlename corporate CDS products, and in November 2011 for single-name sovereign CDS products. At present, there is no central clearing in the U.S. for PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 addition, requiring nonbank SBSDs to take a capital charge equal to the difference between the haircut amount and the clearing agency margin could reduce incentives to use cleared security-based swap contracts, which would be inconsistent with the goal of reducing systemic risk. However, incentives to clear security-based swaps will be substantially affected by a variety of other factors, including the amount of margin required for noncleared contracts, and clearing volume will also be affected by mandatory clearing determinations by the Commission under Section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. In general, it is unclear whether the additional costs to conduct business on a cleared basis would materially affect the volume of business that SBSDs conduct on an uncleared basis when they have the choice to do so. As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of the release, with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps, the Commission is proposing capital charges to address three exceptions in proposed new Rule 18a–3 (nonbank SBSD margin rule), including margin not collected from commercial end users, margin collateral collected but segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, and margin that has not been collected for a legacy swap.1045 The rule is designed to reduce systemic risk by requiring capital to cover counterparty exposures, because the capital levels will serve in lieu of margin as a buffer in case of counterparty defaults. If the nonbank SBSD did not hold capital in lieu of margin, a counterparty default could lead to the default of the nonbank SBSD itself. This capital charge should have the benefit of reducing the likelihood of default of the nonbank SBSD due to under-margined counterparty exposure. Conversely it will increase the cost of capital for nonbank SBSDs that engage in non-cleared security-based swaps because they must use their own capital to support the counterparty’s transaction, which in turn could reduce the liquidity of such security-based swaps. However, the proposed rule imposes a charge only if a firm fails to collect margin under Rule 18a–3, and thus no additional costs would be imposed on a nonbank SBSDs that security-based swaps that are not CDS products, such as those based on equity securities.). Id. 1045 This proposed rule also provides the nonbank SBSDs certain flexibility in determining whether to collect margin from certain counterparties exempt from certain requirements of proposed Rule 18a–3 and thus attempts to appropriately consider both the concerns of commercial end users and other entities/transactions exempt from proposed new Rule 18a–3 and the need to enhance the financial soundness of the nonbank SBSD. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules collects margin. Therefore, the proposed rule is designed to create a strong incentive for nonbank SBSDs to collect margin and collateralize counterparty exposures. The charge for collateral segregated in individual accounts under Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act reflects the potential that collateral collected by an SBSD but held in a third-party custodian account may not be readily liquidated immediately following a counterparty’s default. Accordingly, this aspect of the rule would create an additional capital cost to SBSDs that hold collateral in independent thirdparty accounts.1046 If these costs are passed on to counterparties electing an independent segregation option, they could deter counterparties from electing the option and reduce their flexibility in determining the optimal way to hold their collateral. The third proposed capital charge would apply to margin not collected in the case of legacy non-cleared securitybased swaps. This proposal should benefit nonbank SBSDs and their counterparties in that it is designed to avoid the difficulties of requiring a nonbank SBSD to renegotiate securitybased swap contracts to come into compliance with the new margin collateral requirements, which would be a complex and costly task. Based on discussions with market participants, this proposal, however, may impose substantial costs in the form of capital charges on firms that have legacy contracts.1047 Because broker-dealers, however, currently do not conduct significant business in security-based swaps, and any newly-registered SBSDs may not enter into security-based swap transactions before the effectiveness of these proposed rules and, therefore, not have any legacy security-based swaps, this cost of capital may be immaterial. However, the costs could be significant if legacy security-based swaps are assigned to a security-based swap dealer. iv. Credit Risk Charge emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, consistent with existing 1046 See discussion above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. See also discussion above in section V.B.1. of this release (discussing quantification of costs). 1047 As discussed above in section II.B.2. of this release, this exception would be designed to address the impracticality of renegotiating contracts governing security-based swap transactions that predate the effectiveness of proposed new Rule 18a–3 in order to come into compliance with the account equity requirements in the rule. See discussion above in section V.A.1. of this release (discussing quantification of costs). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 rules affecting broker-dealers,1048 proposed Rule 18a–1 and the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 rule would require firms to take a 100% charge for the amount of any unsecured receivable, including any uncollateralized receivable currently owed under a security-based swap. As an alternative to taking this capital charge in lieu of margin to a commercial end user, as discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of the release, ANC broker-dealers and standalone SBSDs using internal models would be permitted instead to take a credit risk charge using a methodology in Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 for uncollateralized receivables arising from security-based swaps with (and only with) commercial end users in lieu of the 100% deduction otherwise required by the rules.1049 The proposed rule is designed to provide an alternative, less costly way (in lieu of the 100% deduction otherwise required by the rules) to recognize credit exposure incurred in transactions with commercial end users for those nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal models. Nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to use this approach because they are required to implement processes for analyzing credit risk to OTC derivative counterparties and to develop mathematical models for estimating credit exposures arising from OTC derivatives transactions and determining risk-based capital charges for those exposures.1050 The rule, however, will increase costs 1051 for nonbank SBSDs that do substantial trading with commercial end users and do not collect margin for transactions in non-cleared securitybased swaps from them. Available data suggests that commercial end users presently do not conduct substantial trading in non-cleared security-based swaps.1052 Therefore, the proposed 1048 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(iv)(B)–(D); proposed new Rule 18a–1(c)(1)(iii)(B)–(D). 1049 See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. Paragraph (c)(1) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 requires an ANC broker-dealer to take a counterparty exposure charge in an amount equal to: (i) The net replacement value in the account of each counterparty that is insolvent, or in bankruptcy, or that has senior unsecured long-term debt in default; and (ii) for a counterparty not otherwise described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of Appendix E, the credit equivalent amount of the broker’s or dealer’s exposure to the counterparty, as defined in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this Appendix E, multiplied by the credit risk weight of the counterparty, as defined in paragraph (c)(4)(vi) of Appendix E, multiplied by 8%. 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1e(c)(1). 1050 See Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 and proposed new Rule 18a–1. 1051 See section V.B.1. of this release (discussing quantification of costs). 1052 See generally CDS Data Analysis; ISDA Margin Survey 2012. PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70313 credit risk charge may not have an immediate cost impact on nonbank SBSDs when compared to the baseline of the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today. However, costs, in terms of higher capital charges and opportunity costs, could become significant if commercial end users begin to trade security-based swaps in greater volume and exposures to the nonbank SBSDs remain uncollateralized. To the extent that commercial end users do trade in security-based swaps, the ability of a nonbank SBSD to use internal models likely would give it a significant cost advantage over nonbank SBSDs not using models once the initial infrastructure investment to use the models has been made. In addition, ANC broker-dealers currently are permitted to add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from OTC derivatives transactions (i.e., they can add back the amount of the uncollateralized current exposure).1053 This treatment would be narrowed under the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs as well as for ANC broker-dealers to the extent that it would apply only to uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swaps. In contrast, uncollateralized receivables from other types of counterparties would be subject to a 100% deduction from net worth to limit the potential that the rules would permit a substantial amount of unsecured exposures for ANC brokerdealers and nonbank SBSDs.1054 According to FOCUS Reports and staff experience supervising the ANC brokerdealers, ANC broker-dealers have not engaged in a large volume of OTC derivatives transactions since the rules were adopted in 2004. Therefore, they have not had significant amounts of unsecured receivables that would be subject to the credit risk charge provisions in Appendix E to Rule 15c3– 1. However, when the Dodd-Frank OTC derivatives reforms are implemented, ANC broker-dealers could significantly increase their holdings of OTC derivatives. An increase in derivatives exposure that is uncollateralized would increase the exposure of the ANC broker-dealers to their derivatives counterparties. In turn, however, this proposed amendment should strengthen the capital position of the ANC broker1053 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to treat such uncollateralized receivables in a similar manner. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 1054 See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule 15c3–1e. See section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release (discussing credit risk charges). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70314 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules dealers, and thereby reduce the likelihood of default of one of these entities. Because ANC broker-dealers currently do not trade in significant amounts of OTC derivatives, and therefore, do not currently have significant amounts of unsecured receivables related to OTC derivatives transactions, the cost impact as compared to the baseline of the current capital regime for broker-dealers should not be material for these firms. v. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As discussed in section II.A.2.d. of this release, the Commission is proposing a funding liquidity stress requirement 1055 to be conducted by the ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models at least monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days. These required assumed conditions would be: • A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness of the firm severe enough to trigger contractual credit-related commitment provisions of counterparty agreements; 1056 • The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded committed lines of credit; • The potential for a material net loss of secured funding; • The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement financing for less liquid assets; • The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net worth or which is not funded by customer assets; • A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at registered clearing agencies of which the firm is a member; and • The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses, positions, and commitments of the firm, 1055 Compare BCBS, Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring (Dec. 2010), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs188.pdf. 1056 See Federal Reserve Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594, 608 (Jan. 5, 2012) (noting that effective liquidity stress testing should be conducted over a variety of time horizons to adequately capture rapidly developing events, and other conditions and outcomes that may materialize in the near or long term). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 including those related to customer businesses of the firm.1057 These proposed minimum elements are designed to ensure that ANC brokerdealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models employ a stress test that is severe enough to produce an estimate of a potential funding loss of a magnitude that might be expected in a severely stressed market. The benefit of the proposed liquidity stress test requirement is an additional level of protection against disruptions in the ability to obtain funding for a firm with significant proprietary positions in securities or derivatives.1058 The proposed liquidity requirement is intended to increase the likelihood that a firm could withstand a general loss of confidence in the firm itself, or the markets more generally and stay solvent for up to 30 days, during which time it could either regain the ability to obtain funding in the ordinary course or else better position itself for resolution, with less collateral impact on other market participants and the financial system. As such, this proposal may reduce the likelihood and severity of a fire sale and, therefore, mitigate spillover effects and lower systemic risk.1059 This, in turn, may increase confidence in the security-based swap markets and may lead to an increase in trading in this market. This proposal, however, would impose additional opportunity costs of capital, and other costs on ANC brokerdealers and nonbank SBSDs directly related to the amount of the required liquidity reserve because a nonbank SBSD would be unable to deploy the assets that are maintained for the 1057 See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–1. 1058 See letter from Christopher Cox, Chairman, Commission, to Dr. Nout Wellink, Chairman, BCBS (Mar. 20, 2008), available at https://www.sec.gov/ news/press/2008/2008–48_letter.pdf (highlighting importance of liquidity management in meeting obligations during stressful market conditions). See also Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594, 608 (Jan. 5, 2012) (proposing that liquidity stress testing must be tailored to reflect a covered company’s capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size and other appropriate risk-related factors stating that stress testing will be directly tied to the covered company’s business profile and the regulatory environment in which it operates.). The minimum factors described above are intended to specifically address factors relevant to the regulatory environment in which ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSD using internal models operate. 1059 See Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny, Fire Sales in Finance and Macroeconomics, 25 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29–48 (Winter 2011) (surveying literature on fire sales, which implies that if financial institutions are not liquidity restraints during fire sales, price and liquidity spirals should less likely occur). PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 liquidity reserve in other, potentially more efficient ways. In addition, smaller firms may incur more implementation costs, because, in general, large firms already run stress tests and maintain a liquidity reserve based on those tests.1060 In addition, the required assumed conditions are designed to be consistent with the liquidity stress tests performed by ANC broker-dealers (based on staff experience in supervising the ANC broker-dealers) and to address the types of outflows experienced by ANC brokerdealers and other broker-dealers in times of stress. Therefore, while the opportunity cost of the liquidity requirements might be substantial, they are not expected to impose liquidity standards that are materially different from what is observed now among the ANC broker-dealers and thus should not represent an undue burden at this time. Finally, under the proposals, an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD using internal models would be required to establish a written contingency funding plan. The plan would need to clearly set out the strategies for addressing liquidity shortfalls in emergency situations,1061 and would need to address the policies, roles, and responsibilities for meeting the liquidity needs of the firm and communicating with the public and other market participants during a liquidity stress event.1062 This proposal may reduce the likelihood of default of a nonbank SBSD that uses internal models or an ANC broker-dealer, and thus, in turn, reduce systemic risk. Based on staff experience supervising ANC broker-dealers and monitoring the ultimate holding companies of these firms, most of these entities have a written contingency funding plan, generally, at the holding company level. To the extent that these firms are required to implement a written contingency funding plan at the nonbank SBSD level or ANC level, these firms may incur personnel, technology or other operational costs to develop and implement such a plan.1063 vi. Risk Management Procedures As discussed in section II.A.2.c. above, nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with the risk management provisions of Rule 15c3–4, as if they were OTC derivatives dealers, because the risks of trading by nonbank SBSDs in security-based swaps, 1060 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 1062 See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (f)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–1. 1063 See section V.C. of this release. 1061 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules including market, credit, operational, and legal risks, are similar to the risks faced by OTC derivatives dealers in trading other types of OTC derivatives.1064 These requirements may reduce the risk of significant losses by nonbank SBSDs. The internal risk management control system requirements also should reduce the risk that the problems of one firm will spread because each nonbank SBSD should have a better understanding of the nonbank’s exposures and the risks of those exposures. The nonbank SBSDs may incur costs in better modifying documents and their information technology systems to meet these requirements, but these costs could vary significantly among nonbank SBSDs depending on the degree to which their risk management systems are documented and on size of each firm and the types of business it engages in.1065 b. Capital Requirements for MSBSPs emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As discussed in section II.A.3. of the release, proposed new Rule 18a–2 would require nonbank MSBSPs to have and maintain positive tangible net worth at all times.1066 Entities that may need to register as MSBSPs may engage in a diverse range of business activities very different from, and broader than, the securities activities conducted by broker-dealers (otherwise they would be required to register as an SBSD and/or broker-dealer). Because nonbank MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that have substantial exposure to security-based swaps, they would also be required to comply with Rule 15c3– 4,1067 which requires OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management.1068 This proposal is designed to promote sound risk management practices with respect to the risks associated with trading in OTC derivatives. Nonbank MSBSPs may incur implementation costs, such as technology costs to comply with the risk management 1064 For example, individually negotiated OTC derivative products, including security-based swaps, generally are not very liquid. Market participants face risks associated with the financial and legal ability of counterparties to perform under the terms of specific transactions. The additional exposure to credit risk, liquidity risk, and other risks makes it necessary for OTC derivatives market participants to implement a risk management control system. 1065 See section V.C. of this release. 1066 See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 1067 See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a– 2. 1068 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 practices proposed by the rule. These are discussed in section V.C. below. Risk management controls at nonbank MSBSPs may promote the stability of these firms and, consequently, the stability of the entire financial system. This, in turn, may protect the financial industry from systemic risk. The Commission could instead impose capital requirements that are the same as, or modeled on, those that are being proposed for nonbank SBSDs, which could more effectively reduce the risk of failure of MSBSPs and thereby reduce systemic risk. In general, nonbank SBSDs and MSBSPs can be expected to differ in terms of the range and types of their counterparty relationships and, by definition, MSBSPs will not maintain two-sided exposure to a range of instruments that is characteristic of dealer activity. The systemic impact of the failure of an MSBSP will depend on various factors, including the ability of its counterparties to readily liquidate assets posted by the MSBSP as collateral, without suffering a loss. Although the Commission is proposing to require MSBSPs to post collateral to eliminate their current exposure to counterparties in security-based swaps, the collateral may not be sufficient to avoid losses during a period of market volatility. At the same time, imposing a capital regime on MSBSPs that is based on a net liquid assets test could impact the ability of an MSBSP to pursue business activities and strategies unrelated to its activities involving financial instruments. For example, these entities may engage in commercial activities that require them to have substantial fixed assets to support manufacturing and/or result in them having significant assets comprised of unsecured receivables. Requiring them to adhere to a net liquid assets test could result in their having to obtain significant additional capital or engage in costly restructurings. The Commission is specifically seeking comment on this approach in section II.A.3. of this release. As stated above, at present, entities that may be required to be registered as MSBSPs are expected to be companies that engage in a diverse range of business. For these reasons, it would be difficult to quantify how much additional capital, if any, or costs the capital requirements under proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require these entities to maintain or incur and compare these amounts against the current baseline of the OTC derivatives market as it exists today.1069 Given that proposed new Rule 18a–2 would only require that a nonbank MSBSP maintain a positive tangible net worth at all times, and 5 or fewer entities are expected to register as nonbank MSBSPs,1070 these costs are not expected to be material because it is not expected that these firms would have to alter their existing business practice in any substantial way to comply with the proposed positive tangible net worth test. c. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation The proposed financial responsibility requirements should reduce the risk of a failure of any major market participant in the security-based swap market, which in turn reduces the possibility of a general market failure, and thus promotes confidence for market participants to transact in security-based swaps for investment and hedging purposes. The proposed capital requirements are designed to promote confidence in nonbank SBSDs among customers, counterparties, and the entities that provide financing to nonbank SBSDs and, thereby, lessen the potential that these market participants may seek to rapidly withdraw assets and financing from SBSDs during a time of market stress. This heightened confidence is expected to increase trading activity and promote competition among dealers. The proposed financial responsibility requirements, in significant part, will affect efficiency and capital formation through their impact on competition.1071 Specifically, markets that are competitive can, ceteris paribus, be expected to promote a more efficient allocation of capital. Any new entrant will increase the number of competing entities, and the extent to which competition increases will depend on the number of additional entrants and their success in attracting business from established market participants. As discussed in section IV. of this release, the Commission expects up to 50 entities to register as SBSDs. The number of registered firms will depend, among other factors, on whether potential new entrants determine that the cost impact of the proposed financial responsibility requirements would allow them to compete effectively for business. To the extent that costs associated with the proposed rules are high however, they 1070 See section IV. of this release. also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30742. 1071 See 1069 See PO 00000 section V.A.1. of this release. Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70315 E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 may negatively affect competition within the security-based swap markets. This may, for example, lead smaller dealers or entities for whom dealing is not a core business to exit the market because compliance with the proposed minimum capital requirements is not feasible because of cost considerations. The same costs might also deter the entry of new SBSDs or MSBSPs into the market, and if sufficiently high, increase concentration among nonbank SBSDs. The possibility of using VaR to calculate haircuts may permit a nonbank SBSD to more efficiently deploy capital in other parts of its operations (because VaR models could reduce capital charges and thereby could make additional capital available), which should be a factor in the decision to enter the security-based swap markets in general and through which type of registrant in particular. Because of the reduced charges for market and credit risk, a nonbank SBSD may be able to reallocate capital from the nonbank SBSD to affiliates that may receive a higher return than the nonbank SBSD.1072 Therefore, the success of new entrants in competing for security-based swap business also will likely depend on the extent to which they obtain the Commission’s approval to use a VaR model.1073 Hence, the Commission expects a positive impact on competition especially among SBSDs that use internal models, whether they are stand-alone SBSDs or ANC broker-dealers. However, some of the entities that presently compete in the market may opt to conduct these activities in registered broker-dealer affiliates; this development would not increase the number of competitors. But other firms that currently do not deal in securitybased swaps or do not do so in any significant degree, may choose to compete either as a stand-alone SBSD or as a broker-dealer SBSD. This may increase the number of competing firms. The proposals ultimately adopted, like other requirements established under the Dodd-Frank Act, could have a substantial impact on international 1072 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 1073 See, e.g., Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34455 (describing benefits of alternative net capital requirements for broker-dealers using models stating a ‘‘major benefit for the broker-dealer will be lower deductions from net capital for market and credit risk that we expect will result from the use of the alternative method.’’) Therefore, it is likely that for new entrants to capture substantial volume in security-based swaps they will need to use VaR models. See also OTC Derivatives Dealer Release, 63 FR 59362 (discussing benefits of minimum capital requirements as an additional measure of protection). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 commerce and the relative competitive position of intermediaries operating in various, or multiple, jurisdictions. In particular, intermediaries operating in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions could be advantaged or disadvantaged if corresponding requirements are not established in other jurisdictions or if the Commission’s rules are substantially more or less stringent than corresponding requirements in other jurisdictions. This could, among other potential impacts, affect the ability of intermediaries and other market participants based in the U.S. to participate in non-U.S. markets, the ability of non-U.S.-based intermediaries and other market participants to participate in U.S. markets, and whether and how international firms make use of global ‘‘booking entities’’ to centralize risks related to security-based swaps. As discussed in section I. of this release, these issues have been the focus of numerous comments to the Commission and other regulators, Congressional inquiries, and other public dialogue. Accordingly, substantial differences between the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions in the costs of complying with the financial responsibility requirements for security-based swaps between U.S. and foreign jurisdictions could reduce cross-border capital flows and hinder the ability of global firms to most efficiently allocate capital among legal entities to meet the demands of their counterparties. As discussed in section I. of this release, the potential international implications of the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements warrant further consideration.1074 The Commission intends to publish a comprehensive release seeking public comment on the full spectrum of issues relating to the application of Title VII to cross-border security-based swap transactions and non-U.S. persons that act in capacities regulated under the Dodd-Frank Act. The willingness of end users to trade with a nonbank SBSD dealer will depend on their evaluation of the risks of trading with that particular firm compared to more established firms, and their ability to negotiate favorable price and other terms. As discussed in section V.A. of this release, end users of security-based swaps are mostly comprised of hedge funds and other asset management and financial firms. Many of these entities are sophisticated 1074 See BCBS, IOSCO, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-cleared Derivatives (July 2012), available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/ pdf/IOSCOPD387.pdf (consultative document seeking comment on a paper on margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives). PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 participants that trade in substantial volume and generally post collateral for their security-based swap positions.1075 These end users are relatively wellpositioned to negotiate price and other terms with competing dealers and to take advantage of greater choice of nonbank SBSD counterparties. These same participants, when transacting in the securities markets, often trade with a variety of competing dealers, including through prime brokerage relationships. To the extent that the proposals result in increased competition, participants in the security-based swap markets should be able to take advantage of this increased competition and negotiate improved terms, resulting generally in narrower spreads and better prices. In addition, benefits may be expected to also arise from the ability of nonbank SBSDs, which now conduct substantial business in security-based swaps, to consolidate those operations within their affiliated U.S. broker-dealers. This flexibility may yield efficiencies for clients conducting business in securities and security-based swaps, including netting benefits,1076 a reduction in the number of account relationships required with affiliated entities, and a reduction in the number of governing agreements. These potential benefits are at some tension with benefits from an increase in the number of competitors, to the extent that netting benefits will be maximized by holding a large portfolio of positions at the same entity,1077 rather than trading with a variety of competing dealers. Further, because the proposals would permit the conduct of a security-based swap business in an entity jointly registered as a brokerdealer SBSD,1078 they would facilitate the potential for those firms to offer portfolio margin for a variety of positions. From the standpoint of a holding company with multiple financial affiliates, aggregating securitybased swaps business in a single entity, 1075 See, e.g., Independent Amounts at 6. e.g., paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a–3(c)(5). See letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President, Managing Director and General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to David A. Stawick, Secretary of the CFTC (July 11, 2011) (‘‘Effective netting agreements lower systemic risk by reducing both the aggregate requirement to deliver margin and trading costs for market participants.’’). 1077 See Darrell Duffie and Haoxiang Zhu, Does a Central Clearing Party Reduce Counterparty Risk, Stanford University Working Paper (Mar. 6, 2010) (showing that netting in the context of CCPs results in significant reductions in counterparty exposures). 1078 See, e.g., amendments to Rule 15c3–1 (proposing minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealers engaging in a security-based swap business). 1076 See, E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules such as a broker-dealer SBSD, could help to simplify and streamline risk management, allow more efficient use of capital, as well as operational efficiencies, and avoid the need for multiple netting and other agreements. While these arguments generally suggest the possibility of positive effects of the proposed rules on competition, efficiency and capital formation, financial responsibility requirements that impose too many competitive burdens pose the risk of imposing excessive regulatory costs that could deter the efficient allocation of capital. Such rules also may be expected to reduce the capital formation benefits that otherwise would be associated with security-based swaps. Specifically, financial responsibility requirements that are overly stringent may prevent entries in the security-based swap markets and thereby may either increase spreads and trading costs or even reduce the availability of security-based swaps. In both instances, end users would face higher cost to meet their business needs. Apart from their impact on the extent of dealer competition and efficiencies for end users, the proposed new rules and rule amendments could create the potential for regulatory arbitrage to the extent that they differ from corresponding rules other regulators adopt. As noted above in section I. of this release, the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC were considered in developing the Commission’s proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission’s proposals differ in some respects from proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC. While some differences are based on differences in the activities of securities firms, banks, and commodities firms, or differences in the products at issue, other differences may reflect an alternative approach to balancing the relevant policy choices and considerations. Depending on the final rules the Commission adopts, the financial responsibility requirements could make it more or less costly to conduct security-based swaps trading in banks as compared to nonbank SBSDs. For example, high capital requirements may discourage certain entities from participating in the security-based swap markets, particularly if the regulatory costs for nonbank SBSDs are high. Likewise, if the application of the proposed 8% margin risk factor substantially increases capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs compared to risk-based capital requirements imposed by the prudential regulators on the same activity, bank holding companies could be VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 incentivized to conduct these activities in their bank affiliates.1079 These differences could create competitive inequalities and affect the allocation of trading activities within a holding company structure. Finally, in significant part, the effect of the proposals for nonbank MSBSPs on efficiency and capital formation will also be linked to the effect of these requirements on competition,1080 as competitive markets, ceteris paribus, can be expected to promote a more efficient allocation of capital. Conversely, if the proposals for MSBSPs are accompanied by too many competitive burdens, the proposals risk the imposition of excessive regulatory costs that could deter the efficient allocation of capital. Such rules also may be expected to reduce the capital formation benefits that otherwise would be associated with security-based swaps. Requirements for nonbank MSBSPs that are overly stringent may prevent entries in the security-based swap markets and thereby may reduce the availability of security-based swaps, forcing end users to use less effective financial instruments to meet their business needs. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the general costs and benefits of the proposed capital rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to the following questions: 1. Would the minimum capital requirements represent a barrier to entry to firms that may otherwise seek to trade security-based swaps as SBSDs? If so, which types of firms would be foreclosed? 2. Is it correct to assume that firms that have the risk management capability to act as a dealer in securitybased swaps generally would also meet or be readily able to meet the proposed capital minimums? 3. To what extent will firms that receive approval to use VaR models be able to dominate trading in securitybased swaps, whether because of costs to other firms in applying a haircut methodology to security-based swaps or for other reasons? 4. What would be the impact of market concentration on reduction in systemic risk? For example, would concentration of positions in a relatively few firms exacerbate systemic risk by 1079 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. 1080 See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30742. PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70317 exaggerating the impact of the failure of a single firm? Conversely, would high capital requirements better protect against systemic risk by reducing the risk of failure of a nonbank SBSD? 5. Do the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs proportionately reflect the increased risk associated with the use of internal models and trading in a portfolio of instruments, including securities, security-based swaps, and other derivatives? 6. The Commission requests comment on how much additional capital would be required, if any, as a result of the proposed 8% margin factor based on a sample portfolio of security-based swaps and how the result compares to the amount these firms currently hold against the same risk. 7. Under the proposed 8% margin factor, the relation between exposure and capital is linear. Is this type of formal approach appropriate for risks associated with security-based swaps? Should the risk margin factor be increased at higher levels of exposure, or should it increase on some other basis? 8. How would firms’ current risk management practices for calculating their exposures to counterparties compare to the proposed 8% margin factor, if nonbank SBSDs were only required to comply with a fixed minimum net capital standard? 9. From a systemic risk perspective, should the proposed capital rules for nonbank SBSDs encourage the conduct of security-based swaps trading outside of broker-dealer affiliates? 10. From a systemic risk perspective, are the proposed increases in the minimum net capital (from $500 million to $1 billion) and minimum tentative net capital ($1 billion to $5 billion) requirements for ANC broker-dealers adequate? From a systematic risk perspective, is the proposed increase in the ‘‘early warning’’ level from $5 billion to $6 billion for ANC brokerdealers adequate? 11. Would the proposed CDS grid impose any additional costs on nonbank SBSDs in comparison to the current haircut charges for similar debt securities under Rule 15c3–1? 12. Would a nonbank SBSD incur additional costs resulting from the proposed liquidity stress test based on current practice? The Commission requests that commenters quantify the extent of the additional cost the proposed stress test would yield based on hypothetical firm portfolios, and provide the Commission with such data. 13. Are the factors proposed in the liquidity funding stress test adequate? If E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70318 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules not, are there other factors that should be included? 14. How would proposed new Rule 18a–2 impact entities that may be required to register as MSBSPs? 15. Would proposed new Rule 18a–2 require nonbank MSBSPs to hold additional capital, in comparison to current capital levels maintained at these firms? If yes, please quantify the amount. 16. What additional costs, if any, would a nonbank MSBSP incur in making adjustments to risk management practices to conform to the specific provisions of Rule 15c3–4? 17. If stand-alone SBSDs would not be able to claim flow-through capital benefits for consolidated subsidiaries or affiliates under Rule 18a–1c, in contrast to Appendix C of existing Rule 15c3–1, would stand-alone SBSDs be competitively disadvantaged? If yes, please explain. 18. Would the Commission’s proposals lead to greater competition among intermediaries for security-based swaps business, greater concentration, or neither? How important are the goals of reduction in systemic risk versus promotion of competition in crafting rules in this area, and to what extent are they competing goals? If they are not competing goals, how should the achievement of both goals inform the Commission’s overall approach? 19. Will the Commission’s proposals affect the competitive position of U.S. firms in the global security-based swaps market? How in general would they impact global trading in these products? How could the Commission best address any anti-competitive effects? For example, should the Commission permit U.S. firms trading with off-shore counterparties to collect margin based on the rules of the jurisdiction where the counterparty is located, provided the Commission determines that those rules are comparable to the U.S. regime? How would comparability be determined? 20. The Commission specifically requests comment on the potential impact of interagency differences in specific aspects of capital and margin requirements. Which specific aspects of the proposed rules could have the most impact in determining the type of legal entity in which trading is conducted? What would be the market or economic effects? 3. The Proposed Margin Rule—Rule 18a–3 As discussed in section II.B. of this release, pursuant to section 15F(e) of the Exchange Act, proposed new Rule 18a– 3 would establish margin requirements VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs with respect to transactions with counterparties in non-cleared security-based swaps.1081 As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from their counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both current exposure and potential future exposure to the counterparty (i.e., the rule would require the account to have prescribed minimum levels of equity); however, there would be exceptions to these requirements for certain types of counterparties. Proposed new Rule 18a– 3 would have a number of benefits as well as impose certain costs on nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs, as well as other market participants, including commercial end users. The proposed rule also would have possible effects on competition, efficiency, and capital formation, which will be discussed further below. The two types of credit exposure arising from OTC derivatives are current exposure and potential future exposure. The current exposure is the amount that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the dealer if all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were terminated (i.e., it is the amount of the current receivable from the counterparty). This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the counterparty may default on the obligation to pay the current receivable. The potential future exposure is the amount that the current exposure may increase in the favor of the dealer in the future. This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the counterparty may default before providing the dealer with additional collateral to cover the incremental increase in the current exposure or the current exposure will increase after a default when the counterparty has ceased to provide additional collateral to cover such increases and before the dealer can liquidate the position. Rule 18a–3 is intended to support a goal of the Dodd-Frank Act by promoting centralized clearing of sufficiently standardized products,1082 1081 See proposed new Rule 18a–3. Dodd-Frank Act seeks to ensure that, wherever possible and appropriate, derivatives contracts formerly traded exclusively in the OTC market be cleared. See, e.g., Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111–176, 34 (stating that ‘‘[s]ome parts of the OTC market may not be suitable for clearing and exchange trading due to individual business needs of certain users. Those users should retain the ability to engage in customized, non-cleared contracts while bringing in as much of the OTC market under the centrally cleared and exchangetraded framework as possible.’’). 1082 The PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 which, in turn, may help to mitigate credit risk.1083 Specifically, Rule 18a–3, by creating stringent margin requirements for non-cleared contracts, is meant to create incentives for participants to clear security-based swaps, where available and appropriate for their needs.1084 Central clearing can provide systemic benefits by limiting systemic leverage and aggregating and managing risks by a central counterparty.1085 At the same time, realization of these benefits assumes that central counterparties are appropriately capitalized and sufficiently collateralize their exposures to their clearing members. Under the proposed rule, the market will benefit from the required collateralization of non-cleared security-based swaps. Specifically, the required collateralization should improve counterparty risk management, reduce the risk of contagion from a defaulting counterparty, and ultimately reduce systemic risk. While available data suggests that clearing of security-based swaps has been increasing, significant segments of the security-based swap markets remain uncleared, even where a CCP is available to clear the product in question on a voluntary basis.1086 The mandatory clearing determinations made pursuant to Exchange Act section 3C(a)(1) will alter current clearing practices at the time such determinations are made. The Commission has not yet made any mandatory clearing determinations under the authority of section 3C(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and cannot estimate 1083 For example, when an OTC derivatives contract between two counterparties that are members of a CCP is executed and submitted for clearing, it is typically replaced by two new contracts—separate contracts between the CCP and each of the two original counterparties. At that point, the original counterparties are no longer counterparties to each other. Instead, each acquires the CCP as its counterparty, and the CCP assumes the counterparty credit risk of each of the original counterparties that are members of the CCP. See Stephen Cecchetti, Jacob Gyntelberg, and Mark Hollanders, Central counterparties for over-thecounter derivatives, BIS Quarterly Review (Sept. 2009), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/ r_qt0909f.pdf. Structured and operated appropriately, CCPs may improve the management of counterparty risk and may provide additional benefits such as multilateral netting of trades. See also Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77 FR at 41603. 1084 See Daniel Heller and Nicholas Vause, Expansion of Central Clearing, BIS Quarterly Review (June 2011) (arguing expansion of central clearing within or across segments of the derivatives markets could economize both on margin and non-margin resources). 1085 See Process for Submissions of SecurityBased Swaps, 77 FR 41602. 1086 See Process for Submissions of SecurityBased Swaps, 77 FR 41602. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules at this time how much of the securitybased swap markets may ultimately be subject to such determinations. Other costs resulting from proposed new Rule 18a–3 may result from reducing the availability of liquid assets for purposes other than posting collateral. Data available to the Commission suggests that existing collateral practices vary widely by type of market participant and counterparty.1087 For example, the ISDA Margin Survey 2012, which provides global estimates regarding the use of collateral in the OTC derivatives business based on a survey of ISDA members as of the end of 2011,1088 stated that 71% of all OTC derivatives transactions were subject to collateral agreements; the average percentage was 96% for the largest dealers responding to the survey.1089 The percent of trades subject to collateral agreements was higher, however, for credit derivatives (93.4% of all trades) and about the same as the general average for equity derivatives (72.7%).1090 The ISDA Margin Survey 2011 reported on the extent of collateralization (percentage of net exposures) by type of counterparty.1091 The amount reported for all counterparties and all OTC derivatives was 73.1%.1092 The ISDA Margin Survey 2011 also indicates that the collateralization levels by large dealers of their net exposures to their bank and broker-dealer dealer counterparties was 88.6%.1093 For hedge funds, the average collateralization levels were 178%, emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 1087 See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012. Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would distinguish by counterparty type in that the rule would provide specific exemptions from the rule for certain counterparties, such as commercial end users. See section II.B. of this release. 1088 ISDA Margin Survey 2012. The ISDA Margin Survey 2012 also states that the estimated amount of collateral in circulation in the non-cleared OTC derivatives market at the end of 2011 was approximately $3.6 trillion, which is up 24% from last year’s estimated amount of $2.9 trillion. 1089 Id. The threshold for classification as a ‘‘large’’ program under the ISDA survey is more than 3,000 agreements. Overall, 84% of all OTC derivatives transactions executed by the largest dealers were subject to collateral agreements. Hedge fund exposures tend to be the most highly collateralized of all types of counterparty exposures with average collateralization levels exceeding 100% of net exposures, a figure that reflects ‘‘Independent Amounts’’ (initial margin) posted by such firms. ISDA Margin Survey 2011 at Table 3.3. 1090 ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at Table 3.2. The fourteen largest reporting firms reported an average 96.1% of credit derivatives trades were subject to collateral arrangements during 2011, and 85.5% of equity derivatives trades were subject to collateral agreements. Id. 1091 See ISDA Margin Survey 2011. This information was not reported in the ISDA Margin Survey 2012. 1092 Id. 1093 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 reflecting a greater tendency to collect initial margin from those participants.1094 Finally, exposures to non-financial corporations (37.3%) and sovereign governments (17.6%) had much lower levels of coverage.1095 The data from the ISDA Margin Survey 2011 and the ISDA Margin Survey 2012 support the premises that margin practices widely vary, that larger dealers tend to collateralize their net exposures, that exposures to financial end users tend to be collateralized with both variation (current exposure) and initial margin (potential future exposure), and that much of the exposure to non-financial end users generally is not collateralized.1096 Rule 18a–3 is generally modeled on the broker-dealer margin rules in terms of establishing an account equity requirement; requiring nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral to meet the requirement; and, subject to haircuts, allowing a range of securities for which there is a ready market to be used as collateral.1097 The goals of modeling proposed new Rule 18a–3 on the brokerdealer margin rules are to create a framework that will limit counterparty exposure of nonbank SBSDs while promoting consistency with existing rules. This consistency may also facilitate the ability to provide portfolio margining of security-based swaps with other types of securities, and in particular single name credit default swaps along with bonds that serve as reference obligations for the credit default swaps. In the securities markets, margin rules have been set by relevant regulatory authorities (the Federal Reserve and the SROs) since the 1930s.1098 The 1094 Id. 1095 Id. 1096 See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011; ISDA Margin Survey 2012. The results of the survey, however, could be substantially different if limited only to U.S. participants, because the data contained in the ISDA Margin Survey 2011 and ISDA Margin Survey 2012 is global. Id. For example, 47% of the institutions responding to the ISDA Margin Survey 2012 were based in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa, and 31% were based in the Americas. ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at Chart 1.1. 1097 Broker-dealers are subject to margin requirements in Regulation T promulgated by the Federal Reserve (12 CFR 220.1, et seq.), in rules promulgated by the SROs (see, e.g., FINRA Rules 4210–4240), and with respect to security futures, in rules jointly promulgated by the Commission and the CFTC (17 CFR 242.400–406). 1098 The Federal Reserve originally adopted Regulation T pursuant to section 7 of the Exchange Act shortly after the enactment of the Exchange Act. See 1934 Fed. Res. Bull. 675. The purposes of the Federal Reserve’s margin rules include: (1) Regulation of the amount of credit directed into securities speculation and away from other uses; (2) protection of the securities markets from price fluctuations and disruptions caused by excessive PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70319 requirement that an SRO file proposed margin rules with the Commission has promoted the establishment of consistent margin levels across the SROs, which mitigates the risk that SROs (as well as their member firms) will compete by implementing lower margin levels and helps ensure that margin levels are set at sufficiently prudent levels to reduce systemic risk.1099 Basing proposed Rule 18a–3 on the broker-dealer margin rules is intended to achieve these same objectives in the market for securitybased swaps. This consistency between margin requirements for securities and security-based swaps should ultimately benefit participants in the securities markets, reduce the potential for regulatory arbitrage, and lead to consistent interpretation and enforcement of applicable regulatory requirements across U.S. securities markets. The discussion below focuses on the impact of specific provisions of proposed new Rule 18a–3 and their potential benefits and costs. With respect to certain provisions, the Commission has identified alternatives to the proposed approach and is seeking comment on the relative costs and benefits of adopting the alternatives, in comparison to the proposed approach. As to whether nonbank SBSDs should be required to collect initial margin in transactions with each other, the Commission is expressly proposing alternative formulations of the rule. a. Calculation of Margin Amount Proposed new Rule 18a–3 would require a nonbank SBSD to perform two calculations (and a nonbank MSBSP to perform one calculation) as of the close of each business day with respect to each account carried by the firm for a counterparty to a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction.1100 Even if the counterparty is not required to deliver collateral, the calculation(s) would assist the nonbank SBSD or the nonbank MSBSPs in managing its credit risk (and determining how much needs to be margin credit; (3) protection of investors against losses arising from undue leverage in securities transactions; and (4) protection of broker-dealers from the financial exposure involved in excessive margin lending to customers. See Charles F. Rechlin, Securities Credit Regulation § 1:3 (2d ed. 2008). 1099 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, each SRO must file with the Commission any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from the rules of the exchange electronically on a Form 19b–4 through the Electronic Form 19b–4 Filing System, which is a secure Web site operated by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 1100 See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70320 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 collateralized) and understanding the extent of its uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty and across all counterparties. These required calculations also would provide examiners with enhanced information about non-cleared security-based swaps, allowing the Commission and other appropriate regulators to gain ‘‘snapshot’’ information at a point in time for examination purposes. As described in section II.B. of the release, paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 would prescribe a standardized method for calculating the margin amount as well as a model-based method if the non-bank SBSD is approved to use internal models.1101 The benefits of consistent treatment of the standardized haircut and internal models as between the proposed capital rules and proposed new Rule 18a–3 may increase operational efficiencies and reduce costs at the nonbank SBSD by permitting the use of congruent systems and processes to comply with both capital and margin requirements.1102 As is the case with the impact of standardized haircuts on regulatory capital, as described in section II.B. of the release, nonbank SBSDs required to use standardized haircuts under Rule 18a–3(d) to determine the margin amount generally will be required to collect higher margin amounts from counterparties for non-cleared securitybased swap transactions than nonbank SBSDs that are approved to use internal models will need to collect, because VaR models generally result in lower charges than the standardized haircut provisions.1103 In addition, this proposed requirement would impose additional operational and technology costs to install or upgrade systems needed to perform daily calculations under proposed new Rule 18a–3. These costs may vary because broker-dealers registering as nonbank SBSDs may already have systems in place, as current margin rules 1104 for securities require daily margin calculations for customer accounts, while new entrants may incur higher operational or other systems costs to comply with this requirement. Finally, secondary costs (such as reduced profits) could arise if commercial end users or other 1101 See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a– 3. ‘‘Margin amount’’ is generally initial margin or potential future exposure. These terms may be used interchangeably throughout this section. 1102 See proposed new Rule 18a–1; proposed new Rule 18a–3; proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1. 1103 See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. 1104 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4220 (Daily Record of Required Margin); 12 CFR 220.4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 counterparties reduce trading in noncleared security-based swaps because of the increased collateral requirements required by Rule 18a–3, or if these entities determine to trade instead with non-U.S. entities. b. Account Equity Requirements As described in section II.B. to this release, a nonbank SBSD and nonbank MSBSP generally would need to collect cash and/or securities to meet the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3.1105 This proposal recognizes that counterparties may engage in a wide range of trading strategies that include security-based swaps. Because of the relation between security-based swaps and other securities positions, permitting various types of securities to count as collateral may be more practical for margin arrangements involving security-based swaps than for other types of derivatives. This flexibility to accept a broad range of securities, along with consistency with existing margin requirements,1106 takes advantage of efficiencies that result from correlations between securities and security-based swaps.1107 However, it may increase the risk that SBSDs will incur a shortfall if, as a result, they hold less liquid collateral that cannot be quickly sold for an amount that covers the nonbank SBSD’s exposure to the counterparty.1108 This risk may be mitigated by the collateral haircut and other requirements regarding the liquidity of collateral under the proposed rule.1109 As an alternative, the Commission could limit eligible collateral to the most highly liquid categories, as proposed by the prudential regulators 1105 By requiring most counterparties to deliver collateral, the proposed margin requirements are intended to prevent counterparties from employing undue leverage in their portfolios of security-based swaps, which can exacerbate the magnitude of losses in relation to the financial resources of the counterparty in the case of default. 1106 See the Federal Reserve’s Regulation T, 12 CFR 220.1, et seq. and SRO margin rules, such as FINRA Rule 4210 and CBOE Rule 12.3. The consideration in adopting final rules will be informed by the comments received. 1107 The ISDA Margin Survey 2012 states with regard to the types of assets used as collateral, that the use of cash and government securities as collateral remains predominant, constituting 90.4% of collateral received and 96.8% of collateral delivered. ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at 8, Table 2.1. 1108 Gary Gorton and Guillermo Ordonez, ˜ Collateral Crises, Yale University Working Paper (Mar. 2012) (arguing that during normal times collateral values are less precise, but during volatile times are reassessed). This reassessment can possibly lead to large negative shocks in their values, which by deduction can lead to market disruptions if collateral needs to be liquidated. 1109 See paragraphs (c)(3)–(c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and the CFTC and described in section II.B.2.c. of this release.1110 This alternative could limit the potential that an SBSD would incur a loss following default of a counterparty based on changes in market values of less liquid collateral that occur before the SBSD is able to sell the collateral, and therefore could limit the potential for a default by the SBSD to other counterparties. On the other hand, if Rule 18a–3 required a counterparty to deliver additional collateral beyond assets already held in the counterparty’s account because the existing assets did not qualify as eligible collateral, the rule could have the effect of increasing the counterparty’s exposure to the SBSD and draining liquidity from the counterparty in a way that may not be necessary to account for the nonbank SBSD’s potential future exposure to the counterparty, and may increase costs for both the nonbank SBSD and its counterparties.1111 Also, granting counterparties the flexibility to post a variety of collateral types to meet margin requirements may result in reduced costs for end users and could encourage increased trading of securitybased swaps, thereby increasing competition. The extent of increased trading of non-cleared security-based swaps, however, may depend on the extent to which portfolio margin treatment would materially increase the amount of net equity that counterparties would have available to serve as collateral, compared to the amount that would result if they were limited to very highly liquid securities, such as U.S. Treasury securities. i. Commercial End Users As discussed in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, under proposed new Rule 18a–3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash or securities to cover the negative equity (current exposure) or margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty that is a commercial end user.1112 1110 Commenters argued that the scope of eligible collateral should be significantly expanded by arguing that there are other assets that are highly liquid and suitable for credit support if a counterparty fails and if eligible collateral remains narrowly defined, the liquidity of eligible assets could be highly affected and sourcing of adequate margin could become difficult. See, e.g., CFTC SIFMA/ISDA Letter. 1111 This alternative may also increase demand for highly liquid collateral and potentially cause shortages in the supply of cash and government bonds. See IMF, Global Financial Stability Report: The Quest for Lasting Stability 96 and 120 (Apr. 2012), available at https://www.imf.org/External/ Pubs/FT/GFSR/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf. 1112 See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–3 (defining the term commercial end user). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this proposed exception to the requirement to collect collateral is intended to benefit commercial end users in order to address concerns that have been expressed by them and others that the imposition of margin requirements on commercial companies that use derivatives to mitigate the risk of business activities that are not financial in nature could unduly disrupt their ability to enter into such hedging transactions. The proposed exception for commercial end users also is intended to account for the different risk profiles of commercial end users as compared with financial end users.1113 This exception may increase efficiencies by allowing such end users to more cost efficiently manage business risks and thereby better compete in their respective industries. At the same time, to the extent of any dealer exposure to commercial end users, the proposed exception for commercial end users could lead to uncollateralized exposure by nonbank SBSDs to commercial end users. To address this concern and because collecting collateral is an important means of mitigating risk, Rule 18a–1 would require nonbank SBSDs not approved to use internal models to take a capital charge equal to the margin amount calculated for the commercial end user to the extent the firm does not collect cash or securities equal to that amount.1114 Requiring a firm to hold capital in lieu of margin 1115 in these cases is designed to reflect both the needs of commercial end users and concerns that permitting nonbank SBSDs to assume credit exposure without the protection of margin could lead to the assumption of inappropriate risks. In this way the proposal is intended to ensure the safety and soundness of nonbank SBSDs and be proportionate to the amount of 1113 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571 (‘‘Among end users, financial end users are considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.’’). See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (‘‘The Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.’’). 1114 See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3–1; paragraph (c)(1)(xiv) of proposed Rule 18a– 1. 1115 See section II.A.2.b.v. of this release (discussing proposed charge capital in lieu of margin collateral). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 uncollateralized exposures to commercial end users.1116 The extent of the impact of the intended benefit to commercial end users, however, would depend on whether nonbank SBSDs choose to trade with commercial end user counterparties on an uncollateralized basis, notwithstanding the capital charges under Rule 18a–1. In addition, nonbank SBSDs subject to this capital charge are expected to, at least partially, pass the increased cost of capital through to commercial end users in the form of increased transaction pricing.1117 Accordingly, any potential economic benefit associated with an exception from Rule 18a–3 for commercial end users in non-cleared security-based swaps may be offset to the extent that nonbank SBSDs determine to pass on any costs incurred as a result of the additional capital charges.1118 In summary, the Commission does not expect those costs will be material, unless commercial end users begin to account for meaningful volume in non-cleared security-based swap trading. As an alternative, the Commission could limit this proposed exception for commercial end users and require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from commercial end users with regard to their transactions in non-cleared security-based swaps. This alternative would protect the nonbank SBSDs by requiring that transactions with commercial end users be collateralized. However, in contrast to the Commission’s proposal, this alternative would limit the flexibility of nonbank SBSDs and commercial end users to negotiate the terms of their non-cleared 1116 As discussed above in section II.A. of this release, nonbank SBSDs that have been approved to use internal models for credit risk would take a much smaller capital charge, i.e., 8% of net replacement value multiplied by the counterparty factor. These firms also would be permitted to take a smaller charge with respect to the unsecured receivables from commercial end user counterparties, which may provide a competitive advantage for nonbank SBSDs that are capable of and have received approval to model credit risk. 1117 Even under these conditions, a nonbank SBSD still retains the option to collect margin from its counterparties. 1118 See Antonio S. Mello and John E. Parsons, Margins, Liquidity and the Cost of Hedging, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research Working Paper 2012–005 (May 2012) (presenting a replication argument to show that a non-margined swap is equivalent to a package of (1) a margined swap, plus (2) a contingent line of credit). The paper concludes that a mandate to clear and therefore to margin derivatives trades forces dealers to market these two components separately, but otherwise makes no additional demand on nonfinancial corporations, and therefore, a clearing and margin mandate does not add any real costs to a non-financial corporation seeking to hedge its commercial risk). Id. PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70321 security-based swap transactions. In considering this approach, the Commission would need to consider the benefit of any additional protections to SBSDs against losses in transactions with commercial end users in light of increased costs to such end users or less accessibility to them of hedging instruments. ii. SBSDs—Alternatives A and B As described in section II.B. to the release, the Commission is proposing specific alternative margin requirements with respect to counterparties that are nonbank SBSDs. Under Alternative A, which would create an exception from proposed new Rule 18a–3, a nonbank SBSD would need collateral only to cover the current exposure (negative equity) in the account of a counterparty that is another SBSD. Under Alternative B, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral to cover both the current exposure (negative equity) and the potential future exposure (margin amount) in the account of a counterparty that is another SBSD 1119 and further segregate the margin amount in an account carried by an independent third-party custodian pursuant to the requirements of Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.1120 Alternative B is consistent with the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC.1121 As discussed in section V.A. above, the baseline of this economic analysis is the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today. The CDS Data Analysis suggests there is currently a high degree of concentration of potential dealing activity in the single-name credit default swap market. Based on discussions with market participants, the Commission staff understands that dealers in security-based swaps presently collect variation margin covering current exposure but generally do not collect initial margin covering potential future exposure from other dealers.1122 Accordingly, relative to the existing market for security-based swaps, Alternative A would not create additional costs for dealers resulting from transactions with other dealers in security-based swaps. Alternative B would impose substantially greater costs 1119 Alternative B is not an exception to the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–3 because it would require the nonbank SBSD to collect collateral to cover the negative equity and margin amount in an account of another SBSD. 1120 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f). 1121 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. 1122 See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011; ISDA Margin Survey 2012. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70322 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules to inter-dealer transactions compared to the baseline. Alternatives A and B would both require the exchange of variation margin; the difference between the alternatives therefore is, first and foremost, whether to require nonbank SBSD counterparties to exchange initial margin. The cost impact would depend on how significant initial margin is in relation to variation margin, which will vary by type of contract, extent of market volatility, and other factors. The goal for either alternative is to reduce systemic risk without imposing undue additional cost to the extent that the ability of counterparties to trade security-based swaps is severely compromised. However, the benefit of collecting the margin amount under Alternative B would be the further protection of a nonbank SBSD from market exposure during the period of unwinding a position from a defaulting counterparty when that counterparty, by definition, would not be able to post additional variation margin. Requiring a nonbank SBSD to post initial margin, however, could significantly impact its liquidity and therefore limit the ability of the nonbank SBSD to trade in securitybased swaps. Permitting a firm to retain a pool of liquid assets that would not otherwise be used to post initial margin could permit the nonbank SBSD to use this capital more efficiently, for example by increasing its investment in information technology or increasing its investments that offer a higher rate of return. The potential benefit of Alternative B is that it would limit the aggregate amount of leverage in the financial system associated with security-based swaps. A principal purpose of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, including those provisions that apply to capital and margin requirements for dealers, is to reduce systemic risk, particularly risks associated with relatively opaque bilateral, non-cleared derivative transactions. Requiring dealers to collateralize their potential future exposure to each other by exchanging both initial and variation margin may further reduce systemic risk by reducing leverage and the potential that a default by a single large dealer could translate to defaults of counterparty dealers with potential ripple effects throughout the system. On the other hand, the requirement to exchange initial margin would not only impose costs to the extent that it would result in substantially less capital available to support the security-based swap business or other dealer activity, but also it could contribute to the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 instability of a nonbank SBSD. The instability stems from the possibility that assets posted to the custodian account might in the case of a counterparty default not be immediately returned to a nonbank SBSD to absorb losses or meet other liquidity demands. In this regard, the ability of a dealer counterparty to demand and obtain the return of initial margin held by a thirdparty custodian could be subject to various uncertainties, including the potential for counterparty disputes that might be subject to court resolution. During periods of general market instability or loss of confidence, even a brief delay in being able to access liquid assets could prove decisive.1123 The prudential regulators and the CFTC have received comment letters regarding the liquidity impact of their proposed rules, as well as public research reports attempting to estimate the liquidity impact.1124 Each of these commenters used different methods, data and assumptions to arrive at a liquidity impact estimate and respond to the amount of initial margin required by the prudential regulators’ and CFTC’s proposed margin rules. Overall, each of these commenters concluded that the liquidity impact of the proposed initial margin rules proposed by the CFTC and the prudential regulators was significant.1125 One such estimate, however, noted that the numbers should be viewed as an ‘‘order of magnitude estimate’’ and that ‘‘[o]ne cannot predict which entities will use derivatives in 1123 See Manmohan Singh, Velocity of Pledged Collateral: Analysis and Implications, IMF Working Paper, WP/11/256 (Nov. 2011) (stating that the decline in leverage and re-use of collateral may be viewed positively from a financial stability perspective, but from a monetary policy perspective, however, the lubrication in the global financial markets is now lower as the velocity of money-type instruments has declined.). Singh argues that the ‘‘velocity of collateral,’’ analogous to the concept of the ‘‘velocity of money’’ indicates the liquidity impact of collateral. A security that is owned by an economic agent and can be pledged as re-usable collateral leads to chains. Therefore, Singh argues that a shortage of acceptable collateral would have a negative cascading impact on lending similar to the impact on the money supply of a reduction in the monetary base. Id. at 16. See also Manmohan Singh and James Aitken, The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System, IMF Working Paper WP/10/172 (July 2010). 1124 See OCC Economics Department, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act—Impact Analysis for Swaps Margin and Capital Rule, (Apr. 15, 2011) (‘‘OCC Unfunded Mandates Report’’); SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators; J.P. Morgan Letter; Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, No Margin for Error, Part 3: Dodd-Frank Implements QE3, Credit Derivatives Strategist (Nov. 5, 2011) (‘‘BAML Report’’). 1125 See Manmohan Singh, Collateral, Netting and Systemic Risk in the OTC Derivatives Market, IMF Working Paper WP 10/99 (1999) (a study by the IMF arguing that moving OTC derivatives to centralized clearing would require between $170 and $220 billion in initial margin collateral). PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the future nor the amounts and types of products that will be used.’’ 1126 Consequently, while it is difficult to estimate the costs imposed by requiring dealers to post initial margin, commenters to the CFTC and prudential regulators’ proposed margin rules and others have estimated that the cost would be significant. These estimates are discussed in detail below.1127 One commenter to the prudential regulators’ proposed margin rule stated that imposing segregated initial margin requirements on trades between swap entities would result in a tremendous cost to the financial system in the form of a massive liquidity drain.1128 This commenter estimated that the effect of the proposed rule would result in a cost of $428 billion in initial margin for swap dealers.1129 Another commenter predicted that the initial margin requirements will result in a huge drain of liquid assets from the U.S. economy because they would require very large amounts of collateral to be posted as initial margin and placed in segregated custodial accounts.1130 This commenter attempted to quantify this amount by calculating the amounts of initial margin that the firm would have to collect from 34 of its largest professional dealer counterparties by reference to the ‘‘Lookup Table’’ percentages of notional approach set forth in Appendix A to the prudential regulators’ margin rulemaking.1131 Application of this approach to the commenter’s existing portfolio with those 34 counterparties yielded an estimated amount of initial margin that the firm would have to collect equal to $1.4 trillion.1132 The commenter noted that since the interdealer initial margin requirements are reciprocal, it would also be obligated to post $1.4 trillion.1133 1126 SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators at 38. 1127 See BCBS, IOSCO, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-cleared Derivatives. The Working Group on Margin Requirements is conducting a Quantitative Impact Study to better quantify the impact of the proposed margin requirements set forth in the consultative paper. See id. at Part C. 1128 SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators. 1129 Id. at 36. 1130 J.P. Morgan Letter. 1131 J.P. Morgan Letter; Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27592. 1132 J.P. Morgan Letter at 5. 1133 Id. In the J.P. Morgan Letter, however, it was noted that it is likely that most swap dealers would use the model based approach, and not the ‘‘lookup table’’, to calculate initial margin which would likely produce smaller initial margin amounts. In the letter, it was argued that there is substantial uncertainty about the model approval process and timing and accordingly the large amounts resulting from application of the lookup table are relevant. Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules In addition, the OCC Unfunded Mandates Report estimated that the initial margin collected under the prudential regulators’ proposed margin rule in one year could total $2.56 trillion.1134 The report pointed out, however, that several factors are likely to reduce the impact of the proposed rule, including a move to central clearing and the fact that dealers are likely to use internal models that permit netting. The report estimated that currently roughly 20% of swap contracts trade through clearing houses.1135 Assuming that the proportion of cleared to non-cleared swaps will at a minimum remain at one in five, the report further estimated the required funds to cover the initial margin requirement under the proposed rule to be $2.05 trillion (0.80 × $2.56 trillion).1136 Finally, the BAML Report stated that its calculations suggested that the regulatory changes may eventually result in initial margin requirements of $200 billion to $600 billion for US banks, as current derivatives portfolios turn over.1137 In summary, as stated above, commenters concluded that the liquidity impact of the initial margin rules proposed by the CFTC and the prudential regulators was significant.1138 However, one commenter acknowledged that the numbers should be viewed as an ‘‘order of magnitude estimate’’ and that ‘‘[o]ne cannot predict which entities will use derivatives in the future nor the amounts and types of products that will be used.’’ 1139 The Commission seeks comment on the liquidity impact of its proposals below and in section II.B. of this release. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. Margin Requirements for NonbankMSBSPs As described in section II.B. of this release, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to calculate as of the close of 1134 OCC Unfunded Mandates Report at 5. The report also used the ‘‘lookup table’’ to estimate the initial margin impact of the prudential regulators’ proposed margin rule, and noted the proposed rule would apply to any swap that is a national bank, a federally chartered branch or agency of a foreign bank, or a federal savings association. Id. at 2. 1135 OCC Unfunded Mandates Report at 5. 1136 Id. The report also estimated that the actual cost of the initial margin requirement is the opportunity cost of collateral that under the prudential regulators’ rule must be segregated into a custodial account with a presumably lower rate of return. 1137 BAML Report at 5. 1138 See also Manmohan Singh, Collateral, Netting and Systemic Risk in the OTC Derivatives Market. 1139 SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the CFTC at 38. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 each business day the amount of equity in the account of each counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap.1140 On the next business day following the calculation, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to either collect or deliver cash, securities, and/or money instruments to the counterparty depending on whether there was negative or positive equity in the account of the counterparty.1141 Specifically, if the account had negative equity on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to collect cash, securities, and or money market instruments in an amount equal to the negative equity.1142 Conversely, if the account had positive equity on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to the counterparty in an amount equal to the positive equity.1143 Nonbank MSBSPs are not expected to maintain two-sided markets or otherwise engage in activities that would require them to register as an SBSD.1144 They will, however, by definition, maintain substantial positions in particular categories of security-based swaps.1145 These positions could create significant risk to counterparties to the extent the counterparties have uncollateralized current exposure to the nonbank SBSD. In addition, they could pose significant risk to the nonbank MSBSP to the extent it has uncollateralized current exposure to its counterparties. The proposed account equity requirements for nonbank MSBSPs seek to address these risks by imposing a requirement that nonbank MSBSPs on a daily basis must ‘‘neutralize’’ the credit risk between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty either by collecting or delivering cash, securities, and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to the positive or negative equity in the account. The collection of collateral from counterparties would strengthen the liquidity of the nonbank MSBSP by 1140 See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 1141 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. As indicated, the nonbank MSBSP would need to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments and, consequently, other types of assets would not be eligible as collateral. 1142 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. In this case, the nonbank MSBSP would have current exposure to the counterparty in an amount equal to the negative equity. 1143 See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a–3. 1144 See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596. 1145 See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67); Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596. PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70323 collateralizing its current exposure to counterparties. The delivery of collateral to counterparties to collateralize their current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP would lessen the impact on the counterparties if the nonbank MSBSP failed. The requirement for nonbank MSBSPs to post current exposure to certain counterparties under proposed new Rule 18a–3 would impose an incremental opportunity cost for these nonbank MSBSPs only to the extent that they do not currently post collateral to cover current exposure. The requirement that nonbank MSBSPs collect variation margin from certain counterparties also would represent an incremental cost to those counterparties users to the extent they do not currently post such margin. As stated above, proposed new Rule 18a–3 contains an exception for trades between nonbank MSBSPs and commercial end users, so those end users would not face additional costs because of this exception. Instead of the proposed approach, the Commission could adopt margin requirements for nonbank MSBSPs that are consistent with those proposed for nonbank SBSDs, by requiring them to collect initial margin from all nondealer counterparties. This approach could better protect the MSBSP from loss in the event of a counterparty default, and thereby lessen the possibility of a default by the MSBSP. On the other hand, such a requirement would increase the credit exposure of counterparties to the MSBSP by the amount of the initial margin that they provide to the MSBSP and could increase their risk of loss if the MSBSP were to fail and they were unsuccessful in obtaining the return of amounts owed to them. The Commission is seeking comment on this alternative. d. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation The proposed margin requirements to collect collateral from their counterparties to non-cleared securitybased swaps to cover both current exposure and potential future exposure are designed to insulate security-based swap market participants from the negative fallout of a defaulting counterparty. Basing proposed Rule 18a–3 on the broker-dealer margin rules is intended to achieve those objectives in the market for security-based swaps. Moreover, the consistency between margin requirements for securities and security-based swaps should ultimately promote efficiency in the securities E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 markets, and in turn, enhance competition in the security-based swap markets. The proposed rule offers built-in flexibilities that should enhance the efficiency in the application of the rule. For example, granting counterparties the flexibility to post a variety of collateral types to meet margin requirements may result in increased efficiencies for end users, and could encourage increased trading of security-based swaps and thereby increase competition. Furthermore, the proposed exception for commercial end users is intended to account for the different risk profiles of commercial end users as compared with financial end users.1146 This exception may increase efficiencies by allowing SBSDs to optimally choose to collect collateral or take a capital charge, which in turn might allow end users to more cost efficiently manage business risks and thereby better compete in their respective industries. However, the flexibility to use models to calculate margins instead of applying the standard haircuts could have an adverse impact on competition if the differences in these margin amounts are sufficiently large. If this was the case, a nonbank SBSD not approved to use models will find it difficult to compete with an SBSD approved to use models. However, it is conceivable that SBSDs not approved to use models would tend to do business only in cleared securitybased swaps and SBSDs that use models would compete in both cleared and noncleared security-based swaps. This separation could have a negative impact on competition in non-cleared securitybased swaps. If, however, SBSDs that are approved to use models manage counterparty risk more efficiently, the market for non-cleared security-based swaps might be systemically less risky than it would be if SBSDs not using models participated actively in that market. It is unclear whether the benefit from the reduction in systemic risk would outweigh the potential cost of the reduced competition. There also is a trade-off between Alternatives A and B for SBSDs. Under 1146 See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571 (‘‘Among end users, financial end users are considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.’’). See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (‘‘The Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Alternative A the reduced demand on posting and collecting collateral should lead to more efficient allocation of capital and hence improve competition, but it comes at the cost of being less resilient to counterparty defaults and hence might overall increase systemic risk. In addition, if the Commission does not require nonbank SBSDs to collect initial margin in their transactions with each other, as is generally current market practice,1147 while the prudential regulators require the collection of initial margin for the same trades as their proposed rules suggest, intermediaries could have an incentive to conduct business through nonbank entities.1148 Under Alternative B, the requirement to exchange initial margin would impose costs on the nonbank SBSD in the form of a capital charge to the extent the nonbank SBSD must post initial margin. This could result in substantially less liquidity available to the nonbank SBSD to support its security-based swap business or other dealer activity, but to the extent it limits the amount of uncleared SBSD transactions among nonbank SBSDs as a whole, it could lead to lower systemic risk. Moreover, if this requirement results in a significant increase in costs because of the required capital charge, nonbank SBSDs could be motivated to conduct trading either in bank SBSDs or offshore because they would not need to take the capital charge. Especially in the latter case, this may not only adversely affect domestic competition if the only dealers able to absorb the increased expenses are the ones currently participating in the market, it also could increase systemic risk worldwide if the regulatory environment in foreign jurisdictions are less stringent. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed Rule 18a–3. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to the following questions: 1. In many respects, the proposed rules reflect an interplay between capital and margin requirements. How should each set of rules take account of the other? For example, does the proposed alternative capital charge in lieu of collecting margin from commercial end users appropriately account for the increased exposure to the dealer? Does it over-state the exposure? 1147 See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011. Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. 1148 See PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2. What would be the general market impact of requiring that dealers post both variation and initial margin in transactions with each other? Commenters are asked to supply data on the volume of interdealer transactions in security-based swaps and the aggregate dollar impact of this proposal. How does the impact of requiring dealers to exchange both variation and initial margin compare with the aggregate dollar impact of requiring that nonbank SBSDs collect only variation margin? 3. With regard to Alternatives A and B regarding interdealer margin, the Commission requests that commenters provide the following data points to the Commission: • The relative amounts of variation and initial margin for sample dealer portfolios of security-based swaps; • The industry dollar impact and liquidity impact of requiring lock up of initial margin for dealer portfolios; and • How the amount of initial margin would compare to overall dealer capital. 4. The Commission also requests comment on the potential legal limitations involved in obtaining a return of collateral that has been posted to a third party custodian, the costs involved, and whether there are ways to overcome these limitations. 5. The Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits, if the Commission, as an alternative to proposed new Rule 18a–3, permitted nonbank SBSDs to apply to the Commission to use internal models solely to compute the margin amount in paragraph (d) to Rule 18a–3 (without seeking approval to use internal models for capital purposes). Would this alternative impact the Commission’s oversight responsibility of nonbank SBSDs? 6. What is the cost impact, if any, of permitting nonbank SBSDs to accept securities as collateral that may be less liquid than Treasury securities in the case of severe market disruptions? Would this cost be mitigated by the haircut and collateral requirements in proposed Rule 18a–3? 7. What would be the costs and benefits of an initial margin requirement between nonbank SBSDs counterparties dependent on the firm’s minimum net capital requirement (e.g., based on firm size)? 8. Proposed Rule 18a–3(d) would require that firms approved to use VaR models calculate margin amount using a 99%, 10 business-day period. How would this proposal affect sample portfolios of security-based swaps based on existing internal firm models and current market practices, including margin practices at registered clearing E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules agencies? The Commission requests data from market participants to assist it in evaluating this proposal. 9. Would the margin requirements under proposed new Rule 18a–3 incentivize counterparties to trade in cleared security-based swaps? If certain security-based swaps cannot be cleared, would the proposed margin requirements render the use of these non-cleared contracts inefficient? 10. Will nonbank MSBSPs incur operational, technology or other costs to calculate the amount of equity in the account of a counterparty, as required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a–3? emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 4. Proposed Segregation Rule—Rule 18a–4 Proposed new Rule 18a–4 would establish segregation requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which would apply to bank SBSDs, nonbank stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs.1149 The goal of proposed new Rule 18a–4 is to protect customer assets by ensuring that cash and securities that SBSDs hold for security-based swap customers are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as property of such customers.1150 This approach would facilitate the prompt return of customer property to customers either before or during liquidation proceedings if the firm fails,1151 and is therefore expected to provide market participants who enter into security-based swap transactions with an SBSD the confidence that their accounts will remain separate from the SBSD in the event of bankruptcy.1152 As such, proposed new Rule 18a–4 will have a number of benefits as well as impose certain costs on SBSDs and MSBSPs, as well as other market participants. The proposed rules are expected to have possible effects on competition, efficiency, and capital formation, which are discussed below. As discussed earlier in this release, Rule 18a–4 is in substantial part modeled on provisions of Rule 15c3–3 that require a carrying broker-dealer to take two primary steps to safeguard these assets. The first step required by Rule 15c3–3 is that a carrying broker1149 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. See also section II.C. of this release for a more detailed description of the proposal. The provisions of proposed new Rule 18a–4 are modeled on the broker-dealer segregation rule, Rule 15c3–3. 17 CFR 240.15c3–3. 1150 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. 1151 See generally Michael P. Jamroz, The Customer Protection Rule, 57 Bus. Law. 1069 (May 2002). See also section II.C. of this release for a more detailed description of the proposal. 1152 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 dealer must maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities.1153 The second step is that a carrying broker-dealer must maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities in a customer reserve account at a bank that is equal in value to the net cash owed to customers, computed in accordance with the Exhibit A formula.1154 The corollary provisions of Rule 18a–4 are likewise intended to require that customer funds are adequately protected from loss in the event of the SBSD’s failure. Further, this protection would be provided to customers who have not affirmatively elected to require individual account segregation of their assets under section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act. Paragraph (a) of the proposed new rule would define key terms used in the rule.1155 Paragraph (b) would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral (a term defined in paragraph (a)) and specify certain locations where excess securities collateral could be held and deemed in the SBSD’s control.1156 Paragraph (c) would require an SBSD to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers and have on deposit in that account at all times an amount of cash and/or qualified securities (a term defined in paragraph (a)) determined through a computation using the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a– 4.1157 Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would contain provisions that are designed to implement the individual account segregation requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, and therefore, are not modeled specifically on Rule 15c3–3. First, it would require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty.1158 Second, it would require the SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from 1153 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d). CFR 240.15c3–3(e). The term ‘‘qualified security’’ is defined in Rule 15c3–3 to mean a security issued by the United States or a security in respect of which the principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(6). 1155 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a), with paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 1156 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(b)–(d), with paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 1157 Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e), with paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 1158 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a–4. 1154 17 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70325 counterparties that opt out of the segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 because they either elect individual segregation pursuant to the self-executing provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act 1159 or agree that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.1160 Available information suggests that customer assets related to OTC derivatives are currently not consistently segregated from dealer proprietary assets. With respect to noncleared derivatives, available information suggests that there is no uniform segregation practice but that collateral for most accounts is not segregated.1161 According to the ISDA Margin Survey 2012, where independent amounts (initial margin) is collected, ISDA members reported that most (approximately 72.2%) was commingled with variation margin and not segregated, and only 4.8% of the amount received was segregated with a third party custodian.1162 In the absence of a segregation requirement, the likelihood that security-based swap customers would suffer losses upon a dealer default may substantially increase. The proposed segregation requirements would limit for security-based swap customers these potential losses if an SBSD fails.1163 The extent to which assets are in fact protected by proposed Rule 18a–4 would depend on how effective they are in practice in allowing assets to be readily returned to customers. It is difficult to measure these benefits against the current baseline of the OTC derivatives market as it exists today, as discussed in section V.A.1. of this release. Rule 15c3–3, on which proposed Rule 18a–4 is modeled, however, may generally provide a reasonable template for crafting the corresponding requirements for nonbank SBSDs.1164 Furthermore, the ensuing increased confidence of market participants when transacting in 1159 See 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(1)–(3). 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)(4). 1161 See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2012. 1162 ISDA Margin Survey 2012. The survey also notes that while the holding of the independent amounts and variation margin together continues to be the industry standard both contractually and operationally, it is interesting to note that the ability to segregate has been made increasingly available to counterparties over the past three years on a voluntary basis, and has led to adoption of 26% of independent amount received and 27.8% of independent amount delivered being segregated in some respects. Id. at 10. See also Independent Amounts. 1163 CFTC and Commission, Statement on MF Global about the deficiencies in customer futures segregated accounts held at the firm (Oct. 31, 2011). 1164 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report. 1160 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70326 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules security-based swaps, as compared to the OTC derivatives market as it exists today, should enhance liquidity and generally benefit market participants. Further, modeling the provisions of Rule 18a–4 on existing Rule 15c3–3 will generally promote consistent treatment of collateral in circumstances where a broker-dealer SBSD conducts business in securities and security-based swaps with the same counterparty, and in these cases it will facilitate the ability of firms to offer portfolio margin treatment. In addition, ‘‘omnibus segregation’’ requirements of proposed Rule 18a–4 are intended to reduce costs for SBSDs and their customers by providing a less expensive segregation alternative to individual account segregation.1165 Currently, because of a lack of trading in cleared security-based swaps for customers,1166 there is no definitive baseline against which to measure the various costs associated with segregation requirements for those trades. Further, overall costs of segregating collateral for cleared security-based swaps will be heavily affected by the clearing agency rules, which will govern how margin required by, and held at, a clearing agency with respect to customer positions must be segregated.1167 As stated above, proposed new Rule 18a–4 also is intended to provide SBSDs and their counterparties a less expensive segregation alternative to individual account segregation. Higher costs for individual segregation derive from, among other things, higher fees charged by custodians to monitor individual account assets and to account for potentially greater legal risks and liabilities of custodians to account beneficiaries or dealers, as well as higher operational costs to account for collateral on an individual customer basis. A commenter to the CFTC raised concerns with the length of time and the costs to comply with an individual segregation mandate. Specifically, the commenter raised concerns regarding the number of collateral arrangements that would be required. The commenter estimated, based on discussion with its members, that ‘‘a rough estimate of the time it would take to establish the necessary collateral arrangements is 1 year and eleven months, with an associated cost of $141.8 million, per covered swap entity.’’ 1168 To account for these higher costs, SBSDs likely may 1165 See section 3E(f)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act. Process for Submissions of SecurityBased Swaps, 77 FR 41602. 1167 See Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, 76 FR 14472. 1168 SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators. 1166 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 increase fees for customers that choose individual rather than omnibus segregation. If higher fees make it prohibitively expensive for some counterparties to elect individual segregation, the proposed omnibus segregation scheme under Rule 18a–4 could be a more cost-effective solution. Rule 18a–4 will impose on SBSDs operational costs, as well as costs related to the use of customer funds, compared to the baseline, given that dealers in general do not presently segregate customer collateral for security-based swaps, and to the extent collateral is segregated, it is not done so on the terms that would be required by proposed new Rule 18a–4. The operational costs include costs to establish qualifying bank accounts and to perform the calculations required to determine the amount that is required at any one time to be maintained in the reserve account.1169 In cases where an SBSD is jointly registered as a brokerdealer, the costs of adapting existing systems to account for security-based swap transactions may not be material in light of the similarities between the systems and procedures required by Rule 15c3–3 and those that would be required by proposed new Rule 18a–4. A further cost would be imposed on SBSDs to the extent that collateral they hold that could otherwise be rehypothecated would no longer be eligible for this purpose.1170 An SBSD would incur a cost of funds equal to the borrowing cost of the dealer if the dealer was unable to use customer collateral to finance its business activities. The extent of this cost would depend on how much collateral associated with security-based swaps and held by dealers today consists of initial margin that they can rehypothecate, i.e., that is not now segregated as would be required under Rule 18a–4 (the rule would not require the segregation of variation margin).1171 1169 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. See section V.C. of this release for a discussion of implementation costs. See also section V.B. of this release. 1170 See SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators (‘‘First, because the collateral cannot be rehypothecated, and because the collateral amounts will be very large, CSEs will be limited to investing very large amounts of eligible collateral in assets that generate low returns.’’). 1171 See Manmohan Singh, Velocity of Pledged Collateral: Analysis and Implications; Manmohan Singh and James Aitken, The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System. PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation The proposed segregation requirements for SBSDs are designed to protect and preserve counterparty collateral held at SBSDs. More specifically, the goal of proposed new Rule 18a–4 is to protect customer assets by ensuring that cash and securities that SBSDs hold for security-based swap customers are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as property of such customers.1172 These protections may provide market participants who enter into security-based swap transactions with an SBSD the assurance that their accounts will remain separate from the SBSD in the event of bankruptcy.1173 These proposed protections could reduce the risk of loss of collateral to individual counterparties and, thereby, promote participation in the securitybased swap markets. This may result in enhanced competition and more efficient price discovery. Therefore, proposed segregation rules that promote, or do not unduly restrict, competition may be accompanied by regulatory benefits that minimize the risk of market failure and thus promote efficiency within the market. Such competitive markets would increase the efficiency with which market participants could transact in securitybased swaps for speculative, trading, hedging and other purposes. Conversely, increased costs associated with the proposed segregation rules could result in high barriers to entry and negatively affect competition for SBSDs in the security-based swap markets. Further, modeling the provisions of Rule 18a–4 on existing Rule 15c3–3 will generally promote consistent treatment of collateral in circumstances where a broker-dealer SBSD conducts business in securities and security-based swaps with the same counterparty, increasing efficiencies for counterparties. Finally, the proposed ‘‘omnibus segregation’’ requirements of proposed Rule 18a–4 are intended to provide a less expensive segregation alternative to individual account segregation.1174 This proposed requirement could also result in increased efficiencies, and, in turn, facilitate capital formation through the availability of additional capital for counterparties as a result of decreased costs. 1172 See proposed new Rule 18a–4. 15 U.S.C. 78c–5. 1174 See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f)(1)(B). 1173 See E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed segregation rules. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to the following questions: 1. To what extent do counterparties presently require that their assets associated with security-based swaps be independently segregated? 2. What would be the overall market impact of a right by customers to demand individual segregation? How would costs to end users be impacted? Would those costs differ depending on the type of end user or size of its positions with the SBSD? 3. How would the existence of omnibus versus independent accounts factor into the ability easily to resolve a defaulting SBSD? 4. Would the proposed segregation requirements prove to be difficult to implement for existing contracts? emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Implementation Considerations As discussed above, proposed Rules 18a–1 through 18a–4, as well as the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, would impose certain costs on SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission expects that the highest economic cost impact as a result of the proposed new rules and rule amendments would likely result from the additional capital nonbank SBSDs and nonbank SBSDs may have to hold as a result of the proposed capital rules, and the additional margin that SBSDs, MSBSPs, and other market participants may have to post and/or collect as a result of proposed margin requirements. The proposed new rules and rule amendments, however, as discussed above, would impose certain implementation burdens and related costs on SBSDs, MSBSPs and other market participants. These costs may include start-up costs, including personnel and other costs, such as technology costs, to comply with the proposed new rules and rule amendments. As discussed in section IV.D. of this release, the Commission has estimated the burdens and related costs of these implementation requirements for SBSDs and MDBSPs.1175 These costs are summarized below. A stand-alone SBSD that applies to use internal models would be required under proposed new Rule 18a–1 to create and compile various documents 1175 See section IV.D. of this release (discussing total initial and annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of the proposed rules and rule amendments). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 to be included with the application, including documents related to the development of its VaR models, and to provide additional documentation to, and respond to questions from, Commission staff throughout the application process.1176 These firms also would be required to review and backtest these models annually. The requirements are estimated to impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of approximately $1.97 million 1177 and $10.6 million, respectively.1178 These firms would also incur technology costs of $48.0 million in the aggregate.1179 Stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models and ANC broker-dealers would be required to develop a liquidity stress test and a written contingency plan under proposed new Rule 18a–1 and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1, and periodically review them.1180 These requirements would impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of approximately $1.0 million 1181 and $2.3 million,1182 respectively. Rule 18a–1 also would require standalone SBSDs to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls required under Rule 15c3–4, as well as to review and update these controls.1183 This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of $7.5 million 1184 and $971,000, respectively.1185 These firms also may incur aggregate initial and ongoing information technology costs of $240,000 and $307,500, respectively.1186 Finally, nonbank SBSDs and brokerdealers, as applicable, may incur onetime and ongoing costs related to filing notices and subordination agreements and documenting industry sector classifications under proposed new Rule 18a–1, and amendments to Rule 15c3– 1.1187 These requirements would impose one-time and annual costs in the 1176 See section IV.A.1. of this release. consists of external costs of $600,000, plus internal costs of $1.37 million. See section IV.D.1. of this release. 1178 This consists of external costs of $3.7 million, plus internal costs of $6.9 million. See section IV.D.1. of this release. 1179 See section IV.D.1. of this release. 1180 See section IV.A.1. of this release. 1181 See section IV.D.1. of this release. 1182 Id. 1183 See section IV.A.1. of this release. 1184 See section IV.D.1. of this release. 1185 Id. 1186 Id. 1187 See section IV.A.1. of this release. 1177 This PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70327 aggregate of $68,040 1188 and $38,367, respectively.1189 Rule 18a–2 also would require nonbank MSBSPs to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls required under Rule 15c3–4, as well as to review and update these controls.1190 This requirement would impose onetime and annual costs in the aggregate of $2.7 million 1191 and $324,000 1192 for nonbank MSBSPs, respectively. These nonbank MSBSPs also may incur initial and ongoing information technology costs of $80,000 and $102,500, respectively.1193 Rule 18a–3 would require nonbank SBSDs to establish a written risk analysis methodology, which would need to be reviewed and updated.1194 This requirement would impose onetime and annual costs in the aggregate of $1.7 million 1195 and $483,000, respectively.1196 Finally, SBSDs and MSBSPs would incur various one-time and ongoing costs in the aggregate in order to comply with the segregation and notification requirements of proposed new Rule 18a–4.1197 Each SBSD would incur onetime and annual costs in establishing special bank accounts required by the rule. This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs of $2.9 million 1198 and $377,000 1199 in the aggregate on SBSDs, respectively. In addition, SBSDs would be required to perform a reserve computation required by Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a–4, which would impose on these firms annual costs in the aggregate of $9.7 million.1200 In addition, both SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to prepare and send to their counterparties segregationrelated notices pursuant to section 3E(f) 1188 See section IV.D.1 of this release (one-time cost to draft subordinated loan agreement template under Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a–1). 1189 Id. (annual costs of $2,898, $1,449 and $34,020 related to documenting industry sector classifications for credit default swap haircuts under Rule 18a–1, equity withdrawal notices under paragraph (i) under Rule 18a–1, and preparing and filing proposed subordinated loan agreements with the Commission under Appendix D to Rule 18a–1). 1190 See section IV.A.2. of this release. 1191 This consists of external costs of $400,000, plus internal costs of $2.3 million. See section IV.D.2. of this release. 1192 See section IV.D.2. of this release. 1193 Id. 1194 See section IV.A.3. of this release. 1195 See section IV.D.3. of this release. This consists of external costs of $18,000, plus internal costs of $1.7 million. 1196 Id. 1197 See section IV.A.4. of this release. 1198 See section IV.D.4. of this release. 1199 Id. 1200 Id. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules of the Exchange Act.1201 This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate to SBSDs and MSBSPs of $770,000 1202 and $110,000, respectively.1203 Finally, proposed new Rule 18a–4 would require each SBSD to draft, prepare, and enter into subordination agreements with certain counterparties.1204 This requirement would impose on these firms one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of $99.7 million 1205 and $19.1 million,1206 respectively. D. General Request for Comment The Commission requests data to quantify, and estimates of, the costs and the value of the benefits of the proposed rules described above. Commenters should provide estimates of these costs and benefits, as well as any costs and benefits not already defined, that may result from the adoption of the proposed rules. Commenters should provide analysis and empirical data to support their views on the costs and benefits associated with the proposals. The Commission requests comment on any effect the proposed new rules and rule amendments may have on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, including the competitive or anticompetitive effects the proposals may have on market participants. In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act for which Commission rulemaking is required are likely to have an effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed rules. Commenters should provide analysis and empirical data to support their views on the costs and benefits associated with the proposed rules. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’) 1207 requires Federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. Section 603(a) 1208 of the Administrative Procedure Act,1209 as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or 1201 See section IV.A.4. of this release. section IV.D.4. of this release. This consists of external costs of $220,000, plus internal costs of $550,020. 1203 Id. 1204 See section IV.A.4. of this release. 1205 See section IV.D.4. of this release. This consists of external costs of $400,000, plus internal costs of $3,780,000 and $95,580,000. 1206 Id. 1207 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 1208 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 1209 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 1202 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on ‘‘small entities.’’ 1210 Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule amendment, which, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.1211 For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an ‘‘issuer’’ or a ‘‘person,’’ other than an investment company, an ‘‘issuer’’ or ‘‘person’’ that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or less,1212 or (2) a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a–5(d) under the Exchange Act,1213 or, if not required to file such statements, a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter); and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization.1214 Under the standards adopted by the Small Business Administration, small entities in the finance and insurance industry include the following: (1) For entities in credit intermediation and related activities,1215 firms with $175 million or less in assets; (2) for nondepository credit intermediation and certain other activities,1216 firms with $7 million or less in annual receipts; (3) for entities in financial investments and 1210 Although section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term ‘‘small entity,’’ the statute permits agencies to formulate their own definitions. The Commission has adopted definitions for the term ‘‘small entity’’ for the purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0–10, 17 CFR 240.0–10. See Statement of Management on Internal Accounting Control, Exchange Act Release No. 18451 (Jan. 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (Feb. 4, 1982). 1211 See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 1212 See 17 CFR 240.0–10(a). 1213 See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d). 1214 See 17 CFR 240.0–10(c). 1215 Including commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, firms involved in other depository credit intermediation, credit card issuing, sales financing, consumer lending, real estate credit, and international trade financing. 1216 Including firms involved in secondary market financing, all other non-depository credit intermediation, mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers, financial transactions processing, reserve and clearing house activities, and other activities related to credit intermediation. PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 related activities,1217 firms with $7 million or less in annual receipts; (4) for insurance carriers and entities in related activities,1218 firms with $7 million or less in annual receipts; and (5) for funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles,1219 firms with $7 million or less in annual receipts.1220 Based on available information about the security-based swap market,1221 the market, while broad in scope, is largely dominated by entities such as those that would be covered by the SBSD and MSBSP definitions. Subject to certain exceptions, section 3(a)(71)(A) of the Exchange Act defines security-based swap dealer to mean any person who: (1) Holds itself out as a dealer in security-based swaps; (2) makes a market in security-based swaps; (3) regularly enters into security-based swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own account; or (4) engages in any activity causing it to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-based swaps. Section 3(a)(67)(A) of the Exchange Act defines major security-based swap participant to be any person: (1) Who is not an SBSD; and (2) who maintains a substantial position in security-based swaps for any of the major securitybased swap categories, as such categories are determined by the Commission, excluding both positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk and positions maintained by any employee benefit plan (or any contract held by such a plan) as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for the primary purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk directly associated with the operation of the plan; whose outstanding securitybased swaps create substantial 1217 Including firms involved in investment banking and securities dealing, securities brokerage, commodity contracts dealing, commodity contracts brokerage, securities and commodity exchanges, miscellaneous intermediation, portfolio management, providing investment advice, trust, fiduciary and custody activities, and miscellaneous financial investment activities. 1218 Including direct life insurance carriers, direct health and medical insurance carriers, direct property and casualty insurance carriers, direct title insurance carriers, other direct insurance (except life, health and medical) carriers, reinsurance carriers, insurance agencies and brokerages, claims adjusting, third party administration of insurance and pension funds, and all other insurance related activities. 1219 Including pension funds, health and welfare funds, other insurance funds, open-end investment funds, trusts, estates, and agency accounts, real estate investment trusts, and other financial vehicles. 1220 See 13 CFR 121.201 (Jan. 1, 2010). 1221 See CDS Data Analysis. E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets; or that is a financial entity that is highly leveraged relative to the amount of capital such entity holds and that is not subject to capital requirements established by an appropriate Federal banking regulator; and maintains a substantial position in outstanding security-based swaps in any major security-based swap category, as such categories are determined by the Commission.1222 Based on feedback from industry participants about the security-based swap markets, entities that will qualify as SBSDs and MSBSPs, whether registered broker-dealers or not, will likely exceed the thresholds defining ‘‘small entities’’ set out above. Thus, it is unlikely that proposed Rules 18a–1 to 18a–4 and the amendments to Rule 15c3–1 would have a significant economic impact on any small entity. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 808 broker-dealers that were ‘‘small’’ for the purposes Rule 0–10. The amendments to Rule 15c3–1 relating to the standardized haircuts for swaps and security-based swaps, as well as the proposed CDS maturity grid would apply to all broker-dealers with such proprietary positions. These proposed amendments, therefore, would apply to all ‘‘small’’ broker-dealers in that they would be subject to the requirements in the proposed amendments. It is likely, however, that these proposed amendments would have no, or little, impact on ‘‘small’’ broker-dealers, since most, if not all, of these firms generally would not hold these types of positions. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission certifies that the proposed new Rules 18a–1 through 18a–4, amendments to Rule 15c3–1, and amendments to Rule 15c3–3 would not have a significant economic impact on any small entity for purposes of the RFA. The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. 1222 See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596 (‘‘The SEC continues to believe that the types of entities that would engage in more than a de minimis amount of dealing activity involving security-based swaps—which generally would be major banks—would not be ‘small entities’ for purposes of the RFA. Similarly, the SEC continues to believe that the types of entities that may have security-based swap positions above the level required to be a ‘major security-based swap participant’ would not be a ‘small entity’ for purposes of the RFA. Accordingly, the SEC certifies that the final rules defining ‘security-based swap dealer’ or ‘major security-based swap participant’ would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA.’’). Id. at 30743. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to illustrate the extent of the impact. VII. Statutory Basis and Text of the Proposed Amendments Pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and particularly, sections 3(b), 3E, 15, 15F, 23(a), and 36 (15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78c–5, 78o, 78o–10, 78w(a), and 78mm), thereof, the Commission is proposing to amend §§ 240.15c3–1, 240.15c3–1a, 240.15c3– 1b, 240.15c3–1d, 240.15c3–1e, and 240.15c3–3, and proposing §§ 240.18a– 1, 240.18a–1a, 240.18a–1b, 240.18a–1c, 240.18a–1d, 240.18a–2, 240.18a–3, 240.18a–4, and 240.18a–4a under the Exchange Act. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 240 Brokers, Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. Text of Amendment In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 1. The general authority citation for part 240 is revised, the sectional authorities for §§ 240.15c3–1 and 240.15c3–3 are revised, add sectional authorities for §§ 240.15c3–1a, 240.15c3–1e, 240.15c3–3, 240.18a–1, 240.18a–1a, 240.18a–1b, 240.18a–1c, 240.18a–1d, 240–18a–2, 240.18a–3 and 240.18a–4 in numerical order to read as follows. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c–3, 78c–5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n–1, 78o, 78o–10 78o–4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b–3, 80b–4, 80b– 11, and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. 8302, and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * Section 240.15c3–1 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3), 78o–10(d), and 78o–10(e). Section 240.15c3–3 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78c–5, 78o(c)(2), 78(c)(3), 78q(a), 78w(a); sec. 6(c), 84 Stat. 1652; 15 U.S.C. 78fff. * * * * * Sections 240.18a–1, 240.18a–1a, 240.18a– 1b, 240.18a–1c, 240.18a–1d, 240.18a–2, and 240.18a–3 are also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(d) and 78o–10(e). Section 240.18a–4 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f). * PO 00000 * * Frm 00117 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 70329 2. Section 240.15c3–1 is amended by: a. Revising the center heading above paragraph (a)(7); b. In paragraph (a)(7) removing the phrase ‘‘and using the credit risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for credit risk on certain credit exposures arising from transactions in derivatives instruments, instead of the provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section’’ and in its place adding the phrase ‘‘and using the credit risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for credit risk for security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of this section’’; c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(i); d. In paragraph (a)(7)(ii), remove ‘‘$5 billion’’ and in its place add ‘‘$6 billion’’; e. Adding a center heading and paragraph (a)(10); f. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O); g. Re-designating paragraph (c)(2)(xii) as paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(A) and adding new paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(B); h. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(xiv); i. Adding paragraph (c)(16); and j. Adding paragraph (f). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 240.15c3–1 Net capital requirements for brokers or dealers. * * * (a) * * * * * Alternative Net Capital Computation For Broker-Dealers Authorized To Use Models (7) * * * (i) At all times maintain tentative net capital of not less than $5 billion and net capital of not less than the greater of $1 billion or the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount; * * * * * Broker-Dealers Registered as SecurityBased Swap Dealers (10) A broker or dealer registered with the Commission as a security-based swap dealer, other than a broker or dealer subject to the provisions of (a)(7) of this section, must: (i) At all times maintain net capital of not less than the greater of $20 million or the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount; and (ii) Comply with § 240.15c3–4 as though it were an OTC derivatives dealer with respect to all of its business E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules activities, except that paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii), (c)(5)(xiv), (d)(8), and (d)(9) of § 240.15c3–4 shall not apply. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (vi)(O) Security-based swaps. (1) Credit default swaps. (i) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following table: Basis point spread Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less (%) emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 12 months or less .................................... 13 months to 24 months .......................... 25 months to 36 months .......................... 37 months to 48 months .......................... 49 months to 60 months .......................... 61 months to 72 months .......................... 73 months to 84 months .......................... 85 months to 120 months ........................ 121 months and longer ............................ 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.50 7.00 8.50 10.00 (ii) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a securitybased swap that is a long credit default swap, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section if the security-based swap was a short credit default swap. (iii) Long and short positions. (A) Long and short credit default swaps. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing the same entity (in the case of credit default swap securities-based swaps referencing a corporate entity) or obligation (in the case of credit default swap securities-based swaps referencing an asset-backed security), that have the same credit events which would trigger payment by the seller of protection, that have the same basket of obligations which would determine the amount of payment by the seller of protection upon the occurrence of a credit event, that are in the same or adjacent spread category, and that are in the same or adjacent maturity category and have a maturity date within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) or (ii) on the excess of the long or short position. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing corporate entities in the same industry sector and the same spread and maturity categories prescribed in paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section, deducting 50% of the amount required by paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section on the short position plus the deduction required by paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(ii) of this section on the excess long position, if any. For the purposes of this section, the broker or VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 101–300 301–400 2.00 3.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 dealer must use an industry sector classification system that is reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics and the broker-dealer must document the industry sector classification system used pursuant to this section. (B) Long security and long credit default swap. In the case of a securitybased swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a debt security and the broker or dealer is long the same debt security, deducting 50% of the amount specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii) of this section for the bond, provided that the broker or dealer can deliver the debt security to satisfy the obligation of the broker or dealer on the credit default swap. (C) Short security and short credit default swap. In the case of a securitybased swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a bond or a corporate entity, and the broker or dealer is short the bond or a bond issued by the corporate entity, deducting the amount specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii) of this section for the bond. In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap referencing an assetbacked security and the broker or dealer is short the asset-backed security, deducting the amount specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii) of this section for the asset-backed security. (2) Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps. In the case of any security-based swap that is not a credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the notional amount of the security-based swap and the percentage specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section applicable to the reference security. A broker or dealer may reduce the deduction under this paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) by an amount PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 401–500 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 501–699 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 700 or more 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 40.00 50.00 equal to any reduction recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference security under paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section and, in the case of a security-based swap referencing an equity security, the method specified in § 240.15c3–1a. * * * * * (xii) * * * (B) Deducting the amount of cash required in the account of each securitybased swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a clearing agency, Examining Authority, or the Commission, after application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding one business day or less. * * * * * (xiv) Deduction from net worth in lieu of collecting margin amounts for security-based swaps. (A) Cleared security-based swap transactions. Deducting the amount of the margin difference for each account carried by the broker or dealer for another person that holds cleared security-based swap transactions. The margin difference is the amount of the deductions that the positions in the account would incur pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of this section if owned by the broker or dealer less the margin value of collateral held in the account. (B) Non-cleared security-based swap transactions. (1) Commercial end users. Deducting, with respect to a counterparty that is a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), the margin amount calculated pursuant to § 240.18a– 3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account of the counterparty at the broker or dealer less any positive equity in that account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). (2) Margin collateral held by thirdparty custodian. Deducting, with E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules respect to a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2) and that elects to have collateral segregated in an account at an independent third-party custodian pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)), the margin amount calculated pursuant to § 240.18a–3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account of the counterparty less any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). (3) Security-based swap legacy accounts. Deducting, with respect to a security-based swap legacy account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(9) of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), the margin amount calculated pursuant § 240.18a– 3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account less any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). * * * * * (16) The term risk margin amount means the sum of: (i) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the broker or dealer with respect to security-based swap transactions cleared for securitybased swap customers at a clearing agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared securitybased swap positions of the securitybased swap customers pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of this section; and (ii) The total margin amount calculated by the broker or dealer with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to § 240.18a– 3(c)(1)(i)(B). * * * * * (f) Liquidity requirements. (1) Liquidity stress test. A broker or dealer whose application, including amendments, has been approved, in whole or in part, to calculate net capital under Appendix E of this section must run a liquidity stress test at least monthly, the results of which must be provided within ten business days to senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the broker or dealer. The assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test must be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the broker or dealer and at least annually by senior management of the broker or dealer. The liquidity stress test must include, at a minimum, the following assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days: (i) A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness of the broker or dealer severe enough to trigger VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 contractual credit-related commitment provisions of counterparty agreements; (ii) The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded committed lines of credit; (iii) The potential for a material net loss of secured funding; (iv) The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement financing for less liquid assets; (v) The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at registered clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net worth or which is not funded by customer assets; (vi) A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at registered clearing agencies of which it is a member; and (vii) The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses, positions, and commitments of the broker or dealer, including those related to customer businesses of the broker or dealer. (2) Stress test of consolidated entity. The broker or dealer must justify and document any differences in the assumptions used in the liquidity stress test of the broker or dealer from those used in the liquidity stress test of the consolidated entity of which the broker or dealer is a part. (3) Liquidity reserves. The broker or dealer must maintain at all times liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress test. The liquidity reserves used to satisfy the liquidity stress test must be: (i) Cash, obligations of the United States, or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and (ii) Unencumbered and free of any liens at all times. Securities in the liquidity reserve can be used to meet delivery requirements as long as cash or other acceptable securities of equal or greater value are moved into the liquidity pool contemporaneously. (4) Contingency funding plan. The broker or dealer must have a written contingency funding plan that addresses the broker’s or dealer’s policies and the roles and responsibilities of relevant personnel for meeting the liquidity needs of the broker or dealer and communications with the public and other market participants during a liquidity stress event. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70331 3. Section 240.15c3–1a is amended by: a. In paragraph (a)(4), revising the first and last sentences; and b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v)(C)(5). The addition to read as follows: § 240.15c3–1a Options (Appendix A to 17 CFR 240.15c3–1). (a) * * * (4) The term underlying instrument refers to long and short positions, as appropriate, covering the same foreign currency, the same security, security future, or security-based swap, or a security which is exchangeable for or convertible into the underlying security within a period of 90 days. * * * The term underlying instrument shall not be deemed to include securities options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, qualified stock baskets, or unlisted instruments (other than security-based swaps). * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (v) * * * (C) * * * (5) In the case of portfolio types involving security futures and equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions in that underlying instrument, there will be a minimum charge of 25% times the multiplier for each security-future and equity option. * * * * * 4. Section 240.15c3–1b is amended by adding a paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 240.15c3–1b Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain commodities transactions (Appendix B to 17 CFR 240.15c3–1). * * * * * (b) Every broker or dealer in computing net capital pursuant to § 240.15c3–1 must comply with the following: (1) Swaps. In the case of any swap for which the deductions in Appendix E of this section do not apply: (i) Credit default swaps referencing broad-based securities indices. (A) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following table: E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules Basis point spread Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less (%) emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 12 months or less .................................... 13 months to 24 months .......................... 25 months to 36 months .......................... 37 months to 48 months .......................... 49 months to 60 months .......................... 61 months to 72 months .......................... 73 months to 84 months .......................... 85 months to 120 months ........................ 121 months and longer ............................ 0.67 1.00 1.33 2.00 2.67 3.67 4.67 5.67 6.67 (B) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B if the swap was a short credit default swap. (C) Long and short positions. (1) Long and short credit default swaps. In the case of swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing the same broad-based security index, have the same credit events which would trigger payment by the seller of protection, have the same basket of obligations which would determine the amount of payment by the seller of protection upon the occurrence of a credit event, that are in the same or adjacent spread category, and that are in the same or adjacent maturity category and have a maturity date within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this Appendix B on the excess of the long or short position. (2) Long basket of obligors and long credit default swap. In the case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index and the broker or dealer is long a basket of debt securities comprising all of the components of the securities index, deducting 50% of the amount specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) for the component securities, provided the broker or dealer can deliver the component securities to satisfy the obligation of the broker or dealer on the credit default swap. (3) Short basket of obligors and short credit default swap. In the case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index and the broker or dealer is short a basket of debt securities comprising all of the components of the securities index, deducting the amount specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) for the component securities. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 101–300 (%) 301–400 (%) 1.33 2.33 3.33 4.00 4.67 5.67 6.67 10.00 13.33 3.33 5.00 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 (2) All other swaps. (i) In the case of any swap that is not a credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the notional value of the swap by the percentage specified in: (A) Section 240.15c3–1 applicable to the reference asset if § 240.15c3–1 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset; (B) 17 CFR 1.17 applicable to the reference asset if 17 CFR 1.17 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset and § 240.15c3–1 does not specify a percentage deduction for the type of asset; or (C) In the case of an interest rate swap, § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A) based on the maturity of the swap, provided that the percentage deduction must be no less than 0.5%. (ii) A security-based swap dealer may reduce the deduction under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by an amount equal to any reduction recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference asset or interest rate under § 240.15c3–1 or 17 CFR 1.17. § 240.15c3–1d [Amended] 5. Section 240.15c3–1d is amended by: a. Adding to the end of the second sentence of paragraph (b)(7) the phrase ‘‘, or if, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of § 240.15c3–1, its net capital would be less than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.15c3–1’’; b. In the first sentence of paragraph (b)(8)(i), adding after the phrase ‘‘if greater, or’’ the phrase ‘‘, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of § 240.15c3–1, its net capital would be less than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.15c3–1, or’’; c. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(B), adding after the phrase ‘‘if greater,’’ the phrase ‘‘or, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of § 240.15c3–1, its net capital is less than either $20 million or 8% of the risk margin amount under § 240.15c3–1,’’; PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 401–500 (%) 5.00 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 501–699 (%) 700 or more (%) 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 20.00 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 20.00 26.67 33.33 d. In paragraph (c)(2), adding at the end of the sentence the phrase ‘‘, or, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of § 240.15c3–1, its net capital would be less than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.15c3–1’’; and e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), adding after the phrase ‘‘if greater, or less than 120 percent of the minimum dollar amount required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,’’ the phrase ‘‘, or, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of § 240.15c3–1, its net capital would be less than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.15c3–1,’’. § 240.15c3–1e [Amended] 6. Section 240.15c3–1e is amended by: a. In the first sentence of paragraph (a) before the first ‘‘:’’, removing the phrase ‘‘transactions in derivatives instruments’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2)’’; b. In the first sentence of paragraph (c) before the first ‘‘:’’, removing the phrase ‘‘transactions in derivatives instruments’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2)’’; c. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the phrase ‘‘$5 billion’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘$6 billion’’; and d. In paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ‘‘$5 billion’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘$6 billion’’. 7. Section 240.15c3–3 is amended by adding new paragraph (p) to read as follows: § 240.15c3–3 Customer protection— reserves and custody of securities. * * * * * (p) Security-based swaps. A broker or dealer that is registered as a securitybased swap dealer pursuant to section 15F of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-8) must E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules also comply with the provisions of § 240.18a–4. 8. Section 240.18a–1 is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–1 Net capital requirements for security-based swap dealers for which there is not a prudential regulator. emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Note to § 240.18a–1: Rule 18a–1 and its appendices do not apply to a security-based swap dealer that has a prudential regulator as such a security-based swap dealer is subject to the capital requirement of the prudential regulator. In addition, Rule 18a–1 and its appendices do not apply to a security-based swap dealer that also is registered as a broker or dealer pursuant to section 15(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)) as such a security-based swap dealer is subject to the net capital requirements in § 240.15c3–1 and its appendices. (a) Minimum requirements. Every registered security-based swap dealer must at all times have and maintain net capital no less than the greater of the highest minimum requirements applicable to its business under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, and tentative net capital no less than the minimum requirement under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (1) A security-based swap dealer must at all times maintain net capital of not less than the greater of $20 million or eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount. (2) In accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the Commission may approve, in whole or in part, an application or an amendment to an application by a security-based swap dealer to calculate net capital using the market risk standards of paragraph (d) to compute a deduction for market risk on some or all of its positions, instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (vi), and (vii) of this section, and using the credit risk standards of paragraph (d) to compute a deduction for credit risk for security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of this section, subject to any conditions or limitations on the security-based swap dealer the Commission may require as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. A securitybased swap dealer that has been approved to calculate its net capital under paragraph (d) of this section must at all times maintain tentative net capital of not less than $100 million and net capital of not less than the greater of $20 million or eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount; and (b) A security-based swap dealer must at all times maintain net capital in VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 addition to the amounts required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, in an amount equal to 10 percent of: (1) The excess of the market value of United States Treasury Bills, Bonds and Notes subject to reverse repurchase agreements with any one party over 105 percent of the contract prices (including accrued interest) for reverse repurchase agreements with that party; (2) The excess of the market value of securities issued or guaranteed as to principal or interest by an agency of the United States or mortgage related securities as defined in section 3(a)(41) of the Act subject to reverse repurchase agreements with any one party over 110 percent of the contract prices (including accrued interest) for reverse repurchase agreements with that party; and (3) The excess of the market value of other securities subject to reverse repurchase agreements with any one party over 120 percent of the contract prices (including accrued interest) for reverse repurchase agreements with that party. (c) Definitions. For purpose of this section: (1) The term net capital shall be deemed to mean the net worth of a security-based swap dealer, adjusted by: (i) Adjustments to net worth related to unrealized profit or loss and deferred tax provisions. (A) Adding unrealized profits (or deducting unrealized losses) in the accounts of the security-based swap dealer; (B)(1) In determining net worth, all long and all short positions in listed options shall be marked to their market value and all long and all short securities and commodities positions shall be marked to their market value. (2) In determining net worth, the value attributed to any unlisted option shall be the difference between the option’s exercise value and the market value of the underlying security. In the case of an unlisted call, if the market value of the underlying security is less than the exercise value of such call it shall be given no value and in the case of an unlisted put if the market value of the underlying security is more than the exercise value of the unlisted put it shall be given no value. (C) Adding to net worth the lesser of any deferred income tax liability related to the items in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, or the sum of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C)(1), (2), and (3) of this section; (1) The aggregate amount resulting from applying to the amount of the deductions computed in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) of this section and Appendices A and B, PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70333 § 240.18a–1a and § 240.18a–1b, the appropriate Federal and State tax rate(s) applicable to any unrealized gain on the asset on which the deduction was computed. (2) Any deferred tax liability related to income accrued which is directly related to an asset otherwise deducted pursuant to this section; (3) Any deferred tax liability related to unrealized appreciation in value of any asset(s) which has been otherwise deducted from net worth in accordance with the provisions of this section; and (D) Adding, in the case of future income tax benefits arising as a result of unrealized losses, the amount of such benefits not to exceed the amount of income tax liabilities accrued on the books and records of the security-based swap dealer, but only to the extent such benefits could have been applied to reduce accrued tax liabilities on the date of the capital computation, had the related unrealized losses been realized on that date. (E) Adding to net worth any actual tax liability related to income accrued which is directly related to an asset otherwise deducted pursuant to this section. (ii) Subordinated liabilities. Excluding liabilities of the security-based swap dealer that are subordinated to the claims of creditors pursuant to a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement, as defined in Appendix D (§ 240.18a–1d). (iii) Assets not readily convertible into cash. Deducting fixed assets and assets which cannot be readily converted into cash, including, among other things: (A) Fixed assets and prepaid items. Real estate; furniture and fixtures; exchange memberships; prepaid rent, insurance and other expenses; goodwill, organization expenses; (B) Certain unsecured and partly secured receivables. All unsecured advances and loans; deficits in customers’ and non-customers’ unsecured and partly secured notes; deficits in customers’ and noncustomers’ unsecured and partly secured accounts after application of calls for margin, marks to the market or other required deposits that are outstanding for more than one business day; and the market value of stock loaned in excess of the value of any collateral received therefore. (C) Insurance claims. Insurance claims that, after seven (7) business days from the date the loss giving rise to the claim is discovered, are not covered by an opinion of outside counsel that the claim is valid and is covered by insurance policies presently in effect; insurance claims that after twenty (20) E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules business days from the date the loss giving rise to the claim is discovered and that are not accompanied by an opinion of outside counsel described above, have not been acknowledged in writing by the insurance carrier as due and payable; and insurance claims acknowledged in writing by the carrier as due and payable outstanding longer than twenty (20) business days from the date they are so acknowledged by the carrier; and (D) Other deductions. All other unsecured receivables; all assets doubtful of collection less any reserves established therefore; the amount by which the market value of securities failed to receive outstanding thirty (30) calendar days exceeds the contract value of such fails to receive, and the funds on deposit in a ‘‘segregated trust account’’ in accordance with 17 CFR 270.27d–1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, but only to the extent that the amount on deposit in such segregated trust account exceeds the amount of liability reserves established and maintained for refunds of charges required by sections 27(d) and 27(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940; Provided, That any amount deposited in the ‘‘special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers’’ established pursuant to § 240.18a–4 and clearing deposits shall not be so deducted. (E)(1) For purposes of this paragraph: (i) The term reverse repurchase agreement deficit shall mean the difference between the contract price for resale of the securities under a reverse repurchase agreement and the market value of those securities (if less than the contract price). (ii) The term repurchase agreement deficit shall mean the difference between the market value of securities subject to the repurchase agreement and the contract price for repurchase of the securities (if less than the market value of the securities). (iii) As used in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(1) of this section, the term contract price shall include accrued interest. (iv) Reverse repurchase agreement deficits and the repurchase agreement deficits where the counterparty is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall be disregarded. (2)(i) In the case of a reverse repurchase agreement, the deduction shall be equal to the reverse repurchase agreement deficit. (ii) In determining the required deductions under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section, the security-based swap dealer may reduce VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 the reverse repurchase agreement deficit by: (A) Any margin or other deposits held by the security-based swap dealer on account of the reverse repurchase agreement; (B) Any excess market value of the securities over the contract price for resale of those securities under any other reverse repurchase agreement with the same party; (C) The difference between the contract price for resale and the market value of securities subject to repurchase agreements with the same party (if the market value of those securities is less than the contract price); and (D) Calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits that are outstanding one business day or less. (3)(i) In the case of repurchase agreements, the deduction shall be: (A) The excess of the repurchase agreement deficit over 5 percent of the contract price for resale of United States Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds, 10 percent of the contract price for the resale of securities issued or guaranteed as to principal or interest by an agency of the United States or mortgage related securities as defined in section 3(a)(41) of the Act and 20 percent of the contract price for the resale of other securities; and (B) The excess of the aggregate repurchase agreement deficits with any one party over 25 percent of the security-based swap dealer’s net capital before the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) of this section (less any deduction taken with respect to repurchase agreements with that party under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(3)(i)(A) of this section) or, if greater; (C) The excess of the aggregate repurchase agreement deficits over 300 percent of the security-based swap dealer’s net capital before the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) of this section. (ii) In determining the required deduction under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(3)(i) of this section, the security-based swap dealer may reduce a repurchase agreement by: (A) Any margin or other deposits held by the security-based swap dealer on account of a reverse repurchase agreement with the same party to the extent not otherwise used to reduce a reverse repurchase agreement deficit; (B) The difference between the contract price and the market value of securities subject to other repurchase agreements with the same party (if the market value of those securities is less than the contract price) not otherwise PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 used to reduce a reverse repurchase agreement deficit; and (C) Calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits that are outstanding one business day or less to the extent not otherwise used to reduce a reverse repurchase agreement deficit. (F) Securities borrowed. One percent of the market value of securities borrowed collateralized by an irrevocable letter of credit. (G) Any receivable from an affiliate of the security-based swap dealer (not otherwise deducted from net worth) and the market value of any collateral given to an affiliate (not otherwise deducted from net worth) to secure a liability over the amount of the liability of the security-based swap dealer unless the books and records of the affiliate are made available for examination when requested by the representatives of the Commission in order to demonstrate the validity of the receivable or payable. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply where the affiliate is a registered security-based swap dealer, registered broker or dealer, registered government securities broker or dealer, bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act, insurance company as defined in section 3(a)(19) of the Act, investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, federally insured savings and loan association, or futures commission merchant or swap dealer registered pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act. (iv) Non-marketable securities. Deducting 100 percent of the carrying value in the case of securities or evidence of indebtedness in the proprietary or other accounts of the security-based swap dealer, for which there is no ready market, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, and securities, in the proprietary or other accounts of the security-based swap dealer, that cannot be publicly offered or sold because of statutory, regulatory or contractual arrangements or other restrictions. (v) Deducting from the contract value of each failed to deliver contract that is outstanding five business days or longer (21 business days or longer in the case of municipal securities) the percentages of the market value of the underlying security that would be required by application of the deduction required by paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section. Such deduction, however, shall be increased by any excess of the contract price of the failed to deliver contract over the market value of the underlying security or reduced by any excess of the market value of the underlying security E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules over the contract value of the failed to deliver contract, but not to exceed the amount of such deduction. The Commission may, upon application of the security-based swap dealer, extend for a period up to 5 business days, any period herein specified when it is satisfied that the extension is warranted. The Commission upon expiration of the extension may extend for one additional period of up to 5 business days, any period herein specified when it is satisfied that the extension is warranted. (vi) Security-based swaps. Deducting the percentages specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section (or the deductions prescribed in § 240.18a– 1a) of the notional amount of any security-based swaps in the proprietary account of the security-based swap dealer. 70335 (A) Credit default swaps. (1) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following table: Basis point spread Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less (%) emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 12 months or less .................................... 13 months to 24 months .......................... 25 months to 36 months .......................... 37 months to 48 months .......................... 49 months to 60 months .......................... 61 months to 72 months .......................... 73 months to 84 months .......................... 85 months to 120 months ........................ 121 months and longer ............................ 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.50 7.00 8.50 10.00 (2) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a securitybased swap that is a long credit default swap, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of this section if the security-based swap was a short credit default swap. (3) Long and short positions. (i) Long and short credit default swaps. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing the same obligor or obligation, that are in the same spread category, and that are in the same maturity category or are in the next maturity category and have a maturity date within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) or (2) on the excess of the long or short position. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing obligors or obligations of obligors in the same industry sector and the same spread and maturity categories prescribed in paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of this section, deducting 50% of the amount required by paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of this section on the short position plus the deduction required by paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(2) of this section on the excess long position, if any. For the purposes of this section, the securitybased swap dealer must use an industry sector classification system that is reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics and VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 101–300 (%) 301–400 (%) 2.00 3.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 document the industry sector classification system used pursuant to this section. (ii) Long security and long credit default swap. In the case of a securitybased swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a debt security and the security-based swap dealer is long the same debt security, deducting 50% of the amount specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the bond, provided that the security-based swap dealer can deliver the bond to satisfy the obligation of the security-based swap dealer on the credit default swap. (iii) Short security and short credit default swap. In the case of a securitybased swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a bond or a corporate entity and the security-based swap dealer is short the bond or a bond issued by the corporate entity, deducting the amount specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the bond. In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap referencing an asset-backed security and the securitybased swap dealer is short the assetbacked security, deducting the amount specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the asset-backed security. (B) All other security-based swaps. In the case of any security-based swap that is not a credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the notional amount of the securitybased swap and the percentage specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) applicable to the reference security. A security-based swap dealer may reduce the deduction under this paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) by an amount equal to any reduction PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 401–500 (%) 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 501–699 (%) 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 700 or more (%) 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 40.00 50.00 recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference security under § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) and, in the case of a security-based swap referencing an equity security, the method specified in § 240.18a–1a. (vii) All other securities, money market instruments or options. Deducting the percentages specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) of the market value of all securities, money market instruments, and options in the proprietary accounts of the securitybased swap dealer. (viii) Deduction from net worth in lieu of collecting margin amounts for security-based swaps. (A) Cleared security-based swap transactions. Deducting the amount of the margin difference for each account carried by the security-based swap dealer for another person that holds cleared security-based swap transactions. The margin difference is the amount of the deductions that the positions in the account would incur pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section if owned by the security-based swap dealer less the margin value of collateral held in the account. (B) Non-cleared security-based swap transactions. (1) Commercial end users. Deducting, with respect to a counterparty that is a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), the margin amount calculated pursuant to § 240.18a– 3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account of the counterparty less any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70336 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (2) Margin collateral held by thirdparty custodian. Deducting, with respect to a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2) and that elects to have collateral segregated in an account at an independent third-party custodian pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)), the margin amount calculated pursuant to § 240.18a–3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account of the counterparty at the security-based swap dealer less any positive equity in that account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). (3) Security-based swap legacy accounts. Deducting, with respect to a security-based swap legacy account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(9) of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2), the margin amount calculated pursuant § 240.18a– 3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account less any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(7). (ix) Deduction from net worth for certain undermargined accounts. Deducting the amount of cash required in the account of each security-based swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a clearing agency or the Commission, after application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding one business day or less. (2) The term exempted securities shall mean those securities deemed exempted securities by section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder. (3) Customer. The term customer shall mean any person from whom, or on whose behalf, a security-based swap dealer has received, acquired or holds funds or securities for the account of such person, but shall not include a security-based swap dealer, a broker or dealer, a registered municipal securities dealer, or a general, special or limited partner or director or officer of the security-based swap dealer, or any person to the extent that such person has a claim for property or funds which by contract, agreement, or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the securitybased swap dealer. (4) Ready market. The term ready market shall include a recognized established securities market in which there exists independent bona fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be determined for a particular security almost instantaneously and where payment will be received in settlement of a sale VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 at such price within a relatively short time conforming to trade custom. (5) The term tentative net capital means the net capital of the securitybased swap dealer before deductions for market and credit risk computed pursuant to this section and increased by the balance sheet value (including counterparty net exposure) resulting from transactions in derivative instruments which would otherwise be deducted. Tentative net capital shall include securities for which there is no ready market, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, if the use of mathematical models has been approved for purposes of calculating deductions from net capital for those securities pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. (6) The term risk margin amount means the sum of: (i) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the securitybased swap dealer with respect to security-based swap transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section; and (ii) The total margin amount calculated by the security-based swap dealer with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to § 240.18a–3(c)(1)(i)(B). (d) Application to use models to compute deductions for market and credit risk. (1) A security-based swap dealer may apply to the Commission for authorization to compute deductions for market risk under this paragraph (d) in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (vi), and (vii) of this section and to compute deductions for credit risk pursuant to this paragraph (d) on credit exposures arising from transactions in derivatives instruments (if this paragraph (d) is used to calculate deductions for market risk on these instruments) in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. (i) A security-based swap dealer shall submit the following information to the Commission with its application: (A) An executive summary of the information provided to the Commission with its application and an identification of the ultimate holding company of the security-based swap dealer; (B) A comprehensive description of the internal risk management control system of the security-based swap dealer and how that system satisfies the requirements set forth in § 240.15c3–4; PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (C) A list of the categories of positions that the security-based swap dealer holds in its proprietary accounts and a brief description of the methods that the security-based swap dealer will use to calculate deductions for market and credit risk on those categories of positions; (D) A description of the mathematical models to be used to price positions and to compute deductions for market risk, including those portions of the deductions attributable to specific risk, if applicable, and deductions for credit risk; a description of the creation, use, and maintenance of the mathematical models; a description of the securitybased swap dealer’s internal risk management controls over those models, including a description of each category of persons who may input data into the models; if a mathematical model incorporates empirical correlations across risk categories, a description of the process for measuring correlations; a description of the backtesting procedures the securitybased swap dealer will use to backtest the mathematical models used to calculate maximum potential exposure; a description of how each mathematical model satisfies the applicable qualitative and quantitative requirements set forth in this paragraph (d); and a statement describing the extent to which each mathematical model used to compute deductions for market risk and credit risk will be used as part of the risk analyses and reports presented to senior management; (E) If the security-based swap dealer is applying to the Commission for approval to use scenario analysis to calculate deductions for market risk for certain positions, a list of those types of positions, a description of how those deductions will be calculated using scenario analysis, and an explanation of why each scenario analysis is appropriate to calculate deductions for market risk on those types of positions; (F) A description of how the securitybased swap dealer will calculate current exposure; (G) A description of how the securitybased swap dealer will determine internal credit ratings of counterparties and internal credit risk weights of counterparties, if applicable; (H) For each instance in which a mathematical model to be used by the security-based swap dealer to calculate a deduction for market risk or to calculate maximum potential exposure for a particular product or counterparty differs from the mathematical model used by the ultimate holding company to calculate an allowance for market risk or to calculate maximum potential E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules exposure for that same product or counterparty, a description of the difference(s) between the mathematical models; and (I) Sample risk reports that are provided to management at the securitybased swap dealer who are responsible for managing the security-based swap dealer’s risk. (ii) [Reserved]. (2) The application of the securitybased swap dealer shall be supplemented by other information relating to the internal risk management control system, mathematical models, and financial position of the securitybased swap dealer that the Commission may request to complete its review of the application; (3) The application shall be considered filed when received at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC A person who files an application pursuant to this section for which it seeks confidential treatment may clearly mark each page or segregable portion of each page with the words ‘‘Confidential Treatment Requested.’’ All information submitted in connection with the application will be accorded confidential treatment, to the extent permitted by law; (4) If any of the information filed with the Commission as part of the application of the security-based swap dealer is found to be or becomes inaccurate before the Commission approves the application, the securitybased swap dealer must notify the Commission promptly and provide the Commission with a description of the circumstances in which the information was found to be or has become inaccurate along with updated, accurate information; (5) The Commission may approve the application or an amendment to the application, in whole or in part, subject to any conditions or limitations the Commission may require if the Commission finds the approval to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, after determining, among other things, whether the security-based swap dealer has met the requirements of this paragraph (d) and is in compliance with other applicable rules promulgated under the Act; (6) A security-based swap dealer shall amend its application to calculate certain deductions for market and credit risk under this paragraph (d) and submit the amendment to the Commission for approval before it may change materially a mathematical model used to calculate market or credit risk or before it may change materially its VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 internal risk management control system; (7) As a condition for the securitybased swap dealer to compute deductions for market and credit risk under this paragraph (d), the securitybased swap dealer agrees that: (i) It will notify the Commission 45 days before it ceases to compute deductions for market and credit risk under this paragraph (d); and (ii) The Commission may determine by order that the notice will become effective after a shorter or longer period of time if the security-based swap dealer consents or if the Commission determines that a shorter or longer period of time is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors; and (8) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(7) of this section, the Commission, by order, may revoke a security-based swap dealer’s exemption that allows it to use the market risk standards of this paragraph (d) to calculate deductions for market risk, and the exemption to use the credit risk standards of this paragraph (d) to calculate deductions for credit risk on certain credit exposures arising from transactions in derivatives instruments if the Commission finds that such exemption is no longer necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. In making its finding, the Commission will consider the compliance history of the security-based swap dealer related to its use of models, the financial and operational strength of the security-based swap dealer and its ultimate holding company, and the security-based swap dealer’s compliance with its internal risk management controls. (9) VaR models. To be approved, each value-at-risk (‘‘VaR’’) model must meet the following minimum qualitative and quantitative requirements: (i) Qualitative requirements. (A) The VaR model used to calculate market or credit risk for a position must be integrated into the daily internal risk management system of the securitybased swap dealer; (B) The VaR model must be reviewed both periodically and annually. The periodic review may be conducted by the security-based swap dealer’s internal audit staff, but the annual review must be conducted by a registered public accounting firm, as that term is defined in section 2(a)(12) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.); and (C) For purposes of computing market risk, the security-based swap dealer must determine the appropriate multiplication factor as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70337 (1) Beginning three months after the security-based swap dealer begins using the VaR model to calculate market risk, the security-based swap dealer must conduct backtesting of the model by comparing its actual daily net trading profit or loss with the corresponding VaR measure generated by the VaR model, using a 99 percent, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a one business-day movement in rates and prices, for each of the past 250 business days, or other period as may be appropriate for the first year of its use; (2) On the last business day of each quarter, the security-based swap dealer must identify the number of backtesting exceptions of the VaR model using clean profit and loss, that is, the number of business days in the past 250 business days, or other period as may be appropriate for the first year of its use, for which the actual net trading loss, if any, exceeds the corresponding VaR measure; and (3) The security-based swap dealer must use the multiplication factor indicated in Table 1 of this paragraph (d) in determining its market risk until it obtains the next quarter’s backtesting results; TABLE 1—MULTIPLICATION FACTOR BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BACKTESTING EXCEPTIONS OF THE VAR MODEL Number of exceptions 4 or fewer ......................... 5 ........................................ 6 ........................................ 7 ........................................ 8 ........................................ 9 ........................................ 10 or more ........................ Multiplication factor 3.00 3.40 3.50 3.65 3.75 3.85 4.00 (4) For purposes of incorporating specific risk into a VaR model, a security-based swap dealer must demonstrate that it has methodologies in place to capture liquidity, event, and default risk adequately for each position. Furthermore, the models used to calculate deductions for specific risk must: (i) Explain the historical price variation in the portfolio; (ii) Capture concentration (magnitude and changes in composition); (iii) Be robust to an adverse environment; (iv) Capture name-related basis risk; (v) Capture event risk; and (vi) Be validated through backtesting. (5) For purposes of computing the credit equivalent amount of the security-based swap dealer’s exposures E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules to a counterparty, the security-based swap dealer must determine the appropriate multiplication factor as follows: (i) Beginning three months after it begins using the VaR model to calculate maximum potential exposure, the security-based swap dealer must conduct backtesting of the model by comparing, for at least 80 counterparties with widely varying types and sizes of positions with the firm, the ten business day change in its current exposure to the counterparty based on its positions held at the beginning of the ten-business day period with the corresponding tenbusiness day maximum potential exposure for the counterparty generated by the VaR model; (ii) As of the last business day of each quarter, the security-based swap dealer must identify the number of backtesting exceptions of the VaR model, that is, the number of ten-business day periods in the past 250 business days, or other period as may be appropriate for the first year of its use, for which the change in current exposure to a counterparty exceeds the corresponding maximum potential exposure; and (iii) The security-based swap dealer will propose, as part of its application, a schedule of multiplication factors, which must be approved by the Commission based on the number of backtesting exceptions of the VaR model. The security-based swap dealer must use the multiplication factor indicated in the approved schedule in determining the credit equivalent amount of its exposures to a counterparty until it obtains the next quarter’s backtesting results, unless the Commission determines, based on, among other relevant factors, a review of the security-based swap dealer’s internal risk management control system, including a review of the VaR model, that a different adjustment or other action is appropriate. (ii) Quantitative requirements. (A) For purposes of determining market risk, the VaR model must use a 99 percent, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a ten business-day movement in rates and prices; (B) For purposes of determining maximum potential exposure, the VaR model must use a 99 percent, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent to a one-year movement in rates and prices; or based on a review of the security-based swap dealer’s procedures for managing collateral and if the collateral is marked to market daily and the security-based swap dealer has the ability to call for additional collateral daily, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Commission may approve a time horizon of not less than ten business days; (C) The VaR model must use an effective historical observation period of at least one year. The security-based swap dealer must consider the effects of market stress in its construction of the model. Historical data sets must be updated at least monthly and reassessed whenever market prices or volatilities change significantly; and (D) The VaR model must take into account and incorporate all significant, identifiable market risk factors applicable to positions in the accounts of the security-based swap dealer, including: (1) Risks arising from the non-linear price characteristics of derivatives and the sensitivity of the market value of those positions to changes in the volatility of the derivatives’ underlying rates and prices; (2) Empirical correlations with and across risk factors or, alternatively, risk factors sufficient to cover all the market risk inherent in the positions in the proprietary or other trading accounts of the security-based swap dealer, including interest rate risk, equity price risk, foreign exchange risk, and commodity price risk; (3) Spread risk, where applicable, and segments of the yield curve sufficient to capture differences in volatility and imperfect correlation of rates along the yield curve for securities and derivatives that are sensitive to different interest rates; and (4) Specific risk for individual positions. (iii) Additional conditions. (A) As a condition for the security-based swap dealer to use this paragraph (d) to calculate certain of its capital charges, the Commission may impose additional conditions on the security-based swap dealer, which may include, but are not limited to restricting the security-based swap dealer’s business on a productspecific, category-specific, or general basis; submitting to the Commission a plan to increase the security-based swap dealer’s net capital or tentative net capital; filing more frequent reports with the Commission; modifying the security-based swap dealer’s internal risk management control procedures; or computing the security-based swap dealer’s deductions for market and credit risk in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) (iii), (iv), (vii), or (viii) as appropriate. If the Commission finds it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, the Commission may impose additional conditions on the securitybased swap dealer, if: PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) The security-based swap dealer is required by § 240.18a–8 to provide notice to the Commission that the security-based swap dealer’s tentative net capital is less than $100 million; (2) The security-based swap dealer fails to meet the reporting requirements set forth in § 240.18a–8; (3) Any event specified in § 240.18a– 8 occurs; (4) There is a material deficiency in the internal risk management control system or in the mathematical models used to price securities or to calculate deductions for market and credit risk or allowances for market and credit risk, as applicable, of the security-based swap dealer; (5) The security-based swap dealer fails to comply with this paragraph (d); or (6) The Commission finds that imposition of other conditions is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. (e) Models to compute deductions for market risk and credit risk. (1) Market risk. A security-based swap dealer whose application, including amendments, has been approved under paragraph (d) of this section, shall compute a deduction for market risk in an amount equal to the sum of the following: (i) For positions for which the Commission has approved the securitybased swap dealer’s use of VaR models, the VaR of the positions multiplied by the appropriate multiplication factor determined according to paragraph (d) of this section, except that the initial multiplication factor shall be three, unless the Commission determines, based on a review of the security-based swap dealer’s application or an amendment to the application under paragraph (d) of this section, including a review of its internal risk management control system and practices and VaR models, that another multiplication factor is appropriate; (ii) For positions for which the VaR model does not incorporate specific risk, a deduction for specific risk to be determined by the Commission based on a review of the security-based swap dealer’s application or an amendment to the application under paragraph (d) of this section and the positions involved; (iii) For positions for which the Commission has approved the securitybased swap dealer’s application to use scenario analysis, the greatest loss resulting from a range of adverse movements in relevant risk factors, prices, or spreads designed to represent a negative movement greater than, or equal to, the worst ten-day movement of E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules the four years preceding calculation of the greatest loss, or some multiple of the greatest loss based on the liquidity of the positions subject to scenario analysis. If historical data is insufficient, the deduction shall be the largest loss within a three standard deviation movement in those risk factors, prices, or spreads over a ten-day period, multiplied by an appropriate liquidity adjustment factor. Irrespective of the deduction otherwise indicated under scenario analysis, the resulting deduction for market risk must be at least $25 per 100 share equivalent contract for equity positions, or one-half of one percent of the face value of the contract for all other types of contracts, even if the scenario analysis indicates a lower amount. A qualifying scenario must include the following: (A) A set of pricing equations for the positions based on, for example, arbitrage relations, statistical analysis, historic relationships, merger evaluations, or fundamental valuation of an offering of securities; (B) Auxiliary relationships mapping risk factors to prices; and (C) Data demonstrating the effectiveness of the scenario in capturing market risk, including specific risk; and (iv) For all remaining positions, the deductions specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi), § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vii), and applicable appendices to § 240.15c3–1. (2) Credit risk. A security-based swap dealer whose application, including amendments, has been approved under paragraph (d) of this section with respect to positions in security-based swaps may compute a deduction for credit risk on security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined in § 240.18a–3(b)(2) in an amount equal to the sum of the following: (i) A counterparty exposure charge in an amount equal to the sum of the following: (A) The net replacement value in the account of each counterparty that is insolvent, or in bankruptcy, or that has senior unsecured long-term debt in default; and (B) For a counterparty not otherwise described in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the credit equivalent amount of the security-based swap dealer’s exposure to the counterparty, as defined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(A) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk weight of the counterparty, as determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of this section, multiplied by 8%; VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 (ii) A concentration charge by counterparty in an amount equal to the sum of the following: (A) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of 20% or less, 5% of the amount of the current exposure to the counterparty in excess of 5% of the tentative net capital of the securitybased swap dealer; (B) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of greater than 20% but less than 50%, 20% of the amount of the current exposure to the counterparty in excess of 5% of the tentative net capital of the securitybased swap dealer; and (C) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of greater than 50%, 50% of the amount of the current exposure to the counterparty in excess of 5% of the tentative net capital of the security-based swap dealer; and (iii) A portfolio concentration charge of 100% of the amount of the securitybased swap dealer’s aggregate current exposure for all counterparties in excess of 50% of the tentative net capital of the security-based swap dealer. (iv) Terms. (A) The credit equivalent amount of the security-based swap dealer’s exposure to a counterparty is the sum of the security-based swap dealer’s maximum potential exposure to the counterparty, as defined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, multiplied by the appropriate multiplication factor, and the securitybased swap dealer’s current exposure to the counterparty, as defined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) of this section. The security-based swap dealer must use the multiplication factor determined according to paragraph (d)(9)(i)(C)(5) of this section, except that the initial multiplication factor shall be one, unless the Commission determines, based on a review of the security-based swap dealer’s application or an amendment to the application approved under paragraph (d) of this section, including a review of its internal risk management control system and practices and VaR models, that another multiplication factor is appropriate; (B) The maximum potential exposure is the VaR of the counterparty’s positions with the security-based swap dealer, after applying netting agreements with the counterparty meeting the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(D) of this section, taking into account the value of collateral from the counterparty held by the security-based swap dealer in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of this section, and taking into account the current replacement value of the counterparty’s positions with the security-based swap dealer; PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70339 (C) The current exposure of the security-based swap dealer to a counterparty is the current replacement value of the counterparty’s positions with the security-based swap dealer, after applying netting agreements with the counterparty meeting the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(D) of this section and taking into account the value of collateral from the counterparty held by the security-based swap dealer in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of this section; (D) Netting agreements. A securitybased swap dealer may include the effect of a netting agreement that allows the security-based swap dealer to net gross receivables from and gross payables to a counterparty upon default of the counterparty if: (1) The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings; (2) The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject to the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any time; and (3) For internal risk management purposes, the security-based swap dealer monitors and controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net basis. (E) Collateral. When calculating maximum potential exposure and current exposure to a counterparty, the fair market value of collateral pledged and held may be taken into account provided: (1) The collateral is marked to market each day and is subject to a daily margin maintenance requirement; (2) The security-based swap dealer maintains physical possession or sole control of the collateral; (3) The collateral is liquid and transferable; (4) The collateral may be liquidated promptly by the firm without intervention by any other party; (5) The collateral agreement is legally enforceable by the security-based swap dealer against the counterparty and any other parties to the agreement; (6) The collateral does not consist of securities issued by the counterparty or a party related to the security-based swap dealer or to the counterparty; (7) The Commission has approved the security-based swap dealer’s use of a VaR model to calculate deductions for market risk for the type of collateral in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and (8) The collateral is not used in determining the credit rating of the counterparty. (F) Credit risk weights of counterparties. A security-based swap E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules dealer that computes its deductions for credit risk pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall apply a credit risk weight for transactions with a counterparty of either 20%, 50%, or 150% based on an internal credit rating the security-based swap dealer determines for the counterparty. (1) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to apply a credit risk weight of either 20%, 50%, or 150% based on internal calculations of credit ratings, including internal estimates of the maturity adjustment. Based on the strength of the security-based swap dealer’s internal credit risk management system, the Commission may approve the application. The security-based swap dealer must make and keep current a record of the basis for the credit risk weight of each counterparty; (2) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to determine credit risk weights based on internal calculations, including internal estimates of the maturity adjustment. Based on the strength of the security-based swap dealer’s internal credit risk management system, the Commission may approve the application. The security-based swap dealer must make and keep current a record of the basis for the credit risk weight of each counterparty; and (3) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to reduce deductions for credit risk through the use of credit derivatives. (f) Liquidity requirements. (1) Liquidity stress test. A security-based swap dealer that computes net capital under paragraph (a)(2) of this Rule 18a– 1 must perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly, the results of which must be provided within ten business days to senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the security-based swap dealer. The assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test must be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the security-based swap dealer and at least annually by senior management of the security-based swap dealer. The liquidity stress test must include, at a minimum, the following assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days: (i) A stress event includes a decline in creditworthiness of the broker or dealer severe enough to trigger contractual VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 credit-related commitment provisions of counterparty agreements; (ii) The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded committed lines of credit; (iii) The potential for a material net loss of secured funding; (iv) The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement financing for less liquid assets; (v) The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net worth or which is not funded by customer assets; (vi) A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at registered clearing agencies of which it is a member; and (vii) The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses, positions, and commitments of the security-based swap dealer, including those related to customer businesses of the security-based swap dealer. (2) Stress test of consolidated entity. The security-based swap dealer must justify and document any differences in the assumptions used in the liquidity stress test of the security-based swap dealer from those used in the liquidity stress test of the consolidated entity of which the security-based swap dealer is a part. (3) Liquidity reserves. The securitybased swap dealer must maintain at all times liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress test. The liquidity reserves used to satisfy the liquidity stress test must be: (i) Cash, obligations of the United States, or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and (ii) Unencumbered and free of any liens at all times. Securities in the liquidity reserve can be used to meet delivery requirements as long as cash or other acceptable securities of equal or greater value are moved into the liquidity pool contemporaneously. (4) Contingency funding plan. The security-based swap dealer must have a written contingency funding plan that addresses the security-based swap dealer’s policies and the roles and responsibilities of relevant personnel for meeting the liquidity needs of the security-based swap dealer and communications with the public and PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 other market participants during a liquidity stress event. (g) Internal risk management control systems. A security-based swap dealer must comply with § 240.15c3–4 as if it were an OTC derivatives dealer with respect to all of its business activities, except that paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii) and (xiv) and (d)(8) and (9) of § 240.15c3–4 shall not apply. (h) Debt-equity requirements. No security-based swap dealer shall permit the total of outstanding principal amounts of its satisfactory subordination agreements (other than such agreements which qualify under this paragraph (h) as equity capital) to exceed 70 percent of its debt-equity total, as hereinafter defined, for a period in excess of 90 days or for such longer period which the Commission may, upon application of the security-based swap dealer, grant in the public interest or for the protection of investors. In the case of a corporation, the debt-equity total shall be the sum of its outstanding principal amounts of satisfactory subordination agreements, par or stated value of capital stock, paid in capital in excess of par, retained earnings, unrealized profit and loss or other capital accounts. In the case of a partnership, the debt-equity total shall be the sum of its outstanding principal amounts of satisfactory subordination agreements, capital accounts of partners (exclusive of such partners’ securities accounts) subject to the provisions of paragraph (i) of this section, and unrealized profit and loss. Provided, however, that a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement entered into by a partner or stockholder which has an initial term of at least three years and has a remaining term of not less than 12 months shall be considered equity for the purposes of this paragraph (h) if: (1) It does not have any of the provisions for accelerated maturity provided for by paragraphs (b)(8)(i), (9)(i), or (9)(ii) of Appendix D of this section and is maintained as capital subject to the provisions restricting the withdrawal thereof required by paragraph (i) of this section; or (2) The partnership agreement provides that capital contributed pursuant to a satisfactory subordination agreement as defined in Appendix D of this section shall in all respects be partnership capital subject to the provisions restricting the withdrawal thereof required by paragraph (i) of this section. (i) Notice provisions relating to limitations on the withdrawal of equity capital. (1) No equity capital of the security-based swap dealer or a E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules subsidiary or affiliate consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this section may be withdrawn by action of a stockholder or a partner or by redemption or repurchase of shares of stock by any of the consolidated entities or through the payment of dividends or any similar distribution, nor may any unsecured advance or loan be made to a stockholder, partner, employee or affiliate without written notice given in accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(iv) of this section: (i) Two business days prior to any withdrawals, advances or loans if those withdrawals, advances or loans on a net basis exceed in the aggregate in any 30 calendar day period, 30 percent of the security-based swap dealer’s excess net capital. A security-based swap dealer, in an emergency situation, may make withdrawals, advances or loans that on a net basis exceed 30 percent of the security-based swap dealer’s excess net capital in any 30 calendar day period without giving the advance notice required by this paragraph, with the prior approval of the Commission. Where a security-based swap dealer makes a withdrawal with the consent of the Commission, it shall in any event comply with paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section; or (ii) Two business days after any withdrawals, advances or loans if those withdrawals, advances or loans on a net basis exceed in the aggregate in any 30 calendar day period, 20 percent of the security-based swap dealer’s excess net capital. (iii) This paragraph (i)(1) does not apply to: (A) Securities or commodities transactions in the ordinary course of business between a security-based swap dealer and an affiliate where the security-based swap dealer makes payment to or on behalf of such affiliate for such transaction and then receives payment from such affiliate for the securities or commodities transaction within two business days from the date of the transaction; or (B) Withdrawals, advances or loans which in the aggregate in any thirty calendar day period, on a net basis, equal $500,000 or less. (iv) Each required notice shall be effective when received by the Commission in Washington, DC, the regional office of the Commission for the region in which the security-based swap dealer has its principal place of business, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission if such securitybased swap dealer is registered with that Commission. (2) Limitations on withdrawal of equity capital. No equity capital of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 security-based swap dealer or a subsidiary or affiliate consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this section may be withdrawn by action of a stockholder or a partner or by redemption or repurchase of shares of stock by any of the consolidated entities or through the payment of dividends or any similar distribution, nor may any unsecured advance or loan be made to a stockholder, partner, employee or affiliate, if after giving effect thereto and to any other such withdrawals, advances or loans and any Payments of Payments Obligations (as defined in Appendix D of this section) under satisfactory subordinated loan agreements which are scheduled to occur within 180 days following such withdrawal, advance or loan if: (i) The security-based swap dealer’s net capital would be less than 120 percent of the minimum dollar amount required by paragraph (a) of this section; and (ii) The total outstanding principal amounts of satisfactory subordinated loan agreements of the security-based swap dealer and any subsidiaries or affiliates consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this section (other than such agreements which qualify as equity under paragraph (h) of this section) would exceed 70% of the debt-equity total as defined in paragraph (h) of this section. (3) Temporary restrictions on withdrawal of net capital. (i) The Commission may by order restrict, for a period up to twenty business days, any withdrawal by the security-based swap dealer of equity capital or unsecured loan or advance to a stockholder, partner, member, employee or affiliate under such terms and conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the protection of investors if the Commission, based on the information available, concludes that such withdrawal, advance or loan may be detrimental to the financial integrity of the security-based swap dealer, or may unduly jeopardize the security-based swap dealer’s ability to repay its customer claims or other liabilities which may cause a significant impact on the markets or expose the customers or creditors of the securitybased swap dealer to loss. (ii) An order temporarily prohibiting the withdrawal of capital shall be rescinded if the Commission determines that the restriction on capital withdrawal should not remain in effect. A hearing on an order temporarily prohibiting withdrawal of capital will be held within two business days from PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70341 the date of the request in writing by the security-based swap dealer. (4) Miscellaneous provisions. (i) Excess net capital is that amount in excess of the amount required under paragraph (a) of this section. For the purposes of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, a security-based swap dealer may use the amount of excess net capital and deductions required under paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) and Appendix A of this section reported in its most recently required filed Form X– 18A–7 for the purposes of calculating the effect of a projected withdrawal, advance or loan relative to excess net capital or deductions. The securitybased swap dealer must assure itself that the excess net capital or the deductions reported on the most recently required filed Form X–18A–7 have not materially changed since the time such report was filed. (ii) The term equity capital includes capital contributions by partners, par or stated value of capital stock, paid-in capital in excess of par, retained earnings or other capital accounts. The term equity capital does not include securities in the securities accounts of partners and balances in limited partners’ capital accounts in excess of their stated capital contributions. (iii) Paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section shall not preclude a securitybased swap dealer from making required tax payments or preclude the payment to partners of reasonable compensation, and such payments shall not be included in the calculation of withdrawals, advances, or loans for purposes of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section. (iv) For the purpose of this paragraph (i), any transactions between a securitybased swap dealer and a stockholder, partner, employee or affiliate that results in a diminution of the securitybased swap dealer’s net capital shall be deemed to be an advance or loan of net capital. 9. Section 240.18a–1a is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–1a Options (Appendix A to 17 CFR 240.18a–1). (a)(1) Definitions. The term unlisted option means any option not included in the definition of listed option provided in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(x). (2) The term option series refers to listed option contracts of the same type (either a call or a put) and exercise style, covering the same underlying security with the same exercise price, expiration date, and number of underlying units. (3) The term related instrument within an option class or product group refers to futures contracts and options E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 on futures contracts covering the same underlying instrument. In relation to options on foreign currencies, a related instrument within an option class also shall include forward contracts on the same underlying currency. (4) The term underlying instrument refers to long and short positions, as appropriate, covering the same foreign currency, the same security, security future, or security-based swap, or a security which is exchangeable for or convertible into the underlying security within a period of 90 days. If the exchange or conversion requires the payment of money or results in a loss upon conversion at the time when the security is deemed an underlying instrument for purposes of this Appendix A, the security-based swap dealer will deduct from net worth the full amount of the conversion loss. The term underlying instrument shall not be deemed to include securities options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, qualified stock baskets, or unlisted instruments (other than security-based swaps). (5) The term options class refers to all options contracts covering the same underlying instrument. (6) The term product group refers to two or more option classes, related instruments, underlying instruments, and qualified stock baskets in the same portfolio type (see paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section) for which it has been determined that a percentage of offsetting profits may be applied to losses at the same valuation point. (b) The deduction under this Appendix A must equal the sum of the deductions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C) of this section. Theoretical Pricing Charges (1)(i) Definitions. (A) The terms theoretical gains and losses mean the gain and loss in the value of individual option series, the value of underlying instruments, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that option’s class, at 10 equidistant intervals (valuation points) ranging from an assumed movement (both up and down) in the current market value of the underlying instrument equal to the percentage corresponding to the deductions otherwise required under § 240.15c3–1 for the underlying instrument (see paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). Theoretical gains and losses shall be calculated using a theoretical options pricing model that satisfies the criteria set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section. (B) The term theoretical options pricing model means any mathematical model, other than a security-based swap VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 dealer’s proprietary model, the use of which has been approved by the Commission. Any such model shall calculate theoretical gains and losses as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this section for all series and issues of equity, index and foreign currency options and related instruments, and shall be made available equally and on the same terms to all security-based swap dealers. Its procedures shall include the arrangement of the vendor to supply accurate and timely data to each security-based swap dealer with respect to its services, and the fees for distribution of the services. The data provided to security-based swap dealers shall also contain the minimum requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(C) of this section and the product group offsets set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B) of this section. At a minimum, the model shall consider the following factors in pricing the option: (1) The current spot price of the underlying asset; (2) The exercise price of the option; (3) The remaining time until the option’s expiration; (4) The volatility of the underlying asset; (5) Any cash flows associated with ownership of the underlying asset that can reasonably be expected to occur during the remaining life of the option; and (6) The current term structure of interest rates. (C) The term major market foreign currency means the currency of a sovereign nation for which there is a substantial inter-bank forward currency market. (D) The term qualified stock basket means a set or basket of stock positions which represents no less than 50% of the capitalization for a highcapitalization or non-high-capitalization diversified market index, or, in the case of a narrow-based index, no less than 95% of the capitalization for such narrow-based index. (ii) With respect to positions involving listed option positions in its proprietary or other account, the security-based swap dealer shall group long and short positions into the following portfolio types: (A) Equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions in that underlying instrument; (B) Options on the same major market foreign currency, positions in that major market foreign currency, and related instruments within those options’ classes; (C) High-capitalization diversified market index options, related PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 instruments within the option’s class, and qualified stock baskets in the same index; (D) Non-high-capitalization diversified index options, related instruments within the index option’s class, and qualified stock baskets in the same index; and (E) Narrow-based index options, related instruments within the index option’s class, and qualified stock baskets in the same index. (iii) Before making the computation, each security-based swap dealer shall obtain the theoretical gains and losses for each option series and for the related and underlying instruments within those options’ class in the proprietary or other accounts of that security-based swap dealer. For each option series, the theoretical options pricing model shall calculate theoretical prices at 10 equidistant valuation points within a range consisting of an increase or a decrease of the following percentages of the daily market price of the underlying instrument: (A) +(¥)15% for equity securities with a ready market, narrow-based indexes, and non-high-capitalization diversified indexes; (B) +(¥)6% for major market foreign currencies; (C) +(¥)20% for all other currencies; and (D) +(¥)10% for high-capitalization diversified indexes. (iv)(A) The security-based swap dealer shall multiply the corresponding theoretical gains and losses at each of the 10 equidistant valuation points by the number of positions held in a particular option series, the related instruments and qualified stock baskets within the option’s class, and the positions in the same underlying instrument. (B) In determining the aggregate profit or loss for each portfolio type, the security-based swap dealer will be allowed the following offsets in the following order, provided, that in the case of qualified stock baskets, the security-based swap dealer may elect to net individual stocks between qualified stock baskets and take the appropriate deduction on the remaining, if any, securities: (1) First, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following offsets within an option’s class: (i) Between options on the same underlying instrument, positions covering the same underlying instrument, and related instruments within the option’s class, 100% of a position’s gain shall offset another position’s loss at the same valuation point; E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (ii) Between index options, related instruments within the option’s class, and qualified stock baskets on the same index, 95%, or such other amount as designated by the Commission, of gains shall offset losses at the same valuation point; (2) Second, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following offsets within an index product group: (i) Among positions involving different high-capitalization diversified index option classes within the same product group, 90% of the gain in a high-capitalization diversified market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in a different highcapitalization diversified market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class; (ii) Among positions involving different non-high-capitalization diversified index option classes within the same product group, 75% of the gain in a non-high-capitalization diversified market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in another non-high-capitalization diversified market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class or product group; (iii) Among positions involving different narrow-based index option classes within the same product group, 90% of the gain in a narrow-based market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in another narrow-based market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option’s class or product group; (iv) No qualified stock basket should offset another qualified stock basket; and (3) Third, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following offsets between product groups: Among positions involving different diversified index product groups within the same market group, 50% of the gain in a diversified market index option, a related instrument, or a qualified stock basket within that index option’s product group shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in another product group; (C) For each portfolio type, the total deduction shall be the larger of: (1) The amount for any of the 10 equidistant valuation points representing the largest theoretical loss VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 after applying the offsets provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B) if this section; or (2) A minimum charge equal to 25% times the multiplier for each equity and index option contract and each related instrument within the option’s class or product group, or $25 for each option on a major market foreign currency with the minimum charge for futures contracts and options on futures contracts adjusted for contract size differentials, not to exceed market value in the case of long positions in options and options on futures contracts; plus (3) In the case of portfolio types involving index options and related instruments offset by a qualified stock basket, there will be a minimum charge of 5% of the market value of the qualified stock basket for highcapitalization diversified and narrowbased indexes; and (4) In the case of portfolio types involving index options and related instruments offset by a qualified stock basket, there will be a minimum charge of 71⁄2% of the market value of the qualified stock basket for non-highcapitalization diversified indexes. (5) In the case of portfolio types involving security futures and equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions in that underlying instrument, there will be a minimum charge of 25% times the multiplier for each security-future and equity option. 10. Section 240.18a–1b is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–1b Adjustments to net worth for certain commodities transactions (Appendix B to 17 CFR 240.18a–1). (a) Every registered security-based swap dealer in computing net capital pursuant to § 240.18a–1 shall comply with the following: (1) Where a security-based swap dealer has an asset or liability which is treated or defined in paragraph § 240.18a–1, the inclusion or exclusion of all or part of such asset or liability for net capital shall be in accordance with § 240.18a–1, except as specifically provided otherwise in this Appendix B. Where a commodity related asset or liability is specifically treated or defined in 17 CFR 1.17 and is not generally or specifically treated or defined in § 240.18a–1 or this Appendix B, the inclusion or exclusion of all or part of such asset or liability for net capital shall be in accordance with 17 CFR 1.17. (2) In computing net capital as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of § 240.18a– 1, the net worth of a security-based swap dealer shall be adjusted as follows PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70343 with respect to commodity-related transactions: (i) Unrealized profit or loss for certain commodities transactions. (A) Unrealized profits shall be added and unrealized losses shall be deducted in the commodities accounts of the security-based swap dealer, including unrealized profits and losses on fixed price commitments and forward contracts; and (B) The value attributed to any commodity option which is not traded on a contract market shall be the difference between the option’s strike price and the market value for the physical or futures contract which is the subject of the option. In the case of a long call commodity option, if the market value for the physical or futures contract which is the subject of the option is less than the strike price of the option, it shall be given no value. In the case of a long put commodity option, if the market value for the physical commodity or futures contract which is the subject of the option is more than the striking price of the option, it shall be given no value. (ii) Deduct any unsecured commodity futures or option account containing a ledger balance and open trades, the combination of which liquidates to a deficit or containing a debit ledger balance only: Provided, however, Deficits or debit ledger balances in unsecured customers’, non-customers’ and proprietary accounts, which are the subject of calls for margin or other required deposits need not be deducted until the close of business on the business day following the date on which such deficit or debit ledger balance originated; (iii) Deduct all unsecured receivables, advances and loans except for: (A) Management fees receivable from commodity pools outstanding no longer than thirty (30) days from the date they are due; (B) Receivables from foreign clearing organizations; (C) Receivables from registered futures commission merchants or brokers, resulting from commodity futures or option transactions, except those specifically excluded under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Appendix B. (iv) Deduct all inventories (including work in process, finished goods, raw materials and inventories held for resale) except for readily marketable spot commodities; or spot commodities which adequately collateralize indebtedness under 17 CFR 1.17(c)(7); (v) Guarantee deposits with commodities clearing organizations are not required to be deducted from net worth; E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (vi) Stock in commodities clearing organizations to the extent of its margin value is not required to be deducted from net worth; (vii) Deduct from net worth the amount by which any advances paid by the security-based swap dealer on cash commodity contracts and used in computing net capital exceeds 95 percent of the market value of the commodities covered by such contracts. (viii) Do not include equity in the commodity accounts of partners in net worth. (ix) In the case of all inventory, fixed price commitments and forward contracts, except for inventory and forward contracts in the inter-bank market in those foreign currencies which are purchased or sold for further delivery on or subject to the rules of a contract market and covered by an open futures contract for which there will be no charge, deduct the applicable percentage of the net position specified below: (A) Inventory which is currently registered as deliverable on a contract market and covered by an open futures contract or by a commodity option on a physical—No charge. (B) Inventory which is covered by an open futures contract or commodity option—5% of the market value. (C) Inventory which is not covered— 20% of the market value. (D) Fixed price commitments (open purchases and sales) and forward contracts which are covered by an open futures contract or commodity option— 10% of the market value. (E) Fixed price commitments (open purchases and sales) and forward contracts which are not covered by an open futures contract or commodity option—20% of the market value. (x) Deduct for undermargined customer commodity futures accounts the amount of funds required in each such account to meet maintenance margin requirements of the applicable board of trade or, if there are no such maintenance margin requirements, clearing organization margin requirements applicable to such positions, after application of calls for margin, or other required deposits which are outstanding three business days or less. If there are no such maintenance margin requirements or clearing organization margin requirements on such accounts, then deduct the amount of funds required to provide margin equal to the amount necessary after application of calls for margin, or other required deposits outstanding three days or less to restore original margin when the original margin has been depleted by 50 percent VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 or more. Provided, To the extent a deficit is deducted from net worth in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Appendix B, such amount shall not also be deducted under this paragraph (a)(2)(x). In the event that an owner of a customer account has deposited an asset other than cash to margin, guarantee or secure his account, the value attributable to such asset for purposes of this paragraph shall be the lesser of (A) the value attributable to such asset pursuant to the margin rules of the applicable board of trade, or (B) the market value of such asset after application of the percentage deductions specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B or, where appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv), (vi), or (vii) of § 240.18a–1 of this chapter; (xi) Deduct for undermargined noncustomer and omnibus commodity futures accounts the amount of funds required in each such account to meet maintenance margin requirements of the applicable board of trade or, if there are no such maintenance margin requirements, clearing organization margin requirements applicable to such positions, after application of calls for margin, or other required deposits which are outstanding two business days or less. If there are no such maintenance margin requirements or clearing organization margin requirements, then deduct the amount of funds required to provide margin equal to the amount necessary after application of calls for margin, or other required deposits outstanding two days or less to restore original margin when the original margin has been depleted by 50 percent or more. Provided, To the extent a deficit is deducted from net worth in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Appendix B such amount shall not also be deducted under this paragraph (a)(2)(xi). In the event that an owner of a non-customer or omnibus account has deposited an asset other than cash to margin, guarantee or secure his account, the value attributable to such asset for purposes of this paragraph shall be the lesser of (A) the value attributable to such asset pursuant to the margin rules of the applicable board of trade, or (B) the market value of such asset after application of the percentage deductions specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B or, where appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv), (vi), or (vii) of § 240.18a–1 of this chapter; (xii) In the case of open futures contracts and granted (sold) commodity options held in proprietary accounts carried by the security-based swap PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 dealer which are not covered by a position held by the security-based swap dealer or which are not the result of a ‘‘changer trade’’ made in accordance with the rules of a contract market, deduct: (A) For a security-based swap dealer which is a clearing member of a contract market for the positions on such contract market cleared by such member, the applicable margin requirement of the applicable clearing organization; (B) For a security-based swap dealer which is a member of a selfregulatory organization, 150% of the applicable maintenance margin requirement of the applicable board of trade or clearing organization, whichever is greater; or (C) For all other security-based swap dealers, 200% of the applicable maintenance margin requirement of the applicable board of trade or clearing organization, whichever is greater; or (D) For open contracts or granted (sold) commodity options for which there are no applicable maintenance margin requirements, 200% of the applicable initial margin requirement; Provided, the equity in any such proprietary account shall reduce the deduction required by this paragraph (a)(2)(xii) if such equity is not otherwise includable in net capital. (xiii) In the case of a security-based swap dealer which is a purchaser of a commodity option which is traded on a contract market, the deduction shall be the same safety factor as if the securitybased swap dealer were the grantor of such option in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(xii), but in no event shall the safety factor be greater than the market value attributed to such option. (xiv) In the case of a security-based swap dealer which is a purchaser of a commodity option not traded on a contract market which has value and such value is used to increase net capital, the deduction is ten percent of the market value of the physical or futures contract which is the subject of such option but in no event more than the value attributed to such option. (xv) A loan or advance or any other form of receivable shall not be considered ‘‘secured’’ for the purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this Appendix B unless the following conditions exist: (A) The receivable is secured by readily marketable collateral which is otherwise unencumbered and which can be readily converted into cash: Provided, however, That the receivable will be considered secured only to the extent of the market value of such collateral after application of the percentage deductions specified in E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (xvii) The term customer for purposes of this Appendix B shall mean customer as defined in 17 CFR 1.17(b)(2). The term non-customer for purposes of this Appendix B shall mean non-customer as defined in 17 CFR 1.17(b)(4). (b) Every registered security-based swap dealer in computing net capital pursuant to § 240.18a–1 shall comply with the following: (1) Swaps. Where a swap-related asset or liability is specifically treated or defined in 17 CFR 1.17 and is not generally or specifically treated or defined in § 240.15c3–1 or this paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B; and (B)(1) The readily marketable collateral is in the possession or control of the security-based swap dealer; or (2) The security-based swap dealer has a legally enforceable, written security agreement, signed by the debtor, and has a perfected security interest in the readily marketable collateral within the meaning of the laws of the State in which the readily marketable collateral is located. (xvi) The term cover for purposes of this Appendix B shall mean cover as defined in 17 CFR 1.17(j). 70345 Appendix B, the inclusion or exclusion of all or part of such asset or liability for net capital shall be in accordance with 17 CFR 1.17. (i) Credit default swaps referencing broad-based securities indices. (A) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following table: Basis point spread Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less (%) emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 12 months or less .................................... 13 months to 24 months .......................... 25 months to 36 months .......................... 37 months to 48 months .......................... 49 months to 60 months .......................... 61 months to 72 months .......................... 73 months to 84 months .......................... 85 months to 120 months ........................ 121 months and longer ............................ 0.67 1.00 1.33 2.00 2.67 3.67 4.67 5.67 6.67 (B) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B if the swap was a short credit default swap. (C) Long and short positions. (1) Long and short credit default swaps. In the case of swaps that are long and short credit default swaps referencing the same obligor or obligation, that are in the same spread category, and that are in the same maturity category or are in the next maturity category and have a maturity date within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B on the excess of the long or short position. (2) Long basket of obligors and long credit default swap. In the case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index and the security-based swap dealer is long a basket on the same underlying obligors, deducting 50% of the amount specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi) for the components of the basket, provided the security-based swap dealer can deliver the components of the basket to satisfy the obligation of the security-based swap dealer on the credit default swap. VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 101–300 (%) 301–400 (%) 1.33 2.33 3.33 4.00 4.67 5.67 6.67 10.00 13.33 3.33 5.00 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 (3) Short basket of obligors and short credit default swap. In the case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities index and the security-based swap dealer is short a basket on the same underlying obligors, deducting the amount specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi) for the components of the basket. (2) All other swaps. (i) In the case of any swap that is not a credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the notional value of the swap by the percentage specified in: (A) § 240.15c3–1 applicable to the reference asset if § 240.15c3–1 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset; (B) 17 CFR 1.17 applicable to the reference asset if 17 CFR 1.17 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset and § 240.15c3–1 does not specify a percentage deduction for the type of asset; or (C) In the case of an interest rate swap, § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(A) based on the maturity of the swap, provided that the percentage deduction must be no less than 1%. (ii) A security-based swap dealer may reduce the deduction under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by an amount equal to any reduction recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference asset or interest rate under 17 CFR 1.17 or § 240.15c3–1. PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 401–500 (%) 5.00 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 501–699 (%) 6.67 8.33 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 20.00 700 or more (%) 10.00 11.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 18.33 20.00 26.67 33.33 11. Section 240.18a–1c is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–1c Consolidated Computations of Net Capital for Certain Subsidiaries and Affiliates of Security-Based Swap Dealers (Appendix C to 17 CFR 240.18a–1). Every security-based swap dealer in computing its net capital pursuant to § 240.18a–1 shall include in its computation all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate that the security-based swap dealer guarantees, endorses, or assumes either directly or indirectly. 12. Section 240.18a–1d is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–1d Satisfactory Subordinated Loan Agreements (Appendix D to 17 CFR 240.18a–1). (a) Introduction. (1) This Appendix sets forth minimum and non-exclusive requirements for satisfactory subordinated loan agreements. The Commission may require or the security-based swap dealer may include such other provisions as deemed necessary or appropriate to the extent such provisions do not cause the subordinated loan agreement to fail to meet the minimum requirements of this Appendix D. (2) Certain definitions. For purposes of § 240.18a–1 and this Appendix D: (i) The term ‘‘subordinated loan agreement’’ shall mean the agreement or E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules agreements evidencing or governing a subordinated borrowing of cash. (ii) The term ‘‘Payment Obligation’’ shall mean the obligation of a securitybased swap dealer to repay cash loaned to the security-based swap dealer pursuant to a subordinated loan agreement and ‘‘Payment’’ shall mean the performance by a security-based swap dealer of a Payment Obligation. (iii) The term ‘‘lender’’ shall mean the person who lends cash to a securitybased swap dealer pursuant to a subordinated loan agreement. (b) Minimum requirements for subordinated loan agreements. (1) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, a subordinated loan agreement shall mean a written agreement between the security-based swap dealer and the lender, which has a minimum term of one year, and is a valid and binding obligation enforceable in accordance with its terms (subject as to enforcement to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws) against the security-based swap dealer and the lender and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. (2) Specific amount. All subordinated loan agreements shall be for a specific dollar amount which shall not be reduced for the duration of the agreement except by installments as specifically provided for therein and except as otherwise provided in this Appendix D. (3) Effective subordination. The subordinated loan agreement shall effectively subordinate any right of the lender to receive any Payment with respect thereto, together with accrued interest or compensation, to the prior payment or provision for payment in full of all claims of all present and future creditors of the security-based swap dealer arising out of any matter occurring prior to the date on which the related Payment Obligation matures consistent with the provisions of § 240.18a–1 and § 240.18a–1d, except for claims which are the subject of subordinated loan agreements that rank on the same priority as or junior to the claim of the lender under such subordinated loan agreements. (4) Proceeds of subordinated loan agreements. The subordinated loan agreement shall provide that the cash proceeds thereof shall be used and dealt with by the security-based swap dealer as part of its capital and shall be subject to the risks of the business. (5) Certain rights of the security-based swap dealer. The subordinated loan agreement shall provide that the security-based swap dealer shall have the right to deposit any cash proceeds VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 of a subordinated loan agreement in an account or accounts in its own name in any bank or trust company; (6) Permissive prepayments. A security-based swap dealer at its option but not at the option of the lender may, if the subordinated loan agreement so provides, make a Payment of all or any portion of the Payment Obligation thereunder prior to the scheduled maturity date of such Payment Obligation (hereinafter referred to as a ‘‘Prepayment’’), but in no event may any Prepayment be made before the expiration of one year from the date such subordinated loan agreement became effective. No Prepayment shall be made, if, after giving effect thereto (and to all Payments of Payment Obligations under any other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding the maturity or accelerated maturities of which are scheduled to fall due within six months after the date such Prepayment is to occur pursuant to this provision or on or prior to the date on which the Payment Obligation in respect of such Prepayment is scheduled to mature disregarding this provision, whichever date is earlier) without reference to any projected profit or loss of the security-based swap dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.18a–1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to calculate net capital under § 240.18a– 1(d), its tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million. Notwithstanding the above, no Prepayment shall occur without the prior written approval of the Commission. (7) Suspended repayment. The Payment Obligation of the securitybased swap dealer in respect of any subordinated loan agreement shall be suspended and shall not mature if, after giving effect to Payment of such Payment Obligation (and to all Payments of Payment Obligations of such security-based swap dealer under any other subordinated loan agreement(s) then outstanding that are scheduled to mature on or before such Payment Obligation) either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.18a–1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to calculate net capital under § 240.18a–1(d), its tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million. The subordinated loan agreement may provide that if the Payment Obligation of the securitybased swap dealer thereunder does not mature and is suspended as a result of PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the requirement of this paragraph (b)(7) for a period of not less than six months, the security-based swap dealer shall thereupon commence the rapid and orderly liquidation of its business, but the right of the lender to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of § 240.18a–1 and § 240.18a–1d. (8) Accelerated maturity—obligation to repay to remain subordinate. (i) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this appendix, a subordinated loan agreement may provide that the lender may, upon prior written notice to the security-based swap dealer and the Commission given not earlier than six months after the effective date of such subordinated loan agreement, accelerate the date on which the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer, together with accrued interest or compensation, is scheduled to mature to a date not earlier than six months after the giving of such notice, but the right of the lender to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of §§ 240.18a–1 and 240.18a–1d. (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this appendix, the Payment Obligation of the securitybased swap dealer with respect to a subordinated loan agreement, together with accrued interest and compensation, shall mature in the event of any receivership, insolvency, liquidation, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, reorganization whether or not pursuant to the bankruptcy laws, or any other marshalling of the assets and liabilities of the security-based swap dealer but the right of the lender to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of § 240.18a–1 and § 240.18a–1d. (9) Accelerated maturity of subordinated loan agreements on event of default and event of acceleration— obligation to repay to remain subordinate. (i) A subordinated loan agreement may provide that the lender may, upon prior written notice to the security-based swap dealer and the Commission of the occurrence of any Event of Acceleration (as hereinafter defined) given no sooner than six months after the effective date of such subordinated loan agreement, accelerate the date on which the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer, together with accrued interest or compensation, is scheduled to mature, E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules to the last business day of a calendar month which is not less than six months after notice of acceleration is received by the security-based swap dealer and the Commission. Any subordinated loan agreement containing such Events of Acceleration may also provide, that if upon such accelerated maturity date the Payment Obligation of the securitybased swap dealer is suspended as required by paragraph (b)(7) of this Appendix D and liquidation of the security-based swap dealer has not commenced on or prior to such accelerated maturity date, then notwithstanding paragraph (b)(7) of this appendix the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer with respect to such subordinated loan agreement shall mature on the day immediately following such accelerated maturity date and in any such event the Payment Obligations of the security-based swap dealer with respect to all other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding shall also mature at the same time but the rights of the respective lenders to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of this Appendix D. Events of Acceleration which may be included in a subordinated loan agreement complying with this paragraph (b)(9) shall be limited to: (A) Failure to pay interest or any installment of principal on a subordinated loan agreement as scheduled; (B) Failure to pay when due other money obligations of a specified material amount; (C) Discovery that any material, specified representation or warranty of the security-based swap dealer which is included in the subordinated loan agreement and on which the subordinated loan agreement was based or continued was inaccurate in a material respect at the time made; (D) Any specified and clearly measurable event which is included in the subordinated loan agreement and which the lender and the security-based swap dealer agree: (1) Is a significant indication that the financial position of the security-based swap dealer has changed materially and adversely from agreed upon specified norms; or (2) Could materially and adversely affect the ability of the security-based swap dealer to conduct its business as conducted on the date the subordinated loan agreement was made; or (3) Is a significant change in the senior management of the securitybased swap dealer or in the general VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 business conducted by the securitybased swap dealer from that which obtained on the date the subordinated loan agreement became effective; (E) Any continued failure to perform agreed covenants included in the subordinated loan agreement relating to the conduct of the business of the security-based swap dealer or relating to the maintenance and reporting of its financial position; and (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this appendix, a subordinated loan agreement may provide that, if liquidation of the business of the security-based swap dealer has not already commenced, the Payment Obligation of the securitybased swap dealer shall mature, together with accrued interest or compensation, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default (as hereinafter defined). Such agreement may also provide that, if liquidation of the business of the security-based swap dealer has not already commenced, the rapid and orderly liquidation of the business of the security-based swap dealer shall then commence upon the happening of an Event of Default. Any subordinated loan agreement which so provides for maturity of the Payment Obligation upon the occurrence of an Event of Default shall also provide that the date on which such Event of Default occurs shall, if liquidation of the security-based swap dealer has not already commenced, be the date on which the Payment Obligations of the securitybased swap dealer with respect to all other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding shall mature but the rights of the respective lenders to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of this Appendix (D). Events of Default which may be included in a subordinated loan agreement shall be limited to: (A) The net capital of the securitybased swap dealer falling to an amount below either of $20 million or 8% of the risk margin amount under § 240.18a–1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to calculate net capital under § 240.18a–1(d), its tentative net capital falling below $100 million, throughout a period of 15 consecutive business days, commencing on the day the security-based swap dealer first determines and notifies the Commission, or the Commission first determines and notifies the securitybased swap dealer of such fact; (B) The Commission revoking the registration of the security-based swap dealer; PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70347 (C) The Commission suspending (and not reinstating within 10 days) the registration of the security-based swap dealer; (D) Any receivership, insolvency, liquidation, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, reorganization whether or not pursuant to bankruptcy laws, or any other marshalling of the assets and liabilities of the securitybased swap dealer. A subordinated loan agreement that contains any of the provisions permitted by this paragraph (b)(9) shall not contain the provision otherwise permitted by paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this section. (c) Miscellaneous provisions. (1) Prohibited cancellation. The subordinated loan agreement shall not be subject to cancellation by either party; no Payment shall be made with respect thereto and the agreement shall not be terminated, rescinded or modified by mutual consent or otherwise if the effect thereof would be inconsistent with the requirements of §§ 240.18a–1 and 240.18a–1d. (2) Every security-based swap dealer shall immediately notify the Commission if, after giving effect to all Payments of Payment Obligations under subordinated loan agreements then outstanding that are then due or mature within the following six months without reference to any projected profit or loss of the security-based swap dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.18a–1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to calculate net capital under § 240.18a–1(d), its tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million. (3) Certain legends. If all the provisions of a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement do not appear in a single instrument, then the debenture or other evidence of indebtedness shall bear on its face an appropriate legend stating that it is issued subject to the provisions of a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement which shall be adequately referred to and incorporated by reference. (4) Revolving subordinated loan agreements. A security-based swap dealer shall be permitted to enter into a revolving subordinated loan agreement that provides for prepayment within less than one year of all or any portion of the Payment Obligation thereunder at the option of the security-based swap dealer upon the prior written approval of the Commission. The Commission, however, shall not approve any prepayment if: (i) After giving effect thereto (and to all Payments of Payment Obligations E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules under any other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding, the maturity or accelerated maturities of which are scheduled to fall due within six months after the date such prepayment is to occur pursuant to this provision or on or prior to the date on which the Payment Obligation in respect of such prepayment is scheduled to mature disregarding this provision, whichever date is earlier) without reference to any projected profit or loss of the security-based swap dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under § 240.18a–1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to calculate net capital under § 240.18a– 1(d), its tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million; or (ii) Pre-tax losses during the latest three-month period equaled more than 15% of current excess net capital. Any subordinated loan agreement entered into pursuant to this paragraph (c)(4) shall be subject to all the other provisions of this Appendix D. Any such subordinated loan agreement shall not be considered equity for purposes of paragraph (h) of § 240.18a–1, despite the length of the initial term of the loan. (5) Filing. Two copies of any proposed subordinated loan agreement (including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) shall be filed at least 30 days prior to the proposed execution date of the agreement with the Commission. The security-based swap dealer shall also file with the Commission a statement setting forth the name and address of the lender, the business relationship of the lender to the security-based swap dealer, and whether the security-based swap dealer carried an account for the lender for effecting transactions in security-based swaps at or about the time the proposed agreement was so filed. All agreements shall be examined by the Commission prior to their becoming effective. No proposed agreement shall be a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement for the purposes of this section unless and until the Commission has found the agreement acceptable and such agreement has become effective in the form found acceptable. 13. Section 240.18a–2 is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–2 Capital requirements for major security-based swap participants for which there is not a prudential regulator. (a) Every major security-based swap participant for which there is not a prudential regulator must at all times VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 have and maintain positive tangible net worth. (b) The term tangible net worth means the net worth of the major securitybased swap participant as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, excluding goodwill and other intangible assets. In determining net worth, all long and short positions in security-based swaps, swaps, and related positions must be marked to their market value. A major securitybased swap participant must include in its computation of tangible net worth all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate that the participant guarantees, endorses, or assumes either directly or indirectly. (c) Every major security-based swap participant must comply with § 240.15c3–4 as though it were an OTC derivatives dealer with respect to its security-based swap and swap activities, except that paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii) and (xiv) and (d)(8) and (9) of § 240.15c3–4 shall not apply. 14. Section 240.18a–3 is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–3 Non-cleared security-based swap margin requirements for securitybased swap dealers and major securitybased swap participants for which there is not a prudential regulator. (a) Every security-based swap dealer and major security-based swap participant for which there is not a prudential regulator must comply with this section. (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) The term account means an account carried by a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant for a counterparty that holds non-cleared security-based swaps. (2) The term commercial end user means any person (other than a natural person) that: (i) Engages primarily in commercial activities that are not financial in nature and that is not a financial entity as that term is defined in 3C(g)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o–3(g)(3)); and (ii) Is using non-cleared securitybased swaps to hedge or mitigate risk relating to the commercial activities. (3) The term counterparty means a person with whom the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant has entered into a noncleared security-based swap transaction. (4) The term equity means the total current fair market value of securities positions in an account of a counterparty (excluding the time value of an over-the-counter option), plus any credit balance and less any debit PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 balance in the account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect to gross derivatives payables and receivables. (5) The term margin means the amount of positive equity in an account of a counterparty. (6) The term negative equity means equity of less than $0. (7) The term positive equity means equity of greater than $0. (8) The term non-cleared securitybased swap means a security-based swap that is not, directly or indirectly, cleared by a clearing agency registered pursuant to section 17A of the Act. (9) The term security-based swap legacy account means an account that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the effective date of this section and that only is used to hold security-based swaps entered into prior to the effective date of this section and collateral for those security-based swaps. (c) Margin requirements. (1) Securitybased swap dealers. (i) Calculation required. A security-based swap dealer must calculate with respect to each account of a counterparty as of the close of each business day: (A) The amount of equity in the account of the counterparty; and (B) The margin amount for the account of the counterparty calculated pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. (ii) Account equity requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, a securitybased swap dealer must collect from a counterparty by noon of each business day cash, securities, and/or money market instruments in an amount at least equal to, as applicable: (A) The negative equity in the account calculated as of the previous business day; and (B) The margin amount calculated under paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of this section as of the previous business day to the extent that amount is greater than the amount of positive equity in the account on the previous business day. (iii) Exceptions. (A) Commercial end users. The requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section do not apply to an account of a counterparty that is a commercial end user. Alternative A to § 240.18a–3(c)(1)(iii)(B) (B) Security-based swap dealers. The requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to an account of a counterparty that is a security-based swap dealer. Alternative B to § 240.18a–3(c)(1)(iii)(B) (B) Security-based swap dealers. Cash, securities and money market E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules instruments posted by a counterparty that is a security-based swap dealer to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section must be carried by an independent third-party custodian pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Act. (C) Counterparties that require thirdparty custodians. The requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to an account of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user and that requires the cash, securities, and money market instruments delivered to meet the margin amount to be carried by an independent third-party custodian pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Act, provided cash, securities, and money market instruments necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section are delivered to the independent third-party custodian. (D) Security-based swap legacy accounts. The requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to a legacy security-based swap account of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user. (2) Major security-based swap participants. (i) Calculation required. A major security-based swap participant must calculate as of the close of each business day the amount of equity in the account of each counterparty. (ii) Account equity requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, a major security-based swap participant must by noon of each business day: (A) Collect from a counterparty cash, securities and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to the negative equity in the account calculated on the previous business day pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; and (B) Deliver to a counterparty cash, securities and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to the positive equity in the account calculated on the previous business day pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. (iii) Exceptions. (A) Transactions with commercial end users. The requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section do not apply to a counterparty that is a commercial end user. (B) Transactions with security-based swap dealers. The requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section do not apply to a counterparty that is a security-based swap dealer. Note to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B): A securitybased swap dealer must collect from a counterparty that is a major security-based swap participant cash, securities, and/or VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 money market instruments as required by paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. (C) Security-based swap legacy accounts. The requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section do not apply to a legacy security-based swap account of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user. (3) Deductions for securities held as collateral. The fair market value of securities and money market instruments held in the account of a counterparty must be reduced by the amount of the deductions the securitybased swap dealer would apply to the securities and money market instruments pursuant to § 240.15c3–1 or § 240.18a–1, as applicable, for the purpose of determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. (4) Collateral requirements. A security-based swap dealer and a major security-based swap participant when calculating the amount of equity in the account of a counterparty may take into account cash and the fair market value of securities and money market instruments pledged and held as collateral in the account provided: (i) The collateral is subject to the physical possession or control of the security-based swap dealer or the major security-based swap participant; (ii) The collateral is liquid and transferable; (iii) The collateral may be liquidated promptly by the security-based swap dealer or the major security-based swap participant without intervention by any other party; (iv) The collateral agreement between the security-based swap dealer or the major security-based swap participant and the counterparty is legally enforceable by the security-based swap dealer or the major security-based swap participant against the counterparty and any other parties to the agreement; (v) The collateral does not consist of securities issued by the counterparty or a party related to the security-based swap dealer, the major security-based swap participant, or to the counterparty; and (vi) If the Commission has approved the security-based swap dealer’s use of a VaR model to compute net capital, the approval allows the security-based swap dealer to calculate deductions for market risk for the type of collateral. (5) Qualified netting agreements. A security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant may include the effect of a netting agreement that allows the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70349 participant to net gross receivables from and gross payables to a counterparty upon the default of the counterparty, for the purposes of the calculations required pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(i) of this section, if: (i) The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings; (ii) The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject to the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any time; and (iii) For internal risk management purposes, the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant monitors and controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net basis. (6) Minimum transfer amount. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant is not required to collect or deliver cash, securities or money market instruments pursuant to this section with respect to a particular counterparty unless and until the total amount of cash, securities or money market instruments that is required to be collected or delivered, and has not yet been collected or delivered, with respect to the counterparty is greater than $100,000. (7) Frequency of calculations increased. The calculations required pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) of this section must be made more frequently than the close of each business day during periods of extreme volatility and for accounts with concentrated positions. (8) Liquidation. A security-based swap dealer and major security-based swap participant must take prompt steps to liquidate securities and money market instruments in an account that does not meet the account equity requirements of this section to the extent necessary to eliminate the account equity deficiency. (d) Calculating margin amount. A security-based swap dealer must calculate the margin amount required by paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of this section for non-cleared security-based swaps as follows: (1) Standardized approach. (i) Credit default swaps. For credit default swaps, the security-based swap dealer must use the method specified in § 240.18a– 1(c)(1)(vi)(A) or, if the security-based swap dealer is registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer, the method specified in § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi)(O)(1). E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules (ii) All other security-based swaps. For security-based swaps other than credit default swaps, the security-based swap dealer must use the method specified in § 240.18a–1(c)(1)(vi)(B) or, if the security-based swap dealer is registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer, the method specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)(O)(2). (2) Model approach. For securitybased swaps other than equity securitybased swaps, a security-based swap dealer authorized by the Commission to compute net capital pursuant to § 240.18a–1(d) or § 240.15c3–1e may use its internal market risk model subject to the requirements in § 240.18a–1(d) or § 240.15c3–1e in lieu of using the methods required in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (e) Risk monitoring and procedures. A security-based swap dealer must monitor the risk of each account and establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts as part of the risk management control system required by § 240.15c3–4. The securitybased swap dealer must review, in accordance with written procedures, at reasonable periodic intervals, its noncleared security-based swap activities for consistency with the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines required by this section. The security-based swap dealer also must determine whether information and data necessary to apply the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines required by this section are accessible on a timely basis and whether information systems are available to adequately capture, monitor, analyze, and report relevant data and information. The risk monitoring procedures and guidelines must include, at a minimum, procedures and guidelines for: (1) Obtaining and reviewing account documentation and financial information necessary for assessing the amount of current and potential future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the security-based swap dealer; (2) Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties; (3) Monitoring credit risk exposure to the security-based swap dealer from non-cleared security-based swaps, including the type, scope, and frequency of reporting to senior management; (4) Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to a single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified range of VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 possible market movements over a specified time period; (5) Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-cleared security-based swaps on the securitybased swap dealer’s overall risk exposure; (6) Determining the need to collect collateral from a particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the specific noncleared security-based swap contracts with the counterparty; (7) Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and during periods of extreme volatility; and (8) Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future exposure of a noncleared security-based swap carried in the account of the counterparty as measured by computing the largest maximum possible loss that could result from the exposure. 15. Section 240.18a–4 is added to read as follows: § 240.18a–4 Segregation requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) The term cleared security-based swap means any security-based swap that is, directly or indirectly, submitted to and cleared by a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1); (2) The term excess securities collateral means securities and money market instruments carried for the account of a security-based swap customer that have a market value in excess of the current exposure of the security-based swap dealer to the customer, excluding: (i) Securities and money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the customer; and (ii) Securities and money market instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other security-based swap dealer resulting from the security-based swap dealer PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 entering into a non-cleared securitybased swap transaction with the other security-based swap dealer to offset the risk of a non-cleared security-based swap transaction between the securitybased swap dealer and the customer. (3) The term qualified clearing agency account means an account of a securitybased swap dealer at a clearing agency established to hold funds and other property in order to purchase, margin, guarantee, secure, adjust, or settle cleared security-based swap transactions for the security-based swap customers of the security-based swap dealer that meets the following conditions: (i) The account is designated ‘‘Special Clearing Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of securitybased swap dealer]’’; (ii) The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice provided to and retained by the security-based swap dealer that the funds and other property in the account are being held by the clearing agency for the exclusive benefit of the securitybased swap customers of the securitybased swap dealer in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the securitybased swap dealer with the clearing agency; and (iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the securitybased swap dealer and the clearing agency which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the clearing agency or any person claiming through the clearing agency, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a cleared security-based swap transaction effected in the account. (4) The term qualified registered security-based swap dealer account means an account at another securitybased swap dealer registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15F of the Act that is not an affiliate of the security-based swap dealer and that meets the following conditions: (i) The account is designated ‘‘Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of security-based swap dealer]’’; (ii) The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the other securitybased dealer provided to and retained by the security-based swap dealer that the funds and other property held in the account are being held by the other security-based swap dealer for the exclusive benefit of the security-based E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules swap customers of the security-based swap dealer in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the securitybased swap dealer with the other security-based swap dealer; (iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the securitybased swap dealer and the other security-based swap dealer which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the other security-based swap dealer or any person claiming through the other security-based swap dealer, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a non-cleared security-based swap transaction effected in the account; and (iv) The account and the assets in the account are not subject to any type of subordination agreement between the security-based swap dealer and the other security-based swap dealer. (5) The term qualified security means: (i) Obligations of the United States; (ii) Obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and (iii) General obligations of any State or subdivision of a State that: (A) Are not traded flat and are not in default; (B) Were part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater; and (C) Were issued by an issuer that has published audited financial statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end. (6) The term security-based swap customer means any person from whom or on whose behalf the security-based swap dealer has received or acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap transaction. The term does not include a person to the extent that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the securitybased swap dealer or is subordinated to all claims of security-based swap customers of the security-based swap dealer. (7) The term special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers means an account at a bank that is not the security-based swap dealer or an affiliate of the securitybased swap dealer and that meets the following conditions: (i) The account is designated ‘‘Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of security-based swap dealer]’’; (ii) The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the bank provided to and retained by the security-based swap dealer that the funds and other property held in the account are being held by the bank for the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of the security-based swap dealer in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the securitybased swap dealer with the bank; and (iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the securitybased swap dealer and the bank which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall at no time be used directly or indirectly as security for a loan or other extension of credit to the security-based swap dealer by the bank and, shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the bank or any person claiming through the bank. (b) Physical possession or control of excess securities collateral. (1) A security-based swap dealer must promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers. (2) A security-based swap dealer has control of excess securities collateral only if the securities and money market instruments: (i) Are represented by one or more certificates in the custody or control of a clearing corporation or other subsidiary organization of either national securities exchanges, or of a custodian bank in accordance with a system for the central handling of securities complying with the provisions of §§ 240.8c–1(g) and 240.15c2–1(g) the delivery of which certificates to the security-based swap dealer does not require the payment of money or value, and if the books or records of the security-based swap dealer identify the security-based swap customers entitled to receive specified quantities or units of the securities so held for such security-based swap customers collectively; (ii) Are the subject of bona fide items of transfer; provided that securities and money market instruments shall be deemed not to be the subject of bona fide items of transfer if, within 40 calendar days after they have been transmitted for transfer by the securitybased swap dealer to the issuer or its transfer agent, new certificates conforming to the instructions of the security-based swap dealer have not PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 70351 been received by the security-based swap dealer, the security-based swap dealer has not received a written statement by the issuer or its transfer agent acknowledging the transfer instructions and the possession of the securities or money market instruments, or the security-based swap dealer has not obtained a revalidation of a window ticket from a transfer agent with respect to the certificate delivered for transfer; (iii) Are in the custody or control of a bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act, the delivery of which securities or money market instruments to the security-based swap dealer does not require the payment of money or value and the bank having acknowledged in writing that the securities and money market instruments in its custody or control are not subject to any right, charge, security interest, lien or claim of any kind in favor of a bank or any person claiming through the bank; (iv)(A) Are held in or are in transit between offices of the security-based swap dealer; or (B) Are held by a corporate subsidiary if the security-based swap dealer owns and exercises a majority of the voting rights of all of the voting securities of such subsidiary, assumes or guarantees all of the subsidiary’s obligations and liabilities, operates the subsidiary as a branch office of the security-based swap dealer, and assumes full responsibility for compliance by the subsidiary and all of its associated persons with the provisions of the Federal securities laws as well as for all of the other acts of the subsidiary and such associated persons; or (v) Are held in such other locations as the Commission shall upon application from a security-based swap dealer find and designate to be adequate for the protection of customer securities. (3) Each business day the securitybased swap dealer must determine from its books and records the quantity of excess securities collateral in its possession and control as of the close of the previous business day and the quantity of excess securities collateral not in its possession and control as of the previous business day. If the security-based swap dealer did not obtain possession or control of all excess securities collateral on the previous business day as required by this section and there are securities or money market instruments of the same issue and class in any of the following non-control locations: (i) Securities or money market instruments subject to a lien securing an obligation of the security-based swap dealer, then the security-based swap dealer, not later than the next business E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 70352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market instruments from the lien and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; (ii) Securities or money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account, then the security-based swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market instruments by the clearing agency and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; (iii) Securities or money market instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account maintained by another securitybased swap dealer, then the securitybased swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market instruments by the other security-based swap dealer and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within two business days following the date of the instructions; (iv) Securities or money market instruments loaned by the securitybased swap dealer, then the securitybased swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the return of the loaned securities or money market instruments and must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments within five business days following the date of the instructions; (v) Securities or money market instruments failed to receive more than 30 calendar days, then the securitybased swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the determination is made, must take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or otherwise; (vi) Securities or money market instruments receivable by the securitybased swap dealer as a security dividend, stock split or similar distribution for more than 45 calendar days, then the security-based swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the determination is VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 made, must take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or otherwise; or (vii) Securities or money market instruments included on the books or records of the security-based swap dealer as a proprietary short position or as a short position for another person more than 10 business days (or more than 30 calendar days if the securitybased swap dealer is a market maker in the securities), then the security-based swap dealer must, not later than the business day following the day on which the determination is made, take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of such securities or money market instruments. (c) Deposit requirement for special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers. (1) A security-based swap dealer must maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers that is separate from any other bank account of the security-based swap dealer. The security-based swap dealer must at all times maintain in the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth in § 240.18a–4a. In determining the amount maintained in a special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers, the security-based swap dealer must deduct: (i) The percentage of the value of a general obligation of a State or subdivision of a State specified in § 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi); (ii) The aggregate value of general obligations of a State or subdivision of a State to the extent the amount of the obligations of a single issuer exceeds 2% of the amount required to be maintained in the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers; (iii) The aggregate value of all general obligations of a State or subdivision of a State to the extent the amount of the obligations exceeds 10% of the amount required to be maintained in the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers; and (iv) The amount of funds held at a single bank to the extent the amount exceeds 10% of the equity capital of the bank as reported by the bank in its most recent Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income. (2) It is unlawful for a security-based swap dealer to accept or use credits identified in the items of the formula set PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 forth in § 240.18a–4a except to establish debits for the specified purposes in the items of the formula. (3) The computations necessary to determine the amount required to be maintained in the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers must be made daily as of the close of the previous business day and any deposit required to be made into the account must be made on the next business day following the computation no later than 1 hour after the opening of the bank that maintains the account. The security-based swap dealer may make a withdrawal from the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers only if the amount remaining in the account after the withdrawal is equal to or exceeds the amount required to be maintained in the account pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (4) A security-based swap dealer must promptly deposit into a special account for the exclusive benefit of securitybased swap customers funds or qualified securities of the security-based swap dealer if the amount of funds and/ or qualified securities in one or more special accounts for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers falls below the amount required to be maintained pursuant to this section. (d) Requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps. (1) Notice. A security-based dealer and a major security-based swap participant must provide the notice required pursuant to section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)) to a counterparty in writing prior to the execution of the first noncleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty occurring after the effective date of this section. (2) Subordination. (i) Counterparty that elects to have individual segregation at an independent thirdparty custodian. A security-based swap dealer must obtain an agreement from a counterparty that chooses to require segregation of funds or other property pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)) in which the counterparty agrees to subordinate all of its claims against the security-based swap dealer to the claims of securitybased swap customers of the securitybased swap dealer but only to the extent that funds or other property provided by the counterparty to the independent third-party custodian are not treated as customer property as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. 741 in a liquidation of the security-based swap dealer. (ii) Counterparty that elects to have no segregation. A security-based swap dealer must obtain an agreement from a E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules counterparty that does not choose to require segregation of funds or other property pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c–5(f)) or paragraph (c)(3) of this section in which the counterparty agrees to subordinate all of its claims against the security-based swap dealer to the claims of security- 70353 based swap customers of the securitybased swap dealer. 16. Section 240.18a–4a is added to read as follows: RULE 18A–4A—FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF SECURITY-BASED SWAP CUSTOMERS Credits Free credit balances and other credit balances in the accounts carried for security-based swap customers .............. Monies borrowed collateralized by securities in accounts carried for security-based swap customers ........................ Monies payable against security-based swap customers’ securities loaned ................................................................. Security-based swap customers’ securities failed to receive ......................................................................................... Credit balances in firm accounts which are attributable to principal sales to security-based swap customers ............ Market value of stock dividends, stock splits and similar distributions receivable outstanding over 30 calendar days Market value of short security count differences over 30 calendar days old ................................................................. Market value of short securities and credits (not to be offset by longs or by debits) in all suspense accounts over 30 calendar days. 9. Market value of securities which are in transfer in excess of 40 calendar days and have not been confirmed to be in transfer by the transfer agent or the issuer during the 40 days. 10. Debit balances in accounts carried for security-based swap customers, excluding unsecured accounts and accounts doubtful of collection. 11. Securities borrowed to effectuate short sales by security-based swap customers and securities borrowed to make delivery on security-based swap customers’ securities failed to deliver. 12. Failed to deliver of security-based swap customers’ securities not older than 30 calendar days ............................... 13. Margin required and on deposit with the Options Clearing Corporation for all option contracts written or purchased in accounts carried for security-based swap customers. 14. Margin related to security future products written, purchased or sold in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and on deposit in a qualified clearing agency account at a clearing agency registered with the Commission under section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1) or a derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under section 5b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a–1). 15. Margin related to cleared security-based swap transactions in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and on deposit in a qualified clearing agency account at a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1). 16. Margin related to non-cleared security-based swap transactions in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer account at another security-based swap dealer. Total Credits ................................................................................................................................................................. Total Debits .................................................................................................................................................................. Excess of Credits over Debits ...................................................................................................................................... emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Note A. Item 1 shall include all outstanding drafts payable to security-based swap customers which have been applied against free credit balances or other credit balances and shall also include checks drawn in excess of bank balances per the records of the security-based swap dealer. Note B. Item 2 shall include the amount of options-related or security futures productrelated Letters of Credit obtained by a member of a registered clearing agency or a derivatives clearing organization which are collateralized by security-based swap customers’ securities, to the extent of the member’s margin requirement at the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization. Note C. Item 3 shall include in addition to monies payable against security-based swap customer’s securities loaned the amount by which the market value of securities loaned exceeds the collateral value received from the lending of such securities. Note D. Item 4 shall include in addition to security-based swap customers’ securities failed to receive the amount by which the market value of securities failed to receive and outstanding more than thirty (30) calendar days exceeds their contract value. Note E. (1) Debit balances in accounts shall be reduced by the amount by which a specific security (other than an exempted VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 security) which is collateral for margin requirements exceeds in aggregate value 15 percent of the aggregate value of all securities which collateralize all accounts receivable; provided, however, the required reduction shall not be in excess of the amount of the debit balance required to be excluded because of this concentration rule. A specified security is deemed to be collateral for an account only to the extent it is not an excess margin security. (2) Debit balances in special omnibus accounts, maintained in compliance with the requirements of section 4(b) of Regulation T under the Act (12 CFR 220.4(b)) or similar accounts carried on behalf of another security-based swap dealer, shall be reduced by any deficits in such accounts (or if a credit, such credit shall be increased) less any calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding 5 business days or less. (3) Debit balances in security-based swap customers’ accounts included in the formula under item 10 shall be reduced by an amount equal to 1 percent of their aggregate value. (4) Debit balances in accounts of household members and other persons related to principals of a security-based swap dealer and debit balances in cash and margin accounts of affiliated persons of a securitybased swap dealer shall be excluded from the PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Debits $llll $llll $llll $llll $llll $llll $llll $llll $llll .................. $llll .................. $llll .................. .................. $llll $llll .................. $llll .................. $llll .................. $llll $llll .................. $llll $llll Reserve Formula, unless the security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that such debit balances are directly related to credit items in the formula. (5) Debit balances in accounts (other than omnibus accounts) shall be reduced by the amount by which any single security-based swap customer’s debit balance exceeds 25% (to the extent such amount is greater than $50,000) of the broker-dealer’s tentative net capital (i.e., net capital prior to securities haircuts) unless the security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is directly related to credit items in the Reserve Formula. Related accounts (e.g., the separate accounts of an individual, accounts under common control or subject to cross guarantees) shall be deemed to be a single security-based swap customer’s accounts for purposes of this provision. If the Commission is satisfied, after taking into account the circumstances of the concentrated account including the quality, diversity, and marketability of the collateral securing the debit balances in accounts subject to this provision, that the concentration of debit balances is appropriate, then the Commission may, by order, grant a partial or plenary exception from this provision. The debit balance may be included in the reserve formula computation for five E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2 70354 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules emcdonald on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 business days from the day the request is made. (6) Debit balances of joint accounts, custodian accounts, participations in hedge funds or limited partnerships or similar type accounts or arrangements of a person who would be excluded from the definition of security-based swap customer (‘‘nonsecurity-based swap customer’’) which persons includible in the definition of security-based swap customer shall be included in the Reserve Formula in the following manner: if the percentage ownership of the non-security-based swap customer is less than 5 percent then the entire debit balance shall be included in the formula; if such percentage ownership is between 5 percent and 50 percent then the portion of the debit balance attributable to the non-security-based swap customer shall be excluded from the formula unless the security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is directly related to credit items in the formula; if such percentage ownership is greater than 50 percent, then the entire debit balance shall be excluded from the formula unless the security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is directly related to credit items in the formula. Note F. Item 13 shall include the amount of margin required and on deposit with Options Clearing Corporation to the extent such margin is represented by cash, proprietary qualified securities, and letters of credit collateralized by security-based swap customers’ securities. Note G. (a) Item 14 shall include the amount of margin required and on deposit with a clearing agency registered with the Commission under section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1) or a derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under section 5b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a–1) for security-based swap customer accounts to the extent that the margin is represented by cash, proprietary qualified securities, and letters of credit collateralized by security-based swap customers’ securities. (b) Item 14 shall apply only if the securitybased swap dealer has the margin related to security futures products on deposit with: (1) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization that: (i) Maintains security deposits from clearing members in connection with regulated options or futures transactions and VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:56 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 229001 assessment power over member firms that equal a combined total of at least $2 billion, at least $500 million of which must be in the form of security deposits. For purposes of this Note G, the term ‘‘security deposits’’ refers to a general fund, other than margin deposits or their equivalent, that consists of cash or securities held by a registered clearing agency or derivative clearing organization; (ii) Maintains at least $3 billion in margin deposits; or (iii) Does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(ii) of this Note G, if the Commission has determined, upon a written request for exemption by or for the benefit of the security-based swap dealer, that the security-based swap dealer may utilize such a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization. The Commission may, in its sole discretion, grant such an exemption subject to such conditions as are appropriate under the circumstances, if the Commission determines that such conditional or unconditional exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors; and (2) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization that, if it holds funds or securities deposited as margin for security futures products in a bank, as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(6)), obtains and preserves written notification from the bank at which it holds such funds and securities or at which such funds and securities are held on its behalf. The written notification shall state that all funds and/or securities deposited with the bank as margin (including securitybased swap customer security futures products margin), or held by the bank and pledged to such registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing agency as margin, are being held by the bank for the exclusive benefit of clearing members of the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization (subject to the interest of such registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization therein), and are being kept separate from any other accounts maintained by the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization with the bank. The written notification also shall provide that such funds and/or securities shall at no time be used directly or indirectly as security for a loan to the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 organization by the bank, and shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the bank or any person claiming through the bank. This provision, however, shall not prohibit a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization from pledging securitybased swap customer funds or securities as collateral to a bank for any purpose that the rules of the Commission or the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization otherwise permit; and (3) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization that establishes, documents, and maintains: (i) Safeguards in the handling, transfer, and delivery of cash and securities; (ii) Fidelity bond coverage for its employees and agents who handle securitybased swap customer funds or securities. In the case of agents of a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization, the agent may provide the fidelity bond coverage; and (iii) Provisions for periodic examination by independent public accountants; and (4) A derivatives clearing organization that, if it is not otherwise registered with the Commission, has provided the Commission with a written undertaking, in a form acceptable to the Commission, executed by a duly authorized person at the derivatives clearing organization, to the effect that, with respect to the clearance and settlement of the security-based swap customer security futures products of the broker-dealer, the derivatives clearing organization will permit the Commission to examine the books and records of the derivatives clearing organization for compliance with the requirements set forth in § 240.15c3–3a, Note G. (b)(1) through (3). (c) Item 14 shall apply only if a securitybased swap dealer determines, at least annually, that the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization with which the security-based swap dealer has on deposit margin related to security futures products meets the conditions of this Note G. By the Commission. Dated: October 18, 2012. Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–26164 Filed 11–21–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P E:\FR\FM\23NOP2.SGM 23NOP2

Agencies

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70213-70354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26164]

[[Page 70213]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 226

November 23, 2012

Part II

Securities and Exchange Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17 CFR Part 240

Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap
Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital
Requirements for Broker-Dealers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 226 / Friday, November 23, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 70214]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-68071; File No. S7-08-12]
RIN 3235-AL12

Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based
Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital
Requirements for Broker-Dealers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), is proposing capital and
margin requirements for security-based swap dealers (``SBSDs'') and
major security-based swap participants (``MSBSPs''), segregation
requirements for SBSDs, and notification requirements with respect to
segregation for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission also is proposing to
increase the minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealers
permitted to use the alternative internal model-based method for
computing net capital (``ANC broker-dealers'').

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number S7-08-12 on the subject line; or
Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-08-12. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, at (202) 551-5525; Thomas K. McGowan, Deputy Associate
Director, at (202) 551-5521; Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-5522; Mark M. Attar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-5889; Sheila
Dombal Swartz, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5545; Valentina M. Deng,
Attorney, at (202) 551-5778; or Teen I. Sheng, Attorney, at 202-551-
5511, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments
A. Capital
1. Introduction
2. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank SBSDs
a. Computing Required Minimum Net Capital
i. Stand-alone SBSDs Not Using Internal Models
ii. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Not Using Internal Models
iii. Stand-alone SBSDs Using Internal Models
iv. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Using Internal Models and ANC Broker-
Dealers
b. Computing Net Capital
i. The Net Liquid Assets Test
ii. Standardized Haircuts for Security-Based Swaps
iii. VaR Models
iv. Credit Risk Charges
v. Capital Charge In Lieu of Margin Collateral
vi. Treatment of Swaps
c. Risk Management
d. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement
e. Other Rule 15c3-1 Provisions Incorporated into Rule 18a-1
i. Debt-Equity Ratio Requirements
ii. Capital Withdrawal Requirements
iii. Appendix C
iv. Appendix D
3. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank MSBSPs
B. Margin
1. Introduction
2. Proposed Margin Requirements for Nonbank SBSDs and Nonbank
MSBSPs
a. Scope of Rule 18a-3
b. Daily Calculations
i. Nonbank SBSDs
ii. Nonbank MSBSPs
c. Account Equity Requirements
i. Nonbank SBSDs
ii. Nonbank MSBSPs
d. $100,000 Minimum Transfer Amount
e. Risk Monitoring and Procedures
3. Specific Request for Comment to Limit the Use of Collateral
C. Segregation
1. Background
2. Proposed Rule 18a-4
a. Possession and Control of Excess Securities Collateral
b. Security-Based Swap Customer Reserve Account
c. Special Provisions for Non-cleared Security-Based Swap
Counterparties
III. General Request for Comment
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed
Rules and Rule Amendments
1. Proposed Rule 18a-1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
2. Proposed Rule 18a-2
3. Proposed Rule 18a-3
4. Proposed Rule 18a-4
B. Proposed Use of Information
C. Respondents
D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
1. Proposed Rule 18a-1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
2. Proposed Rule 18a-2
3. Proposed Rule 18a-3
4. Proposed Rule 18a-4
E. Collection Of Information Is Mandatory
F. Confidentiality
G. Retention Period For Recordkeeping Requirements
H. Request For Comment
V. Economic Analysis
A. Baseline Of Economic Analysis
1. Overview of the OTC Derivatives Markets--Baseline for
Proposed Rules 18a-1 through 18a-4
2. Baseline for Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
B. Analysis of the Proposals and Alternatives
1. Overview--The Proposed Financial Responsibility Program
a. Nonbank SBSDs
b. Nonbank MSBSPs
2. The Proposed Capital Rules
a. Nonbank SBSDs and ANC Broker-dealers
i. Minimum Capital Requirements
ii. Standardized Haircuts
iii. Capital Charge in Lieu of Margin Collateral
iv. Credit Risk Charge
v. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement
vi. Risk Management Procedures
b. Capital Requirements for MSBSPs
c. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
3. The Proposed Margin Rule--Rule 18a-3

[[Page 70215]]

a. Calculation of Margin Amount
b. Account Equity Requirements
i. Commercial end users
ii. SBSDs--Alternatives A and B
c. Margin Requirements for Nonbank-MSBSPs
d. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
4. Proposed Segregation Rule--Rule 18a-4
a. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
C. Implementation Considerations
D. General Request for Comment
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Statutory Basis and Text of the Proposed Amendments

I. Background

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into
law.\1\ Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (``Title VII'') established a
new regulatory framework for OTC derivatives.\2\ In this regard, Title
VII was enacted, among other reasons, to reduce risk, increase
transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system
by, among other things: (i) Providing for the registration and
regulation of SBSDs and MSBSPs; (ii) imposing clearing and trade
execution requirements on standardized derivative products; (iii)
creating recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (iv)
enhancing the Commission's rulemaking and enforcement authorities with
respect to all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the
Commission's oversight.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
\2\ Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII may
be cited as the ``Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of
2010.'' See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 701. The Dodd-Frank Act assigns
responsibility for the oversight of the U.S. OTC derivatives markets
to the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''), and certain ``prudential regulators,'' discussed below.
The Commission has oversight authority with respect to a security-
based swap as defined in section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)), including to implement a registration and
oversight program for a security-based swap dealer as defined in
section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)) and a
major security-based swap participant as defined in section 3(a)(67)
of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)). The CFTC has oversight
authority with respect to a swap as defined in section 1(a)(47) of
the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(47)), including
to implement a registration and oversight program for a swap dealer
as defined in section 1(a)(49) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(49)) and a
major swap participant as defined in section 1(a)(33) of the CEA (7
U.S.C. 1(a)(33)). The Commission and the CFTC jointly have adopted
rules to further define, among other things, those terms and the
terms swap, security-based swap, swap dealer, major swap
participant, security-based swap dealer, and major security-based
swap participant. See Further Definition of ``Swap,'' ``Security-
Based Swap,'' and ``Security-Based Swap Agreement''; Mixed Swaps;
Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release
No. 64372 (Apr. 29, 2011), 76 FR 29818 (May 23, 2011) (``Product
Definitions Proposing Release''); Further Definition of ``Swap,''
``Security-Based Swap,'' and ``Security-Based Swap Agreement'';
Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange
Act Release No. 67453 (July 18, 2012), 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012)
(Joint final rule with the CFTC) (``Product Definitions Adopting
Release''); Further Definition of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-Based
Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major Security-Based
Swap Participant'' and ``Eligible Contract Participant'', Exchange
Act Release No. 63452 (Dec. 7, 2010), 75 FR 80174 (Dec. 21, 2010)
(Joint proposal with the CFTC) (``Entity Definitions Proposing
Release''); and Further Definition of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-
Based Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major Security-
Based Swap Participant'' and ``Eligible Contract Participant'',
Exchange Act Release No. 66868 (Apr. 27, 2012), 77 FR 30596 (May 23,
2012) (Joint final rule with the CFTC) (``Entity Definitions
Adopting Release'').
\3\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. Sec. 701-774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange
Act.\4\ Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that the
Commission shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for SBSDs
and nonbank MSBSPs that do not have a prudential regulator
(respectively, ``nonbank SBSDs'' and ``nonbank MSBSPs'').\5\ Section
763 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 3E to the Exchange Act.\6\
Section 3E provides the Commission with authority to establish
segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See id. Sec. 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o-10.
\5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(1)(B). Specifically, section
15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that each registered SBSD
and MSBSP for which there is not a prudential regulator shall meet
such minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation
margin requirements as the Commission shall by rule or regulation
prescribe. The term ``prudential regulator'' is defined in section
1(a)(39) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(39)) and that definition is
incorporated by reference in section 3(a)(74) of the Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(74)). Pursuant to the definition, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Federal Reserve''), the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (``OCC''), the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''), the Farm Credit
Administration, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively,
the ``prudential regulators'') is the ``prudential regulator'' of an
SBSD, MSBSP, swap participant, or major swap participant if the
entity is directly supervised by that agency.
\6\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 763; 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
\7\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(a)-(g). Section 3E of the Exchange Act
does not distinguish between bank and nonbank SBSDs and bank and
nonbank MSBSPs, and, consequently, provides the Commission with the
authority to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and
MSBSPs, whether or not they have a prudential regulator. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4s(e)(1)(B) of the CEA provides that the CFTC shall
prescribe capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major
swap participants for which there is not a prudential regulator
(``nonbank swap dealers'' and ``nonbank swap participants'').\8\
Section 15F(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that the prudential
regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for bank
SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, and section 4s(e)(1)(A) of the CEA provides that
the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin
requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants for which
there is a prudential regulator (``bank swap dealers'' and ``bank swap
participants'').\9\ The prudential regulators have proposed capital and
margin requirements for bank swap dealers, bank SBSDs, bank swap
participants, and bank MSBSPs.\10\ The CFTC has proposed capital and
margin requirements for nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap
participants.\11\ The CFTC also has adopted segregation requirements
for cleared swaps and proposed segregation requirements for non-cleared
swaps.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(B).
\9\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(1)(A); 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A).
\10\ See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap
Entities, 76 FR 27564 (May 11, 2011) (``Prudential Regulator Margin
and Capital Proposing Release''). The prudential regulators, as part
of their proposed margin requirements for non-cleared security-based
swaps, proposed a segregation requirement for collateral received as
margin. Id.
\11\ See Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 76 FR 27802 (May 12, 2011) (``CFTC Capital Proposing
Release''); Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers
and Major Swap Participants, 76 FR 23732 (Apr. 28, 2011) (``CFTC
Margin Proposing Release''). The CFTC reopened the comment period
for the CFTC Margin Proposing Release to allow interested parties to
comment on the CFTC proposed rules in light of the proposals
discussed in the international consultative paper. See Margin
Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 77 FR 41109 (July 12, 2012).
\12\ See Protection of Cleared Swaps Customer Contracts and
Collateral; Conforming Amendments to the Commodity Broker Bankruptcy
Provisions, 77 FR 6336 (Feb. 7, 2012) and Protection of Collateral
of Counterparties to Non-cleared Swaps; Treatment of Securities in a
Portfolio Margining Account in a Commodity Broker Bankruptcy, 75 FR
75432 (Dec. 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to sections 763 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the
Commission is proposing to amend Rule 15c3-1 and Rule 15c3-3 and
propose new Rules 18a-1 (including appendices to Rule 18a-1), 18a-2,
18a-3, and 18a-4 (including an exhibit to Rule 18a-4).\13\ The proposed
amendments and new rules would establish capital and margin
requirements for nonbank SBSDs, including broker-dealers that are
registered as SBSDs (``broker-dealer SBSDs''), and nonbank MSBSPs. They
also would establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and
notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and
MSBSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1; 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the proposals also would increase the minimum net capital

[[Page 70216]]

requirements and establish liquidity requirements for ANC broker-
dealers.\14\ An ANC broker-dealer is a broker-dealer that has been
approved by the Commission to use internal value-at-risk (``VaR'')
models to determine market risk charges for proprietary securities and
derivatives positions and to take a credit risk charge in lieu of a
100% charge for unsecured receivables related to OTC derivatives
transactions (hereinafter, collectively ``internal models''). The
proposed amendments applicable to ANC broker-dealers are designed to
account for their large size, the scale of their custodial activities,
and the potential substantial leverage they may take on if they become
more active in the security-based swap markets under the Dodd-Frank Act
reforms, which, among other things, require dealers in security-based
swaps to register with the Commission.\15\ Finally, some of the
proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would apply to broker-dealers that
are not registered as SBSDs. These proposed amendments are designed to
maintain a consistent capital treatment for security-based swaps and
swaps under Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e.
\15\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(a)(1) (``It shall be unlawful
for any person to act as a security-based swap dealer unless the
person is registered as a security-based swap dealer with the
Commission.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in detail below, the proposals for capital, margin,
and segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs are based in large
part on existing capital, margin, and segregation requirements for
broker-dealers (``broker-dealer financial responsibility
requirements'').\16\ The broker-dealer financial responsibility
requirements served as the model for the proposals because the
financial markets in which SBSDs and MSBSPs are expected to operate are
similar to the financial markets in which broker-dealers operate. In
addition, as discussed below, the objectives of the broker-dealer
financial responsibility requirements are similar to the objectives
underlying the proposals. Moreover, the broker-dealer financial
responsibility requirements have existed for many years and have
facilitated the prudent operation of broker-dealers.\17\ Consequently,
they provide a reasonable template for building a financial
responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Furthermore, it is
expected that some nonbank SBSDs also will register as broker-dealers
in order to be able to offer customers a broader range of services than
a nonbank SBSD not registered as a broker-dealer (``stand-alone SBSD'')
would be permitted to engage in. Therefore, establishing consistent
financial responsibility requirements would avoid potential competitive
disparities between stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See infra section II.A.1. of this release (describing
generally the broker-dealer capital standards); section II.B.1. of
this release (describing generally the broker-dealer margin
standards); section II.C.1. of this release (describing generally
the broker-dealer segregation requirements).
\17\ For example, one of the objectives of the broker-dealer
financial responsibility requirements is to protect customers from
the consequences of the financial failure of a broker-dealer in
terms of safeguarding customer securities and funds held by the
broker-dealer. It should be noted that the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation (``SIPC''), since its inception in 1971, has
initiated customer protection proceedings for only 324 broker-
dealers, which is less than 1% of the approximately 39,200 broker-
dealers that have been members of SIPC during that timeframe. From
1971 through December 31, 2011, approximately 1% of the $117.5
billion of cash and securities distributed for accounts of customers
came from the SIPC fund rather than debtors' estates. See SIPC,
Annual Report 2011, available at https://www.sipc.org/Portals/0/PDF/2011_Annual_Report.pdf (``SIPC 2011 Annual Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the Commission recognizes that there may be other
approaches to establishing financial responsibility requirements that
may be appropriate--including, for example, applying a standard based
on the international capital standard for banks (``Basel Standard'')
\18\ in the case of entities that are part of a bank holding company,
as has been proposed by the CFTC.\19\ In general, the bank capital
model requires the holding of specified levels of capital as a
percentage of ``risk weighted assets.'' \20\ It does not require
generally a full capital deduction for unsecured receivables, given
that banks, as lending entities, are in the business of extending
credit to a range of counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The Basel Standard was developed by the Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements
(``BCBS''). More information about the Basel Standard is available
at the Web site of the Bank for International Settlements (``BIS'')
at https://www.bis.org/bcbs/index.htm.
\19\ CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
\20\ The prudential regulators also have proposed capital rules
that would require a covered swap entity to comply with the
regulatory capital rules already made applicable to that covered
swap entity as part of its prudential regulatory regime. Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27568. The
prudential regulators note that they have ``had risk-based capital
rules in place for banks to address over-the-counter derivatives
since 1989 when the banking agencies implemented their risk-based
capital adequacy standards * * * based on the first Basel Accord.''
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This approach could promote a consistent view and management of
capital within a bank holding company structure. The Commission is not
proposing this approach, however, both because of the distinctions
between bank and nonbank dealer business models and access to backstop
liquidity, as well as uncertainties as to how a bank capital standard
would in practice affect valuations and the conduct of business in a
nonbank entity; but the Commission is specifically seeking comment on
this approach. In addition, detailed comment is requested below on
alternative financial responsibility frameworks that could serve as a
model for establishing financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs
and MSBSPs.
The minimum financial and customer protection requirements proposed
today--like other financial tests that market participants use in the
ordinary course of business to manage risk or to comply with applicable
regulations--incorporate many specific numerical thresholds, limits,
deductions, and ratios.\21\ The Commission recognizes that each such
quantitative requirement could be read by some to imply a definitive
conclusion based on quantitative analysis of that requirement and its
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ For example, the proposed capital requirements would
include in the formula that determines minimum net capital an amount
generally equal to 8% of the amount of margin that nonbank SBSDs
would be required to collect from counterparties. Similarly, the
capital and margin proposals, in setting ``haircut'' requirements to
reflect market risk for certain types of security-based swaps,
propose to use a numerical grid that establishes specific deductions
depending on spread and tenor, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission notes in this regard that the specific quantitative
requirements included in this proposal have not been derived directly
from econometric or mathematical models, nor has the Commission
performed a detailed quantitative analysis of the likely economic
consequences of the specific quantitative requirements being included
in this proposal. As discussed in the economic analysis below, there
are a number of challenges presented in conducting such a quantitative
analysis in a robust fashion. Accordingly, the selection of a
particular quantitative requirement proposed below reflects a
qualitative assessment by the Commission regarding the appropriate
financial standard for an identified issue. In making such assessments
and in turn selecting proposed quantitative requirements, the
Commission has drawn from its experiences in regulating broker-dealers
and has frequently looked to comparable quantitative elements in the
existing broker-dealer financial responsibility regime (e.g., the
current capital charges in the existing broker-dealer net capital rule)
or, where appropriate, the existing or proposed regulations of the
prudential regulators,

[[Page 70217]]

FINRA, or the CFTC with respect to similar activities. For example, the
Commission may propose using a specified haircut percentage (e.g., 15%,
as opposed to a percentage that is higher or lower) because it
believes, based on its experience regulating markets, that such
percentage should be sufficient to cover a severe market movement. The
Commission has used these comparable quantitative requirements as a
reasonable starting point for purposes of the various proposals
because, as noted above, there are substantial similarities between the
proposed rules and those other regimes in terms of the relevant
markets, entities, and regulatory objectives, and because many nonbank
SBSDs may also be subject to the existing broker-dealer financial
responsibility requirements.
The Commission invites comment, including relevant data and
analysis, regarding all aspects of the various quantitative
requirements reflected in the proposed rules. In particular, data and
comment from market participants and other interested parties regarding
the likely effect of each proposed quantitative requirement, the effect
of such requirements in the aggregate, and potential alternative
requirements will be particularly useful to the Commission in
evaluating modifications to the proposals. Commenters are also
requested to describe in detail any econometric or mathematical models
or economic analyses of data, to the extent they exist, that they
believe would be relevant for evaluating or modifying any quantitative
provisions contained in the proposals.
The Commission staff consulted with the prudential regulators and
the CFTC in drafting the proposals discussed in this release.\22\ In
addition, the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC were
considered in developing the Commission's proposed capital, margin, and
segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission's
proposals differ in some respects from proposals of the prudential
regulators and the CFTC, and such differences are described below in
connection with the relevant proposals. While some differences are
based on differences in the activities of securities firms, banks, and
commodities firms, or differences in the products at issue, other
differences may reflect an alternative approach to balancing the
relevant policy choices and considerations. Where these differences
exist, comment is sought on the advantages and disadvantages of each
proposal and whether a given proposal is appropriate based on
differences in the business models of the types of entities that would
be subject to the respective proposal, the risks of these entities, and
any other factors commenters believe relevant.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(3)(D)(i) (``The prudential
regulators, the [CFTC], and the [Commission] shall periodically (but
not less frequently than annually) consult on the minimum capital
requirements and minimum initial and variation margin
requirements.'').
\23\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(3)(D)(ii) (providing that the
prudential regulators, the CFTC, and the Commission ``shall, to the
maximum extent practicable establish and maintain comparable minimum
capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin
requirements, including the use of noncash collateral,'' for SBSDs
and swap dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capital, margin, and segregation requirements ultimately
adopted, like other requirements established under the Dodd-Frank Act,
could have a substantial impact on international commerce and the
relative competitive position of intermediaries operating in various,
or multiple, jurisdictions. In particular, intermediaries operating in
the U.S. and in other jurisdictions could be advantaged or
disadvantaged if corresponding requirements are not established in
other jurisdictions or if the Commission's rules are substantially more
or less stringent than corresponding requirements in other
jurisdictions. This could, among other potential impacts, affect the
ability of intermediaries and other market participants based in the
U.S. to participate in non-U.S. markets, the ability of non-U.S.-based
intermediaries and other market participants to participate in U.S.
markets, and whether and how international firms make use of global
``booking entities'' to centralize risks related to security-based
swaps. These issues have been the focus of numerous comments to the
Commission and other regulators, Congressional inquiries, and other
public dialogue.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See, e.g., letter from Senator Tim Johnson, Chairman of the
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and
Congressman Barney Frank, Ranking Member of the U.S. House Committee
on Financial Services, to the CFTC, Commission, Federal Reserve, and
FDIC (Oct. 4, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-25-11/s72511-34.pdf (``Given the global nature of this market, U.S.
regulators should avoid creating opportunities for international
regulatory arbitrage that could increase systemic risk and reduce
the competitiveness of U.S. firms abroad''); letter from Barclays
Bank PLC, BNP Paribas S.A., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Rabobank Nederland,
Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Societe
Generale, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and UBS AG, to the CFTC,
Commission, and Federal Reserve (Feb. 17, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-39-10/s73910-25.pdf (``[T]he home country
regulator has the greatest interest in and is in the best position
to protect a foreign bank swap dealer under its primary supervision
by setting appropriate margin requirements or functionally
equivalent capital charges for non-cleared swaps''); letter from
Carlos Tavares, Vice-Chairman of European Securities and Markets
Authority, to the Commission (Jan. 17, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-35-10/s73510-19.pdf (``if the foreign
supervision were not taken into account * * * a foreign [entity
would] be subject to multiple regimes * * * [which would be] very
challenging for regulated entities and would significantly raise the
costs for both the industry and supervisors''); BCBS, Board of the
International Organization of Securities Commissions (``IOCSO''),
Consultative Document, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-cleared
Derivatives (July 2012), available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD387.pdf (consultative document seeking comment on
margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The potential international implications of the proposed capital,
margin, and segregation requirements warrant further consideration.
However, consistent with the Commission's general approach with respect
to its other proposals under Title VII, these implications are
recognized here but not fully addressed. Instead, the Commission
intends to publish a comprehensive release seeking public comment on
the full spectrum of issues relating to the application of Title VII to
cross-border security-based swap transactions and non-U.S. persons that
act in capacities regulated under the Dodd-Frank Act. This approach
will provide market participants, foreign regulators, and other
interested parties with an opportunity to consider, as an integrated
whole, the proposed approach to the cross-border application of Title
VII, including capital, margin, and segregation requirements.

II. Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments

A. Capital

1. Introduction
Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act requires that the
Commission prescribe capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank
MSBSPs.\25\ The Commission also has concurrent authority under section
15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act to prescribe capital requirements for
broker-dealers.\26\ The existing broker-dealer capital requirements are
contained in

[[Page 70218]]

Rule 15c3-1,\27\ including seven appendices to Rule 15c3-1.\28\ The
minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs would be contained
in proposed new Rule 18a-1,\29\ and the minimum capital requirements
for broker-dealer SBSDs would be contained in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed
to be amended. Proposed Rule 18a-1 would be structured similarly to
Rule 15c3-1 and would contain many provisions that correspond to those
in Rule 15c3-1.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(1)(B).
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3). Section 771 of the Dodd-Frank Act
states that unless otherwise provided by its terms, its provisions
relating to the regulation of the security-based swap markets do not
divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the Commission, the
CFTC, or any other Federal or State agency, of any authority derived
from any other provision of applicable law. See Public Law 111-203
Sec. 771. In addition, section 15F(e)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act
provides that nothing in section 15F ``shall limit, or be construed
to limit, the authority'' of the Commission ``to set financial
responsibility rules for a broker or dealer * * * in accordance with
Section 15(c)(3).'' 15 U.S.C. 78o-8(e)(3)(B).
\27\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
\28\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a (Options); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b
(Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain
commodities transactions); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c (Consolidated
computations of net capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain
subsidiaries and affiliates); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d (Satisfactory
subordination agreements); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e (Deductions for market
and credit risk for certain brokers or dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f
(Optional market and credit risk requirements for OTC derivatives
dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1g (Conditions for ultimate holding
companies of certain brokers or dealers).
\29\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\30\ For example, proposed new Rule 18a-1 would include four
appendices: Appendix A (proposed new Rule 18a-1a); Appendix B
(proposed new Rule18a-1b); Appendix C (proposed new Rule 18a-1c);
and Appendix D (proposed new Rule 18a-1d). The appendices would
correspond to the following appendices to Rule 15c3-1: Appendix A
(Options) (17 CFR 240.15c3-1a); Appendix B (Adjustments to net worth
and aggregate indebtedness for certain commodities transactions) (17
CFR 240.15c3-1b); Appendix C (Consolidated computations of net
capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain subsidiaries and
affiliates) (17 CFR 240.15c3-1c); and Appendix D (Satisfactory
subordination agreements) (17 CFR 240.15c3-1d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 38248 (Feb.
6, 1997), 62 FR 6474 (Feb. 12, 1997) (``Rule 15c3-1 requires
registered broker-dealers to maintain sufficient liquid assets to
enable those firms that fall below the minimum net capital
requirements to liquidate in an orderly fashion without the need for
a formal proceeding.''). As indicated, the goal of the rule is to
require a broker-dealer to hold sufficient liquid net capital to
meet all obligations to creditors, except for creditors who agree to
subordinate their claims to all other creditors. As discussed in
more detail below, Rule 15c3-1d (Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1) sets
forth minimum requirements for a subordinated loan agreement. See 17
CFR 240.15c3-1d. Typically, affiliates of the broker-dealer (e.g.,
the firm's holding company) or individual owners of the broker-
dealer make subordinated loans to the broker-dealer. If the broker-
dealer fails financially and is liquidated, the obligations of the
broker-dealer to all other creditors would need to be paid in full
before the obligations of the broker-dealer to a subordinated lender
are paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act divided responsibility for SBSDs by
providing the prudential regulators with authority to prescribe the
capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and the Commission with
authority to prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank
SBSDs.\32\ This division also suggests it may be appropriate to model
the capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs on the capital standards for
broker-dealers, while the capital requirements for bank SBSDs are
modeled on capital standards for banks (as reflected in the proposal by
the prudential regulators).\33\ Certain operational, policy, and legal
differences appear to support this distinction between nonbank SBSDs
and bank SBSDs. First, based on the Commission staff's understanding of
the activities of nonbank dealers in over-the counter (``OTC'')
derivatives, nonbank SBSDs are expected to engage in a securities
business with respect to security-based swaps that is more similar to
the dealer activities of broker-dealers than to the activities of
banks; indeed, some broker-dealers likely will be registered as nonbank
SBSDs.\34\ Second, existing capital standards for banks and broker-
dealers reflect, in part, differences in their funding models and
access to certain types of financial support, and those same
differences also will exist between bank SBSDs and nonbank SBSDs. For
example, banks obtain funding through customer deposits and can obtain
liquidity through the Federal Reserve's discount window, whereas
broker-dealers do not--and nonbank SBSDs will not--have access to these
sources of funding and liquidity. Third, Rule 15c3-1 currently contains
provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by broker-
dealers and, therefore, to some extent already can accommodate this
type of activity (although, as discussed below, proposed amendments to
Rule 15c3-1 would be designed to more specifically address the risks of
security-based swaps and the potential for increased involvement of
broker-dealers in the security-based swaps markets).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10, in general; 15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(e)(2)(A)-(B), in particular.
\33\ The prudential regulators have proposed capital
requirements for bank SBSDs and bank swap dealers that are based on
the capital requirements for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin
and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27582.
\34\ Id.
\35\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e. See also
Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are
Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities, Exchange Act Release No.
49830 (June 8, 2004), 69 FR 34428 (June 21, 2004) (``Alternative Net
Capital Requirements Adopting Release''); OTC Derivatives Dealers,
Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (Oct. 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362 (Nov. 3,
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs
is a net liquid assets test modeled on the broker-dealer capital
standard in Rule 15c3-1.\36\ However, the Commission

[[Page 70219]]

recognizes that there may be alternative approaches to financial
responsibility requirements that may be appropriate.\37\ Accordingly,
in the requests for comment below on the various capital standards,
commenters are encouraged: (1) To consider alternative approaches to
capital for nonbank SBSDs generally; (2) for nonbank SBSDs that are
broker-dealers, to identify what, if any, specific amendments to Rule
15c3-1 and its appendices they believe would not be appropriate for
broker-dealers; and (3) for stand-alone SBSDs, to identify what, if
any, specific provisions in proposed new Rule 18a-1 and its appendices
(including those modeled on provisions in Rule 15c3-1 and its
appendices) they believe would not be appropriate for stand-alone
SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ As noted above, the prudential regulators similarly
proposed capital standards for bank SBSDs based on the capital
standards for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital
Proposing Release 76 FR 27564. The CFTC has proposed three different
capital standards for nonbank swap dealers. First, a futures
commission merchant (``FCM'') that is registered as a swap dealer
would be subject to the CFTC's net capital rule for FCMs, which is
similar to the Commission's net capital rule for broker-dealers in
that it imposes a net liquid assets test. See CFTC Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27802. Second, a swap dealer that is not an FCM and
not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company would be subject to
a ``tangible net equity'' capital standard (the CFTC proposal
defines tangible net equity as equity determined under U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP''), and excludes
goodwill and other intangible assets). Third, a swap dealer that is
not an FCM and is affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company would
be subject to the capital standard that applies to U.S. banking
institutions. Id. The proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs
would not make such distinctions and, therefore, all nonbank SBSDs
would be subject to the net liquid assets test embodied in Rule
15c3-1 (i.e., regardless of whether they are registered as broker-
dealers or affiliates of U.S. bank holding companies). The CFTC
proposed a tangible net equity requirement for certain swap dealers
to address the probability that commercial entities (e.g., entities
engaged in agricultural or energy businesses) may need to register
as swap dealers and that imposing a net liquid assets test could
require them to engage in significant corporate restructuring and
potentially cause undue costs because their equity is comprised of
physical and other non-current assets. Differences between the swaps
markets and the security-based swaps markets may make a single
capital standard more workable for nonbank SBSDs. The swaps market
is significantly larger than the security-based swaps market and has
many more active participants that are commercial entities. See BIS,
OTC Derivatives Market Activity in the Second Half of 2010, Monetary
and Economic Department, (May 2011), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1105.pdf. It is expected that financial
institutions will comprise a large segment of the security-based
swaps market as is currently the case and that these entities are
more likely to have affiliates dedicated to OTC derivatives trading
and affiliates that are broker-dealers registered with the
Commission. See infra section V.A. of this release (providing an
overview of the security-based swaps markets). Consequently, these
affiliates--because their capital structures are geared towards
securities trading or because they already are broker-dealers--would
be able to more readily adhere to a net liquid assets test. In
addition, many broker-dealers currently are affiliates within bank
holding companies. Consequently, these broker-dealers are subject to
Rule 15c3-1, while their bank affiliates are subject to bank capital
standards.
\37\ CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capital standard in Rule 15c3-1--that serves as a model for the
proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs--is a net liquid assets
test. This standard is designed to promote liquidity; the rule allows a
broker-dealer to engage in activities that are part of conducting a
securities business (e.g., taking securities into inventory) but in a
manner that places the firm in the position of holding at all times
more than one dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of
unsubordinated liabilities (e.g., money owed to customers,
counterparties, and creditors).\38\ For example, Rule 15c3-1 allows
securities positions to count as allowable net capital, subject to
standardized or internal model-based haircuts.\39\ The rule, however,
does not permit most unsecured receivables to count as allowable net
capital.\40\ This aspect of the rule severely limits the ability of
broker-dealers to engage in activities, such as unsecured lending, that
generate unsecured receivables. The rule also does not permit fixed
assets or other illiquid assets to count as allowable net capital,
which creates disincentives for broker-dealers to own real estate and
other fixed assets that cannot be readily converted into cash. For
these reasons, Rule 15c3-1 incentivizes broker-dealers to confine their
business activities and devote capital to activities such as
underwriting, market making, and advising on and facilitating customer
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See, e.g., Interpretation Guide to Net Capital Computation
for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 8024 (Jan. 18,
1967), 32 FR 856 (Jan. 25, 1967) (``Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1)
was adopted to provide safeguards for public investors by setting
standards of financial responsibility to be met by brokers and
dealers. The basic concept of the rule is liquidity; its object
being to require a broker-dealer to have at all times sufficient
liquid assets to cover his current indebtedness.'') (footnotes
omitted); Net Capital Treatment of Securities Positions, Obligations
and Transactions in Suspended Securities, Exchange Act Release No.
10209 (June 8, 1973), 38 FR 16774 (June 26, 1973) (Commission
release of a letter from the Division of Market Regulation) (``The
purpose of the net capital rule is to require a broker or dealer to
have at all times sufficient liquid assets to cover its current
indebtedness. The need for liquidity has long been recognized as
vital to the public interest and for the protection of investors and
is predicated on the belief that accounts are not opened and
maintained with broker-dealers in anticipation of relying upon suit,
judgment and execution to collect claims but rather on a reasonable
demand one can liquidate his cash or securities positions.''); Net
Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release
No. 15426 (Dec. 21, 1978), 44 FR 1754 (Jan. 8, 1979) (``The rule
requires brokers or dealers to have sufficient cash or liquid assets
to protect the cash or securities positions carried in their
customers' accounts. The thrust of the rule is to insure that a
broker or dealer has sufficient liquid assets to cover current
indebtedness.''); Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers,
Exchange Act Release No. 26402 (Dec. 28, 1989), 54 FR 315 (Jan. 5,
1989) (``The rule's design is that broker-dealers maintain liquid
assets in sufficient amounts to enable them to satisfy promptly
their liabilities. The rule accomplishes this by requiring broker-
dealers to maintain liquid assets in excess of their liabilities to
protect against potential market and credit risks.'') (footnote
omitted).
\39\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR
240.15c3-1f.
\40\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15c3-1 requires broker-dealers to maintain a minimum level of
net capital (meaning highly liquid capital) at all times.\41\ The rule
requires that a broker-dealer perform two calculations: (1) A
computation of the minimum amount of net capital the broker-dealer must
maintain; \42\ and (2) a computation of the amount of net capital the
broker-dealer is maintaining.\43\ The minimum net capital requirement
is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an
amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-to-1
aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate
debit items ratio.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
\42\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
\43\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2). The computation of net capital
is based on the definition of net capital in paragraph (c)(2) of
Rule 15c3-1. Id.
\44\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In computing net capital, the broker-dealer must, among other
things, make certain adjustments to net worth such as deducting
illiquid assets and taking other capital charges and adding qualifying
subordinated loans.\45\ The amount remaining after these deductions is
defined as ``tentative net capital.'' \46\ The final step in computing
net capital is to take prescribed percentage deductions (``standardized
haircuts'') from the mark-to-market value of the proprietary positions
(e.g., securities, money market instruments, and commodities) that are
included in its tentative net capital.\47\ The standardized haircuts
are designed to account for the market risk inherent in these positions
and to create a buffer of liquidity to protect against other risks
associated with the securities business.\48\ ANC broker-dealers and a
type of limited purpose broker-dealer that deals solely in OTC
derivatives (``OTC derivative dealers'') are permitted, with Commission
approval, to calculate net capital using internal models as the basis
for taking market risk and credit risk charges in lieu of the
standardized haircuts for classes of positions for which they have been
approved to use models.\49\ Rule 15c3-1 imposes substantially higher
minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives
dealers, as compared to other types of broker-dealers, because, among
other reasons, the use of internal models to compute net capital can
substantially reduce the deductions for securities and money market
positions as compared with the standardized haircuts.\50\ Consequently,
the higher minimum capital requirements are designed to account for
risks that may not be addressed by the internal models. A broker-dealer
must ensure that its net capital exceeds

[[Page 70220]]

its minimum net capital requirement at all times.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(i)-(xiii).
\46\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(15).
\47\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
\48\ See, e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release
No. 13635 (June 16, 1977), 42 FR 31778 (June 23, 1977) (``[Haircuts]
are intended to enable net capital computations to reflect the
market risk inherent in the positioning of the particular types of
securities enumerated in [the rule]''); Net Capital Rule, Exchange
Act Release No. 22532 (Oct. 15, 1985), 50 FR 42961 (Oct. 23, 1985)
(``These percentage deductions, or `haircuts', take into account
elements of market and credit risk that the broker-dealer is exposed
to when holding a particular position.''); Net Capital Rule,
Exchange Act Release No. 39455 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 67996 (Dec.
30, 1997) (``Reducing the value of securities owned by broker-
dealers for net capital purposes provides a capital cushion against
adverse market movements and other risks faced by the firms,
including liquidity and operational risks.'') (footnote omitted).
\49\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e;
17 CFR 240.15c3-1f. As part of the application to use internal
models, an entity seeking to become an ANC broker-dealer or an OTC
derivatives dealer must identify the types of positions it intends
to include in its model calculation. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3e(a)(1)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f(a)(1)(ii). After approval, an ANC
broker-dealer and OTC derivatives dealer must obtain Commission
approval to make a material change to the model, including a change
to the types of positions included in the model. See 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(8); 17 CFR 240.15c3-f(a)(3).
\50\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and (a)(7).
\51\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A different capital standard than the net liquid assets test is
proposed for nonbank MSBSPs. As discussed in more detail below,
proposed Rule 18a-2 would require nonbank MSBSPs to maintain positive
tangible net worth.\52\ The Commission preliminarily believes that a
tangible net worth standard--as opposed to the net liquid assets test--
is more workable for nonbank MSBSPs because these entities may engage
in a diverse range of business activities different from, and broader
than, the securities activities conducted by broker-dealers or SBSDs
(and, to the extent they did not, they likely would be required to
register as an SBSD and/or broker-dealer).\53\ Consequently, requiring
nonbank MSBSPs to adhere to a capital standard based on a net liquid
assets test could restrict these entities from engaging in commercial
activities that are part of their core business models. For example,
some of these entities may engage in manufacturing and supply
activities that generate large amounts of unsecured receivables and
require substantial fixed assets.\54\ Accordingly, as discussed below,
proposed Rule 18a-2 is not modeled on Rule 15c3-1 because of the
expected differences between nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers, on the
one hand, and the entities that may register as nonbank MSBSPs, on the
other hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ See proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\53\ An entity will need to register with the Commission as an
MSBSP and, consequently, be subject to proposed new Rule 18a-2 if it
falls within the definition of major security-based swap participant
in section 3(a)(67) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)) as
further defined by the Commission by rule. See Entity Definitions
Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596.
\54\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27807
(proposing a tangible net equity test for major swap participants
that are not part of bank holding companies noting that although
these firms ``may have significant amounts of balance sheet equity,
it may also be the case that significant portions of their equity is
comprised of physical and other noncurrent assets, which would
preclude the firms from meeting FCM capital requirements without
engaging in significant corporate restructuring and incurring
potentially undue costs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposals to
impose a net liquid assets test capital standard for nonbank SBSDs and
a tangible net worth standard for nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the
Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of
comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Will the entities that register as nonbank SBSDs engage in a
securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is
similar to the securities business conducted by broker-dealers? If not,
describe how the securities activities of nonbank SBSDs will differ
from the securities activities of broker-dealers.
2. Will some broker-dealers register as nonbank SBSDs? If so, which
types of broker-dealers and which types of activities do these broker-
dealers currently engage in?
3. Should there be different capital standards for nonbank SBSDs
depending on whether they are registered as broker-dealers or
affiliated with bank holding companies, or not registered as broker-
dealers and not affiliated with bank holding companies? If so, explain
why. If not, explain why not. For example, should stand-alone SBSDs be
subject to a tangible net worth standard or, if affiliated with a bank
holding company, the bank capital standard? Would different standards
create competitive advantages? If so, explain why. If different capital
standards would be appropriate, explain the appropriate capital
standard that should apply to each of these classes of nonbank SBSDs.
4. Generally, is there a level of capital under which
counterparties will not transact with a dealer in OTC derivatives
because the counterparty credit risk is too great? If so, identify that
level of capital.
5. Will stand-alone SBSDs seek to effect transactions in securities
OTC derivatives products other than security-based swaps, such as OTC
options, that would necessitate registration as a broker-dealer? If so,
would registering as a limited purpose broker-dealer under the
provisions applicable to OTC derivatives dealers provide a workable
alternative to registering as a full-service broker-dealer? For
example, would there be conflicts between the proposed capital, margin,
and segregation requirements for SBSDs and the existing requirements
for OTC derivatives dealers? If so, identify the conflicts.
6. Should the requirements for OTC derivatives dealers be amended
(by exemptive relief or otherwise) to accommodate firms that want to
deal in security-based swaps? If so, explain how the requirements
should be amended and why.
7. Should the Commission exempt nonbank SBSDs engaged in activities
with respect to securities OTC derivatives products other than
security-based swaps from any requirements applicable to OTC
derivatives dealers? Please identify which requirements and explain
why.
8. As discussed below, the proposed minimum net capital
requirements would differ substantially for stand-alone SBSDs that are
approved to use models in computing net capital (i.e., a $20 million
fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement and $100 million tentative
net capital requirement) compared to broker-dealer SBSDs approved to
use models (i.e., a $1 billion fixed-dollar minimum net capital
requirement and $5 billion tentative net capital requirement). In
general, because the definition of ``security-based swap dealer'' in
the Dodd-Frank Act does not include acting as a broker or agent in
security-based swaps, entities engaging in brokerage activities with
respect to security-based swaps could be required to register as
broker-dealers. To the extent these broker-dealer SBSDs wanted to use
models to compute net capital, they would be subject to the higher
minimum net capital requirements. Accordingly, in order to avoid being
subject to higher minimum net capital requirements applicable to
broker-dealer SBSDs approved to use models to compute net capital, a
stand-alone SBSD may need to limit the activity it could conduct on
behalf of customers so that it does not fall within the definition of a
``broker'' under the Exchange Act and, thereby, need to register as a
broker-dealer. Commenters are requested to address this issue,
including any potential changes to the proposed capital requirements
for stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs discussed below. For
example, should broker-dealer SBSDs approved to use internal models to
compute net capital and that register as broker-dealers only in order
to conduct brokerage activities with respect to security-based swaps,
and that do not conduct a general business in securities with
customers, be subject to the minimum net capital requirements
applicable to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not. If different capital standards
would be appropriate, explain the appropriate capital standard that
should apply to this class of broker-dealer SBSDs and whether any
limitations should apply, including with respect to the types of broker
activities in which the nonbank SBSD may engage in order to qualify for
a particular capital treatment. Alternatively, or in addition, should
the Commission allow OTC derivatives dealers (which are subject to a
$20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement and $100
million tentative net capital requirement) to be dually registered as
nonbank SBSDs and/or amend the rules for OTC derivatives dealers to
conduct a broader range of activities than are currently

[[Page 70221]]

permitted? If the Commission took this action, should it also remove
the exemption for OTC derivatives dealers from membership in a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'')?
9. Describe the types of entities that may need to register as
MSBSPs and how the activities that these entities engage in would
impact the entity's capital position.
10. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to a net liquid assets test
capital standard (in contrast to a tangible net worth test)? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not.
2. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank SBSDs
As discussed in detail below, proposed new Rule 18a-1 would
prescribe capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs and amendments to
Rule 15c3-1 would prescribe capital requirements for broker-dealer
SBSDs. Proposed new Rule 18a-1 would require a stand-alone SBSD to
compute net capital using standardized haircuts prescribed in the rule
(including standardized haircuts specifically for security-based swaps
and swaps) or, alternatively, with Commission approval, to use internal
models for positions for which the stand-alone SBSD has been approved
to use internal models. Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, a
broker-dealer SBSD would be required to use the existing standardized
haircuts in the rule plus proposed new additional standardized haircuts
specifically for security-based swaps and swaps. A broker-dealer SBSD
that seeks to compute net capital using internal models would need to
apply to the Commission for approval to operate as an ANC broker-
dealer. A nonbank SBSD permitted to use internal models to compute net
capital (whether a stand-alone SBSD subject to proposed new Rule 18a-1
or an ANC broker-dealer subject to Rule 15c3-1, as amended) would need
to comply with additional requirements as compared to a nonbank SBSD
that is not approved to use internal models. This would be consistent
with the existing requirements in Rule 15c3-1, which impose additional
requirements on ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers as
compared with other broker-dealers.\55\ Finally, the amendments to Rule
15c3-1 would apply to broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs
to the extent they hold positions in security-based swaps and swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f; 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Computing Required Minimum Net Capital
Rule 15c3-1 prescribes the minimum net capital requirement for a
broker-dealer as the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the
rule and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios:
the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of
aggregate debit items ratio.\56\ The proposed capital requirements for
nonbank SBSDs would use a similar framework. Under the proposals, there
would be different minimum net capital requirements for stand-alone
SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models, broker-dealer SBSDs
that are not approved to use internal models, stand-alone SBSDs that
are approved to use internal models, and broker-dealer SBSDs that are
approved to use internal models (i.e., ANC broker-dealers). The
following table provides a summary of the proposed minimum net capital
requirements, which are discussed in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO12.000

i. Stand-alone SBSDs Not Using Internal Models

A stand-alone SBSD would be subject to the capital requirements set
forth in proposed new Rule 18a-1. Under this proposed new rule, a
stand-alone SBSD that is not approved to use internal models to compute
haircuts would be required to maintain minimum net capital of not less
than the greater of $20 million or 8% of the firm's risk margin amount
(``8% margin factor'').\57\ The term risk margin amount would be
defined as the sum of: (1) The greater of the total margin required to
be delivered by the nonbank SBSD with respect to security-based swap
transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing
agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared
security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Rule 18a-1; and (2) the total
margin amount calculated by the stand-alone SBSD with respect to non-
cleared security-based swaps pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a-3.\58\
Accordingly, to determine its minimum net capital requirement, a stand-
alone SBSD would need to calculate the amount equal to the 8% margin
factor.\59\ The firm's minimum net capital requirement would be the
greater of $20 million or the amount equal to the 8% margin factor.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. The
rationales for these minimum requirements are discussed below.
\58\ See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. The
components of the risk margin amount are discussed in detail below.
\59\ See paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1.
\60\ See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement would be
the same as the fixed-dollar minimum

[[Page 70222]]

requirement applicable to OTC derivatives dealers and already familiar
to existing market participants.\61\ OTC derivatives dealers are
limited purpose broker-dealers that are authorized to trade in certain
derivatives, including security-based swaps, and to use internal models
to calculate net capital. They are required to maintain minimum
tentative net capital of $100 million and minimum net capital of $20
million.\62\ These current fixed-dollar minimums have been the minimum
capital standards for OTC derivative dealers for over a decade, and are
substantially lower than the fixed-dollar minimums in Rule 15c3-1
currently applicable to ANC broker-dealers, which use internal models
to calculate net capital.\63\ In addition, available data regarding the
current population of broker-dealers suggests that these minimums would
not prevent new entrants in the security-based swap market.\64\ To
date, there have been no indications that these minimums are not
adequately meeting the objective of requiring OTC derivatives dealers
to maintain sufficient levels of regulatory capital to account for the
risks inherent in their activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5). The CFTC proposed a $20
million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement for FCMs that
are registered as swap dealers, regardless of whether the firm is
approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See
CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
Further, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar ``tangible
net equity'' minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap
participants that are not FCMs and are not affiliated with a U.S.
bank holding company. Finally, the CFTC proposed a $20 million
fixed-dollar Tier 1 capital minimum requirement for swap dealers and
major swap participants that are not FCMs and are affiliated with a
U.S. bank holding company (the term ``Tier 1 capital'' refers to the
regulatory capital requirement for U.S. banking institutions). Id.
\62\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5). When adopting the capital
requirements for OTC derivatives dealers, the Commission stated
``[t]he minimum tentative net capital and net capital requirements
are necessary to ensure against excessive leverage and risks other
than credit or market risk, all of which are now factored into the
current haircuts. Further, while the mathematical assumptions
underlying VaR may be useful in projecting possible daily trading
losses under `normal' market conditions, VaR may not help firms
measure losses that fall outside of normal conditions, such as
during steep market declines. Accordingly, the minimum capital
requirements provide additional safeguards to account for possible
extraordinary losses or decreases in liquidity during times of
stress which are not incorporated into VaR calculations.'' See OTC
Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362.
\63\ Paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3-1 currently requires that ANC
broker-dealers at all times maintain tentative net capital of not
less than $1 billion and net capital of not less than $500 million.
17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7).
\64\ See infra section V.B.2.a.i. of this release (economic
analysis discussion based on year-end 2011 data showing that
approximately 270 broker-dealers maintain net capital of $20 million
or more).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time, the proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum
requirement for stand-alone SBSDs that do not use internal models to
calculate net capital would be substantially higher than the fixed-
dollar minimums in Rule 15c3-1 currently applicable to broker-dealers
that do not use internal models (i.e., that are not ANC broker-dealers
or OTC derivatives dealers).\65\ Under the proposals, stand-alone SBSDs
that do not use models would not be able to avail themselves of such
minimums and would be subject to the same $20 million minimum net
capital requirement as OTC derivatives dealers, even though they would
not be using models like such derivatives dealers. In other words, the
same minimum net capital requirement will apply to stand-alone SBSDs
regardless of whether or not they use models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ For example, a broker-dealer that carries customer accounts
has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $250,000; a broker-dealer
that does not carry customer accounts but engages in proprietary
securities trading (defined as more than ten trades a year) has a
fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $100,000; and a broker-dealer
that does not carry accounts for customers or otherwise does not
receive or hold securities and cash for customers, and does not
engage in proprietary trading activities, has a fixed-dollar minimum
requirement of $5,000. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This level of minimum capital may be appropriate because of the
nature of the business of a stand-alone SBSD and the differences from
the business of a broker-dealer or OTC derivatives dealer. Generally,
OTC derivatives, such as security-based swaps, are contracts between a
dealer and its counterparty. Consequently, the counterparty's ability
to collect amounts owed to it under the contract depends on the
financial wherewithal of the dealer. In contrast, the returns on
financial instruments held by a broker-dealer for an investor (other
than a derivative issued by the broker-dealer) are not linked to the
financial wherewithal of the broker-dealer holding the instrument for
the customer. Accordingly, if a stand-alone SBSD fails, the
counterparty may not be able to liquidate the contract or replace the
contract with a new counterparty without incurring a loss on the
position. The entities that will register and operate as nonbank SBSDs
should be sufficiently capitalized to minimize the risk that they
cannot meet their obligations to counterparties, particularly given
that the counterparties will not be limited to other dealers but will
include customers and other counterparties as well.
In addition, stand-alone SBSDs will not be subject to the same
limitations that apply to OTC derivative dealers in effecting
transactions with customers and engaging in dealing activities.\66\
Therefore, the failure of a stand-alone SBSD could have a broader
adverse impact on a larger number of market participants, including
customers and counterparties.\67\ The proposed capital requirements for
this group of firms, in part, are meant to account for this potential
broader impact on market participants.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ See 17 CFR 240.3b-12; 17 CFR 240.15a-1. Rule 3b-12,
defining the term OTC derivatives dealer, provides, among other
things, that an OTC derivatives dealer's securities activities must
be limited to: (1) Engaging in dealer activities in eligible OTC
derivative instruments (as defined in the rule) that are securities;
(2) issuing and reacquiring securities that are issued by the
dealer, including warrants on securities, hybrid securities, and
structured notes; (3) engaging in cash management securities
activities (as defined in Rule 3b-14 (17 CFR 240.3b-14)); (4)
engaging in ancillary portfolio management securities activities (as
defined in the rule); and (5) engaging in such other securities
activities that the Commission designates by order. See 17 CFR
240.3b-12. Rule 15a-1, governing the securities activities of OTC
derivatives dealers, provides that an OTC derivatives dealer must
effect transactions in OTC derivatives with most types of
counterparties through an affiliated Commission-registered broker-
dealer that is not an OTC derivatives dealer. See 17 CFR 240.15a-1.
\67\ The proposal is consistent with the CFTC's proposed capital
requirements for nonbank swap dealers, which impose $20 million
fixed-dollar minimum requirements regardless of whether the firm is
approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See
CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
\68\ As discussed above, stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to a
minimum ratio amount based on the 8% margin factor. OTC derivatives
dealers are not subject to a minimum ratio amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs that do not use internal models
would be subject to the same $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net
capital requirement that applies to OTC derivatives dealers. The same
firms would not, however, be subject to a minimum tentative net capital
requirement, which is applied to firms that use internal models to
account for risks that may not be fully captured by the models.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ OTC derivatives dealers are subject to a $100 million
minimum tentative net capital requirement. ANC broker-dealers are
currently subject to a $1 billion minimum tentative net capital
requirement. The minimum tentative net capital requirements are
designed to address risks that may not be captured when using
internal models rather than standardized haircuts to compute net
capital. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384; Alternative
Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of
Consolidated Supervised Entities; Proposed Rule, Exchange Act
Release No. 48690 (Oct. 24, 2003), 68 FR 62872, 62875 (Nov. 6, 2003)
(``We expect that net capital charges will be reduced for broker-
dealers that use the proposed alternative net capital computation.
The present haircut structure is designed so that firms will have a
sufficient capital base to account for, in addition to market and
credit risk, other types of risk, such as operational risk, leverage
risk, and liquidity risk. Raising the minimum tentative net capital
requirement to $1 billion and net capital requirement to $500
million is one way to ensure that firms that use the alternative
capital computation maintain sufficient capital reserves to account
for these other risks. In addition, based on our experience, firms
must have this scale of operations in order to have developed
internal risk management control systems necessary to support
reliable VaR computations.'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70223]]

The proposed 8% margin factor would be part of determining the
stand-alone SBSD's minimum net capital requirement. As noted above, the
stand-alone SBSD would determine this amount by adding:
The greater of the total margin required to be delivered
by the stand-alone SBSD with respect to security-based swap
transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing
agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared
security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Rule 18a-1; \70\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. As
discussed below in section II.B. of this release, nonbank SBSDs will
be subject to margin requirements imposed by clearing agencies
pursuant to which nonbank SBSDs will be required to collect
collateral from customers relating to the customers' cleared
security-based swap transactions. The amount of collateral required
to be collected as a result of customers' cleared security-based
swap transactions would be used to determine the first component of
the risk margin amount. This amount would be added to the second
component of the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared
security-based swaps and that amount would be multiplied by 8% to
determine the 8% margin factor. However, if the margin requirements
of the clearing agencies require the stand-alone SBSD to collect
total collateral in an amount that is less than the deductions the
firm would apply to the customers' cleared security-based swap
positions under proposed new Rule 18a-1, the stand-alone SBSD would
need to add the amount of the deductions to the second component of
the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared security-based swaps
and multiply that amount by 8% to determine the 8% margin factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total margin amount calculated by the stand-alone SBSD
with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to paragraph
(c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. As
discussed below in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule
18a-3 would establish margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs with
respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. See proposed new Rule
18a-3. The proposed rule would define the term margin to mean the
amount of positive equity in an account of a counterparty. See
paragraph (b)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. Under the proposed
rule, a nonbank SBSD would be required to calculate daily a margin
amount for the account of each counterparty to a non-cleared
security-based swap. See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule
18a-3. These calculations of counterparty margin amounts for the
purposes of proposed new Rule 18a-3 would be used to determine the
component of the risk margin amount relating to non-cleared
security-based swaps. This amount would be added to the first
component relating to cleared security-based swaps, and the total
amount would be multiplied by 8% to determine the 8% margin factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total of these two amounts--i.e., the risk margin amount--would
be multiplied by 8% to determine the amount of the 8% margin factor,
which, if greater than the $20 million fixed-dollar amount, would be
the stand-alone SBSD's minimum net capital requirement.\72\ This
proposed 8% margin factor ratio requirement is similar to an existing
requirement in the CFTC's net capital rule for FCMs.\73\ Further, the
CFTC has proposed a similar requirement for swap dealers and major swap
participants registered as FCMs.\74\ Under the CFTC's proposal, an FCM
would be required to maintain adjusted net capital that is equal to or
greater than 8% of the risk margin required for customer and non-
customer exchange-traded futures and swaps positions that are cleared
by a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO'').\75\ The CFTC's
proposed 8% of margin, or risk-based capital rule, ``is intended to
require FCMs to maintain a minimum level of capital that is associated
with the level of risk associated with the customer positions that the
FCM carries.'' \76\ Based on Commission staff experience with dually-
registered broker-dealer/FCMs, the Commission preliminarily believes
that the 8% margin factor would serve as a reasonable measure to ensure
that a firm's minimum capital requirement increases or decreases in
tandem with the level of risk arising from customer futures
transactions. Consequently, the 8% margin factor is being proposed to
provide a similar adjustable minimum net capital requirement for
nonbank SBSDs with respect to their security-based swap activity.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ See paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1.
\73\ See 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(B). See also Minimum Financial and
Related Reporting Requirements for Futures Commission Merchants and
Introducing Brokers, 69 FR 49784 (Aug. 12, 2004). The CFTC proposed
the 8% risk margin requirement to establish a margin-based capital
computation identical to the margin-based minimum net capital
computation that several futures self-regulatory organizations,
including one derivatives clearing organization, adopted for their
respective member-FCMs. Id. at note 16.
\74\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The 8%
risk margin calculation under the CFTC's proposal relates to cleared
swaps or futures transactions, whereas the 8% margin factor proposed
in new Rule 18a-1 would be based on cleared and non-cleared
security-based swaps. As discussed below, the proposed minimum net
capital requirement is based on a nonbank SBSD's cleared and non-
cleared security-based swap activity in order to account for the
risks of both types of positions.
\75\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
\76\ Id. at 27807.
\77\ As discussed below in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release,
an 8% multiplier is used for purposes of calculating credit risk
charges under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. While this is a different
calculation than the proposed 8% margin factor, using an 8%
multiplier for purposes of computing regulatory capital requirements
is an international standard. See Alternative Net Capital
Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428, note 42 (describing the
8% multiplier in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 as being ``consistent
with the calculation of credit risk in the OTC derivatives dealers
rules and with the Basel Standard'' and as being ``designed to
dampen leverage to help ensure that the firm maintains a safe level
of capital.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed rule, nonbank SBSDs--including stand-alone SBSDs
that are not approved to use internal models to calculate net capital--
would be subject to a minimum net capital requirement that increases in
tandem with an increase in the risks associated with nonbank SBSD's
security-based swap activities.\78\ Without the 8% margin factor, the
minimum net capital requirement for a nonbank SBSD would be the same
(i.e., $20 million) regardless of the volume, size, and risk of its
outstanding security-based swap transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ As discussed below in sections II.A.2.a.ii., II.A.2.a.iii.,
and II.A.2.a.iv. of this release, the 8% margin factor would be used
to compute the minimum net capital requirement for all nonbank
SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amount computed under the 8% margin factor generally would
increase as the stand-alone SBSD increased the volume, size, and risk
of its security-based swap transactions. Specifically, the proposed
definition of the term risk margin amount is designed to link the
stand-alone SBSD's minimum net capital requirement to its cleared and
non-cleared security-based swap activity. For example, the definition
in proposed new Rule 18a-1 provides that, for cleared security-based
swaps, the amount is the greater of the margin required to be collected
or the amount of the deductions that would apply pursuant to proposed
new Rule 18a-1 (i.e., the amount of the deductions using standardized
haircuts).\79\ The margin requirement for cleared security-based swap
positions generally should increase with the volume, size, and risk of
the positions as would the amount of the standardized haircuts
applicable to the positions. Further, the ``greater of'' provision is
designed to ensure that the 8% margin factor requirement is based on,
at a minimum, the standardized haircuts as these provide a uniform
approach for all cleared security-based

[[Page 70224]]

swaps, whereas margin requirements for cleared security-based swaps
will vary over time and across different clearing agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ For a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models and
an ANC broker-dealer, it would be the amount of the deductions
determined using a VaR model, except for types of positions for
which the firm has not been approved to use a VaR model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As proposed, the 8% margin factor is determined using the greater
of required margin or standardized haircuts with respect to cleared
security-based swaps plus the margin amount for non-cleared security-
based swaps calculated under proposed new Rule 18a-3.\80\ Thus, the 8%
margin factor would be based on a stand-alone SBSD's activity in both
cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps. As noted above, the goal
of the provision is to require the stand-alone SBSD to increase its net
capital in tandem with an increase in the risk of its security-based
swap transactions. The proposal does not limit the computation to only
cleared security-based swaps, as proposed by the CFTC, because such a
limitation would allow the stand-alone SBSD to increase the amount of
its non-cleared security-based swaps positions without a corresponding
increase in net capital. This could create greater risk to the stand-
alone SBSD's customers because--as discussed above--their ability to
collect amounts owing on security-based swaps depends on the ability of
the stand-alone SBSD to meets its obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to
calculate daily a margin amount for the account of each counterparty
to a non-cleared security-based swap. See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3. As discussed below in section II.B. of this
release, a nonbank SBSD would be required to perform this
calculation even though proposed new Rule 18a-3 would not require
the nonbank SBSD to collect collateral from all counterparties to
collateralize the margin amount. For example, the Commission is
proposing that collateral need not be collected from commercial end
users. Nonetheless, the calculation of the margin amount for
purposes of proposed new Rule 18a-3 would determine the non-cleared
security-based swap component of the risk margin amount regardless
of whether the nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral
from the counterparty to collateralize the margin amount. In other
words, the amount of the risk margin amount would be based on the
calculation required by proposed new Rule 18a-3 for all
counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps and not on
whether the stand-alone SBSD would be required to collect collateral
from a counterparty to collateralize the margin amount. As discussed
in section II.B. of this release, this is designed to ensure that
the risk margin amount is based on all non-cleared security-based
swap activity of the stand-alone SBSD and not just on security-based
swap activity that would require the firm to collect collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum
net capital requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-1 for stand-alone
SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models to compute net
capital. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including
empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following
questions:
1. Is the proposed $20 million minimum net capital requirement for
stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models appropriate? If not,
explain why not. What minimum amount would be more appropriate? For
example, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $20
million to account for the broader range of activities that stand-alone
SBSDs will be able to engage in as compared with OTC derivatives
dealers? If so, explain why. If it should be a greater amount, how much
greater should it be (e.g., $30 million, $50 million, $100 million, or
some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum fixed-dollar
amount be less than $20 million because these firms will not be using
internal models to compute net capital? If so, explain why. If it
should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10
million, $5 million, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser
alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be more
appropriate for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use
internal models.
2. Is the proposed definition of risk margin amount appropriate? If
not, explain why and suggest modifications to the definition. For
example, are there modifications that could make the definition more
accurately reflect the nonbank SBSD's risk exposure from dealing in
security-based swaps? If so, describe the modifications and explain why
they would achieve this result.
3. Is the component of the risk margin amount definition addressing
margin delivered for cleared swaps appropriate? If not, explain why
not. Would the definition be more appropriate if this component was
dropped so that the first prong of the definition only incorporated the
haircuts for cleared security-based swaps?
4. Should the proposed definition of risk margin amount only
address cleared security-based swaps, consistent with the CFTC's
proposal? If so, explain why, including how the risk of non-cleared
security-based swap activities could be addressed through other
measures.
5. Is the component of the risk margin amount definition addressing
margin collected for non-cleared security-based swaps appropriate? If
not, explain why not.
6. Is the 8% margin factor an appropriate metric for determining a
nonbank SBSD's minimum net capital requirement in terms of increasing a
nonbank SBSD's minimum net capital requirement as the risk of its
security-based swap activities increases? If not, explain why not. For
example, should the percentage be greater than 8% (e.g., 10%, 12%, or
some other percentage)? If so, identify the percentage and explain why
it would be preferable. Should the percentage be less than 8% (e.g.,
6%, 4%, or some other percentage)? If so, identify the percentage and
explain why it would be preferable.
7. Should the 8% multiplier be tiered as the amount of the risk
margin amount increases? If so, explain why. For example, should the
multiplier decrease from 8% to 6% for the amount of the risk margin
amount that exceeds a certain threshold, such as $1 billion or $5
billion? If so, explain why. Should the amount of the multiplier
increase from 8% to 10% for the amount of the risk margin amount that
exceeds a certain threshold such as $1 billion or $5 billion? If so,
explain why.
8. Should the 8% margin factor be an adjustable ratio (e.g.,
increase to 10% or decrease to 6%)? For example, should the multiplier
adjust periodically if certain conditions occur? If so, explain the
conditions under which the 8% multiplier would adjust upward or
downward and why having an adjustable ratio would be appropriate.
9. Would the 8% margin factor be a sufficient minimum net capital
requirement without the $20 million fixed-dollar minimum? If so,
explain why.
10. Are there metrics other than a fixed-dollar minimum and the 8%
margin factor for calculating required minimum capital that would more
appropriately reflect the risk of nonbank SBSDs? If so, identify them
and explain why they would be preferable. For example, instead of an
absolute fixed-dollar minimum, should the minimum net capital
requirement be linked to a scalable metric such as the size of the
nonbank SBSD or the amount of the deductions taken by the nonbank SBSD
when computing net capital? For any scalable minimum net capital
requirements identified, explain how the computation would work in
practice and how the minimum requirement would address the same
objectives of a fixed-dollar minimum.
11. Would the 8% margin factor address the risk of extremely large
nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example, if the customer
margin requirements for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps
carried by the nonbank SBSD were low because the positions were hedged
or otherwise not high risk, the 8% margin

[[Page 70225]]

factor may not increase in tandem with the level of the nonbank SBSD's
security-based swap activity. In this case, would the 8% margin factor
adequately address the risk of the nonbank SBSD, particularly if it
carried substantial security-based swap positions? If not, explain why
not. Would the 8% margin factor be necessary for small nonbank SBSDs?
If not, explain why not.
12. Would the 8% margin factor provide an appropriate and workable
restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by stand-alone SBSDs not
using internal models because the amount of minimum net capital would
increase as the risk margin amount increases? If not, explain why not.
Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively
address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure
and explain why it would be more accurate and effective.
13. Should the 8% margin factor be applied to margin related to
cleared and non-cleared swap transactions in addition to security-based
swap transactions? For example, the provision could require that 8% of
the margin required for cleared and non-cleared swaps be added to the
8% of margin required for cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps
in determining the minimum net capital requirement. Would this be a
workable approach to address the fact that the CFTC's proposed 8%
margin requirement would not apply to swap dealers that are not
registered as FCMs and, with respect to dually-registered FCM swap
dealers, it would apply only to cleared swaps? Including swaps in the
8% margin factor calculation would provide for equal treatment of
security-based swaps and swaps in determining a minimum net capital
requirement. Would this be a workable approach? If so, explain why. If
not, explain why not.
14. Would the 8% margin factor be practical as applied to a
portfolio margin account that contains security-based swaps and swaps?
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
15. What will be the practical impacts of the 8% margin factor? For
example, what will be the effect on transaction costs, liquidity in
security-based swaps, availability of capital to support security-based
swap transactions generally and/or for non-security-based swap-related
uses, use of security-based swaps for hedging purposes, risk management
at SBSDs, the costs for potential new SBSDs to participate in the
security-based swap markets, etc.? How would these impacts increase or
decrease if the 8% margin factor were set at a higher or lower
percentage?
ii. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Not Using Internal Models
A broker-dealer that registers as an SBSD would continue to be
subject to the capital requirements in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be
amended to account for security-based swap activities. Proposed
amendments to paragraph (a) of Rule 15c3-1 would establish minimum net
capital requirements for a broker-dealer SBSD that is not approved to
use internal models to compute net capital.\81\ Under these proposed
amendments, the broker-dealer SBSD would be subject to the same $20
million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement as a stand-alone
SBSD that does not use internal models.\82\ As discussed above in
section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the proposed $20 million fixed-
dollar minimum would be consistent with the current fixed-dollar
minimum that applies to OTC derivatives dealers, which has been used as
a minimum capital standard for OTC derivative dealers for over a
decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See proposed new paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 15c3-1.
\82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, a broker-dealer SBSD that does not use internal models
would be required to use the 8% margin factor to compute its minimum
net capital amount. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this
release, the 8% margin factor is designed to adjust the broker-dealer
SBSD's minimum net capital requirement in tandem with the risk
associated with the broker-dealer SBSD's security-based swap activity.
Without the 8% margin factor, the minimum net capital requirement for a
broker-dealer SBSD would be the same (i.e., $20 million) regardless of
the number, size, and risk of its outstanding security-based swap
transactions. Consequently, the proposed rule would include the 8%
margin factor in order to increase the broker-dealer SBSD's net capital
requirement as the risk of its security-based swap activities
increases.
Moreover, the broker-dealer SBSD--as a broker-dealer--would be
subject to the existing financial ratio requirements in Rule 15c3-1
and, therefore, would need to include the applicable financial ratio
amount when determining the firm's minimum net capital requirement.\83\
A broker-dealer's minimum net capital requirement is the greater of the
applicable fixed-dollar amount and one of two alternative financial
ratios. The first financial ratio requirement provides that a broker-
dealer must not permit its aggregate indebtedness to all other persons
to exceed 1500% of its net capital (i.e., a 15-to-1 aggregate
indebtedness to net capital requirement).\84\ This is the default
financial ratio requirement that all broker-dealers must apply unless
they affirmatively elect to be subject to the second financial ratio
requirement by notifying their designated examining authority of the
election.\85\ The second financial ratio requirement provides that a
broker-dealer must not permit its net capital to be less than 2% of
aggregate debit items (i.e., customer-related obligations to the
broker-dealer).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(1); proposed new paragraph
(a)(10)(i) of Rule 15c3-1. Currently, all broker-dealers, including
the ANC broker-dealers, are subject either to the aggregate
indebtedness standard or the aggregate debit items (alternative
standard) financial ratio requirements.
\84\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(1)(i). Stated another way, the
broker-dealer must maintain, at a minimum, an amount of net capital
equal to 1/15th (or 6.67%) of its aggregate indebtedness. This
financial ratio generally is used by smaller broker-dealers that do
not hold customer securities and cash.
\85\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(1)(i)-(ii).
\86\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(1)(ii). Customer debit items--
computed pursuant to Rule 15c3-3--consist of, among other things,
margin loans to customers and securities borrowed by the broker-
dealer to effectuate deliveries of securities sold short by
customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3; 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a. This ratio
generally is used by larger broker-dealers that hold customer
securities and cash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would provide that a broker-
dealer SBSD that is not approved to use internal models would be
required to maintain a minimum net capital level of not less than the
greater of: (1) $20 million or (2) the financial ratio amount required
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3-1 plus the 8% margin
factor.\87\ Thus, the proposed minimum net capital requirement for a
broker-dealer SBSD would incorporate the requirement in Rule 15c3-1
that a broker-dealer maintain the greater of a fixed-dollar amount or
one of the two financial ratio amounts, as applicable.\88\ The
financial ratio requirements in Rule 15c3-1 are designed to link the
broker-dealer's minimum net capital requirement to the level of its
securities activities. For example, the aggregate debit ratio
requirement is designed for broker-dealers that carry customer
securities and cash.\89\ This provision increases the minimum net
capital requirement for these broker-dealers as they increase their
debit items by engaging in margin lending and facilitating of customer
short-sale

[[Page 70226]]

transactions.\90\ The proposal to combine the Rule 15c3-1 financial
ratios with the 8% margin factor in a broker-dealer SBSD's computation
of its minimum net capital requirement is designed to require the
broker-dealer SBSD to maintain a capital cushion to support its
traditional securities activities (e.g., margin lending) and its
security-based swap activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(i) of Rule 15c3-1.
\88\ Id.
\89\ See Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers,
Exchange Act Release No. 17208 (Oct. 9, 1980), 45 FR 69915 (Oct. 22,
1980).
\90\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(1)(ii); 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum
net capital requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved
to use internal models. Commenters are referred to the general
questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release about the 8%
margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank SBSDs. In addition, the
Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of
comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Is the proposed $20 million minimum net capital requirement
appropriate for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use
internal models? If not, explain why not. What minimum amount would be
more appropriate? For example, should the minimum fixed-dollar amount
be greater than $20 million to account for the broader range of
activities that broker-dealer SBSDs will be able to engage in (e.g.,
traditional securities activities such as margin lending), as compared
with stand-alone SBSDs and OTC derivatives dealers? If it should be a
greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $30 million, $50
million, $100 million, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the
minimum fixed-dollar amount be less than $20 million because these
firms will not be using internal models to compute net capital? If it
should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10
million, $5 million or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser
alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be preferable
for broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to use internal models.
2. Is combining the 8% margin factor requirement with the
applicable Rule 15c3-1 financial ratio requirement an appropriate way
to determine a minimum net capital requirement for broker-dealer SBSDs
that are not approved to use internal models? If not, explain why not.
3. Would the 8% margin factor combined with the Rule 15c3-1
financial ratio provide an appropriate and workable restraint on the
amount of leverage incurred by broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal
models? If not, explain why not. Is there another measure that would
more accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these
firms? If so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more
accurate and effective.
iii. Stand-Alone SBSDs Using Internal Models
As discussed above, a stand-alone SBSD would be subject to the
capital requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-1.\91\ Rule 18a-1 would
permit stand-alone SBSDs to apply to use internal models to compute net
capital.\92\ In terms of minimum capital requirements, a stand-alone
SBSD that has been approved to use internal models would be required to
maintain: (1) a minimum tentative net capital level of not less than
$100 million; and (2) a minimum net capital level of not less than the
greater of $20 million or the 8% margin factor.\93\ The proposed
minimum net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs using internal
models (i.e., the greater of $20 million or the 8% margin factor) is
the same as the proposed minimum net capital requirement for stand-
alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal models (though
the latter would need to incorporate the Rule 15c3-1 financial ratio
requirement into their minimum net capital computations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\92\ See paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-1;
the discussion below in section II.A.2.b.iii. of this release.
\93\ See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a-1. As discussed
above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release, the 8% margin factor
is designed to adjust the stand-alone SBSD's minimum net capital
requirement in tandem with the risk associated with the broker-
dealer firm's security-based swap activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models also would be
subject to a minimum tentative net capital requirement of $100
million.\94\ This proposed minimum tentative net capital requirement
would be consistent with the current minimum tentative net capital
requirement applicable to OTC derivatives dealers.\95\ A minimum
tentative net capital requirement is designed to operate as a
prudential control on the use of internal models for regulatory capital
purposes.\96\ Tentative net capital is the amount of net capital
maintained by a broker-dealer before applying the standardized haircuts
or using internal models to determine deductions on the mark-to-market
value of proprietary positions to arrive at the broker-dealer's amount
of net capital.\97\ OTC derivatives dealers, therefore, compute
tentative net capital before using internal VaR models to take the
market risk deductions. The minimum tentative net capital requirement
is designed to account for the fact that VaR models, while more risk
sensitive than standardized haircuts, tend to substantially reduce the
amount of the deductions to tentative net capital in comparison to the
standardized haircuts because the models recognize more offsets between
related positions (i.e., positions that show historical correlations)
than the standardized haircuts.\98\ In addition, VaR models may

[[Page 70227]]

not capture all risks and, therefore, having a minimum tentative net
capital requirement (i.e., one that is not derived using the VaR model)
is designed to require that capital be sufficient to withstand events
that the model may not take into account (e.g., extraordinary losses or
decreases in liquidity during times of stress that are not incorporated
into VaR calculations).\99\ Consequently, the proposed $100 million
minimum tentative net capital requirement is designed to provide a
sufficient liquid capital cushion for stand-alone SBSDs that use
models, just as it has done in practice for entities registered as OTC
derivatives dealers.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\95\ Both ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers--
entities that use internal models--are subject to a minimum
tentative net capital requirement. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and
(a)(7).
\96\ OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384 (``The final rule
contains the minimum requirements of $100 million in tentative net
capital and $20 million in net capital. The minimum tentative net
capital and net capital requirements are necessary to ensure against
excessive leverage and risks other than credit or market risk, all
of which are now factored into the current haircuts. Further, while
the mathematical assumptions underlying VaR may be useful in
projecting possible daily trading losses under `normal' market
conditions, VaR may not help firms measure losses that fall outside
of normal conditions, such as during steep market declines.
Accordingly, the minimum capital requirements provide additional
safeguards to account for possible extraordinary losses or decreases
in liquidity during times of stress which are not incorporated into
VaR calculations.''). See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements
Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34431 (``The current haircut structure
[use of the standardized haircuts] seeks to ensure that broker-
dealers maintain a sufficient capital base to account for
operational, leverage, and liquidity risk, in addition to market and
credit risk. We expect that use of the alternative net capital
computation [internal models] will reduce deductions for market and
credit risk substantially for broker-dealers that use that method.
Moreover, inclusion in net capital of unsecured receivables and
securities that do not have a ready market under the current net
capital rule will reduce the liquidity standards of Rule 15c3-1.
Thus, the alternative method of computing net capital and, in
particular, its requirements that broker-dealers using the
alternative method of computing [sic] maintain minimum tentative net
capital of at least $1 billion, maintain net capital of at least
$500 million, notify the Commission that same day if their tentative
net capital falls below $5 billion, and comply with Rule 15c3-4 are
intended to provide broker-dealers with sufficient capital reserves
to account for market, credit, operational, and other risks.'')
(Text in brackets added).
\97\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(10).
\98\ See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 53962. See Net Capital
Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68011
(Dec. 30, 1997) (concept release considering the extent to which
statistical models should be used in setting the capital
requirements for a broker-dealer's proprietary positions) (``For
example, the current method of calculating net capital by deducting
fixed percentages from the market value of securities can allow only
limited types of hedges without becoming unreasonably complicated.
Accordingly, the net capital rule recognizes only certain specified
hedging activities, and the Rule does not account for historical
correlations between foreign securities and U.S. securities or
between equity securities and debt securities. By failing to
recognize offsets from these correlations between and within asset
classes, the fixed percentage haircut method may cause firms with
large, diverse portfolios to reserve capital that actually
overcompensates for market risk.'' Id. ``The primary advantage of
incorporating models into the net capital rule is that a firm would
be able to recognize, to a greater extent, the correlations and
hedges in its securities portfolio and have a comparatively smaller
capital charge for market risk.'').
\99\ See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362; Alternative Net
Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. Further, the
deductions to tentative net capital taken by nonbank SBSDs and
broker-dealers are intended to create a pool of new liquid assets
that can be used for any risk assumed by the firm and not only
market risk. A tentative net capital requirement also serves as a
capital buffer for these other risks to offset the narrower type of
risk intended to be covered by calculating net capital using
internal models.
\100\ OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital
requirements for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models. Commenters
are referred to the general questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of
this release about the 8% margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank
SBSDs. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including
empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following
questions:
1. Is the proposed minimum net capital requirement of $20 million
appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal
models, in comparison to OTC derivatives dealers which are more limited
by the activities they are permitted to conduct (such as being
prohibited from effecting transactions with customers)? If not, explain
why not. What minimum amount would be more appropriate? For example,
should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $20 million to
account for the use of internal models? If it should be a greater
amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $30 million, $50 million,
$100 million, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum
fixed-dollar amount be less than $20 million? If it should be a lower
amount, how much lower (e.g., $15 million, $10 million, $5 million or
some other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is
recommended, explain why it would be more appropriate for stand-alone
SBSDs that are approved to use internal models.
2. Is it necessary to impose a minimum tentative net capital
requirement for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models to capture
additional risks not incorporated into VaR models (consistent with
those tentative minimum met capital requirements imposed on OTC
derivatives dealers)? If not, why not?
3. Is the proposed amount of the minimum tentative net capital
level of $100 million for stand-alone SBSDs using internal models
appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the minimum
tentative net capital amount be greater than $100 million to account
for the use of internal models? If it should be a greater amount, how
much greater should it be (e.g., $150 million, $200 million, $250
million, or some other amount)? Should it be a lesser amount (e.g., $75
million, $50 million, or some other amount)? If a greater or lesser
alternative amount is recommended, explain why it would be more
appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal
models.
4. Are there metrics other than a fixed-dollar minimum tentative
net capital requirement that would more appropriately reflect the risk
of nonbank SBSDs? If so, identify them and explain why they would be
preferable. For example, instead of an absolute fixed-dollar minimum
tentative net capital requirement, should the minimum tentative net
capital requirement be linked to a scalable metric such as the size of
a nonbank SBSD? For any scalable minimum tentative net capital
requirements identified, explain how the computation would work in
practice and how the minimum requirement would address the same
objectives of a fixed-dollar minimum. Would the 8% margin factor
provide an appropriate and workable restraint on the amount of leverage
incurred by stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models?
Is there another measure that would more accurately and effectively
address the leverage risk of these firms? If so, identify the measure
and explain why it would be more accurate and effective.
iv. Broker-Dealer SBSDs Using Internal Models and ANC Broker-Dealers
Under the current requirements of Rule 15c3-1, a broker-dealer that
seeks to use internal models to compute net capital must apply to the
Commission to become an ANC broker-dealer.\101\ If the application is
granted, the ANC broker-dealer is able to take less than 100%
deductions for unsecured receivables from OTC derivatives
counterparties (non-ANC broker-dealers must deduct these receivables in
full) and can use VaR models in lieu of the standardized haircuts to
take deductions on their proprietary positions in securities and money
market instruments to the extent the firm has been approved to use an
internal model for the type of position.\102\ It is expected that some
broker-dealer SBSDs would seek to use internal models to compute net
capital--as have some broker-dealers--by applying to become ANC broker-
dealers. Broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models would be subject to
the existing provisions and proposed amendments to those provisions
currently applicable to ANC broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e.
\102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed amendments, the current net capital requirements
for ANC broker-dealers in Rule 15c3-1 would be enhanced to account for
the firms' large size, the scale of their custodial activities, and the
potential that they may become substantially more active in the
security-based swap markets under the Dodd-Frank Act's OTC derivatives
reforms. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed enhancements
would include increasing the minimum tentative net capital and minimum
net capital requirements; increasing the ``early warning'' notice
threshold; narrowing the types of unsecured receivables for which ANC
broker-dealers may take a credit risk charge in lieu of a 100%
deduction; and requiring ANC broker-dealers to comply with a new
liquidity requirement.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ See proposed amendments to 17 CFR 240.15c3-1; 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, an ANC broker-dealer must maintain minimum tentative net
capital of at least $1 billion and minimum net capital of at least $500
million.\104\ In addition, an ANC broker-dealer must provide the
Commission with an ``early warning'' notice when its tentative net
capital falls below $5 billion.\105\ These relatively high minimum
capital requirements (as compared with the requirements for other types
of broker-

[[Page 70228]]

dealers) reflect the substantial and diverse range of business
activities engaged in by ANC broker-dealers and their importance as
intermediaries in the securities markets.\106\ Further, the heightened
capital requirements reflect the fact that, as noted above, VaR models
are more risk sensitive but also may not capture all risks and
generally permit substantially reduced deductions to tentative net
capital as compared to the standardized haircuts.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(i).
\105\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(ii).
\106\ For example, based on data from broker-dealer FOCUS
Reports, the six ANC broker-dealers collectively hold in excess of
one trillion dollars' worth of customer securities. Under Rule 17a-5
(17 CFR 240.17a-5), broker-dealers must file periodic reports on
Form X-17A-5 (Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single
Reports, ``FOCUS Reports''). Unless an exception applies, the
Commission's rules deem all reports filed under Rule 17a-5
confidential. 17 CFR 240.17a-5(a)(3). The FOCUS Report requires,
among other financial information, a balance sheet, income
statement, and net capital and customer reserve computations. The
FOCUS Report data used in this release is year-end 2011 FOCUS Report
data.
\107\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release,
69 FR 34428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposals to strengthen the requirements for ANC broker-dealers
are made in response to issues that arose during the 2008 financial
crisis, recognizing the large size of these firms, and the scale of
their custodial responsibilities. The proposals also are based on the
Commission staff's experience supervising the ANC broker-dealers. The
financial crisis demonstrated the risks to financial firms when market
conditions are stressed and how the failure of a large firm can
accelerate the further deterioration of market conditions.\108\ The
proposals are designed to bolster the ANC broker-dealer net capital
rules to ensure that these firms continue to maintain sufficient
capital reserves to account for market, credit, operational, and other
risks.\109\ While the rationale for these enhancements exists
irrespective of whether the ANC broker-dealers ultimately register as
SBSDs, the proposed increased capital requirements also are designed to
account for increased security-based swap activities by these firms.
FOCUS Report data and the Commission staff's supervision of the ANC
broker-dealers indicate that these firms currently do not engage in a
substantial business in security-based swaps.\110\ It is expected,
however, that they may increase their security-based swap activities
after the Dodd-Frank Act's OTC derivatives reforms are implemented and
become effective because security-based swap activities will need to be
conducted in regulated entities.\111\ Consequently, financial
institutions that currently deal in security-based swaps will need to
register as an SBSD or register one or more affiliates as an SBSD. To
the extent they want to offer securities products and services beyond
those related to security-based swaps, they also will need to be
registered as broker-dealers. Using an existing broker-dealer--
particularly an ANC broker-dealer that already is capitalized and has
risk management systems and personnel in place--could provide
efficiencies that create incentives to register the same entity as a
nonbank SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ See, e.g., World Economic Outlook: Crisis and Recovery,
International Monetary Fund (``IMF'') (Apr. 2009), available at
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf.
\109\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release,
69 FR 34428.
\110\ The ANC broker-dealers are subject to ongoing Commission
staff supervision, which includes monthly meetings with senior staff
of the ANC broker-dealers. This supervision program provides the
Commission with information about the current practices of the ANC
broker-dealers.
\111\ This expectation is based on information gathered as part
of the ANC broker-dealer supervision program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, ANC broker-dealers
would be required to maintain: (1) Tentative net capital of not less
than $5 billion; and (2) net capital of not less than the greater of $1
billion or the financial ratio amount required pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 15c3-1 plus the 8% margin factor.\112\ FOCUS Report data
indicates that the six current ANC broker-dealers report capital levels
in excess of these proposed increased minimum requirements. While
raising the tentative net capital requirement under Rule 15c3-1 from $1
billion to $5 billion would be a significant increase, the existing
``early warning'' notice requirement for ANC broker-dealers is $5
billion.\113\ This $5 billion ``early warning'' threshold acts as a de
facto minimum tentative net capital requirement since ANC broker-
dealers seek to maintain sufficient levels of tentative net capital to
avoid the necessity of providing this regulatory notice. Accordingly,
the objective in raising the minimum capital requirements for ANC
broker-dealers is not to require the six existing ANC broker-dealers to
increase their current capital levels (as they already maintain
tentative net capital in excess of $5 billion).\114\ Rather, the goal
is to establish new higher minimum requirements designed to ensure that
the ANC broker-dealers continue to maintain high capital levels and
that any new ANC broker-dealer entrants maintain capital levels
commensurate with their peers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule
15c3-1.
\113\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(i).
\114\ The ANC broker-dealers report to the Commission staff, as
part of the ANC broker-dealer supervision program, levels of
tentative net capital that generally are well in excess of $6
billion, which, as discussed below, is the proposed new ``early
warning'' threshold for ANC broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As indicated above, the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would
require an ANC broker-dealer to incorporate the 8% margin factor into
its net capital calculation.\115\ Consequently, an ANC broker-dealer
would be required at all times to maintain tentative net capital of not
less than $5 billion and net capital of not less than the greater of $1
billion or the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of
Rule 15c3-1 and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount for
security-based swaps carried by the ANC broker-dealer.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule
15c3-1. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release,
the 8% margin factor is designed to adjust the firm's minimum net
capital requirement in tandem with the risk associated with the
broker-dealer firm's security-based swap activity.
\116\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule
15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposal, an ANC broker-dealer would be required to
provide early warning notification to the Commission if its tentative
net capital fell below $6 billion.\117\ The purpose of an ``early
warning'' notice requirement is to require a broker-dealer to provide
notice when its level of regulatory capital falls to a level that
approaches its required minimum capital requirement but is sufficiently
above the minimum that the Commission and SROs can increase their
monitoring of the firm before the minimum is breached. The proposed
increase in the minimum tentative net capital requirement to $5 billion
necessitates a corresponding increase in the ``early warning''
threshold to an amount above $5 billion. Existing early warning
thresholds for OTC derivatives dealers include a requirement to provide
notice when the firm's tentative net capital falls below an amount that
is 120% of the firm's required minimum tentative net capital
amount.\118\ The proposed new ``early warning'' threshold for ANC
broker-dealers of $6 billion in tentative net capital is modeled on
this requirement and is equal in percentage terms (120%) to the amount
that the early warning level exceeds the minimum tentative net capital

[[Page 70229]]

requirement for OTC derivatives dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule
15c3-1. As noted above, the ANC broker-dealers report to the
Commission staff tentative net capital levels that generally are
well in excess of $6 billion.
\118\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-11(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rules applicable to ANC broker-dealers provide that the
Commission may impose additional conditions on an ANC broker-dealer
under certain circumstances.\119\ In particular, paragraph (e) of
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 establishes a non-exclusive list of
circumstances under which the Commission may restrict the business of
an ANC broker-dealer, including when the firm's tentative net capital
falls below the early warning threshold.\120\ In this event, the
Commission--if it finds it is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors--may impose additional
conditions on the firm, including requiring the firm to submit to the
Commission a plan to increase its tentative net capital (to an amount
above the early warning level).\121\ Additional restrictions could
include restricting the ANC broker-dealer's business on a product-
specific, category-specific, or general basis; requiring the firm to
file more frequent reports with the Commission; modifying the firm's
internal risk management controls or procedures; requiring the firm to
compute deductions for market and credit risk using standardized
haircuts; or imposing any other additional conditions, if the
Commission finds that imposition of other conditions is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\119\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(e)(1).
\120\ Id.
\121\ Id. See also Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR 34428.
\122\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed minimum
capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers. Commenters are referred to
the general questions above in section II.A.2.a.i. of this release
about the 8% margin factor as applied broadly to nonbank SBSDs. In
addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in
support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Is the proposed increased minimum net capital requirement from
$500 million to $1 billion for ANC broker-dealers appropriate? If not,
explain why not. What minimum amount would be preferable? For example,
should the minimum fixed-dollar amount be greater than $1 billion to
account for the large size of these firms and the scale of their
custodial activities? If so, explain why. If it should be a greater
amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $1.5 billion, $2 billion,
$3 billion, or some other amount)? Alternatively, should the minimum
fixed-dollar amount be less than $1 billion? If so, explain why. If it
should be a lower amount, how much lower (e.g., $950 million, $900
million, $850 million, $800 million, $750 million, or some other
amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended,
explain why it would be preferable.
2. Is the proposed increase in the minimum tentative net capital
level for ANC broker-dealers appropriate? If not, explain why not. For
example, should the minimum tentative net capital amount be greater
than $5 billion to account for the use of internal models and the large
size of these firms and the scale of their custodial activities? If it
should be a greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $6
billion, $8 billion, $10 billion, or some other amount)? Should it be
lesser amount (e.g., $4 billion, $3 billion, $2 billion or some other
amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is recommended,
explain why it would be preferable.
3. Is the proposed increase in the early warning threshold from $5
billion to $6 billion for ANC broker-dealers appropriate? If not,
explain why not. For example, should the minimum tentative net capital
amount be greater than $6 billion, given that the current early warning
threshold ($5 billion) is five times the current tentative net capital
requirement ($1 billion)? If the early warning level should be a
greater amount, how much greater should it be (e.g., $8 billion, $10
billion, $12 billion, $20 billion, $25 billion, or some other amount)?
Should it be lesser amount (e.g., $5.8 billion, 5.5 billion, or some
other amount)? If a greater or lesser alternative amount is
recommended, explain why it would be preferable.
4. Is it appropriate to require broker-dealer SBSDs to become ANC
broker-dealers in order to use internal models? For example, would it
be appropriate to permit broker-dealer SBSDs to use internal models but
subject them to lesser minimum capital requirements than the ANC
broker-dealers? If so, explain why. In addition, provide suggested
alternative minimum capital requirements.
5. Is combining the 8% margin factor requirement with the
applicable Rule 15c3-1 financial ratio requirement an appropriate way
to determine a minimum net capital requirement for ANC broker-dealers?
If not, explain why not.
6. Would the 8% margin factor provide an appropriate and workable
restraint on the amount of leverage incurred by ANC broker-dealers? If
not, explain why not. Is there another measure that would more
accurately and effectively address the leverage risk of these firms? If
so, identify the measure and explain why it would be more accurate and
effective.
Additional Request for Comment on VaR-Based Capital Charges
On June 7, 2012, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve
(collectively, the ``Banking Agencies'') approved a joint final rule
(``Final Rule'') regarding market risk capital rules.\123\ Certain
portions of the Final Rule relate to the use of financial models for
regulatory capital purposes. Generally, the Banking Agencies stated
that the Final Rule is designed to ``better capture positions for which
the market risk capital rules are appropriate; to reduce
procyclicality; enhance the rules' sensitivity to risks that are not
adequately captured under current methodologies; and increase
transparency through enhanced disclosures.'' The effective date for the
Final Rule is January 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ Risk Based Capital Guidelines: Market Risk, Federal
Reserve, FDIC, OCC, 77 FR 53059 (Aug. 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Final Rule, the capital charge for market risk is the sum
of: (1) Its VaR-based capital requirement; (2) its stressed VaR-based
capital requirement; (3) any specific risk add-ons; (4) any incremental
risk capital requirement; (5) any comprehensive risk capital
requirement; and (6) any capital requirement for de minimis exposures.
Generally, the qualitative and quantitative requirements for the
Banking Agencies' VaR-based capital requirement are similar to the VaR-
based capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers, OTC derivatives
dealers, and, as proposed, for nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal
models.
The Banking Agencies' stressed VaR-based capital requirement is a
new requirement that banks calculate a VaR measure with model inputs
calibrated to reflect historical data from a continuous 12-month period
that reflects a period of significant financial stress appropriate to
the bank's current portfolio. The stressed VaR requirement is designed
to address concerns that the Banking Agencies' existing VaR-based
measure, due to inherent limitations, proved inadequate in producing
capital requirements appropriate to the level of losses incurred at
many banks during the financial crisis and to mitigate

[[Page 70230]]

procyclicality in the existing market risk capital requirement for
banks.
The Final Rule also specifies modeling standards for specific risk
and eliminates the current option for a bank to model some but not all
material aspects of specific risk for an individual portfolio of debt
or equity positions. To address concerns about the ability to model
specific risk of securitization products, the Final Rule would require
a bank to calculate an additional capital charge ``add-on'' for certain
securitization positions that are not correlation trading positions.
Further, under the Final Rule, a bank that measures the specific
risk of a portfolio of debt positions using internal models is required
to calculate an incremental risk measure for those positions using an
internal model (an incremental risk model). Generally, incremental risk
consists of the risk of default and credit migration risk of a
position. Under the Final Rule, an internal model used to calculate
capital charges for incremental risk must measure incremental risk over
a one-year time horizon and at a one-tail, 99.9% confidence level,
either under the assumption of a constant level of risk, or under the
assumption of constant positions.
A bank may measure all material price risk of one or more
portfolios of correlation trading positions using a comprehensive risk
model. Among the requirements for using a comprehensive risk model is
that the model measure comprehensive risk consistent with a one-year
time horizon and at a one-tail, 99.9% confidence level, under the
assumption of either a constant level of risk or constant positions.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the Final Rule adopted by
the Banking Agencies for calculating market risk capital requirements
should be required for ANC broker-dealers, OTC derivatives dealers, and
nonbank SBSDs that have approval to use internal models for regulatory
capital purposes, and, if so, which aspects of the proposed rules of
the Banking Agencies would be appropriate in this context.
b. Computing Net Capital
i. The Net Liquid Assets Test
The net liquid assets test embodied in Rule 15c3-1 is being
proposed as the regulatory capital standard for all nonbank SBSDs
(i.e., stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs) because these firms,
as previously noted, are expected to engage in a securities business
with respect to security-based swaps that is similar to the dealer
activities of broker-dealers and because some broker-dealers likely
will be registered as nonbank SBSDs. In addition, Rule 15c3-1 currently
contains provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by
broker-dealers.\124\ Furthermore, Rule 15c3-1 has been the capital
standard for broker-dealers since 1975 and, generally, it has promoted
the maintenance of prudent levels of capital. As discussed in section
II.A.1. of this release, the net liquid assets test is designed to
promote liquidity; the rule allows a broker-dealer to engage in
activities that are part of conducting a securities business (e.g.,
taking securities into inventory) but in a manner that places the firm
in the position of holding at all times more than one dollar of highly
liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities (e.g.,
money owed to customers, counterparties, and creditors). Consequently,
under the proposed rules, this standard--the net liquid assets test--
would be applied to all categories of nonbank SBSDs. The objective is
to require the nonbank SBSD to maintain sufficient liquidity so that if
it fails financially it can meet all unsubordinated obligations to
customers and counterparties and have adequate resources to wind-down
in an orderly manner without the need for a formal proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The net liquid assets test is imposed through the mechanics of how
a broker-dealer is required to compute net capital pursuant to Rule
15c3-1. These requirements are set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule
15c3-1, which defines the term ``net capital.'' \125\ The first step is
to compute the broker-dealer's net worth under GAAP.\126\ Next, the
broker-dealer must make certain adjustments to its net worth to
calculate net capital.\127\ These adjustments are designed to leave the
firm in a position where each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities is
matched by more than a dollar of highly liquid assets.\128\ There are
thirteen categories of net worth adjustments required by the rule.\129\
The most significant adjustments are briefly discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2).
\126\ See id. See also, e.g., Computation of Net Capital on
FOCUS Report Part II, available at https://sec.gov/about/forms/formx-17a-5_2.pdf. Net worth is to be computed in accordance with GAAP.
See Interpretation Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)/01 by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@rules/documents/interpretationsfor/p037763.pdf.
\127\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2).
\128\ See, e.g., Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and
Dealers, 54 FR at 315 (``The [net capital] rule's design is that
broker-dealers maintain liquid assets in sufficient amounts to
enable them to satisfy promptly their liabilities. The rule
accomplishes this by requiring broker-dealers to maintain liquid
assets in excess of their liabilities to protect against potential
market and credit risks.'') (footnote omitted).
\129\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(i)-(xiii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first adjustment permits the broker-dealer to add back to net
worth liabilities that are subordinated to all other creditors pursuant
to a loan agreement that meets requirements set forth in Appendix D to
the net capital rule.\130\ Appendix D prescribes a number of
requirements for a loan to qualify for the ``add-back'' treatment.\131\
For example, the loan agreement must provide that the broker-dealer
cannot re-pay the loan at term if doing so would reduce its net capital
to certain levels above the minimum requirement.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(ii); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d.
\131\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(b).
\132\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(b)(8). The restriction on
repayment, if triggered, makes the subordinated loan take on the
characteristics of permanent capital in that the loan cannot be
repaid until such time as the conditions preventing repayment no
longer exist. Other requirements for the subordinated loan include
that the agreement shall: (1) Have a term of at least one year; (2)
effectively subordinate any right of the lender to receive any
payment (a defined term) with respect thereto, together with accrued
interest or compensation, to the prior payment or provision for
payment in full of all claims of all present and future creditors of
the broker-dealer arising out of any matter occurring prior to the
date on which the related payment obligation (a defined term)
matures; and (3) provide that the cash proceeds thereof shall be
used and dealt with by the broker-dealer as part of its capital and
shall be subject to the risks of the broker-dealer's business. 17
CFR 240.15c3-1d(b)(1), (3), and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second adjustment to net worth is that the broker-dealer must
add unrealized gains and deduct unrealized losses in the firm's
accounts, mark-to-market all long and short positions in listed
options, securities, and commodities as well as add back certain
deferred tax liabilities.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third adjustment is that the broker-dealer must deduct from net
worth any asset that is not readily convertible into cash.\134\ This
means the broker-dealer must deduct the following types of assets
(among others): real estate; furniture and fixtures; exchange
memberships; prepaid rent, insurance and other expenses; goodwill; and
most unsecured receivables.\135\ An additional adjustment is that the
broker-dealer must deduct 100% of the carrying value of securities for
which there is no ``ready market'' or which cannot be publicly offered
or sold because of statutory, regulatory, or contractual arrangements
or other restrictions.\136\

[[Page 70231]]

After making these and other adjustments and taking charges required
under Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1,\137\ the broker-dealer is left with an
amount of adjusted net worth that is defined in the rule as ``tentative
net capital.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\134\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv).
\135\ Id.
\136\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vii). Rule 15c3-1 defines
ready market to include a recognized established securities market
in which there exists independent bona fide offers to buy and sell
so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or
current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be
determined for a particular security almost instantaneously and
where payment will be received in settlement of a sale at such price
within a relatively short time conforming to trade custom. See 17
CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(11). The rule also provides that a ready market
will be deemed to exist where the securities have been accepted as
collateral for a loan by a bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the
Exchange Act and where the broker-dealer demonstrates to its
designated examining authority that such securities adequately
secure such loans. Id. The rule further provides that indebtedness
will be deemed to be adequately secured when the excess of the
market value of the collateral over the amount of the indebtedness
is sufficient to make the loan acceptable as a fully secured loan to
banks regularly making secured loans to broker-dealers. See 17 CFR
240.15c3-1(c)(5).
\137\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b.
\138\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(15). Tentative net capital--net
worth after the adjustments--is the amount by which highly liquid
assets plus subordinated debt of the broker-dealer exceeds total
liabilities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(15). Hence, the adjustments to
net worth required by Rule 15c3-1 impose the net liquid assets test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in more detail below, the final step in the process of
computing net capital is to take deductions from tentative net capital
to account for the market risk inherent in the proprietary positions of
the broker-dealer and to create a buffer of extra liquidity to protect
against other risks associated with the securities business.\139\ Most
broker-dealers use the standardized haircuts prescribed in Rule 15c3-1
to determine the amount of the deductions they must take from tentative
net capital. ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers may use
internal VaR models to determine the amount of the deductions for
positions for which they have been approved to use VaR models.\140\ For
all other types of positions, they must use standardized haircuts. The
standardized haircuts prescribe deductions in amounts that are based on
the type of security or money market instrument and, in the case of
certain debt instruments, the time-to-maturity of the bond.\141\ Under
the VaR model approach, the amount of the deductions is based on an
estimate of the maximum potential loss the portfolio of securities
would be expected to incur over a fixed time period at a certain
probability level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ See, e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, 42 FR 31778
(``[Haircuts] are intended to enable net capital computations to
reflect the market risk inherent in the positioning of the
particular types of securities enumerated in [the rule]''); Net
Capital Rule, 50 FR 42961 (``These percentage deductions, or
`haircuts', take into account elements of market and credit risk
that the broker-dealer is exposed to when holding a particular
position.''); Net Capital Rule, 62 FR 67996 (``Reducing the value of
securities owned by broker-dealers for net capital purposes provides
a capital cushion against adverse market movements and other risks
faced by the firms, including liquidity and operational risks.'')
(footnote omitted).
\140\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f.
\141\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to comply with the proposed net liquid assets test capital
standard for nonbank SBSDs, broker-dealer SBSDs would be required to
comply with the existing provisions of Rule 15c3-1 and proposed
amendments to the rule designed to account for security-based swap
activities. Consequently, a broker-dealer SBSD would compute its net
capital pursuant to the provisions described above. Stand-alone SBSDs
would be subject to the net liquid assets test capital standard through
application of proposed new Rule 18a-1.\142\ The mechanics of computing
net capital in Rule 18a-1 would be the same as the existing mechanics
for computing net capital in Rule 15c3-1.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\143\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2), with paragraph (c)(1) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Standardized Haircuts for Security-Based Swaps
As discussed above, Rule 15c3-1 provides two alternative approaches
for taking the deductions to tentative net capital to compute net
capital: standardized haircuts and internal VaR models.\144\ ANC
broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to use
internal VaR models to take deductions for types of positions for which
they have been approved to use the models. For all other types of
positions, they must use the standardized haircuts. Broker-dealers that
are not ANC broker-dealers or OTC derivatives dealers must use the
standardized haircuts for all positions. The same approach is being
proposed for nonbank SBSDs.\145\ Under this proposal, a nonbank SBSD
would be required to apply standardized haircuts to its proprietary
positions unless the Commission approves the firm to use internal
models for those positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5), (a)(7), and (c)(2)(vi). See
also 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f.
\145\ See section II.A.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank SBSDs would be required to apply the standardized haircuts
currently set forth in Rule 15c3-1 for securities positions for which
they have not been approved to use internal models.\146\ The
standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3-1 prescribe differing deduction
amounts for a variety of classes of securities, including, for example:
securities guaranteed as to principal or interest by the government of
the United States (``U.S. government securities''); \147\ certain
municipal securities; \148\ Canadian debt obligations; \149\ certain
types of mutual funds; \150\ certain types of commercial paper, bankers
acceptances, and certificates of deposit; \151\ certain nonconvertible
debt securities; \152\ certain convertible debt securities; \153\

[[Page 70232]]

certain cumulative, nonconvertible preferred stock; \154\ and certain
options.\155\ The rule also contains catchall provisions to account for
securities that are not included in these specific classes of
securities.\156\ Generally, the catchall provisions impose higher
deductions than the deductions in the specifically identified classes
of securities.\157\ Further, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i.
of this release, if a security does not have a ``ready market,'' it is
subject to the 100% deduction from net worth.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1. As proposed, paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1 would incorporate by reference the
standardized haircuts in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-1 rather
than repeat them in the rule text.
\147\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A).
\148\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(B). To qualify for the
deductions under this paragraph, the municipal security cannot be
traded flat or in default as to principal or interest (a bond is
traded flat if it is sold or traded without accrued interest). Id. A
municipal security that does not meet this condition would be
subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions
discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the
100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready
market discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See
17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K).
\149\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(C).
\150\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(D).
\151\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(E). To qualify for the
deductions under this paragraph, the instrument must have a fixed
rate of interest or be sold at a discount and be rated in one of the
three highest categories by at least two nationally recognized
statistical rating organizations (``NRSROs''). Id. If the instrument
does not meet these conditions, it is subject to the deductions
prescribed in the catchall provisions discussed below in the
paragraph accompanying this footnote or the 100% deduction to net
worth for securities that do not have a ready market discussed above
in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). Pursuant to section
939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed substituting
the NRSRO-rating requirement in this provision and other provisions
of Rule 15c3-1 with a different standard of creditworthiness. See
Public Law 111-203 Sec. 939A and Removal of Certain References to
Credit Ratings Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange
Act Release No. 64352 (Apr. 27, 2011), 76 FR 26550 (May 6, 2011)
(``Reference Removal Release'').
\152\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F). To qualify for the
deductions under this paragraph, a nonconvertible debt security must
have a fixed interest rate and a fixed maturity date, not be traded
flat or in default as to principal or interest, and be rated in one
of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs. Id. If
the nonconvertible debt security does not meet these conditions it
is subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions
discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the
100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready
market discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release. See
17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K).
Pursuant to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has
proposed substituting the NRSRO-rating requirement in this provision
with a different standard of creditworthiness. See Public Law 111-
203 Sec. 939A; Reference Removal Release, 76 FR 26550.
\153\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(G).
\154\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(H). To qualify for the
deductions under this paragraph, a nonconvertible preferred stock
must rank prior to all other classes of stock of the same issuer, be
rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two
NRSROs, and not be in arrears as to dividends. Id. If the
nonconvertible preferred stock does not meet these conditions, it is
subject to the deductions prescribed in the catchall provisions
discussed below in the paragraph accompanying this footnote or the
100% deduction to net worth for securities that do not have a ready
market discussed above. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv),
(c)(2)(vi)(J), and (c)(2)(vi)(K). Pursuant to section 939A of the
Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed substituting the NRSRO-
rating requirement in this provision with a different standard of
creditworthiness. See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 939A; Reference
Removal Release, 76 FR 26550.
\155\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a.
\156\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J)-(K).
\157\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A)-(H), with 17 CFR
240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J)-(K).
\158\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security-based swaps currently are not an identified class of
securities in Rule 15c3-1.\159\ The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1
and proposed new Rule 18a-1 would establish standardized deductions for
security-based swaps that would apply to broker-dealers registered as
nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs (in
the case of Rule 15c3-1), and to stand-alone SBSDs (in the case of Rule
18a-1).\160\ Some broker-dealers may engage in a de minimis amount of
security-based swap activity, which would allow them to take advantage
of an exemption from the definition of ``security-based swap dealer''
and not require them to register as SBSDs.\161\ Rule 15c3-1 currently
requires broker-dealers to take haircuts on their proprietary security-
based swap positions as they must for all proprietary positions.
Because there are no specific standardized haircuts for security-based
swaps, a broker-dealer currently is required to apply a deduction based
on the existing provisions (e.g., the catchall provisions). For certain
types of OTC derivatives, the deduction is the notional amount of the
derivative multiplied by the deduction that would apply to the
underlying instrument referenced by the derivative.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
\160\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\161\ See section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(71)) (defining the term security-based swap dealer); Entity
Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596; Registration of Security-
Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants,
Exchange Act Release No. 65543 (Oct. 12, 2011), 76 FR 65784 (Oct.
24, 2011) (``SBSD Registration Proposing Release'').
\162\ See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 32256 (May
6, 1993), 58 FR 27486, 27490 (May 10, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposals would establish two separate sets of standardized
haircuts for security-based swaps: one applicable to security-based
swaps that are credit default swaps and one applicable to other
security-based swaps.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\163\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credit Default Swaps
The proposed standardized haircuts for cleared and uncleared
security-based swaps that are credit default swaps (``CDS security-
based swaps'') are designed to account for the unique attributes of
these positions.\164\ A CDS security-based swap is an instrument in
which the ``protection buyer'' makes a series of payments to the
``protection seller'' and, in return, the ``protection seller'' is
obligated to make a payment to the ``protection buyer'' if a credit
event occurs with respect to one or more entities referenced in the
contract or with respect to certain types of obligations of the entity
or entities referenced in the contract.\165\ The credit events that can
trigger a payment obligation of the protection seller on a CDS
security-based swap referencing a corporate entity typically include
the bankruptcy of the entity or entities referenced in the contract and
the non-payment of interest and/or principal on one or more of
specified type(s) of obligations issued by the entity or entities
referenced in the contract.\166\ In the case of a CDS security-based
swap that references an asset-backed security, the credit events may
include a principal write-down, a failure to pay interest, and an
interest shortfall.\167\ CDS security-based swaps referencing both
asset-backed securities and corporate entities can include other
standardized and customized credit events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ See section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(68)) (defining the term security-based swap) and Product
Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207 (Joint Commission and CFTC
release adopting interpretative guidance and rules to, among other
things, further define the types of credit default swaps that would
meet the definition of security-based swap).
\165\ See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207. See
also The Credit Default Swap Market--Report, IOSCO FR05/12 (June
2012) available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD385.pdf.
\166\ See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48267.
\167\ Id. at 48267, note 682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the entity or asset-backed security to which they
reference, CDS security-based swaps are defined by the amount of
protection purchased (the notional amount) and the tenor of the
contract (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10 years). For example, a protection
buyer can enter into a credit default swap referencing XYZ Company with
a notional amount of $10 million and a tenor of five years. If XYZ
Company suffers a credit event (as defined in the contract) during the
five-year period before the contract expires, the protection seller
must pay the protection buyer $10 million less the then-current market
value of $10 million of obligations issued or guaranteed by XYZ
Company.\168\ To receive this protection, the protection buyer must pay
the protection seller periodic (typically quarterly) payments over the
five-year term of the contract and possibly an additional upfront
amount. The cumulative amount of annual payments can be expressed as a
``spread'' in basis points.\169\ The spread at which a CDS security-
based swap trades is based on the market's estimation of the risk that
XYZ Company will suffer a credit event (as defined in the contract)
that triggers the credit seller's payment obligation as

[[Page 70233]]

well as the market's assessment of the size of that payment. The
greater the estimated risk that a credit event will occur (or the
greater the expected payment contingent upon a credit event occurring),
the higher the spread (i.e., the cost of buying the protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\168\ While most CDS security-based swaps currently use a
standardized ``Auction Settlement'' mechanism to determine the
amount of payment due from a protection seller to the protection
buyer after the occurrence of a credit event, in some contracts the
protection buyer is required to deliver obligations issued or
guaranteed by the entity referenced in the contract to the
protection seller. The protection seller can use the value of those
obligations to offset the payment to the protection buyer.
\169\ Most CDS security-based swaps currently trade with
contractually standardized fixed rates (100 basis points or 500
basis points for standard North American corporate CDS security-
based swaps). Buyers and sellers of protection agree on upfront
payments to adjust the value of the contract from the contractual
fixed rate to the rate which reflects the credit risks perceived by
the market. For example, if the market spread for a one-year CDS
security-based swap on XYZ Company is 200 basis points per annum and
the notional amount is $10 million, a CDS security-based swap with a
standardized 100-basis points fixed rate would have quarterly
payments of $25,000 (for $100,000 in annual payments) and an upfront
payment of approximately $100,000. See https://www.cdsmodel.com/cdsmodel/ for documentation on the standard model to convert an
upfront payment on a CDS security-based swap to a spread (or vice-
versa) and https://www.theice.com/cds/Calculator.shtml for an
implementation of the standard model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed standardized haircuts for CDS security-based swaps
would be based on a ``maturity grid'' approach.\170\ Rule 15c3-1
currently uses maturity grids to prescribe standardized haircuts for
various classes of debt instruments.\171\ The grids impose a sliding
scale of haircuts with the largest deductions applying to bonds with
the longest period of time-to-maturity.\172\ The grids also permit
broker-dealers to completely or partially net long and short positions
in these classes of debt instruments when the maturities of long and
short positions are in the same category, subcategory, or, in some
cases, between certain adjacent categories.\173\ The permitted netting
allows the broker-dealer to reduce its required deductions.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\170\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\171\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A), (B), (C), (E), and
(G). See also FINRA Rule 4240 (which prescribes margin requirements
for CDS security-based swaps and includes a maturity-grid approach),
available in the FINRA Manual at https://www.finra.org; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Implement an Interim
Pilot Program with Respect to Margin Requirements for Certain
Transactions in Credit Default Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 59955
(May 22, 2009), 74 FR 25586 (May 28, 2009) (File No. SR-FINRA 2009-
012); Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240
(Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release
No. 66528 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR-FINRA-2012-014) (extending
interim pilot program until July 17, 2012); Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the
Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit
Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No. 67449 (July 17, 2012)
(extending interim pilot program until July 17, 2013).
\172\ Id. For example, the grid for certain nonconvertible debt
securities has nine maturity categories (this class of debt
instrument includes corporate debt and asset-backed securities). See
17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1). Each category prescribes a
different deduction and the amounts of the deductions increase as
the maturity increases. Id. The following table shows the maturity
categories and corresponding deductions for these securities:
Time to Maturity and Deduction
Less than 1 year--2.0%
1 year but less than 2 years--3.0%
2 years but less than 3 years--5.0%
3 years but less than 5 years--6.0%
5 years but less than 10 years--7.0%
10 years but less than 15 years--7.5%
15 years but less than 20 years--8.0%
20 years but less than 25 years--8.5%
25 years or more--9%
\173\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A), (B), (C), (E), and
(G).
\174\ Netting would be permitted under the proposed rule for
cleared and non-cleared CDS because the CDS will have the same
underlying reference obligation and similar time to maturity and
spread factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed grid for CDS security-based swaps would prescribe the
applicable deduction based on two variables: the length of time to
maturity of the CDS security-based swap contract and the amount of the
current offered basis point spread on the CDS security-based swap.\175\
As discussed above, the maturity grids for debt instruments in Rule
15c3-1 require increased capital charges as maturity increases.
Similarly, the vertical axis of the proposed grid for CDS security-
based swaps (presented in the first column of the grid) would contain
nine maturity categories ranging from 12 months or less (the smallest
deduction) to 121 months and longer (the largest deduction).\176\ The
horizontal axis in the proposed maturity grid (presented in the top row
of the grid) would contain six spread categories ranging from 100 basis
points or less (the smallest deduction) to 700 basis points and above
(the largest deduction).\177\ Similar to the current ``haircut'' grids
under Rule 15c3-1, the proposed grid for CDS security-based swaps is
designed to be risk sensitive by specifying a range of maturity and
spread buckets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\175\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of Rule
15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. The
current offered spread would be the spread on the CDS security-based
swap offered by the market at the time of the net capital
computation and not the spread specified under the terms of the
contract.
\176\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of Rule
15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of maturity and spread categories in the proposed grid
for CDS security-based swaps is based on Commission staff experience
with the maturity grids for other securities in Rule 15c3-1 and, in
part, on FINRA Rule 4240.\178\ While FINRA Rule 4240 is one reference
point, the maturity grid it specifies does not appear to have been
widely used by market participants, in part because a significant
amount of business in the current CDS security-based swap market is
conducted by entities that are not members of FINRA.\179\ Accordingly,
the proposed grid draws largely on Commission staff experience and
reasoned judgments about the appropriate specifications, and, as
detailed below, the Commission requests comment and empirical data as
to whether these specifications or others appropriately reflect the
unique attributes of CDS security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\178\ See Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin
Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No.
66527 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR-FINRA-2012-015) (in which FINRA
amended the maturity grid in Rule 4240 in the interest of regulatory
clarity and efficiency, and based upon FINRA's experience in the
administration of the rule).
\179\ Broker-dealers historically have not participated in a
significant way in security-based swap trading, in part, because the
Exchange Act has not previously defined security-based swaps as
``securities'' and, therefore, they have not been required to be
traded through registered broker-dealers. Existing broker-dealer
capital requirements, however, make it relatively costly to conduct
these activities in broker-dealers, as discussed in section II.A.2.
of this release. As a result, security-based swap activities,
including CDS transactions, currently are generally concentrated in
entities that are affiliated with the parent companies of broker-
dealers, but not in broker-dealers themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The horizontal ``spread'' axis is designed to address the specific
credit risk associated with the obligor or obligation referenced in the
contract. As noted above, the spread increases as the protection
seller's estimation of the likelihood of a credit event occurring
increases. Therefore, the net capital deduction--which is designed to
address the risk inherent in the instrument--should increase as the
spread increases. Combining the two components (maturity and spread) in
the grid results in the smallest deduction (1% of notional) required
for a short CDS security-based swap with a maturity of 12 months or
less and a spread of 100 basis points or below and the largest
deduction (50% of notional) required for a short CDS security-based
swap with a maturity of 121 months or longer and a spread of 700 basis
points or more. The deduction for an un-hedged short position in a CDS
security-based swap (i.e., when the nonbank SBSD is the seller of
protection) would be the applicable percentage specified in the grid.
The deduction for an un-hedged long position in a CDS security-based
swap (i.e., when the nonbank SBSD is the buyer of protection) would be
50% of the applicable deduction in the grid.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\180\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(ii) of Rule
15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. The
approach of taking 100% of the applicable deduction for short
positions in CDS security-based swaps and 50% for long positions in
CDS security-based swaps is consistent with FINRA Rule 4240 and is
designed to account for the greater risk inherent in short CDS
security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed deduction requirements for CDS security-based swaps
would permit a nonbank SBSD to net long and short positions where the
credit default swaps reference the same entity (in the case of CDS
securities-based swaps referencing a corporate entity) or

[[Page 70234]]

obligation (in the case of CDS securities-based swaps referencing an
asset-backed security), reference the same credit events that would
trigger payment by the seller of protection, reference the same basket
of obligations that would determine the amount of payment by the seller
of protection upon the occurrence of a credit event, and are in the
same or adjacent maturity and spread categories (as long as the long
and short positions each have maturities within three months of the
other maturity category).\181\ In this case, the nonbank SBSD would
need to take the specified percentage deduction only on the notional
amount of the excess long or short position.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\181\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of
Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1.
\182\ Id. For example, assume the nonbank SBSD is short
protection on $10 million in notional CDS security-based swaps on
XYZ Company with a 4.25-year (51-month) maturity that trades at a
290 basis point spread and long protection on $8 million in notional
CDS security-based swaps on XYZ Company with a 5.25-year (63-month)
maturity that trades at a 310 basis point spread. Rather than take
the deductions on the short protection $10 million position and the
long protection $8 million position individually, the nonbank SBSD
would take a deduction on the excess short position of $2 million
($10 million short protection position minus the $8 million long
protection position) of 5-year maturity CDS security-based swaps
trading at a 290 basis point spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reduced deduction also could be taken for long and short CDS
security-based swap positions in the same maturity and spread
categories and that reference corporate entities in the same industry
sector.\183\ In this case, the market risk of the offsetting positions
is mitigated to the extent that macroeconomic factors similarly impact
companies in a particular industry sector, because corporate entities
in the same industry sector would likely be similarly impacted by
market events affecting that specific industry. The proposed rule would
not identify a specific source for determining industry sector
classifications in order to provide firms flexibility and to avoid
requiring firms to rely on a specific commercial entity to comply with
the rule. Instead, a nonbank SBSD would need to use an industry sector
classification system that is reasonable in terms of grouping types of
companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics,
and document the industry sector classification system used for the
purposes of the rule.\184\ A nonbank SBSD could use a third-party's
classification system or develop its own classification system, subject
to these limitations. The nonbank SBSD would need to be able to
demonstrate the reasonableness of the system it uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ Id.
\184\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of
Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1. An example of an industry sector classification system is:
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, energy, financials, health
care, industrials, information technology, materials,
telecommunication services, and utilities. See the Global Industry
Classification Standard developed by MSCI and Standard & Poor's,
available at https://www.msci.com/resources/pdfs/MK-GICS-DIR-3-02.pdf. Another example of an industry sector classification system
is: basic materials, cyclical consumer, energy, financials,
healthcare, industrials, non-cyclical consumer, technology,
telecommunications, and utilities. See Thompson Reuters' business
classifications, available at https://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/financial/thomson_reuters_indices/trbc/sectors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduced deductions also would apply for strategies where the firm
is long (short) a bond or asset-backed security and long (short)
protection through a CDS security-based swap referencing the same
underlying bond or asset-backed security. In the case where the nonbank
SBSD is long a bond or an asset-backed security and long protection
through a credit default swap, the nonbank SBSD would be required to
take 50% of the deduction required on the bond (i.e., no deduction
would be required with respect to the CDS security-based swap and a
lesser deduction would apply to the bond than would be the case if it
were not paired with a CDS security-based swap).\185\ In other words,
the deduction the nonbank SBSD would take if it held the bond in
isolation would be reduced by one-half to account for the protection
provided by the CDS security-based swap referencing the bond. This
reduced deduction for the long bond position reflects the risk-reducing
effects of the protection provided by the long CDS security-based swap
position. If the nonbank SBSD is short a bond or asset-backed security
and short protection through a credit default swap, the nonbank SBSD
would be required to take the deduction required on the bond or asset-
backed security (i.e., no deduction would be required with respect to
the CDS security-based swap).\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\185\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(B) of
Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\186\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(C) of
Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Credit Default Swaps
Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps (each, a
``non-CDS security-based swap'') can be divided into two broad
categories: those that reference equity securities and those that
reference debt instruments.\187\ Total return swaps are an example of a
non-CDS security-based swap. A total return swap is an instrument that
requires one of the counterparties (the seller) to make a payment to
the other counterparty (the buyer) that is based on the price
appreciation of, and income from, the underlying security referenced by
the security-based swap.\188\ The buyer in return makes a payment that
is based on a variable interest rate plus any depreciation of the
underlying security referenced by the security-based swap.\189\ The
``total return'' consists of the price appreciation or depreciation
plus any interest or income.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\187\ See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48207.
\188\ See id. at 48264.
\189\ Id.
\190\ Id. The total return swap is designed to put the buyer in
the position of having exposure to the reference security without
actually owning it. Thus, the seller pays the buyer appreciation
(i.e., gains) and any interest or income on the security and the
buyer pays the seller any depreciation (i.e., loss) on the reference
security plus a variable interest rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed standardized haircut for a non-CDS security-based swap
would be the deduction currently prescribed in Rule 15c3-1 applicable
to the instrument referenced by the security-based swap multiplied by
the contract's notional amount.\191\ For example, the standardized
haircut for an exchange traded equity security typically is 15%.\192\
Consequently, under the proposal, the standardized haircut for a non-
CDS security-based swap referencing an exchange traded equity security
would be a deduction equal to the notional amount of the security-based
swap multiplied by 15%.\193\ The same approach would apply to a non-CDS
security-based swap referencing a debt instrument. For example, Rule
15c3-1 prescribes a 7% standardized haircut for a corporate bond that
has a maturity of five years and is not traded flat or in default as to
principal or interest and is rated in one of the four highest rating
categories by at least two NRSROs.\194\ Under the proposal, a non-CDS
security-based swap referencing such a bond would require a deduction
equal to the contract's notional amount multiplied by 7%.\195\ Linking
the

[[Page 70235]]

standardized deduction for the non-CDS security-based swap to the
standardized deduction that would apply to the instrument referenced by
the security-based swap is based on the rationale that changes in the
market value of the instrument underlying the security-based swap will
result in corresponding changes to the market value of the security-
based swap. The proposal also is consistent with the treatment of
equity security-based swaps under Rule 15c3-1.\196\ Moreover, the
potential volatility of the changes in the non-CDS security-based swap
is expected to be similar to the potential volatility in the instrument
underlying the security-based swap. For example, as discussed above,
the standardized haircut for an exchange traded equity security is
15%,\197\ whereas the standardized haircut is 7% for a corporate bond
that has a maturity of five years and is not traded flat or in default
as to principal or interest and is rated in one of the four highest
rating categories by at least two NRSROs.\198\ The equity security has
a higher deduction amount because it is expected to have a greater
amount of market risk.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\191\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\192\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J).
\193\ If the notional amount was $5 million, the standardized
haircut would be $750,000 ($5 million x 0.15 = $750,000). The
approach of multiplying the notional amount by the percentage
deduction applicable to the reference security is consistent with
the CFTC's proposed capital charges of equity swaps for nonbank swap
dealers that are not using models and are FCMs. See CFTC Capital
Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27812-27813.
\194\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1)(v).
\195\ If the notional amount was $5 million, the standardized
haircut would be $350,000 ($5 million x 0.07 = $350,000).
\196\ See Net Capital Rule, 58 FR at 27490.
\197\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J).
\198\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1).
\199\ See, e.g., Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No.
39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68011 (Dec. 30, 1997) (``[A] broker-
dealer's haircut for equity securities is equal to 15 percent of the
market value of the greater of the long or short equity position
plus 15 percent of the market value of the lesser position, but only
to the extent this position exceeds 25 percent of the greater
position. In contrast to the uniform haircut for equity securities,
the haircuts for several types of interest rate sensitive
securities, such as government securities, are directly related to
the time remaining until the particular security matures.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The examples above reflect the proposed standardized haircuts for a
single non-CDS security-based swap treated in isolation. It is expected
that nonbank SBSDs will maintain portfolios of multiple non-CDS
security-based swaps with offsetting long and short positions to hedge
their risk. Under the proposed standardized haircuts for non-CDS
security-based swaps, nonbank SBSDs would be able to recognize the
offsets currently permitted under Rule 15c3-1.\200\ In particular, as
discussed below, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat a non-CDS
security-based swap that references an equity security (``equity
security-based swap'') under the provisions of Appendix A to Rule 15c3-
1, which produces a single haircut for portfolios of equity options and
related positions.\201\ Similarly, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to
treat a non-CDS security-based swap that references a debt instrument
(``debt security-based swap'') in the same manner as debt instruments
are treated in the Rule 15c3-1 grids in terms of allowing offsets
between long and short positions where the instruments are in the same
maturity categories, subcategories, and in some cases, adjacent
categories for the purposes of computing haircuts for debt security-
based swaps.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\200\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\201\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\202\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 prescribes a standardized theoretical
pricing model to determine a potential loss for a portfolio of equity
positions involving the same equity security to establish a single
haircut for the group of positions (``Appendix A methodology'').\203\
Proposed amendments to Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 would permit equity
security-based swaps to be included in portfolios of equity positions
for which the Appendix A methodology is used to compute a portfolio
haircut.\204\ Under these proposed amendments, broker-dealer SBSDs and
broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs would be able to
include equity security-based swaps in portfolios of equity positions
for purposes of the Appendix A methodology. In addition, proposed new
Rule 18a-1 would permit stand-alone SBSDs to use the Appendix A
methodology as well.\205\ By permitting equity security-based swaps to
be included in portfolios of related equity positions, broker-dealer
SBSDs and broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs would be able
to employ a more sensitive measure of the risk when computing net
capital than would be the case if the positions were treated in
isolation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\203\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\204\ Specifically, Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 would be amended
to include equity security-based swaps within the definition of the
term ``underlying instrument'' in paragraph (a)(4) of Appendix A.
This would allow these positions to be included in portfolios of
equity positions involving the same equity security for purposes of
the Appendix A methodology. In addition, the proposals would include
security futures on single stocks within the definition of the term
``underlying instrument,'' which would permit these positions to be
included in portfolios of positions involving the same underlying
security for purposes of the Appendix A methodology, subject to a
minimum charge. This proposal is made in response to legislative and
regulatory developments that have occurred since the Appendix A
methodology was adopted in 1997. See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act
Release No. 38248 (Feb. 6, 1997), 62 FR 6474 (Feb. 12, 1997). When
the Appendix A methodology was adopted, security futures trading was
prohibited in the U.S. This prohibition was repealed by the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which established a
framework for the joint regulation of security futures products by
the Commission and the CFTC. Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763
(2000). Because security futures contracts on individual stocks
generally track the price of the underlying stock, and, at
expiration, the price of the security futures contract equals the
price of the underlying stock, the proposed amendments would treat a
security future on an underlying stock as if it were the underlying
stock. Appendix A to Rule 18a-1 similarly would include equity
security-based swaps and security futures products in the definition
of ``underlying instrument.'' See paragraph (a)(4) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1a. See also letter from Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to Timothy H.
Thompson, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), and Grace
B. Vogel, Executive Vice President, Member Regulation, Risk
Oversight and Operational Regulation, FINRA (May 4, 2012) (no-action
letter permitting broker-dealers when calculating net capital using
a theoretical pricing model pursuant to Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 to
group U.S.-listed security futures contracts on individual stocks
with equity options on, and positions in, the same underlying
instrument under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of Appendix A).
\205\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Appendix A methodology (as proposed to be amended), a
nonbank SBSD could group equity security-based swaps, options, security
futures, long securities positions, and short securities positions
involving the same underlying security (e.g., XYZ Company common stock)
and stress the current market price for each position at ten
equidistant points along a range of positive and negative potential
future market movements, using an approved theoretical option pricing
model that satisfies certain conditions specified in the rule.\206\ For
equity security-based swaps, the ten stress points for a portfolio of
related positions would span a range from -15% to +15% (i.e., -15%, -
12%, -9%, -6%, -3%, +3%, +6%, +9%, +12%, +15%).\207\ The gains and
losses of each position (e.g., a security-based swap, option, and a
security future referencing XYZ Company and a long position and short
position in XYZ Company stock) in the portfolio would be allowed to
offset each other to yield a net gain or loss at each stress
point.\208\ The stress point

[[Page 70236]]

that yields the largest potential net loss for the portfolio would be
used to calculate the aggregate haircut for all the positions in the
portfolio.\209\ This method would permit a nonbank SBSD to compute
deductions for a portfolio of equity security-based swaps in a more
risk sensitive manner by accounting for the risk of the entire
portfolio, rather than the risk of each position within the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\206\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a(b)(1); paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
new Rule18a-1a. Presently, there is only one theoretical options
pricing model that has been approved for this purpose.
\207\ This range of price movements () 15% is
consistent with the prescribed 15% haircut for most equity
securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(J).
\208\ For example, at the -6% stress point, XYZ Company stock
long positions would experience a 6% loss, short positions would
experience a 6% gain, and XYZ Company options would experience gains
or losses depending on the features of the options. These gains and
losses are added up resulting in a net gain or loss at that point.
\209\ Because options are part of the portfolio, the greatest
portfolio loss (or gain) would not necessarily occur at the largest
potential market move stress points () 15%. This is
because a portfolio that holds derivative positions that are far out
of the money would potentially realize large gains at the greatest
market move points as these positions come into the money. Thus, the
greatest net loss for a portfolio conceivably could be at any market
move stress point. In addition, the Appendix A methodology imposes a
minimum charge based on the number of options contracts in a
portfolio that applies if the minimum charge is greater than the
largest stress point charge. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a(b)(1)(v)(C)(2);
paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1a. This minimum
charge is designed to address issues such as leverage and liquidity
risk that may exist even if the market risk of the portfolio is very
low as a result of closely-correlated hedging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to portfolios of debt security-based swaps, a nonbank
SBSD could use the offsets permitted in the debt-maturity grids in Rule
15c3-1.\210\ The debt-maturity grids permit the broker-dealer to reduce
the amount of the deductions when long debt security positions are
offset by short debt security positions. For example, as discussed
above, the maturity grid for nonconvertible debt securities has nine
maturity categories.\211\ In each category, the broker-dealer is
required to take the specified deduction on the greater of the long or
short positions in the category.\212\ Consequently, the broker-dealer
need not take a deduction on the gross amount of these positions (i.e.,
the broker-dealer need not take a deduction for the long and short
positions). In addition, the rule permits the broker-dealer to exclude
nonconvertible debt securities from the maturity categories if they are
hedged by other similar nonconvertible debt securities or government
securities or futures on government securities.\213\ The excluded
positions are subject to a separate maturity grid that imposes lower
deductions.\214\ The proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 and proposed
new Rule 18a-1 would permit broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs,
respectively, to treat debt security-based swaps in the same manner as
the debt instruments they reference are treated for the purposes of
determining haircuts. Consequently, nonbank SBSDs could recognize the
offsets and hedges that those provisions permit to reduce the
deductions on portfolios of debt security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\210\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1 (incorporating
by reference the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3-1).
\211\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(1).
\212\ Id.
\213\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(2).
\214\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed
standardized haircuts for calculating deductions for security-based
swaps. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including
empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following
questions:
1. Is the proposed maturity/spread grid approach for CDS security-
based swaps appropriate in terms of addressing the risk of these
positions? If not, explain why not. How could the proposed maturity/
spread grid approach be modified to better address the risk of these
positions?
2. Do broker-dealers currently use the spread/maturity grid in
FINRA Rule 4240 to determine capital charges for credit default swaps?
If so, what has been the experience of broker-dealers in using the
grid? If not, what potential practical issues does the maturity/spread
grid raise? Are there ways these practical issues could be addressed
through modifications to the proposed maturity/spread grid?
3. Is there an alternative maturity/spread grid approach that would
be a preferable model for the standardized haircuts? If so, identify
the model and explain why it would be preferable. For example, should
the standardized haircut for a CDS security-based swap that references
an obligation be based on the standardized haircut that would apply to
the obligation under paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-1? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not. How could a CDS security-based
swap that references an obligor as an entity be addressed under such a
standardized haircut approach? For example, could the standardized
haircut that would apply to obligations (e.g., bonds) issued by the
obligor be used as a proxy for the standardized haircut that would
apply to the CDS security-based swap referencing the obligor? If so,
explain why.
4. Are the proposed spread categories for the CDS security-based
swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should
there be more spread categories? If so, specify the total number of
recommended spread categories and the basis point ranges that should be
in each category, and explain why the recommended modifications would
be preferable. Should there be fewer spread categories? If so, specify
the total number of recommended spread categories and the basis point
ranges that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended
modifications would be preferable.
5. Would there always be an observable current offered basis point
spread for purposes of determining the applicable spread category for a
CDS security-based swap? If it could be the case that a CDS security-
based swap does not have an observable current offered spread, how
should the spread category be determined and how should the rule be
modified to require the use of the determined spread category? For
example, should the rule require that the nonbank SBSD apply the
greatest percentage deduction applicable to the CDS security-based swap
based on its maturity (i.e., the deduction prescribed in ``700 or
more'' basis points spread category) or another deduction amount?
6. Are the proposed maturity categories for the CDS security-based
swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should
there be more maturity categories? If so, specify the total number of
recommended maturity categories and the time ranges that should be in
each category, and explain why the recommended modifications would be
preferable. Should there be fewer maturity categories? If so, specify
the total number of recommended maturity categories and the time ranges
that should be in each category, and explain why the recommended
modifications would be preferable.
7. Are the proposed percentage deductions in the CDS security-based
swap grid appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should the
percentage deductions be greater? If so, specify the greater deductions
and explain why they would be preferable. Should the percentage
deductions be lesser? If so, specify the lesser deductions and explain
why it would be preferable.
8. Is the proposed 50% reduced deduction for long CDS security-
based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should
the amount of the reduced deduction be greater? If so, specify the
amount and explain why it would be preferable. Should the amount of the
reduced deduction be lesser? If so, specify the lesser amount and
explain why it would be preferable.
9. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for
net long and short positions where the CDS security-based swaps
reference the same obligor or obligation and are in the

[[Page 70237]]

same maturity and spread categories appropriate? If not, explain why
not.
10. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for
net long and short positions where the CDS security-based swaps
reference the same obligor or obligation, are in the same spread
category, and are in an adjacent maturity category and have maturities
within three months of the other maturity category appropriate? If not,
explain why not.
11. Is the proposed offset and corresponding reduced deduction for
long and short CDS security-based swap positions in the same maturity
and spread categories and that reference obligors or obligations of
obligors in the same industry sector appropriate? If not, explain why
not.
12. Should the rule specify an industry sector classification
system? If so, specify the recommended industry sector classification
system and explain why it would be useful for the purposes of the
standardized haircuts for CDS security-based swaps.
13. If a nonbank SBSD uses its own industry sector classification
system, what factors would be relevant in evaluating whether the system
is reasonable?
14. Should there be a concentration charge that would apply when
the notional amount of the long and short CDS security-based swap
positions in the same maturity and spread categories and that reference
obligors or obligations of obligors in the same industry sector exceed
a certain threshold to account for the potential that long and short
positions may not directly offset each other? If so, explain why. If
not, explain why not.
15. Is the proposed deduction for a position where a nonbank SBDS
is long a bond and long a CDS security-based swap on the same
underlying obligor appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example,
is the proposed provision that the reduced deduction would apply only
if the CDS security-based swap allowed the nonbank SBSD to deliver the
bond to satisfy the firm's obligation on the swap appropriate? If not,
explain why not. Additionally, is reducing the deduction applicable to
the bond by 50% an appropriate reduction level? Should the reduction be
less than 50% (e.g., 25%) or greater than 50% (e.g., 75%)?
16. Is the proposed reduced deduction for a position where a
nonbank SBDS is short a bond and short a CDS security-based swap on the
same underlying bond appropriate? If not, explain why not.
17. Should the Commission propose separate grids for CDS security-
based swaps that reference a single obligor or obligation and CDS
security-based swaps that reference a narrow based index? If so, how
should the two grids differ?
18. Are the proposed standardized haircuts for non-CDS security-
based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, would
the risk characteristics of non-CDS security-based swaps (e.g., price
volatility) be similar to the instruments they reference? If not,
explain why not.
19. Are there practical issues with treating equity security-based
swaps under the Appendix A methodology? If so, describe them. Are there
modifications that could be made to the Appendix A methodology to
address any practical issues identified? If so, describe the
modifications.
20. Are there provisions in Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 not included
in Appendix A to Rule 18a-1 that should be incorporated into the latter
rule? If so, identify the provisions and explain why they should be
incorporated into Appendix A to Rule 18a-1. For example, should the
strategy-based methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 be applied to
equity security-based swaps? If so, explain why.
21. Are there practical issues with treating debt security-based
swaps under the debt maturity grids in Rule 15c3-1? If so, describe
them. Are there modifications that could be made to address any
practical issues identified? If so, describe the modifications.
iii. VaR Models
The proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs would permit
the use of internal VaR models to compute deductions for proprietary
securities positions, including security-based swap positions, in lieu
of the standardized haircuts. VaR models are used by financial
institutions for internal risk management purposes.\215\ In addition,
VaR models are used to compute market risk charges in international
bank capital standards \216\ and are permitted by the Commission's
rules for ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers.\217\
Furthermore, the prudential regulators and the CFTC have proposed
permitting the use of VaR models in their capital requirements for bank
SBSDs, bank swap dealers, and swap dealers.\218\ The use of VaR models
to calculate market risk charges for security-based swap positions
would be subject to the conditions described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\215\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release,
69 FR 34428 (The option to use VaR models is ``intended to reduce
regulatory costs for broker-dealers by allowing very highly
capitalized firms that have developed robust internal risk
management practices to use those risk management practices, such as
mathematical risk measurement models, for regulatory purposes'');
Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39456 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62
FR 68011 (Dec. 30, 1997) (``Given the increased use and acceptance
of VAR as a risk management tool, the Commission believes that it
warrants consideration as a method of computing net capital
requirements for broker-dealers.'').
\216\ See, e.g., Amendment to the capital accord to incorporate
market risks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Jan. 1996); 12
CFR part 3; 12 CFR parts 208 and 225; 12 CFR part 325.
\217\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f. See also
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428;
OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362.
\218\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broker-dealer SBSDs that are not already ANC broker-dealers would
need to obtain approval to operate as ANC broker-dealers to use
internal VaR models to compute net capital. Stand-alone SBSDs also
would need to obtain Commission approval to use VaR models for this
purpose. The requirements for a broker-dealer to apply for approval to
operate as an ANC broker-dealer are contained in Appendix E to Rule
15c3-1.\219\ Pursuant to these requirements, the applicant must provide
the Commission with various types of information about the
applicant.\220\ A stand-alone SBSD applying for approval to use
internal models to compute net capital would be required to provide
similar information (though a stand-alone SBSD would not be required to
provide certain information relating to its holding company or
affiliates that is required of ANC broker-dealer applicants).\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\219\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e. The application covers both the
use of internal VaR models to compute deductions for proprietary
positions and internal credit risk models to compute charges for
unsecured receivables relating to OTC derivatives. Id. Specifically,
the broker-dealer may apply to the Commission for authorization to
compute deductions pursuant to Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 in lieu of
computing deductions pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(vi) (the
standardized haircuts) and paragraph (c)(2)(vii) (the 100% deduction
for securities with no ready market) of Rule 15c3-1 and to compute
deductions for credit risk pursuant to Appendix E for unsecured
receivables arising from transactions in OTC derivatives in lieu of
computing deductions pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Rule 15c3-1
(the deductions for unsecured receivables). See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1e(a). The use of internal credit risk models is discussed below in
section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release.
\220\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release,
69 FR at 34433.
\221\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. Appendix
E to Rule 15c3-1 requires a broker-dealer applying to become an ANC
broker-dealer to provide information about the broker-dealer's
ultimate holding company and affiliates. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1e(a)(1)(viii)-(ix) and (a)(2). Consistent with the requirements for
OTC derivatives dealers, the proposed application requirements for
stand-alone SBSDs seeking approval to use internal models would not
require the submission of the information about the firm's ultimate
holding company and affiliates required in paragraphs (a)(1)(viii)-
(ix) and (a)(2)(i)-(xi) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. Compare 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(1) and (a)(2), with paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1 and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f(a). This additional information
may be more appropriate for a broker-dealer applying to operate as
an ANC broker-dealer because of its ability to engage in wider
ranges of activities than a stand-alone nonbank SBSD, such as
engaging in a general securities business. The information about the
ultimate holding company and affiliates is designed to help ensure
the Commission can monitor activities of the holding company and
affiliates that could negatively impact the financial well-being of
the broker-dealer. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR at 34430.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70238]]

A broker-dealer applying to become an ANC broker-dealer is required
to provide the Commission with, among other things, the following
information:
An executive summary of the information provided to the
Commission with its application and an identification of the ultimate
holding company of the ANC broker-dealer; \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\222\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(i). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A comprehensive description of the internal risk
management control system of the broker-dealer and how that system
satisfies the requirements set forth in Rule 15c3-4; \223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\223\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(ii). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule
18a-1. As discussed below in section II.A.2.c. of this release, ANC
broker-dealers are required to comply with Rule 15c3-4, and to
provide this information in an application to use internal models.
See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(ii), 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii) and
17 CFR 240.15c3-4. A nonbank SBSD that does not use internal models
also would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4, but would not
have to provide information to the Commission unless it determined
to apply to the Commission to use internal models. See paragraph (g)
of proposed new Rule 18a-1 and section II.A.2.c. of this release
discussing this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A list of the categories of positions that the ANC broker-
dealer holds in its proprietary accounts and a brief description of the
methods that the ANC broker-dealer will use to calculate deductions for
market and credit risk on those categories of positions; \224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\224\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(iii). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A description of the mathematical models to be used to
price positions and to compute deductions for market risk, including
those portions of the deductions attributable to specific risk, if
applicable, and deductions for credit risk; a description of the
creation, use, and maintenance of the mathematical models; a
description of the ANC broker-dealer's internal risk management
controls over those models, including a description of each category of
persons who may input data into the models; if a mathematical model
incorporates empirical correlations across risk categories, a
description of the process for measuring correlations; a description of
the backtesting procedures the ANC broker-dealer will use to backtest
the mathematical model used to calculate maximum potential exposure; a
description of how each mathematical model satisfies the applicable
qualitative and quantitative requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1; and a statement describing the extent to
which each mathematical model used to compute deductions for market and
credit risk will be used as part of the risk analyses and reports
presented to senior management; \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\225\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(iv). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the ANC broker-dealer is applying to the Commission for
approval to use scenario analysis to calculate deductions for market
risk for certain positions, a list of those types of positions, a
description of how those deductions will be calculated using scenario
analysis, and an explanation of why each scenario analysis is
appropriate to calculate deductions for market risk on those types of
positions; \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\226\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(v). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(E) of proposed new Rule
18a-1. As discussed below, ANC broker-dealers can use scenario
analysis in certain cases to determine deductions for some
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A description of how the ANC broker-dealer will calculate
current exposure; \227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\227\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(vi). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(F) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A description of how the ANC broker-dealer will determine
internal credit ratings of counterparties and internal credit risk
weights of counterparties, if applicable; \228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\228\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(vii). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(G) of proposed new Rule
18a-1. As discussed below in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release,
internal credit ratings are used to compute the credit risk charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For each instance in which a mathematical model used by
the ANC broker-dealer to calculate a deduction for market risk or to
calculate maximum potential exposure for a particular product or
counterparty differs from the mathematical model used by the ultimate
holding company of the ANC broker-dealer to calculate an allowance for
market risk or to calculate maximum potential exposure for that same
product or counterparty, a description of the difference(s) between the
mathematical models; \229\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\229\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(2)(xi). A stand-alone SBSD also
would be required to provide this information in an application to
use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(H) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample risk reports that are provided to the persons at
the ultimate holding company who are responsible for managing group-
wide risk and that will be provided to the Commission pursuant to Rule
15c3-1g.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\230\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(2)(xiii). A stand-alone SBSD
would be required to provide similar information in an application
to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(I) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1. The proposed requirement for stand-alone SBSDs to
provide this information refers to sample risk reports that are
provided to ``management'' as opposed to the ``ultimate holding
company.'' Id. As a practical matter, the two provisions would
achieve the same result; namely, the submission of sample reports
that are provided to senior levels of the firm. However, because the
stand-alone SBSD application provisions do not require information
about holding companies and affiliates, the proposed text of the
rule refers to ``management.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission may request that a broker-dealer applying to operate
as an ANC broker-dealer supplement its application (``ANC
application'') with other information relating to the internal risk
management control system, mathematical models, and financial position
of the broker-dealer.\231\ A broker-dealer's ANC application and all
submissions in connection with the ANC application are accorded
confidential treatment, to the extent permitted by law.\232\ If any
information in an ANC application is found to be or becomes inaccurate
before the Commission approves the application, the broker-dealer must
notify the Commission promptly and provide the Commission with a
description of the circumstances in which the information was
inaccurate along with updated, accurate information.\233\ The

[[Page 70239]]

Commission may approve, in whole or in part, an ANC application or an
amendment to the application, subject to any conditions or limitations
the Commission may require if the Commission finds the approval to be
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\231\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(4). A similar provision would
apply to stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See
paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\232\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(5). See also 5 U.S.C. 552;
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at
34433 (discussing confidential treatment of ANC applications). A
similar provision would apply to information submitted by stand-
alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(3) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\233\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(6). A similar provision would
apply to stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal models. See
paragraph (d)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\234\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(7). A similar provision would
apply to applications of stand-alone SBSDs applying to use internal
models. See paragraph (d)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the ANC application approval process, the Commission
staff reviews the operation of the broker-dealer's VaR model, including
a review of associated risk management controls and the use of stress
tests, scenario analyses, and back-testing.\235\ As part of this
process and on an ongoing basis, the broker-dealer applicant is
required to demonstrate to the Commission that the VaR model reliably
accounts for the risks that are specific to the types of positions the
broker-dealer intends to include in the model computations. During the
review, the Commission assesses the quality, rigor, and adequacy of the
technical components of the VaR model and of related model governance
processes. Stand-alone SBSDs applying for approval to use internal
models to compute net capital would be subject to similar reviews of
their VaR models as part of the application process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\235\ The Commission also reviews the broker-dealer's credit
risk model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an ANC application is approved, an ANC broker-dealer is
required to amend and submit to the Commission for approval its ANC
application before materially changing its VaR model or its internal
risk management control system.\236\ Further, an ANC broker-dealer is
required to notify the Commission 45 days before it ceases using a VaR
model to compute net capital.\237\ Finally, the Commission, by order,
can revoke an ANC broker-dealer's ability to use a VaR model to compute
net capital if the Commission finds that the ANC broker-dealer's use of
the model is no longer necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of investors.\238\ In this case, the broker-
dealer would need to revert to using the standardized haircuts for all
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\236\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(8). This requirement also
applies to material changes to the ANC broker-dealer's internal
credit risk model. Id. A similar provision would apply to stand-
alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(6) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\237\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(10). This requirement also
applies to the ANC broker-dealer's internal credit risk model. Id. A
similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use
internal models. See paragraph (d)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\238\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(11). This requirement also
applies to the ANC broker-dealer's internal credit risk model. Id. A
similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use
internal models. See paragraph (d)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An ANC broker-dealer must comply with certain qualitative and
quantitative requirements set forth in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.\239\
A stand-alone SBSD approved to use a VaR model would be subject to the
same qualitative and quantitative requirements.\240\ In this regard,
VaR models estimate the maximum potential loss a portfolio of
securities and other instruments would be expected to incur over a
fixed time period at a certain probability level. The model utilizes
historical market data to generate potential values of a portfolio of
positions taking into consideration the observed correlations between
different types of assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\239\ See 17 CFR 15c3-1e(d).
\240\ Compare 17 CFR 15c3-1e(d), with paragraph (d)(9) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The qualitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 specify,
among other things, that: (1) Each VaR model must be integrated into
the ANC broker-dealer's daily internal risk management system; \241\
(2) each VaR model must be reviewed periodically by the firm's internal
audit staff, and annually by a registered public accounting firm, as
that term is defined in section 2(a)(12) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.); \242\ and (3) the VaR measure computed
by the model must be multiplied by a factor of at least three but
potentially a greater amount based on the number of exceptions to the
measure resulting from quarterly back-testing exercises.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\241\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(1)(i). A similar provision would
apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See
paragraph (d)(9)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\242\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(1)(ii). The annual review must
be conducted in accordance with procedures agreed upon by the
broker-dealer and the registered public accounting firm conducting
the review. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs
approved to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(i)(B) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\243\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(1)(iii). A back-testing
exception occurs when the ANC broker-dealer's actual one-day loss
exceeds the amount estimated by its VaR model. See, e.g.,
Supervisory framework for the use of ``backtesting'' in conjunction
with the internal models approach to market risk capital
requirements, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Jan. 1996)
(``The essence of all backtesting efforts is the comparison of
actual trading results with model-generated risk measures. If this
comparison is close enough, the backtest raises no issues regarding
the quality of the risk measurement model. In some cases, however,
the comparison uncovers sufficient differences that problems almost
certainly must exist, either with the model or with the assumptions
of the backtest. In between these two cases is a grey area where the
test results are, on their own, inconclusive.''). Depending on the
number of back-testing exceptions, the ANC broker-dealer may need to
increase the market risk multiplier to 3.40, 3.50, 3.65, 3.75, 3.85,
or 4.00. Id. Increasing the multiplier increases the deduction
amount, which in turn is designed to account for a model that is
producing less accurate measures. The same multiplier provision
would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models.
See paragraph (d)(9)(i)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The quantitative requirements specify that the VaR model of the ANC
broker-dealer must, among other things: (1) Use a 99%, one-tailed
confidence level with price changes equivalent to a ten-business-day
movement in rates and prices; \244\ (2) use an effective historical
observation period of at least one year; \245\ (3) use historical data
sets that are updated at least monthly and are reassessed whenever
market prices or volatilities change significantly; \246\ and (4) take
into account and incorporate all significant, identifiable market risk
factors applicable to positions of the ANC broker-dealer, including
risks arising from non-linear price characteristics, empirical
correlations within and across risk factors, spread risk, and specific
risk for individual positions.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\244\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(2)(i). This means the potential
loss measure produced by the model is a loss that the portfolio
could experience if it were held for ten trading days and that this
potential loss amount would be exceeded only once every 100 trading
days. A similar provision would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved
to use internal models. See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(A) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1.
\245\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(2)(iii). A similar provision
would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models.
See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\246\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(2)(iii). A similar provision
would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models.
See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\247\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(d)(2)(iv). A similar provision
would apply to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models.
See paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deduction an ANC broker-dealer must take to tentative net
capital in lieu of the standardized haircuts is an amount equal to the
sum of four charges.\248\ The first is a portfolio market risk charge
for all positions that are included in the ANC broker-dealer's VaR
models (i.e., the amount measured by each VaR model multiplied by a
factor of at least three).\249\ The second charge is a specific risk
charge for positions where specific risk was not captured in the VaR
model.\250\ The third

[[Page 70240]]

charge is for positions not included in the VaR model where the ANC
broker-dealer is approved to determine a charge using scenario
analysis.\251\ The fourth charge is determined by applying the
standardized haircuts for all other positions.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\248\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(b). A similar provision would apply
to stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See paragraph
(e)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\249\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(b)(1). A similar charge would apply
to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\250\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(b)(2). Specific risk is the risk
that a security price will change for reasons unrelated to broader
market moves. The market risk charge is designed to address the risk
that the value of a portfolio of trading book assets will decline as
a result of a broad move in market prices or interest rates. For
example, the potential that the S&P 500 index will increase or
decrease on the next trading day creates market risk for a portfolio
of equity securities positions (longs, shorts, options, and OTC
derivatives) and the potential that interest rates will increase or
decrease on the next trading day creates market risk for a portfolio
of fixed-income positions (longs, shorts, options, and OTC
derivatives). The specific risk charge is designed to address the
risk that the value of an individual position would decline for
reasons unrelated to a broad movement of market prices or interest
rates. For example, specific risk includes the risk that the value
of an equity security will decrease because the issuer announces
poor earnings for the previous quarter or the value of a debt
security will decrease because the issuer's credit rating is
lowered. The Commission is proposing a similar charge that would
apply to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount.
See paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\251\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(b)(3). A similar charge would apply
to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\252\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(b)(4). A similar charge would apply
to stand-alone SBSDs in determining their deduction amount. See
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, ANC broker-dealers are subject to on-going supervision
with respect to their internal risk management, including their use of
VaR models.\253\ In this regard, the Commission staff meets regularly
with senior risk managers at each ANC broker-dealer to review the risk
analytics prepared for the firm's senior management. These reviews
focus on the performance of the risk measurement infrastructure,
including statistical models, risk governance issues such as
modifications to and breaches of risk limits, and the management of
outsized risk exposures. In addition, Commission staff and personnel
from an ANC broker-dealer hold regular meetings focused on financial
results, the management of the firm's balance sheet, and, in
particular, the liquidity of the balance sheet. The Commission staff
also monitors the performance of the ANC broker-dealer's internal
models through regular reports generated by the firms for their
internal risk management purposes (backtesting, stress test, and other
monthly risk reports) and discussions with firm personnel (scheduled
and ad hoc).\254\ Material changes to the internal models are also
subject to review and approval.\255\ Stand-alone SBSDs approved to use
internal models to compute net capital would be subject to similar
monitoring and reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\253\ More detailed descriptions of the Commission's ANC broker-
dealer program are available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdriskoffice.htm and https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdaltnetcap.htm. The ultimate
holding companies of the ANC broker-dealers also are subject to
monitoring by Commission staff.
\254\ In addition to regularly scheduled meetings,
communications with ANC broker-dealers may increase in frequency,
dependent on existing market conditions, and at times, may involve
daily, weekly or other ad hoc calls or meetings.
\255\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed
requirements for using VaR models to compute net capital. In addition,
the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of
comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Would VaR models appropriately account for the risks of
security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, do the
characteristics of security-based swaps make it more difficult to
measure their market risk using VaR models than it is to measure the
market risk of other types of securities using VaR models? If so,
explain why.
2. Are the application requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 an
appropriate model for the application requirements in proposed new Rule
18a-1? If not, explain why not.
3. Are there provisions in the application requirements in Appendix
E to Rule 15c3-1 not incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a-1 that
should be included in the proposed rule, such as information regarding
the ultimate holding company of the nonbank SBSD? If so, identify the
provisions and explain why they should be incorporated into the
proposed rule.
4. Is the review process for ANC applications an appropriate model
for the review process for stand-alone SBSDs seeking approval to use
internal models to compute net capital? If not, explain why not.
5. Are there ways to facilitate the timely review of applications
from nonbank SBSDs to use internal models if a large number of
applications are filed at the same time? For example, could a more
limited review process be used if a banking affiliate of a nonbank SBSD
has been approved by a prudential regulator to use the same model the
nonbank SBSD intends to use? If so, what conditions should attach to
such approval? Are there other indicia of the reliability of such
models that could be relied on?
6. Are the qualitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 an
appropriate model for the qualitative requirements in proposed new Rule
18a-1?
7. More generally, are the qualitative requirements in Appendix E
to Rule 15c3-1 appropriate for VaR models that will include security-
based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, are there additional
or alternative qualitative requirements that should be required to
address the unique risk characteristics of security-based swaps? If so,
describe them and explain why they would be appropriate qualitative
requirements.
8. Are the quantitative requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1
an appropriate model for the quantitative requirements in proposed new
Rule 18a-1? If not, explain why not.
9. More generally, are the quantitative requirements in Appendix E
to Rule 15c3-1 appropriate for VaR models that will include security-
based swaps? If not, explain why not. For example, are there additional
or alternative quantitative requirements that should be required to
address the unique risk characteristics of security-based swaps? If so,
describe them and explain why they would be preferable.
10. Are the components of the deduction an ANC broker-dealer must
take from tentative net capital under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 an
appropriate model for the components of the deduction a stand-alone
SBSD approved to use internal models would be required to take from
tentative net capital under proposed new Rule 18a-1? If not, explain
why not.
11. Should the Commission employ the same type of on-going
monitoring process used for ANC broker-dealers to monitor stand-alone
SBSDs using internal models? If not, explain why not.
iv. Credit Risk Charges
Obtaining collateral is one of the ways dealers in OTC derivatives
manage their credit risk exposure to OTC derivatives
counterparties.\256\ Collateral may be provided to cover the amount of
the

[[Page 70241]]

current exposure of the dealer to the counterparty.\257\ In this case,
the collateral is designed to protect the dealer from losing the
positive market value of the OTC contract if the counterparty
defaults.\258\ Collateral also may be provided to cover an amount in
excess of the current exposure (sometimes referred to as ``residual
exposure'') of the dealer to the counterparty.\259\ In this case, the
collateral is designed to protect the dealer from potential future
credit risk exposure to the counterparty (``potential future
exposure'').\260\ This risk, among other things, is that the current
exposure may increase in the future and the counterparty will default
on the obligation to provide additional collateral to cover the
increase or an increase in the amount of current exposure will occur
after the counterparty defaults and is no longer providing
collateral.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\256\ See, e.g., International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc. (``ISDA''), Market Review of OTC Derivative
Bilateral Collateralization Practices, Release 2.0 (Mar. 1, 2010),
available at https://www.isda.org/c_and_a/pdf/Collateral-Market-Review.pdf (``Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral
Collateralization Practices''); Committee on Payment and Settlement
Systems and the Euro-currency Standing Committee of the Central
Banks of the Group of Ten countries, OTC Derivatives: Settlement
Procedures And Counterparty Risk Management, (Sept. 1998), available
at https://www.bis.org/publ/ecsc08.pdf (``OTC Derivatives: Settlement
Procedures And Counterparty Risk Management'').
\257\ See, e.g., ISDA, Independent Amounts, Release 2.0 (Mar. 1,
2010) (``Independent Amounts''). The current exposure is the amount
that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the nonbank SBSD if
all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were
terminated (i.e., the net positive value of the OTC contracts to the
nonbank SBSD and the net negative value of the OTC contracts to the
counterparty). The amount payable on the OTC derivatives contracts
(the positive value) is determined by marking-to-market the OTC
derivatives contracts and netting contracts with a positive value
against contracts with a negative value. The market value of an OTC
derivatives contract also is referred to as the replacement value of
the contract as that is the amount the nonbank SBSD would need to
pay to enter into an identical contract with a different
counterparty.
\258\ Id. at 2 (``The commercial reason for basing the
collateral requirement around the Exposure is that this represents
an approximation of the amount of credit default loss that would
occur between the parties if one were to default.'').
\259\ Id. at 4.
\260\ Id. at 6 (``The underlying commercial reason behind
Independent Amounts is the desire to create a ``cushion'' of
additional collateral to protect against certain risk * * *'').
\261\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, the margin
rule for non-cleared security-based swaps--proposed new Rule 18a-3--
would require a nonbank SBSD to collect collateral from a counterparty
to cover current and potential future exposure to the
counterparty.\262\ However, under the rule, a nonbank SBSD would not be
required to collect collateral from a commercial end user to cover
current and potential future exposure to the commercial end user.\263\
This proposed exception to collecting collateral from commercial end
users is intended to address concerns that have been expressed by these
entities and others that the imposition of margin requirements on
commercial companies that use derivatives to mitigate business risks
could disrupt their ability to enter into hedging transactions by
making it prohibitively expensive.\264\ At the same time, because
collecting collateral is an important means of mitigating risk, nonbank
SBSDs would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth if
collateral is not collected from a commercial end user to cover the
amount of the nonbank SBSD's uncollateralized current exposure.\265\ In
addition, as discussed below in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release,
nonbank SBSDs would be required to take a capital charge equal to the
amount that the potential future exposure to the commercial end user--
as measured under proposed new Rule 18a-3--is uncollateralized.\266\ As
an alternative to taking these 100% capital charges for
uncollateralized current and potential future exposure to a commercial
end user, an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD using internal
models could take a credit risk charge using a methodology in Appendix
E to Rule 15c3-1.\267\ This charge would be designed to balance the
concern of commercial end users that delivering collateral to nonbank
SBSDs could disrupt their ability to enter into hedging transactions
with the need for nonbank SBSDs to account for their credit risk to
commercial end users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\262\ See proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\263\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
As discussed in section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule
18a-3 would contain three other exceptions to the requirements in
the rule to collect and hold collateral. See paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii)(B), (C), and (D) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. The
proposed alternative credit risk charge discussed in this section of
the release would not apply to these other exceptions.
\264\ See, e.g., letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S.
Senate, the Honorable Frank D. Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, the Honorable Tim
Johnson, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Committee
on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives to Secretary
Timothy Geithner, Department of Treasury, Chairman Gary Gensler,
CFTC, Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Board, and Chairman
Mary Schapiro, Commission (Apr. 6, 2011); letter from the Honorable
Christopher Dodd, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Blanche Lincoln, Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, to
the Honorable Barney Frank, Chairman, Financial Services Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Honorable Collin Peterson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives
(June 30, 2010); 156 Cong. Rec. S5904 (daily ed. July 15, 2010)
(statement of Sen. Lincoln). See also letter from Coalition for
Derivatives End-Users to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11,
2011); letter from Paul Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Users of
America, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011);
letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users to Elizabeth Murphy,
Secretary, Commission and David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (Sept.
10, 2010).
\265\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (which requires a
broker-dealer--and would require a broker-dealer SBSD--to deduct
unsecured and partly secured receivables); paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)
of proposed new Rule 18a-1 (which would contain an analogous
provision for stand-alone SBSDs).
\266\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
\267\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANC broker-dealers currently are permitted to add back to net worth
uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from OTC
derivatives transactions (i.e., they can add back the amount of the
uncollateralized current exposure).\268\ Instead of the 100% deduction
that applies to most unsecured receivables under Rule 15c3-1, ANC
broker-dealers are permitted to take a credit risk charge based on the
uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty.\269\ In most
cases, the credit risk charge is significantly less than a 100%
deduction, since it is a percentage of the amount of the receivable
that otherwise would be deducted in full. ANC broker-dealers are
permitted to use this approach because they are required to implement
processes for analyzing credit risk to OTC derivative counterparties
and to develop mathematical models for estimating credit exposures
arising from OTC derivatives transactions and determining risk-based
capital charges for those exposures.\270\ Under the current
requirements, this approach is used for uncollateralized OTC
derivatives receivables from all types of counterparties.\271\ For the
reasons discussed below, this treatment would be narrowed under the
proposed capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone
SBSDs using internal models so that it would apply only to
uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users arising from
security-based swaps (i.e., uncollateralized receivables from other
types of counterparties would be subject to the 100% deduction from net
worth).\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\268\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c). OTC derivatives dealers are
permitted to treat such uncollateralized receivables in a similar
manner. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f.
\269\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7).
\270\ Id.
\271\ Id. While the requirements permit this treatment for
unsecured receivables from all types of counterparties, the amount
of the credit risk charge--as discussed below--depends on the
creditworthiness of the counterparty. Id.
\272\ See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule
15c3-1e.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70242]]

The current requirements for determining risk-based capital charges
for credit exposures are prescribed in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. These
requirements are based on a method of computing capital charges for
credit risk exposures in the international capital standards for
banking institutions. In general terms, credit risk is the risk of loss
arising from a borrower or counterparty's failure to meet its
obligations in accordance with agreed terms, including, for example, by
failing to make a payment of cash or delivery of securities. The
considerations that inform an entity's assessment of a counterparty's
credit risk therefore are broadly similar across the various
relationships that may arise between the dealer and the counterparty.
Accordingly, the methodology in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 should be a
reasonable model for determining risk-based capital charges for credit
exposures whether the entity in question is an ANC broker-dealer or a
stand-alone SBSD using models. Similarly, because credit risk arises
regardless of the number or size of transactions, the methodology
should apply in a consistent manner whether an entity deals exclusively
in OTC derivatives, maintains a significant book of such derivatives,
or only engages in one from time to time.
As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the
capital standard in Rule 15c3-1 is a net liquid assets test. The rule
imposes this test by requiring a broker-dealer to deduct all illiquid
assets, including most unsecured receivables.\273\ The goal is to
require the broker-dealer to hold more than one dollar of highly liquid
assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities. The rule requires
a 100% deduction for most types of unsecured receivables because these
assets cannot be readily converted into cash to provide immediate
liquidity to the broker-dealer.\274\ FOCUS Report data and Commission
staff experience with supervising the ANC broker-dealers indicates that
ANC broker-dealers have not engaged in a large volume of OTC
derivatives transactions since these rules were adopted in 2004.
Therefore, they have not had significant amounts of unsecured
receivables that could be subject to the credit risk charge provisions
in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. However, when the Dodd-Frank Act's OTC
derivatives reforms are implemented and become effective, ANC broker-
dealers could significantly increase the amount of the receivables
these firms have relating to OTC derivatives. This development could
adversely impact the liquidity of the ANC broker-dealers to the extent
exposures to OTC derivatives are not collateralized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\273\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv).
\274\ See Interpretation Guide to Net Capital Computation for
Brokers and Dealers, 32 FR at 858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, ANC broker-dealers (including broker-dealer
SBSDs that are approved to use internal models) would be required to
treat uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from
security-based swaps like most other types of unsecured receivables
(i.e., subjecting them to a 100% deduction from net worth) except when
the counterparty is a commercial end user. In the case of a commercial
end user, the ANC broker-dealer would be permitted to continue to take
a credit risk charge in lieu of the 100% deduction.\275\ Stand-alone
SBSDs that are approved to use internal models also would be permitted
to take a credit risk charge for uncollateralized receivables arising
from security-based swaps with (and only with) commercial end users in
lieu of the 100% deduction.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\275\ See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule
15c3-1e.
\276\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs, this
credit risk charge for a commercial end user could serve as an
alternative to the proposed capital charge in lieu of collecting
collateral to cover potential future exposure.\277\ The proposed
capital charge in lieu of margin is designed to address situations
where a nonbank SBSD does not collect sufficient (or any) collateral to
cover potential future exposure relating to cleared and non-cleared
security-based swaps.\278\ This situation may arise with respect to
counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps that are commercial
end users because proposed new Rule 18a-3 would not require nonbank
SBSDs to collect collateral from them to cover either current or
potential future exposure.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\277\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
\278\ Id.
\279\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed method for calculating the credit risk charge for
commercial end users would be the same method ANC broker-dealers
currently are permitted to use for all OTC derivatives
counterparties.\280\ A stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal models
would use the same method.\281\ Under this method, the credit risk
charge is the sum of three calculated amounts: (1) A counterparty
exposure charge; (2) a concentration charge if the current exposure to
a single counterparty exceeds certain thresholds; and (3) a portfolio
concentration charge if aggregate current exposure to all
counterparties exceeds certain thresholds.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\280\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c); paragraph (e)(2) of proposed
new Rule 18a-1.
\281\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. While
this discussion focuses on the application of the method in the
context of ANC broker-dealers, the same method would be used by
stand-alone SBSDs for the reasons described above, in particular the
fact that credit risk exposure should not vary materially depending
on whether an entity is a broker-dealer SBSD or a stand-alone SBSD.
\282\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first component of the credit risk charge is the counterparty
exposure charge.\283\ An ANC broker-dealer must determine an exposure
charge for each OTC derivatives counterparty. The first component of
the credit risk charge is the aggregate of the exposure charges across
all counterparties. The exposure charge for a counterparty that is
insolvent, in a bankruptcy proceeding, or in default of an obligation
on its senior debt, is the net replacement value of the OTC derivatives
contracts with the counterparty (i.e., the net amount of the
uncollateralized current exposure to the counterparty).\284\ The
counterparty exposure charge for all other counterparties is the credit
equivalent amount of the ANC broker-dealer's exposure to the
counterparty multiplied by an applicable credit risk weight factor and
then multiplied by 8%.\285\ The credit equivalent amount is the sum of
the ANC broker-dealer's: (1) Maximum potential exposure (``MPE'') to
the counterparty multiplied by a back-testing determined factor; and
(2) current exposure to the counterparty.\286\

[[Page 70243]]

The MPE amount is a charge to address potential future exposure and is
calculated using the ANC broker-dealer's VaR model as applied to the
counterparty's positions after giving effect to a netting agreement
with the counterparty, taking into account collateral received from the
counterparty, and taking into account the current replacement value of
the counterparty's positions.\287\ The current exposure amount is the
current replacement value of the counterparty's positions after giving
effect to a netting agreement with the counterparty and taking into
account collateral received from the counterparty.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\283\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(1). A stand-alone SBSD approved to
use internal models would be required to take an identical credit
risk charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i)
of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\284\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(1)(i). In other words, the
uncollateralized receivable is deducted in full. A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would take an identical credit risk
charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\285\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(1)(ii). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would take an identical credit risk
charge for this type of counterparty. See paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1. The 8% multiplier is consistent with the
calculation of credit risk in the OTC derivatives dealers rules and
with the Basel Standard, and is designed to dampen leverage to help
ensure that the firm maintains a safe level of capital. See
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at
34436, note 42.
\286\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(i). The amount of the factor
is based on backtesting exceptions. A stand-alone SBSD approved to
use internal models would determine the credit equivalent amount in
the same manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(A) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\287\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(ii). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would compute MPE in the same
manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\288\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(iii). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would compute current exposure in
the same manner. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A collateral agreement gives the dealer the right of recourse to an
asset or assets that can be sold or the value of which can be applied
in the event the counterparty defaults on an obligation arising from an
OTC derivatives contract between the dealer and the counterparty.\289\
Collateral ``ideally'' is ``an asset of stable and predictable value,
an asset that is not linked to the value of the transaction in any way
and an asset that can be sold quickly and easily if the need arises.''
\290\ Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 sets forth requirements for taking
account of collateral in determining the MPE and current exposure
amounts.\291\ These requirements are designed to require collateral
that meets the characteristics noted above. The requirements, among
other things, include that the collateral is: (1) Marked-to-market each
day; (2) subject to a daily margin maintenance requirement;\292\ (3) in
the ANC broker-dealer's possession and control; (4) liquid and
transferable; (5) capable of being liquidated promptly without
intervention of any other party; (6) subject to a legally enforceable
collateral agreement; (7) not comprised of securities issued by the
counterparty or a party related to the ANC broker-dealer or the
counterparty; (8) comprised of instruments that can be included in the
ANC broker-dealer's VaR model; and (9) not used in determining the
credit rating of the counterparty.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\289\ See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral
Collateralization Practices at 5.
\290\ Id.
\291\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(v). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
requirements in order to be permitted to take into account
collateral when determining the MPE and current exposure amounts.
See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\292\ This refers to an internal maintenance margin requirement
(i.e., not one imposed by regulation).
\293\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(v)(A)-(H). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
requirements. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E)(1)-(8) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 sets forth certain minimum requirements
for giving effect to netting agreements \294\ when determining the MPE
and current exposure amounts.\295\ Specifically, an ANC broker-dealer
may include the effect of a netting agreement that allows the netting
of gross receivables from and gross payables to a counterparty upon
default of the counterparty if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\294\ Netting agreements are bilateral contracts between two
counterparties that enter into OTC derivatives contracts with each
other. In netting agreements, the two parties agree that if one
counterparty defaults, the pending OTC derivatives contracts between
the parties will be closed out and a single net payment obligation
will be determined (as opposed to payment obligations for each
separate OTC derivatives contract between the parties). The amount
of the single net payment obligation is determined by offsetting OTC
derivatives contracts that have a positive value to a counterparty
with OTC derivatives contracts that have a negative value to the
counterparty. After the offsets, one counterparty has an amount of
positive value, which to the other counterparty is a negative value.
This is the amount of the single net payment obligation. If the non-
defaulting counterparty is owed the single net payment amount, it
can liquidate collateral held to secure the obligations of the
defaulting counterparty. However, if the non-defaulting party does
not hold collateral, it becomes a general creditor of the defaulting
counterparty with respect to the amount of the single net payment
obligation.
\295\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(iv). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
requirements in order to be permitted to take into account netting
agreements when determining MPE and current exposure amounts. See
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each
relevant jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings;
The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject
to the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any
time; and
For internal risk management purposes, the ANC broker-
dealer monitors and controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net
basis.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\296\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(iv)(A)-(C). A stand-alone
SBSD approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
requirements. See paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(D)(1)-(3) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These requirements are designed to ensure that the netting agreement
between the ANC broker-dealer and the counterparty permits the ANC
broker-dealer to reduce the receivables and payables between the two
entities to a single net payment obligation.
The counterparty exposure charge is the sum of the MPE and current
exposure amounts multiplied by an applicable credit risk weight factor
and then multiplied by 8%.\297\ Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 prescribes
three standardized credit risk weight factors (20%, 50%, and 150%) and,
as an alternative, permits an ANC broker-dealer with Commission
approval to use internal methodologies to determine appropriate credit
risk weights to apply to counterparties.\298\ A higher percentage
credit risk weight factor results in a larger counterparty exposure
charge amount. Moreover, because the counterparty exposure charge is
designed to require the ANC broker-dealer to hold capital to address
the firm's credit risk exposure to the counterparty, the selection of
the appropriate risk weight factor to use for a given counterparty is
based on an assessment of the creditworthiness of the counterparty. ANC
broker-dealers are permitted to use internally derived credit ratings
to select the appropriate risk weight factor.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\297\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(1)(ii). As noted above, an 8%
multiplier is consistent with the international bank capital
standards and is designed to dampen leverage to help ensure that the
ANC broker-dealer maintains a safe level of capital. See Alternative
Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34436.
\298\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(vi). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
requirements. See paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1. The credit risk weights in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 were based
on the international bank capital standards. See Alternative Net
Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at 34436 (``These
proposed credit risk weights were based on the formulas provided in
the Foundation Internal Ratings-Based approach to credit risk
proposed by the Basel Committee and were derived using a loss given
default (the percent of the amount owed by the counterparty the firm
expects to lose if the counterparty defaults) of 75%.'') (citations
omitted).
\299\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(vi)(D). There is a basic
method for ANC broker-dealers to determine the applicable risk
weight factor using external credit ratings of NRSROs. See 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(vi)(A)-(C). Currently, all six ANC broker-dealers
are approved to use internally derived credit ratings. See Reference
Removal Release, 76 FR at 26555. Pursuant to section 939A of the
Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has proposed eliminating the basic
method of using NRSRO credit ratings and, consequently, if the
proposals are adopted, an ANC broker-dealer would be required to use
internally derived credit ratings. See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 939A
and Reference Removal Release, 76 FR at 26555-26556. Consistent with
section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, there would not be a basic
method for stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models. See
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. Consequently,
these nonbank SBSDs would be required to use internally derived
credit ratings to determine the appropriate risk weight factor to
apply to a counterparty. This does not mean that an ANC broker-
dealer or stand-alone SBSD could not include external credit ratings
as part of its internal credit rating methodology. See Reference
Removal Release, 76 FR at 26552-26553 (identifying external credit
ratings as one of several factors a broker-dealer could consider
when assessing credit risk under the Commission's proposals to
substitute NRSRO credit ratings in the broker-dealer rules with a
different standard of creditworthiness).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70244]]

The second component of an ANC broker-dealer's credit risk charge
is a counterparty concentration charge.\300\ This charge accounts for
the additional risk resulting from a relatively large exposure to a
single counterparty.\301\ This charge is triggered if the current
exposure of the ANC broker-dealer to a counterparty exceeds 5% of the
tentative net capital of the ANC broker-dealer.\302\ In this case, the
ANC broker-dealer must take a counterparty concentration charge equal
to: (1) 5% of the amount by which the current exposure exceeds 5% of
tentative net capital for a counterparty with a risk weight factor of
20% or less; (2) 20% of the amount by which the current exposure
exceeds 5% of tentative net capital for a counterparty with a risk
weight factor of greater than 20% and less than 50%; and (3) 50% of the
amount by which the current exposure exceeds 5% of tentative net
capital for a counterparty with a risk weight factor of 50% or
more.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\300\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(2). A stand-alone SBSD approved
to use internal models would be subject to the same counterparty
concentration charge. See paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\301\ Concentration charges are intended to provide a liquidity
cushion if a lack of diversification of positions exposes the firm
to additional risk.
\302\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(2)(i)-(iii). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
threshold in determining the counterparty concentration charge. See
paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A)-(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\303\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(1)(i)-(iii). A stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models would be subject to the same
charges. See paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A)-(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third--and final--component of the credit risk charge is a
portfolio concentration charge.\304\ The portfolio concentration charge
is designed to address the risk of having a relatively large amount of
unsecured receivables relative to the size of the firm. This charge is
triggered when the aggregate current exposure of the ANC broker-dealer
to all counterparties exceeds 50% of the firm's tentative net
capital.\305\ In this case, the portfolio concentration charge is equal
to 100% of the amount by which the aggregate current exposure exceeds
50% of the ANC broker-dealer's tentative net capital.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\304\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(3). A stand-alone SBSD approved
to use internal models would be subject to the same portfolio
concentration charge. See paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\305\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(3).
\306\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(3). A stand-alone SBSD approved
to use internal models would be subject to the same charge. See
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed credit
risk charges. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including
empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following
questions:
1. Should ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal
models be required to deduct in full unsecured receivables from
commercial end users, rather than being permitted to use the proposed
credit risk charge? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For
example, would ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal
models have substantial amounts of receivables from commercial end
users that, if not collateralized, could adversely impact the liquidity
of these firms? If so, what measures in addition to the proposed credit
risk charge could be implemented to address the risk of
uncollateralized credit risk exposure to commercial end users in the
absence of a required 100% deduction? Commenters should provide data to
support their responses to these questions.
2. Should ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal
models be required to take a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-
cleared security-based swaps with commercial end users? If so, explain
why. If not, explain why not. For example, would ANC broker-dealers and
stand-alone SBSDs using internal models enter into substantial amounts
of non-cleared security-based swaps with commercial end users that
could adversely impact the risk profiles of these firms, if collateral
was not collected to cover potential future exposure? If so, what
measures in addition to the proposed credit risk charge could be
implemented to address this risk in the absence of a required 100%
deduction? Commenters should provide data to support their responses to
these questions.
3. Is the credit risk charge an appropriate measure to address the
risk to nonbank SBSDs of having uncollateralized current and potential
future exposure to commercial end users? If so, explain why. If not,
explain why not. Are there other measures that could be implemented as
an alternative or in addition to the credit risk charge to address the
risk of this uncollateralized exposure? If so, identify the measures
and explain why they would be appropriate alternatives or supplements
to the credit risk charge.
4. What will be the economic impact of the credit risk charge? For
example, will the additional capital that a nonbank SBSD would be
required to maintain because of the credit risk charge result in costs
that will be passed through to end users? Please explain.
5. Should the application of the credit risk charge be expanded to
unsecured receivables from other types of counterparties? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not. How would such an expansion
impact the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs?
6. Should the application of the credit risk charge be expanded to
the other exceptions to the margin collateral requirements in proposed
new Rule 18a-3? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How would
such an expansion impact the risk profile of nonbank SBSDs?
7. The ability to take a credit risk charge in lieu of a 100%
deduction for an unsecured receivable would apply only to unsecured
receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swap
transactions. Consequently, an ANC broker-dealer and a nonbank SBSD
would need to take a 100% deduction for unsecured receivables from
commercial end users arising from swap transactions. Should the
application of the credit risk charge be expanded to include unsecured
receivables from commercial end users arising from swap transactions?
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. How would such an
expansion impact the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs?
8. Is the overall method of computing the credit risk charge
appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example,
are there differences between ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs that
would make the method of computing the credit risk charge appropriate
for the former but not appropriate for the latter? If so, identify the
differences and explain why they would make the credit risk charge not
appropriate for nonbank SBSDs. What modifications should be made to the
method of computing the credit risk charge for nonbank SBSDs?
9. Are the steps required to compute the credit risk charge
understandable? If not, identify the steps that require further
explanation.
10. Is the method of computing the first component of the credit
risk charge--the counterparty exposure charge--appropriate for nonbank
SBSDs? If not, explain why not. For example, is the calculation of the
credit equivalent amount for a counterparty

[[Page 70245]]

(i.e., the sum of the MPE and the current exposure to the counterparty)
a workable requirement for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
11. Are the conditions for taking collateral into account when
calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for nonbank SBSDs?
If not, explain why not.
12. Are the conditions for taking netting agreements into account
when calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for nonbank
SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
13. Are the standardized risk weight factors (20%, 50%, and 150%)
proposed for calculating the credit equivalent amount appropriate for
nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
14. Is the method of computing the second component of the credit
risk charge--the counterparty concentration charge--appropriate for
nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
15. Is the method of computing the third component of the credit
risk charge--portfolio concentration charge--appropriate for nonbank
SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
v. Capital Charge In Lieu of Margin Collateral
As discussed above in section II.B. of this release, collateral is
one of the ways dealers in OTC derivatives manage their credit risk
exposure to OTC derivatives counterparties.\307\ Collateral may be
provided to cover the amount of the current exposure of the dealer to
the counterparty.\308\ Collateral also may be provided to cover the
potential future exposure of the dealer to the counterparty, i.e.,
margin collateral.\309\ Clearing agencies will impose margin collateral
requirements on their clearing members, including nonbank SBSDs, for
cleared security-based swaps.\310\ In addition, as discussed below in
section II.B. of this release, proposed new Rule 18a-3 would establish
margin collateral requirements for nonbank SBSDs with respect to non-
cleared security-based swaps.\311\ Furthermore, FINRA also prescribes
margin requirements for security-based swaps.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\307\ See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral
Collateralization Practices.
\308\ See Independent Amounts.
\309\ Id. at 4.
\310\ See discussion below in section II.B. of this release.
\311\ See proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\312\ See FINRA Rule 4240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15c3-1 currently requires a broker-dealer to take a deduction
from net worth for under-margined accounts.\313\ Specifically, the
broker-dealer is required to deduct from net worth the amount of cash
required in each customer's and noncustomer's account to meet a
maintenance margin requirement of the firm's designated examining
authority after application of calls for margin, marks to the market,
or other required deposits which are outstanding five business days or
less.\314\ These deductions serve the same purpose as the deductions a
broker-dealer is required to take on proprietary securities positions
in that they account for risk of the positions in the customer's
account, which the broker-dealer may need to liquidate if the customer
defaults on obligations to the broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\313\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(xii).
\314\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to prescribe a similar requirement for security-based swap
positions, Rule 15c3-1 would be amended to require broker-dealer SBSDs
to take a deduction from net worth for the amount of cash required in
the account of each security-based swap customer to meet the margin
requirements of a clearing agency, self-regulatory organization
(``SRO''), or the Commission, after application of calls for margin,
marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding
one business day or less.\315\ An analogous provision would be included
in new Rule 18a-1, though it would not refer to margin requirements of
SROs because stand-alone SBSDs will not be members of SROs.\316\ These
provisions would require broker-dealer SBSDs to take capital charges
when their security-based swap customers do not meet margin collateral
requirements of clearing agencies, SROs, or the Commission after one
business day from the date the margin collateral requirement arises.
The capital charge would be designed to address the risk to nonbank
SBSDs that arises from not collecting the margin collateral.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\315\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(B) of Rule 15c3-1.
\316\ See paragraph (c)(1)(ix) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\317\ See section II.B.1. of this release for a discussion of
the purpose of margin collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed below in section II.B. of this release, proposed new
Rule 18a-3 would require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral to meet
account equity requirements by noon of the next business day from the
day the account equity requirement arises.\318\ Consequently, to be
consistent with the proposed requirement to collect collateral within
one day, the under-margined capital charge for security-based swap
accounts would be triggered within one day of the margin requirement
arising, as opposed to the five-day trigger in Rule 15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\318\ See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the deductions for under-margined security-based
swap accounts, the proposed rules would impose capital charges designed
to address situations where the account of a security-based swap
customer is meeting all applicable margin requirements but the margin
collateral requirement results in the collection of an amount of
collateral that is insufficient to address the risk because, for
example, the requirement for cleared security-based swaps established
by a clearing agency does not result in sufficient margin collateral to
cover the nonbank SBSD's exposure or because an exception to collecting
margin collateral for non-cleared security-based swaps exists.\319\
These proposed capital charges would not apply in the circumstance,
discussed in the preceding section, involving unsecured receivables
from commercial end users, which would be separately addressed by
proposed new Rule 18a-1 and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1.\320\
The proposed capital charges relating to margin collateral would be
required deductions from the nonbank SBSD's net worth when computing
net capital.\321\ The proposals are intended to require a nonbank SBSD
to set aside net capital to address the risks of potential future
exposure that are mitigated through the collection of margin
collateral. The set aside net capital would serve as an alternative to
obtaining margin collateral for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\319\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. The exceptions to
the proposed margin rule are discussed below.
\320\ As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release,
nonbank SBSDs would be required to take a 100% deduction to net
worth when calculating net capital equal to their uncollateralized
current exposure to a counterparty arising from a security-based
swap except that an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD
approved to use internal models could take a credit risk charge as
an alternative to the 100% deduction if the counterparty was a
commercial end user. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (which
requires a broker-dealer--and would require a broker-dealer SBSD--to
deduct unsecured and partly secured receivables); paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1 (which would contain an
analogous provision for stand-alone SBSDs).
\321\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to cleared security-based swaps, for which margin
requirements will not be established by the Commission, the rules would
impose a capital charge that would apply if a nonbank SBSD collects
margin collateral from a counterparty in an amount that is less than
the deduction that would apply to the security-based swap if it was a
proprietary position of

[[Page 70246]]

the nonbank SBSD (i.e., less than an amount determined by using the
standardized haircuts in Commission Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be
amended, and in proposed new Rule 18a-1 or a VaR model, as
applicable).\322\ This aspect of the proposal is intended to adequately
account for the risk of the counterparty defaulting by requiring the
nonbank SBSD to maintain capital in the place of margin collateral in
an amount that is no less than would be required for a proprietary
position.\323\ This requirement also is intended to ensure that there
is a standard minimum coverage for exposure to cleared security-based
swap counterparties apart from the individual clearing agency margin
requirements, which could vary among clearing agencies and over time.
If the counterparty defaults, the nonbank SBSD would need to liquidate
the counterparty's cleared security-based swaps and other positions in
the account to cover the counterparty's obligation to the nonbank SBSD.
Thus, the nonbank SBSD will become subject to the market risk of these
positions in the event of the counterparty's default. If the positions
decrease in value, the nonbank SBSD may not be able to cover the
defaulted counterparty's obligations to the nonbank SBSD through the
liquidation of the positions because the cash proceeds from the
liquidation may yield less than the obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\322\ See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(A) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
\323\ As discussed in section II.B.2. of this release, the
margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps would be
the same as the deductions to net capital that a nonbank SBSD would
take on the positions under Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended,
and proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin collateral is designed to mitigate this risk by serving as a
buffer to account for a decrease in the market value of the
counterparty's positions between the time of the default and the
liquidation. If the amount of the margin collateral is insufficient to
make up the difference, the nonbank SBSD will incur losses. This
proposed capital charge is designed to require the nonbank SBSD to hold
sufficient net capital, as an alternative to margin, to enable it to
withstand such losses.
With respect to non-cleared security-based swaps, the rules would
impose capital charges to address three exceptions in proposed new Rule
18a-3 (the nonbank SBSD margin rule).\324\ Under these three
exceptions, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect (or, in one
case, hold) margin collateral. As discussed below in section II.B.2.b.
of this release, proposed Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to
perform a daily calculation of a margin amount for the account of each
counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap transaction.\325\
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 also would require a nonbank SBSD to collect
and hold margin collateral (in the form of cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments) from each counterparty in an amount at least
equal to the calculated margin amount to the extent that amount is
greater than the amount of positive equity in the account.\326\ The
rule would, however, provide exceptions in certain cases.\327\
Consequently, the three proposed capital charges discussed below are
designed to serve as an alternative to margin collateral by requiring
the nonbank SBSD to hold sufficient net capital to enable it to
withstand losses if the counterparty defaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\324\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A), (C), and (D) of proposed
new Rule 18a-3. There is a fourth exception in proposed new Rule
18a-3 under which a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect
margin collateral to cover potential future exposure to another
SBSD. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative A of proposed new
Rule 18a-3. There would not be a capital charge in lieu of
collecting margin collateral from another SBSD because capital
charges could impact the firm's liquidity, and each SBSD would be
subject to regulatory capital requirements. A second alternative
(Alternative B) being proposed in new Rule 18a-3 would require a
nonbank SBSD to have margin collateral posted to an account at a
third-party custodian in an amount sufficient to cover the nonbank
SBSD's potential future exposure to the other SBSD. See paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative B--of proposed new Rule 18a-3. These two
alternatives are discussed in more detail in section II.B.2. of this
release.
\325\ See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. The
term margin in proposed new Rule 18a-3 would be defined to mean the
amount of positive equity in an account of a counterparty. See
paragraph (b)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\326\ See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. See
also paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (requiring among
other things that collateral be in the physical possession or
control of the nonbank SBSD and that the collateral must be capable
of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD). As discussed in
section II.B.2. of this release, the term equity in proposed new
Rule 18a-3 would be defined to mean the total current fair market
value of securities positions in an account of a counterparty
(excluding the time value of an over-the-counter option), plus any
credit balance and less any debit balance in the account after
applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect to gross
derivatives payables and receivables. See paragraph (b)(4) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3. The term negative equity in proposed new
Rule 18a-3 would be defined to mean equity of less than $0. See
paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. The term positive
equity in proposed new Rule 18a-3 would be defined to mean equity of
greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\327\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A), (C), and (D) of proposed
new Rule 18a-3. As noted above and discussed in more detail in
section II.B.2. of this release, one alternative being considered is
to establish a fourth exception in proposed new Rule 18a-3 under
which a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect margin
collateral to cover potential future exposure to another SBSD. See
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. Under this
alternative, there would not be a capital charge in lieu of
collecting margin collateral from the other SBSD because capital
charges could impact the firm's liquidity, and each SBSD would be
subject to regulatory capital requirements. The other alternative
would require nonbank SBSDs to have margin collateral posted to an
account at a third-party custodian in an amount sufficient to cover
the nonbank SBSD's potential future exposure to the other SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first proposed capital charge would apply when a nonbank SBSD
not approved to use internal models does not collect sufficient margin
collateral from a counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap
because the counterparty is a commercial end user.\328\ As discussed
below in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would not
be required to collect margin collateral from commercial end users for
non-cleared security-based swaps.\329\ The nonbank SBSD would be
required to take a capital charge equal to the margin amount less any
positive equity in the account of the commercial end user if the
nonbank SBSD did not collect margin collateral from the commercial end
user pursuant to this exception.\330\ As discussed above in section
II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, as an alternative to this deduction, an
ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal
models could incur a credit risk charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\328\ See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\329\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\330\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. If
collateral is not collected from a commercial end user, the nonbank
SBSD would be required to take a 100% deduction for the amount of
the uncollateralized current exposure. As discussed above in section
II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, as alternative to this deduction, an
ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD approved to use internal
models could take a credit risk charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second proposed capital charge would apply when the nonbank
SBSD does not hold the margin collateral because the counterparty to
the non-cleared security-based swap is requiring the margin collateral
to be segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\331\
Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, among other things, provides that
the segregated account authorized by that provision must be carried by
an independent third-party custodian and be designated as a segregated
account for and on behalf of the counterparty.\332\ Collateral held in
this manner would not be in the

[[Page 70247]]

physical possession or control of the nonbank SBSD, nor would it would
be capable of being liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD without the
intervention of another party. Consequently, it would not meet
collateral requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3.\333\ Because
collateral segregated under section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act would not
be under the control of the nonbank SBSD, consistent with the existing
capital requirements that apply to broker-dealers, the Commission is
proposing to require the nonbank SBSD to take a capital charge equal to
the margin amount less any positive equity in the account of the
counterparty.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\331\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\332\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(3).
\333\ See paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (iii) of proposed new Rule
18a-3.
\334\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third proposed capital charge would apply when a nonbank SBSD
does not collect sufficient margin collateral from a counterparty to a
non-cleared security-based swap because the transaction was entered
into prior to the effective date of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (a ``legacy
non-cleared security-based swap'').\335\ The nonbank SBSD would not be
required to collect margin collateral for accounts holding legacy non-
cleared security-based swaps.\336\ This proposal is designed to avoid
the difficulties of requiring a nonbank SBSD to renegotiate security-
based swap contracts in order to come into compliance with new margin
collateral requirements, which would be a complex task.\337\ In lieu of
collecting the margin collateral, the nonbank SBSD would be required to
take a capital charge equal to the margin amount less any positive
equity in the account.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\335\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(3) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(B)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\336\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. A
nonbank SBSD would need to take a 100% deduction for the amount of
the uncollateralized current exposure arising from a legacy non-
cleared security-based swap because (as discussed above) this amount
would be an unsecured receivable from the counterparty and subject
to a 100% deduction in the computation of net capital under Rule
15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\337\ The CFTC has proposed a similar exception for legacy swap
transactions. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23734
(``The Commission believes that the pricing of existing swaps
reflects the credit arrangements under which they were executed and
that it would be unfair to the parties and disruptive to the markets
to require that the new margin rules apply to those positions.'').
The prudential regulators proposed to permit a covered swap entity
to exclude pre-effective swaps from initial margin calculations,
while requiring these entities to collect variation margin,
consistent with industry practice. Prudential Regulator Margin and
Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27569.
\338\ The prudential regulators and CFTC have not proposed new
capital charges for legacy swaps and legacy security-based swaps;
nor have they proposed specific margin collateral requirements for
such positions. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital
Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76
FR 27802; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. With respect
to banks, the credit risk of holding legacy security-based swap
positions is already taken into account by existing capital
requirements for banks. The proposed capital charge in lieu of
margin for nonbank SBSDs is based on a concern that, after SBSD
registration requirements take effect, financial institutions may
transfer large volumes of legacy non-cleared security-based swaps
from unregulated affiliates to newly registered nonbank SBSDs,
including broker-dealer SBSDs. As noted above, the Commission
understands that registered broker-dealers currently do not engage
in a high volume of security-based swap transactions. An influx of
legacy non-cleared security-based swaps into a newly registered
nonbank SBSD could create substantial risks to the entity. Under the
proposed rule, nonbank SBSDs would be required to hold sufficient
collateral to cover the current exposure and potential future
exposure that arise from these transactions or, alternatively, to
take appropriate capital charges to address these risks. Entities
holding legacy non-cleared security-based swaps could either obtain
additional capital in order to register as nonbank SBSDs or legacy
non-cleared security-based swaps could be held and ``wound down'' in
one entity while a separate entity is used to conduct new business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital
in lieu of margin requirements. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Would the proposed deductions for under-margined accounts be
appropriate for cleared security-based swap margin requirements, which
would be established by clearing agencies and SROs? If not, explain why
not. For example, is the requirement to take the deduction after one
business day workable in the context of cleared security-based swaps?
If not, explain why not. In addition, should the margin requirements of
clearing agencies be included in the deduction for under-margined
accounts?
2. Would the proposed deductions for under-margined accounts be
appropriate for non-cleared security-based swap margin requirements,
which would be established by proposed new Rule 18a-3 and, potentially,
by SROs? If not, explain why not. For example, is the requirement to
take the deduction after one business day workable in the context of
non-cleared security-based swaps? If not, explain why not.
3. Should there be a deduction for under-margined swap accounts? If
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
4. Would the proposed capital charges in lieu of collecting margin
collateral appropriately address the potential future exposure risk of
nonbank SBSDs arising from security-based swaps? If not, explain why
not. Are there alternative means of addressing this risk? If so,
identify and explain them.
5. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for cleared
security-based swaps appropriate? If not, explain why not. In
particular, if the amount of margin collateral required to be collected
for cleared security-based swaps is less than the capital deduction
that would apply to the positions, would the margin collateral
nonetheless be sufficient? If so, explain why. In addition, should
SBSDs approved to use internal models be permitted to use their VaR
models (as opposed to the standardized haircuts) for purposes of
determining whether this capital charge applies? If so, explain why.
6. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for non-cleared
security-based swaps with counterparties that are commercial end users
appropriate? If not, explain why not.
7. Should there be an exception for broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-
alone SBSDs not using internal models from the requirement to take a
capital charge in lieu of collecting margin collateral from commercial
end users? If so, explain why such an exception would not negatively
impact the risk profiles of these nonbank SBSDs and suggest alternative
measures that could be implemented to address the risk of
uncollateralized potential future exposure to commercial end users.
8. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-
cleared swaps with counterparties that are commercial end users? If so,
explain why. If not, explain why not.
9. Is it appropriate to apply the proposed capital charge in lieu
of margin for non-cleared security-based swaps with counterparties that
require segregation pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act? If
not, explain why not.
10. Should there be an exception for counterparties that require
segregation pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act from the
requirement to take a capital charge in lieu of margin collateral? If
so, explain why such an exception would not negatively impact the risk
profiles of nonbank SBSDs and suggest alternative measures that could
be implemented to address the risk of not holding collateral to cover
the potential future exposure.
11. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-
cleared swaps with counterparties that require margin

[[Page 70248]]

collateral with respect to the swaps to be segregated and held by an
independent third party custodian? If so, explain why. If not, explain
why not.
12. Is the proposed capital charge in lieu of margin for non-
cleared security-based swaps in accounts that hold legacy security-
based swaps appropriate, or should there be an exception from the
capital charge for legacy security-based swaps? Is there an alternate
measure that could be implemented to address the risk of
uncollateralized potential future exposure resulting from legacy
security-based swaps? If the proposed capital charge applies to legacy
security-based swaps, explain how the proposed capital charge in lieu
of margin collateral would change the economics of the transactions
previously entered into. How would any such change(s) be reflected in
the cost of maintaining those, or initiating, new positions? Would
there be any other impacts of the change in treatment of the legacy
positions?
13. If there is an exception from the capital charge for legacy
security-based swaps, how would such an exception impact the risk
profiles of nonbank SBSDs?
14. After the SBSD registration requirements take effect, would
substantial amounts of legacy security-based swaps with
uncollateralized potential future exposure be transferred to broker-
dealer SBSDs? Would entities with substantial amounts of legacy
security-based swaps with uncollateralized potential future exposure
register as stand-alone SBSDs?
15. Would it be practical for financial institutions to wind down
legacy security-based swaps in existing entities rather than
transferring them to nonbank SBSDs? What legal and operational issues
would this approach raise?
16. Should there be a capital charge in lieu of margin for non-
cleared swap accounts that hold legacy swaps? If so, explain why. If
not, explain why not.
17. What should be deemed a legacy security-based swap? For
example, if a nonbank SBSD dealer holds an existing legacy security-
based swap that is subsequently modified for risk mitigation purposes,
should this be deemed a new security-based swap transaction or should
it continue to be treated as a legacy security-based swap?
vi. Treatment of Swaps
CFTC Rule 1.17 prescribes minimum capital requirements for
FCMs.\339\ The rule imposes a net liquid assets test capital
standard.\340\ Broker-dealers that are registered as FCMs are subject
to Rule 15c3-1 and CFTC Rule 1.17.\341\ CFTC Rule 1.17 provides that an
FCM registered as a broker-dealer must maintain a minimum amount of
adjusted net capital equal to the greater of, among other amounts, the
minimum amount of net capital required by Rule 15c3-1.\342\ CFTC Rule
1.17 also prescribes standardized haircuts for securities positions by
incorporating by reference the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3-
1.\343\ Similarly, Rule 15c3-1, through Appendix B, prescribes capital
deductions for commodities positions of a broker-dealer by
incorporating by reference deductions in CFTC Rule 1.17 to the extent
Rule 15c3-1 does not otherwise prescribe a deduction for the type of
commodity position.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\339\ See 17 CFR 1.17.
\340\ Id.
\341\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1; 17 CFR 1.17.
\342\ See 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(D).
\343\ See 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(v)-(vii).
\344\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broker-dealer SBSDs (as broker-dealers) would be subject to
Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1.\345\ Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a-1
would prescribe capital deductions for commodities positions of stand-
alone SBSDs and would be modeled on Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1.\346\
Consequently, under the provisions of Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule
18a-1, nonbank SBSDs would be required to take deductions for commodity
positions when computing net capital.\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\345\ 17 CFR 240.15c3.-1b.
\346\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b, with Appendix B to proposed
new Rule 18a-1. As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this
release, a broker-dealer's minimum net capital requirement is the
greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in Rule 15c3-1 and an
amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: the 15-
to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of
customer debit items ratio. The minimum net capital requirement for
a stand-alone SBSD under proposed Rule 18a-1, however, would not use
either of these financial ratios; rather, its minimum net capital
requirement would be determined by calculating the 8% margin factor.
Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1 contains provisions that factor into a
broker-dealer's calculation of the aggregate indebtedness financial
ratio. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b(a)(1) and (a)(2). Those provisions are
not included in Appendix B to proposed new Rule 18a-1 because stand-
alone SBSDs would not use the aggregate indebtedness financial ratio
to determine their minimum net capital requirement.
\347\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b; Appendix B to proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers may have proprietary
positions in swaps. Consequently, Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1 would be
amended to establish standardized haircuts for proprietary swap
positions and analogous provisions would be included in Appendix B to
proposed new Rule 18a-1.\348\ This would make the standardized swap
haircuts applicable to nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers.\349\ An ANC
broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD could apply to include different
types of swaps in their VaR models. If approved, the firm would not
need to apply the standardized haircuts for the type of swaps covered
by the approved models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\348\ See proposed new paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3-1b; paragraph
(b) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\349\ A nonbank SBSD that is registered as a swap dealer with
the CFTC also would be required to comply with the CFTC's capital
requirements applicable to swap dealers as would a broker-dealer
that is registered as a swap dealer (just as a broker-dealer
registered as an FCM must comply with Rule 15c3-1 and CFTC Rule
1.17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed standardized haircuts for swaps are similar to the
proposed standardized haircuts for security-based swaps. Specifically,
swaps that are credit default swaps referencing a broad based
securities index (``Index CDS swaps'') would be subject to a maturity
grid similar to the proposed maturity grid for CDS security-based
swaps.\350\ All other swaps would be subject to a standardized haircut
determined by multiplying the notional amount of the swap by the
percentage deduction that would apply to the type of asset or event
referenced by the swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\350\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i) of Rule 15c3-1b;
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Index CDS Swaps
The standardized haircuts proposed for Index CDS swaps would use
the maturity grid approach proposed for CDS security-based swaps
discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release. This would
provide for a consistent standardized haircut approach for Index CDS
swaps and CDS security-based swaps though, as discussed below, the
haircuts would be lower for the Index CDS security-based swaps. As with
CDS security-based swaps, the proposed maturity grid for Index CDS
swaps prescribes the applicable deduction based on two variables: the
length of time to maturity of the swap and the amount of the current
offered spread on the swap.\351\ The vertical axis of the proposed grid
would contain nine maturity categories ranging from 12 months or less
(the smallest deduction) to 121 months and longer (the largest
deduction).\352\ The horizontal axis would contain six spread
categories ranging from 100 basis points or less (the smallest
deduction) to

[[Page 70249]]

700 basis points and above (the largest deduction).\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\351\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 15c3-1b;
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\352\ Id.
\353\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The haircut percentages in the proposed maturity grid for Index CDS
swaps would be one-third less than the haircut percentages in the
maturity grid for CDS security-based swaps to account for the
diversification benefits of an index.\354\ For example, the proposed
haircut for an Index CDS swap with a maturity of 12 months or less and
a spread of 100 basis points or less would be 0.67% as opposed to a 1%
haircut for a CDS security-based swap in the same maturity and spread
categories. This one-third reduction in the haircut percentages is
consistent with how broad-based equity security-indices are treated in
the Appendix A methodology as compared with single name equity
securities and narrow-based equity index securities. Specifically, as
discussed above in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, the Appendix A
methodology requires portfolios of single name equity securities and
narrow-based equity index securities to be stressed at 10 equidistant
valuation points within a range consisting of a (+/-) 15% market move.
Portfolios of broad-based equity index securities are stressed at 10
equidistant valuation points within a range consisting of a (+/-) 10%
market move, which is two-thirds of the market move range applicable to
single name equity securities and narrow-based equity index securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\354\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the maturity grid approach for CDS security-based
swaps, the proposed deduction for an un-hedged long position in an
Index CDS swap would be 50% of the applicable haircut in the grid.\355\
The proposed deduction requirements for Index CDS swaps would permit a
nonbank SBSD to net long and short positions where the credit default
swaps reference the same index, are in the same spread categories, are
in the same maturity categories or in adjacent maturity categories, and
have maturities within three months of each other.\356\ In this case,
the nonbank SBSD would need to take the specified haircut only on the
notional amount of the excess long or short position.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\355\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 15c3-1b;
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\356\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1) of Rule 15c3-
1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\357\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduced deductions also would apply for strategies where the firm
is long a basket of securities consisting of the components of an index
and long (buyer of protection on) an Index CDS swap on the index.\358\
The reduced deduction for this strategy would apply only if the credit
default swap allowed the nonbank SBSD to deliver a security in the
basket to satisfy the firm's obligation on the swap.\359\ In this case,
the nonbank SBSD would be required to take 50% of the deduction
required on the securities in the basket (i.e., no deduction would be
required with respect to the Index CDS swap and a lesser deduction
would apply to the securities).\360\ If the nonbank SBSD is short
(seller of protection) a basket of securities consisting of the
components of an index and short a credit default swap that references
the index, the nonbank SBSD would be required only to take the
deduction required on the securities in the basket (i.e., no deduction
would be required with respect to the Index CDS swap).\361\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\358\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\359\ Id.
\360\ Id.
\361\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(3) of Rule 15c3-
1b; paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interest Rate Swaps
For interest rate swaps, Appendix B to both Rule 15c3-1 and
proposed new Rule 18a-1 would prescribe a standardized haircut equal to
a percentage of the notional amount of the swap that is generally based
on the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3-1 for U.S. government
securities.\362\ An interest rate swap typically involves the exchange
of specified or determinable cash flows at specified times based upon a
notional amount.\363\ The notional amount is not exchanged but is used
to calculate the fixed or floating rate interest payments under the
swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\362\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A).
\363\ See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 39455 (Dec.
17, 1997), 62 FR 67996 (Dec. 30, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed rule, each side of the interest rate swap would
be converted into a synthetic bond position based on the notional
amount of the swap and the interest rates against which payments are
calculated. These synthetic bonds would then be placed into the
standardized haircut grid in Rule 15c3-1 for U.S. government
securities. Any obligation to receive payments under the swap would be
categorized as a long position; any obligation to make payments under
the swap would be categorized as a short position. A position receiving
or paying based on a floating interest rate generally would be treated
as having a maturity equal to the period until the next interest reset
date; a position receiving or paying based on a fixed rate would be
treated as having a maturity equal to the residual maturity of the
swap. Synthetic bond equivalents derived from interest rate swaps, when
offset against one another, would be subject to a one percent charge
based on the swap's notional amount. Any synthetic bond equivalent that
would be subject to a standardized haircut of less than one percent
under the approach described above would be subject to a minimum
deduction equal to a one percent charge against the notional value of
the swap.\364\ This minimum haircut of one percent is designed to
account for potential differences between the movement of interest
rates on U.S. government securities and interest rates upon which swap
payments are based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\364\ Under Rule 15c3-1, U.S. government securities with a
maturity of less than nine months are subject to net capital
deductions ranging from three-quarters of 1% to 0%. See 17 CFR
240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(1)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Other Swaps
In the case of a swap that is not an Index CDS swap or an interest
rate swap, the applicable haircut would be the amount calculated by
multiplying the notional value of the swap and the percentage specified
in either Rule 15c3-1 or CFTC Rule 1.17 for the asset, obligation, or
event referenced by the swap.\365\ For example, a swap referencing a
commodity that is not covered by an open futures contract or commodity
option would be subject to a capital deduction applicable to the
commodity as if it were a long or short inventory position with a
market value equal to the notional value of the swap. This would
typically result in a deduction equal to 20% of the notional value of
the swap.\366\ The deduction for un-hedged currency swaps referencing
certain major foreign currencies, including the euro, British pounds,
Canadian dollars, Japanese yen, or Swiss francs, would be 6%.\367\ This

[[Page 70250]]

deduction could be reduced by an amount equal to any reduction
recognized for a comparable long or short position in the referenced
instrument, obligation, or event under Appendix B to Rule 15c3-1, as
proposed to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a-1, or CFTC Rule 1.17.
For example, a commodity swap referencing an agricultural product that
is covered by an open futures contract or commodity option in that
product would be subject to a 5% deduction from the notional value of
the swap, rather than the 20% deduction specified above.\368\ Finally,
swaps referencing an equity index could be treated under Appendix A to
Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\365\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 15c3-1b;
paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\366\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b(a)(3)(ix)(C); paragraph
(a)(2)(ix)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
\367\ See CFTC Rule 1.17(c)(5)(ii)(E) (imposing a 6% haircut).
17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(ii)(E). Currency swaps may involve exchanges of
fixed amounts of currencies. If a nonbank SBSD has a currency swap
in which it receives one foreign currency and pays out another
foreign currency, the broker-dealer would treat the currency swap as
a long position in a forward of the one foreign currency and an
unrelated short position in the other foreign currency for capital
purposes. See, e.g., Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No.
32256 (May 4, 1993), 58 FR 27486, 27490 (May 10, 1993).
\368\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b(a)(3)(ix)(B); paragraph
(a)(2)(ix)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed
standardized haircuts swaps. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Which types of swap activities would nonbank SBSDs engage in?
How would nonbank SBSDs use swaps?
2. Which types of swap activities would broker-dealers engage in?
How would broker-dealers use swaps?
3. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide a
reasonable and workable solution for determining capital charges?
Explain why or why not. Are there preferable alternatives? If so,
describe those alternatives.
4. Are there additional categories of swaps, other than commodity
swaps, currency swaps, and interest rate swaps, that the Commission
should address in Rule 15c3-1 and/or proposed Rule 18a-1? If so,
describe them.
5. Are the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps too high or too
low? If so, please explain why and provide data to support the
explanation.
6. Are there capital charges that should be applied to swaps? If
so, describe them.
7. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps adequately
recognize offsets in establishing capital deductions? If not, what
offsets should be recognized, for what type of swap, and why? Provide
data, if applicable, and identify why that offset would be appropriate.
8. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide any
incentives or disincentives to effect swap transactions in a particular
type of legal entity (e.g., in a stand-alone SBSD versus a broker-
dealer SBSD)? Describe the incentives and/or disincentives.
9. Do the proposed standardized haircuts for swaps provide any
competitive advantages or disadvantages for a particular type of legal
entity? Describe the advantages and/or disadvantages.
10. How closely do the movements of interest rates on U.S.
government securities track the movements of interest rates upon which
interest rate swap payments are based? Is the proposed 1% minimum
percentage deduction for interest rate swaps appropriate given that
U.S. government securities with a maturity of less than nine months
have a haircut ranging from three-quarters of 1% to 0%?
c. Risk Management
Prudent financial institutions establish and maintain integrated
risk management systems that seek to have in place management policies
and procedures designed to help ensure an awareness of, and
accountability for, the risks taken throughout the firm and to develop
tools to address those risks.\369\ A key objective of a risk management
system is to ensure that the firm does not ignore any material source
of risk.\370\ Elements of an integrated risk management system include
a dedicated risk management function, which seeks to promote integrated
and systematic approaches to risk management and to develop and
encourage the use of a common set of metrics for risk throughout the
firm.\371\ This function generally includes establishing common firm-
wide definitions of risk and requiring that different business segments
of the firm apply such definitions consistently for risk reporting
purposes.\372\ The risk management function in a financial institution
also typically prepares background material and data analysis (risk
reports) for senior managers to review and use to discuss firm-wide
risks.\373\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\369\ See Trends in Risk Integration and Aggregation, Joint
Forum, Bank of International Settlements (Aug. 2003), available at
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint07.pdf.
\370\ Id.
\371\ Id.
\372\ Id.
\373\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4, which
requires the establishment of a risk management control system.\374\
Rule 15c3-4 was adopted in 1998 as part of the OTC derivatives dealer
oversight program.\375\ The rule requires an OTC derivatives dealer to
establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management
controls to assist in managing the risks associated with its business
activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and
operational risks.\376\ It also requires OTC derivatives dealers to
establish, document, and maintain procedures designed to prevent the
firm from engaging in securities activities that are not permitted of
OTC derivatives dealers pursuant to Rule 15a-1.\377\ Rule 15c3-4
identifies a number of elements that must be part of an OTC derivatives
dealer's internal risk management control system.\378\ These include,
for example, that the system have:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\374\ See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3-1 (17
CFR 240.15c3-1); paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. See also
17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\375\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR
59362.
\376\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\377\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; 17 CFR 240.15a-1.
\378\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A risk control unit that reports directly to senior
management and is independent from business trading units; \379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\379\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separation of duties between personnel responsible for
entering into a transaction and those responsible for recording the
transaction in the books and records of the OTC derivatives dealer;
\380\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\380\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periodic reviews (which may be performed by internal audit
staff) and annual reviews (which must be conducted by independent
certified public accountants) of the OTC derivatives dealer's risk
management systems; \381\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\381\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(3). The annual review must be
conducted in accordance with procedures agreed to by the firm and
the independent certified public accountant conducting the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of risk, risk monitoring, and risk
management.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\382\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15c3-4 further provides that the elements of the internal risk
management control system must include written guidelines, approved by
the OTC derivatives dealer's governing body, that cover various topics,
including, for example:
Quantitative guidelines for managing the OTC derivatives
dealer's overall risk exposure; \383\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\383\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The type, scope, and frequency of reporting by management
on risk exposures; \384\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\384\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures for and the timing of the governing body's
periodic review of the risk monitoring and risk

[[Page 70251]]

management written guidelines, systems, and processes; \385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\385\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The process for monitoring risk independent of the
business or trading units whose activities create the risks being
monitored; \386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\386\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The performance of the risk management function by persons
independent from or senior to the business or trading units whose
activities create the risks; \387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\387\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authority and resources of the groups or persons
performing the risk monitoring and risk management functions; \388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\388\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appropriate response by management when internal risk
management guidelines have been exceeded; \389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\389\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures to monitor and address the risk that an OTC
derivatives transaction contract will be unenforceable; \390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\390\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures requiring the documentation of the
principal terms of OTC derivatives transactions and other relevant
information regarding such transactions; \391\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\391\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(xi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures authorizing specified employees to commit
the OTC derivatives dealer to particular types of transactions.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\392\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(xii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15c3-4 also requires management to periodically review, in
accordance with the written procedures, the business activities of the
OTC derivatives dealer for consistency with risk management
guidelines.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\393\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2004, when adopting the ANC broker-dealer oversight program, the
Commission included a requirement that an ANC broker-dealer must comply
with Rule 15c3-4.\394\ The Commission explained this requirement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\394\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii); Alternative Net Capital
Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428. ANC broker-dealers--
because they are not subject to Rule 15a-1--do not need to comply
with the provisions of Rule 15c3-4 relating to Rule 15a-1. See 17
CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; 17 CFR 240.15a-1.

Participants in the securities markets are exposed to various risks,
including market, credit, funding, legal, and operational risk.
These risks result, in part, from the diverse range of financial
instruments that broker-dealers now trade. Risk management controls
within a broker-dealer promote the stability of the firm and,
consequently, the stability of the marketplace. A firm that adopts
and follows appropriate risk management controls reduces its risk of
significant loss, which also reduces the risk of spreading the
losses to other market participants or throughout the financial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
markets as a whole.\395\

\395\ Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69
FR at 34449.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission is proposing to require that nonbank SBSDs comply
with Rule 15c3-4 because their activities will involve risk management
concerns similar to those faced by other firms subject to the
rule.\396\ In particular, dealing in OTC derivatives, including
security-based swaps, creates various types of risk that need to be
carefully managed.\397\ These risks are due, in part, to the
characteristics of OTC derivative products and the way OTC derivative
markets have evolved in comparison to the markets for exchange-traded
securities.\398\ For example, individually negotiated OTC derivative
products, including security-based swaps, generally are less liquid
than exchange-traded instruments and involve a high degree of leverage.
Furthermore, market participants face risks associated with the
financial and legal ability of counterparties to perform under the
terms of specific transactions. Consequently, a firm that is active in
dealing in these types of instruments should have an internal risk
management control system that helps the firm identify and mitigate the
risks it is facing. Rule 15c3-4 is designed to require an OTC
derivatives dealer and ANC broker-dealer to take prudent measures to
protect the firm from losses that can result from failing to account
for and control risk. Requiring nonbank SBSDs to comply with Rule 15c3-
4 is designed to promote the establishment of effective risk management
control systems by these firms.\399\ Moreover, based on Commission
staff experience, it is expected that many nonbank SBSDs will be
affiliates of firms already subject to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\396\ Like ANC broker-dealers, nonbank SBSDs would not need to
comply paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii), (c)(5)(xiv), (d)(8), and (d)(9) of
Rule 15c3-4. These are the provisions that specifically reference
Rule 15a-1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\397\ See OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures And
Counterparty Risk Management at 11-15.
\398\ See OTC Derivatives Dealers, Exchange Act Release No.
39454 (Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 67940 (Dec. 30, 1997).
\399\ See paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a-1 (which would
apply Rule 15c3-4 to stand-alone SBSDs); proposed new paragraph
(a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3-1 (which would apply Rule 15c3-4 to broker-
dealer SBSDs); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii) (which applies Rule
15c3-4 to ANC broker-dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed risk
management requirements. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
1. Are the types of management controls required by Rule 15c3-4
appropriate for addressing the risks associated with engaging in a
security-based swap business? If not, explain why not.
2. Are there types of risk management controls not identified in
Rule 15c3-4 that would be appropriate to prescribe for nonbank SBSDs?
If so, identify the controls and explain why they would be appropriate
for nonbank SBSDs.
3. Are the factors listed in paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3-4
appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
4. Are there any additional factors that a nonbank SBSD should
consider when adopting its internal control system guidelines,
policies, and procedures, in addition to the factors listed in
paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3-4? If so, identify the factors and explain
why they should be included.
5. Are the elements prescribed in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-4
appropriate for nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
6. Are there any additional elements that a nonbank SBSD should
include in its internal risk management system in addition to the
applicable elements prescribed in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-4? If so,
identify the elements and explain why they should be included.
7. Are there any elements in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-4 that
should not be applicable to nonbank SBSDs other than elements in
paragraphs (c)(xiii) and (xiv)? If so, identify the elements and
explain why they should not be applicable.
8. Are the factors management would need to consider in its
periodic review of the nonbank SBSD's business activities for
consistency with the risk management guidelines appropriate for nonbank
SBSDs? If not, explain why not.
9. Should management consider any additional factors in its
periodic review of the nonbank SBSD's business activities for
consistency with the risk management guidelines other than those listed
in paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-4? If so, identify the factors and
explain why they should be included.
10. Are there any factors in paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-4 that
management should not consider other than the factors in paragraphs
(d)(8) and (9)? If so, identify the factors and explain why they should
not be considered.

[[Page 70252]]

d. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement
The Commission is proposing that ANC broker-dealers and nonbank
SBSDs approved to use internal models be subject to liquidity risk
management requirements. Funding liquidity risk has been defined as the
risk that a firm will not be able to efficiently meet both expected and
unexpected current and future cash flow and collateral needs without
adversely impacting either the daily operations or the financial
condition of the firm.\400\ The consequences of liquidity funding
strains for financial institutions active in a securities business
include the inability to continue to issue unsecured long-term debt to
finance illiquid assets and requirements to deliver additional
collateral to continue to finance liquid assets on a secured
basis.\401\ The causes of funding liquidity strain for a financial
institution include firm-specific events such as credit rating
downgrades and other negative news leading to a loss of market
confidence in the firm.\402\ Funding liquidity also can come under
stress such as occurred during the financial crisis.\403\
Traditionally, financial institutions have used liquidity funding
stress tests as a means to measure liquidity risk.\404\ For
institutions active in securities trading, liquidity funding stress
tests generally estimate cash and collateral needs over a period of
time and assume that sources to meet those needs (e.g., issuance of
long and short unsecured term debt, secured funding lines, and lines of
credit) will become impaired or be unavailable.\405\ To manage funding
liquidity risk, these firms maintain pools of liquid unencumbered
assets that can be used to raise funds during a liquidity stress event
to meet cash needs.\406\ The size of the liquidity pool is based on the
firm's estimation of how much funding will be lost from external
sources during a stress event and the duration of the event.\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\400\ See Joint Forum, Bank of International Settlements, The
management of liquidity risk in financial groups, (May 2006), at 1,
note 1 (``The management of liquidity risk in financial groups'').
See also Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Principles for
Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision (Sept. 2008), at 1,
note 2 (``Funding liquidity risk is the risk that the firm will not
be able to meet efficiently both expected and unexpected current and
future cash flow and collateral needs without affecting either daily
operations or the financial condition of the firm. Market liquidity
risk is the risk that a firm cannot easily offset or eliminate a
position at the market price because of inadequate market depth or
market disruption.''); Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules
for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 55432 (Mar. 9, 2007),
72 FR 12862, 12870, note 72 (Mar. 19, 2007) (``Liquidity risk
includes the risk that a firm will not be able to unwind or hedge a
position or meet cash demands as they become due.''); Enhanced
Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered
Companies, Federal Reserve, 77 FR 594 (Jan. 5, 2012) (proposing a
rule to require certain large financial institutions to conduct
liquidity stress testing at least monthly).
\401\ See The management of liquidity risk in financial groups
at 10.
\402\ See id. at 6-8.
\403\ See Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of
2008, Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) (Oct. 21, 2009) (``Risk
Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of 2008'').
\404\ The management of liquidity risk in financial groups at 8-
12.
\405\ Id. at 10-11.
\406\ Id.
\407\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The financial crisis demonstrated that the funding liquidity risk
management practices of certain individual financial institutions were
not sufficient to handle a liquidity stress event of that
magnitude.\408\ In particular, it has been observed that the stress
tests utilized by financial institutions had weaknesses \409\ and the
amount of contingent liquidity they maintained to replace external
sources of funding was insufficient to cover the institutions'
liquidity needs.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\408\ See Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of
2008.
\409\ Id. at 14 (``Market conditions and the deteriorating
financial state of firms exposed weaknesses in firms' approaches to
liquidity stress testing, particularly with respect to secured
borrowing and contingent funding needs. These deteriorating
conditions underscored the need for greater consideration of the
overlap between systemic and firm-specific events and longer time
horizons, and the connection between stress tests and business-as-
usual liquidity management.'').
\410\ Id. at 15 (``Interviewed firms typically calculated and
maintained a measurable funding cushion, such as `months of
coverage,' which is conceptually similar to rating agencies' twelve-
month liquidity alternatives analyses. Some institutions were
required to maintain a liquidity cushion that could withstand the
loss of unsecured funding for one year. Many institutions found that
this metric did not capture important elements of stress that the
organizations faced, such as the loss of secured funding and demands
for collateral to support clearing and settlement activity and to
mitigate the risks of accepting novations.'') (emphasis in the
original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of this release, nonbank
SBSDs approved to use internal models would be subject to Rule 15c3-4,
which currently applies to ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives
dealers.\411\ Rule 15c3-4 requires each firm subject to the rule to
``establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk
management controls to assist it in managing the risks associated with
its business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity,
legal, and operational risks.'' \412\ The Commission's supervision of
ANC broker-dealers consists of regular meetings with firm personnel to
review each firm's financial results, the management of the firm's
balance sheet, and, in particular, the liquidity of the firm's balance
sheet.\413\ Emphasis is placed on funding and liquidity risk management
plans and liquidity stress scenarios.\414\ The Commission staff also
meets regularly with the firm's financial controllers to review and
discuss price verification results and other financial controls,
particularly concerning illiquid or hard-to-value assets or large asset
concentrations.\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\411\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\412\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\413\ A more detailed description of the Commission's ANC
broker-dealer program is available on the Commission's Web site at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdaltnetcap.htm.
\414\ Id.
\415\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the large size of ANC broker-dealers and the potentially
substantial role that stand-alone SBSDs approved to use internal models
may play in the security-based swap markets, these firms would be
required to take steps to manage funding liquidity risk.\416\
Specifically, these firms would be required to perform a liquidity
stress test at least monthly and, based on the results of that test,
maintain liquidity reserves to address potential funding needs during a
stress event.\417\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\416\ See proposed new paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3-1; paragraph
(f) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\417\ Id. The requirement to conduct the liquidity stress test
on at least a monthly basis is designed to ensure that the test is
conducted at sufficiently regular intervals to account for material
changes that could impact the firm's liquidity profile. In this
regard, the ANC broker-dealers are required to prepare and file
monthly financial reports, which are designed to allow securities
regulators to monitor their financial condition. See 17 CFR 240.17a-
5; compare Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation
Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594 (Jan. 5, 2012)
(Federal Reserve's proposed rule to require a ``covered company'' to
conduct liquidity stress testing at least monthly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposal, an ANC broker-dealer and stand-alone SBSD using
internal models would need to perform a liquidity stress test at least
monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for
30 consecutive days.\418\ The results of the liquidity stress test
would need to be provided within ten business days of the month end to
senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at
the firm. In addition, the assumptions underlying the liquidity stress
test would need to be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management
that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm and at
least annually by senior management of the firm. These provisions are
designed to

[[Page 70253]]

promote the engagement of senior level risk managers and managers of
the firm in the implementation of the liquidity stress test and senior
level risk managers in monitoring the results of the liquidity stress
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\418\ Based on the Commission staff's experience, ANC broker-
dealers currently perform regular liquidity stress tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These required assumed conditions are designed to be consistent
with the liquidity stress tests performed by the ANC broker-dealers
(based on Commission staff experience supervising the firms) and to
address the types of liquidity outflows experienced by ANC broker-
dealers and other broker-dealers in times of stress. The required
assumed conditions would be:
A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness
of the firm severe enough to trigger contractual credit-related
commitment provisions of counterparty agreements;
The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier
of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material
amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and
unfunded committed lines of credit;
The potential for a material net loss of secured funding;
The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement
financing for less liquid assets;
The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit
at clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net
worth or which is not funded by customer assets;
A material increase in collateral required to be
maintained at registered clearing agencies of which the firm is a
member; and
The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by
market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to
enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses,
positions, and commitments of the firm, including those related to
customer businesses of the firm.\419\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\419\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These proposed minimum elements are designed to ensure that ANC broker-
dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models employ a stress
test that is severe enough to produce an estimate of a potential
funding loss of a magnitude that might be expected in a severely
stressed market. As discussed below, the results of the stress test
would be used by the firm to determine the amount of contingent
liquidity to be maintained. The proposals would require that the ANC
broker-dealer and stand-alone SBSD itself must maintain at all times
liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress
test.\420\ The liquidity reserves would need to be comprised of
unencumbered cash or U.S. government securities.\421\ This limitation
with respect to the assets that can be used for the liquidity reserves
requirement is designed to ensure that only the most liquid instruments
are held in the reserves, given that the market for less liquid
instruments is generally disproportionately volatile during a time of
market stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\420\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\421\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of stress tests play a key role in shaping an entity's
liquidity risk contingency planning.\422\ Thus, stress testing and
contingency planning are closely intertwined.\423\ Under the proposals,
the ANC broker-dealer and a stand-alone SBSD using internal models
would be required to establish a written contingency funding plan.\424\
The plan would need to clearly set out the strategies for addressing
liquidity shortfalls in emergency situations,\425\ and would need to
address the policies, roles, and responsibilities for meeting the
liquidity needs of the firm and communicating with the public and other
market participants during a liquidity stress event.\426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\422\ See, e.g., Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA,
Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk
Management 7, SR 10-6 (Mar. 17, 2010).
\423\ Id.
\424\ Based on staff experience supervising the ANC broker-
dealers, all of the ANC broker-dealers that are part of a holding
company generally have a written contingency funding plan, generally
at the holding company level. This proposed rule would require that
each ANC broker-dealer and stand-alone SBSD using internal models
maintain a written contingency funding plan at the entity level (in
addition to any holding company plan). See also Enhanced Prudential
Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies,
77 FR at 604. The Federal Reserve stated that the objectives of the
contingency funding plan are to provide a plan for responding to a
liquidity crisis, to identify alternate liquidity sources that a
covered company can access during liquidity stress events, and to
describe steps that should be taken to ensure that the covered
company's sources of liquidity are sufficient to fund its operating
costs and meet its commitments while minimizing additional costs and
disruptions. Id. at 610.
\425\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\426\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. To promote the flow of
necessary information during a liquidity stress, the Federal
Reserve's proposed rule would require the event management process
to include a mechanism that ensures effective reporting and
communication within the covered company and with outside parties,
including the Federal Reserve and other relevant supervisors,
counterparties, and other stakeholders. Enhanced Prudential
Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies,
77 FR at 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed liquidity
stress test requirement. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
1. Are the proposed funding liquidity requirements appropriate for
ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs that use internal models? If not,
explain why not. Are there modifications that would improve the funding
liquidity provisions? If so, explain them.
2. Should the proposed funding liquidity requirements apply to a
broader group of broker-dealers (e.g., all broker-dealers that hold
customer securities and cash or all broker-dealer with total assets in
excess of minimum threshold)? Explain why or why not.
3. Should the proposed funding liquidity requirements apply to all
nonbank SBSDs? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
4. Is monthly an appropriate frequency for the liquidity stress
test? For example, would it be preferable to require the liquidity
stress test on a more frequent basis such as weekly, or, alternatively,
on a less frequent basis such as quarterly? If so, explain why.
5. Is the requirement to provide the results of the liquidity
stress test within ten business days to senior management that has
responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm appropriate? If
not, explain why not. Should results be provided in a shorter or longer
timeframe than ten business days? For example, is ten business days
sufficient time to run the stress tests, generate the results, and
provide them to senior management? If the time-frame should be longer
or shorter, identify the different timeframe and explain why it would
be more appropriate than ten business days.
6. Is the requirement that the assumptions underlying the liquidity
stress test be reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that
has responsibility to oversee risk management at the firm and at least
annually by senior management of firm appropriate? If not, explain why
not. Should the reviews be more or less frequent? If so, identify the
frequency and explain why it would be more appropriate than quarterly
and annually.
7. Are the required assumptions of the funding liquidity stress
test appropriate? If not, explain why not.

[[Page 70254]]

8. Are there additional or alternative assumptions that should be
required in the funding liquidity stress test? If so, identify the
additional or alternative assumptions and explain why they should be
included.
9. Are the required assumptions of the funding liquidity stress
test understandable? If not, identify the elements that require further
explanation.
10. Should other types of securities in addition to U.S. government
securities be permitted for the liquidity pool? If so, identify the
types of securities and explain why they should be permitted.
11. Are the requirements for the written contingency funding plan
appropriate? If not, explain why not.
12. Should additional or alternative requirements for the written
contingency funding plan be required? If so, identify the additional or
alternative requirements and explain why they should be required.
e. Other Rule 15c3-1 Provisions Incorporated into Rule 18a-1
Rule 15c3-1 has four other sets of provisions that are proposed to
be included in new Rule 18a-1: (1) Debt-equity ratio requirements;
\427\ (2) capital withdrawal notice requirements; \428\ (3) subsidiary
consolidation requirements (Appendix C); \429\ and (4) subordinated
loan agreement requirements (Appendix D).\430\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\427\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(d).
\428\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e).
\429\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c.
\430\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Debt-Equity Ratio Requirements
Rule 15c3-1 sets limits on the amount of a broker-dealer's
outstanding subordinated loans.\431\ The limits are prescribed in terms
of debt-to-equity amounts.\432\ The debt-to-equity limits are designed
to ensure that a broker-dealer has a base of permanent capital in
addition to any subordinated loans, which--as discussed above--are
permitted to be added back to net worth when computing net
capital.\433\ Proposed new Rule 18a-1 would contain the same debt-to-
equity limits.\434\ The objective of this parallel provision in Rule
18a-1 is to require nonbank SBSDs to maintain a base of permanent
capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\431\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(d).
\432\ Id.
\433\ See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 9891 (Dec.
5, 1972), 38 FR 56, 59 (Jan. 3, 1973) (``The Commission has
discovered a large number of instances in which broker-dealers were
able to comply with the net capital although the firms [sic] net
worth been entirely depleted. Compliance with the rule was possible
only because subordinated debt is a permissible form of capital.
Such conditions rendered the firm technically insolvent since its
liabilities exceeded its assets.'').
\434\ See paragraph (h) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to
incorporate the debt-equity ratio provisions of Rule 15c3-1 into
proposed new Rule 18a-1. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following question:
1. Are the debt-equity ratio requirements in Rule 15c3-1
appropriate standards for stand-alone SBSDs? If not, explain why not
and suggest an alternative standard.
ii. Capital Withdrawal Requirements
Rule 15c3-1 requires that a broker-dealer provide notice when it
seeks to withdraw capital in an amount that exceeds certain
thresholds.\435\ For example, a broker-dealer must give the Commission
a two-day notice before a withdrawal that would exceed 30% of the
firm's excess net capital and a notice within two days after a
withdrawal that exceeded 20% of that measure.\436\ The notice
provisions are designed to alert the Commission and the firm's
designated examining authority that capital is being withdrawn to
assist in the monitoring of the financial condition of the broker-
dealer. Rule 15c3-1 also restricts capital withdrawals that could have
certain financial impacts on the firm, including withdrawals that
reduce net capital below certain numerical levels.\437\ These
restrictions are designed to ensure that the broker-dealer maintains a
buffer of net capital above its minimum required amount. Finally, under
the rule, the Commission may issue an order temporarily restricting a
broker-dealer from withdrawing capital or making loans or advances to
stockholders, insiders, and affiliates under certain
circumstances.\438\ This provision and several of the notice and
restriction provisions were put in place after the failure of the
investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (``Drexel'').\439\ Drexel,
prior to its bankruptcy, transferred significant funds from its broker-
dealer subsidiary to the holding company without notice to the
Commission or Drexel's designated examining authority.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\435\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(1).
\436\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(1).
\437\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(2).
\438\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(3).
\439\ See Net Capital Rule, Exchange Act Release No. 28927 (Feb.
28, 1991), 56 FR 9124 (Mar. 5, 1991).
\440\ Id. at 9125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to the same provisions, with one
difference.\441\ In 2007, the Commission proposed amendments to Rule
15c3-1 to eliminate certain of the conditions required in an order
restricting the withdrawals or the making of loans or advances to
stockholders, insiders, and affiliates.\442\ More specifically, under
Rule 15c3-1, the Commission can, by order, restrict a broker-dealer for
a period up to 20 business days from making capital withdrawals, loans,
and advances only to the extent the withdrawal, loan, or advance would
exceed 30% of the broker-dealer's excess net capital when aggregated
with other such transactions over a 30-day period.\443\ The current
requirement raises a concern, based on Commission staff experience,
that to the extent the books and records of a broker-dealer that is in
financial distress are incomplete or inaccurate it can be difficult for
regulators to determine the firm's actual net capital and excess net
capital amounts.\444\ An order that limits withdrawals to a percentage
of excess net capital may be difficult to enforce as it may not always
be clear when that threshold had been reached.\445\ Given these
concerns and consistent with the proposed amendment to Rule 15c3-1, the
Commission is proposing that its ability to restrict withdrawals of
capital, loans or advances by stand-alone SBSDs not be limited based on
the amount of the withdrawal, loan or advance in relation to the amount
of the firms' excess net capital.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\441\ See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\442\ Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-
Dealers, 72 FR 12862.
\443\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(3)(i). To issue an order, the
Commission must, based on the facts and information available,
conclude that the withdrawal, advance or loan may be detrimental to
the financial integrity of the broker-dealer, or may unduly
jeopardize the broker-dealer's ability to repay its customer claims
or other liabilities which may cause a significant impact on the
markets or expose the customers or creditors of the broker-dealer to
loss without taking into account the application of the Securities
Investor Protection Act of 1970 (``SIPA''). See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1(e)(3)(i)(B). Furthermore, the rule provides that an order
temporarily prohibiting the withdrawal of capital shall be rescinded
if the Commission determines that the restriction on capital
withdrawal should not remain in effect and that the hearing will be
held within two business days from the date of the request in
writing by the broker-dealer. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e)(3)(ii).
\444\ See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for
Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12873.
\445\ Id.
\446\ See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1; Amendments
to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at
12873.
.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70255]]

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to
incorporate the capital withdrawal provisions of Rule 15c3-1 into
proposed new Rule 18a-1. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
1. Are the capital withdrawal requirements in Rule 15c3-1
appropriate standards for stand-alone SBSDs? If not, explain why and
suggest an alternative standard.
2. Under Rule 15c3-1, a broker-dealer must give the Commission
notice two days before a withdrawal that would exceed 30% of the firm's
excess net capital and two days after a withdrawal that exceeded 20% of
that measure. Are these thresholds appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs?
If not, explain why not and suggest alternative thresholds.
3. Rule 15c3-1 also restricts capital withdrawals that would have
certain financial impacts on a broker-dealer such as lowering net
capital below certain levels. Are these same requirements appropriate
standards for stand-alone SBSDs?
4. Under the proposed amendments, the 30% of excess net capital
limitation currently contained in Rule 15c3-1 with respect to
Commission orders restricting withdrawals would be eliminated. However,
under the proposed amendments, the Commission in issuing an order
restricting withdrawals could impose such terms and conditions as the
Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
consistent with the protection of investors. Please identify terms and
conditions that the Commission should consider to be included in such
orders. For example, under certain circumstances, would it be
appropriate for the current limitation in Rule 15c3-1 to be included in
the order? Alternatively, should the 30% of excess net capital
limitation currently contained in Rule 15c3-1 be retained in proposed
new Rule 18a-1? If so, please explain why.
iii. Appendix C
Appendix C to Rule 15c3-1 requires a broker-dealer in computing its
net capital and aggregate indebtedness to consolidate in a single
computation assets and liabilities of any subsidiary or affiliate for
which it guarantees, endorses or assumes directly or indirectly
obligations or liabilities.\447\ The assets and liabilities of a
subsidiary or affiliate whose liabilities and obligations have not been
guaranteed, endorsed, or assumed directly or indirectly by the broker-
dealer may also be consolidated.\448\ By including the assets and
liabilities of a subsidiary in its net capital computation, a firm may
receive flow-through net capital benefits because the consolidation may
serve to increase the firm's net capital and thereby assist it in
meeting the minimum requirements of Rule 15c3-1. Appendix C sets forth
the requirements that must be met to consolidate in a single net
capital computation the assets and liabilities of subsidiaries and
affiliates in order to obtain flow-through capital benefits for a
parent broker-dealer.\449\ Specifically, the broker-dealer must possess
majority ownership and control over the consolidated subsidiary or
affiliate and obtain an opinion of counsel essentially stating that at
least the portion of the subsidiary's or affiliate's net asset value
related to the broker-dealer's ownership interest therein may be
distributed to the broker-dealer (or a trustee in a SIPA liquidation)
within thirty days, at the request of the distributee.\450\ In
addition, subordinated obligations of the subsidiary or affiliate may
not serve to increase the net worth of the broker-dealer unless the
obligations also are subordinated to the claims of present and future
creditors of the broker-dealer.\451\ Appendix C also requires that
liabilities and obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate of the broker-
dealer that are guaranteed, endorsed, or assumed either directly or
indirectly by the broker-dealer must be reflected in the firm's net
capital computation.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\447\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c.
\448\ Id.
\449\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c.
\450\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c(b). FINRA Rule 4150(a) requires
that prior written notice be given to FINRA whenever a FINRA member
guarantees, endorses or assumes, directly or indirectly, the
obligations or liabilities of another person. Paragraph (b) of the
rule requires that prior written approval must be obtained from
FINRA whenever any member seeks to receive flow-through capital
benefits in accordance with Appendix C to Rule 15c3-1. This makes
compliance with the rule more stringent because FINRA must pre-
approve the subordinated debt for FINRA member firms who wish to
take advantage of the capital benefits available under Appendix C of
Rule 15c3-1. As of June 1, 2012, of the 4,711 broker-dealers
registered with the Commission, 4,437 were FINRA member firms.
\451\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c(c)(2).
\452\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on Commission staff experience and information from an SRO,
very few broker-dealers consolidate subsidiaries or affiliates to
obtain the flow-through capital benefits under Appendix C to Rule 15c3-
1. The review and information from the SRO indicate that the limited
use results from the difficulty in obtaining the required opinion of
counsel. Consequently, Appendix C to proposed new Rule 18a-1 would
contain only the requirement that a stand-alone SBSD include in its net
capital computation all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or
affiliate of the stand-alone SBSD that the SBSD guarantees, endorses,
or assumes either directly or indirectly. Thus, stand-alone SBSDs would
not be able to claim flow-through capital benefits for consolidated
subsidiaries or affiliates. The Commission does not expect that this
difference in approach between Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1
would create any competitive disadvantage for stand-alone SBSDs vis-
[agrave]-vis broker-dealer SBSDs, given the limited use of the flow-
through benefits provision under the current rule.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on Appendix C of both
Rule 15c3-1 and proposed Rule 18a-1. In addition, the Commission
requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in
response to the following questions:
1. Should the flow-through capital benefit provisions of Appendix C
to Rule 15c3-1 be eliminated? If so, explain why. Alternatively, should
the flow-through capital benefit provisions in Appendix C to Rule 15c3-
1 be incorporated into proposed Rule 18a-1? If so, explain why.
2. Would stand-alone SBSDs be subject to a competitive disadvantage
vis-[agrave]-vis broker-dealer SBSDs as a result of the differences
between proposed Appendix C of Rule 18a-1 and Appendix C of Rule 15c3-
1? Would these differences provide an incentive for an entity to
register a nonbank SBSD as a broker-dealer SBSD? Please explain.
iv. Appendix D
Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1 sets forth the minimum and non-exclusive
requirements for satisfactory subordination agreements.\453\ A
subordination agreement is a contract between a broker-dealer and a
third party pursuant to which the third party lends money or provides a
collateralized note to the broker-dealer. Generally, broker-dealers use
subordination agreements to borrow from third parties (typically
affiliates) to increase the broker-dealer's net capital.\454\ Nonbank
SBSDs also are expected to use subordinated debt to obtain financing
for their activities and the proposals discussed below would prescribe
when

[[Page 70256]]

such loans would receive favorable capital treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\453\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d.
\454\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to receive beneficial regulatory capital treatment under
Rule 15c3-1, the obligation to the third party must be subordinated to
the claims of creditors pursuant to a satisfactory subordination
agreement, as defined under Appendix D.\455\ Among other things, a
satisfactory subordination agreement must prohibit, except under
strictly defined limitations, prepayments or any payment of an
obligation before the expiration of at least one year from the
effective date of the subordination agreement.\456\ This provision was
designed to ensure the adequacy as well as the permanence of capital in
the industry.\457\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\455\ Id.
\456\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(b)(1).
\457\ See Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers; Amended
Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 18417 (Jan. 13, 1982), 47 FR 3512,
3516 (Jan. 25, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two types of subordination agreements under Appendix D to
Rule 15c3-1: (1) a subordinated loan agreement, which is used when a
third party lends cash to a broker-dealer; \458\ and (2) a secured
demand note agreement, which is a promissory note in which a third
party agrees to give cash to a broker-dealer on demand during the term
of the note and provides cash or securities to the broker-dealer as
collateral.\459\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\458\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(a)(2)(ii).
\459\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(a)(2)(v)(A). Under a secured demand
note agreement, the third party cannot sell or otherwise use the
collateral unless the third party substitutes securities of equal
value for the deposited securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1d(a)(2)(v)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A broker-dealer SBSD would be subject to the provisions of Appendix
D to Rule 15c3-1 through parallel provisions in Appendix D to proposed
new Rule 18a-1.\460\ However, only the subordinated loan agreement
provisions would be included in Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a-1.
Thus, stand-alone SBSDs would not be able to use secured demand note
agreements to obtain beneficial regulatory capital treatment under
proposed Appendix D to Rule 18a-1. Based on Commission staff
experience, broker-dealers infrequently utilize secured demand notes as
a source of capital, and the amounts of these notes are relatively
small in size. Therefore, this form of regulatory capital is not being
proposed for stand-alone SBSDs. Accordingly, Appendix D to proposed new
Rule 18a-1 would refer solely to ``subordinated loan agreements'' in
the provisions where Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1 refers more broadly to
``subordination agreements.'' \461\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\460\ Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1d has provisions that apply if an
action (e.g., repayment of the subordinated loan) would cause the
broker-dealer's net capital to fall below certain thresholds (e.g.,
120% of the broker-dealer's minimum net capital requirement) and a
provision that applies if the broker-dealer's net capital has fallen
below its minimum net capital requirement. See paragraphs (b)(7),
(b)(8)(i), (b)(10)(ii)(B), (c)(2), and (c)(5)(i)(B) of 17 CFR
240.15c3-1d. Proposed new Rule 18a-1 would contain analogous
provisions that would be based on the proposed minimum net capital
and tentative net capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs. See
paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(ii)(A), (c)(2), and (c)(4)(i) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1d. In addition, in order to reflect the
minimum net capital requirements that would apply to broker-dealer
SBSDs, conforming amendments are being proposed for Rule 15c3-1d.
See proposed amendments to paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8)(i),
(b)(10)(ii)(B), (c)(2), and (c)(5)(i)(B) of 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d.
\461\ The term ``subordination agreements'' as used in Appendix
D to Rule 15c3-1 references both subordinated loan agreements and
secured demand note agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subordination agreements under Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1 are
approved by a broker-dealer's designated examining authority.\462\ A
broker-dealer also is required to notify its designated examining
authority upon the occurrence of certain events under Appendix D to
Rule 15c3-1.\463\ Because the term ``designated examining authority''
applies only to registered broker-dealers (i.e., stand-alone SBSDs
would not have a designated examining authority), the provisions of
Appendix D to Rule 18a-1 refer to the ``Commission'' instead of the
``designated examining authority.'' Specifically, under paragraph
(c)(5) of Appendix D to proposed Rule 18a-1, a stand-alone SBSD would
be required to file two copies of any proposed subordinated loan
agreement (including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) at
least 30 days prior to the proposed execution date of the agreement
with the Commission.\464\ The rule would also require an SBSD to file
with the Commission a statement setting forth the name and address of
the lender, the business relationship of the lender to the SBSD, and
whether the SBSD carried an account for the lender effecting
transactions in security-based swaps at or about the time the proposed
agreement was filed.\465\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\462\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(c)(6)(i). See also FINRA Rule
4110(e)(1), which provides that subordinated loans and secured
demand notes must be approved by FINRA in order to receive
beneficial regulatory capital treatment.
\463\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d(b)(6).
\464\ See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-1d.
\465\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on Appendix D to both
Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1. In addition, the Commission
requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in
response to the following questions:
1. Should the secured demand note provisions of Appendix D to Rule
15c3-1 be eliminated? Alternatively, should the secured demand note
provisions be incorporated into Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a-1?
If so, explain why.
2. Would stand-alone SBSDs be disadvantaged vis-[agrave]-vis
broker-dealer SBSDs as a result of the differences between proposed
Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a-1 and Appendix D to Rule 15c3-1?
Would these differences provide an incentive for an entity to register
a nonbank SBSD as a broker-dealer SBSD? Please explain.
3. Proposed Capital Rules for Nonbank MSBSPs
Proposed new Rule 18a-2 would establish capital requirements for
nonbank MSBSPs. In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required at all
times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.\466\ A tangible
net worth standard is being proposed for nonbank MSBSPs, rather than
the net liquid assets test in Rule 15c3-1, because the entities that
may need to register as nonbank MSBSPs may engage in a diverse range of
business activities different from, and broader than, the securities
activities conducted by broker-dealers or SBSDs (otherwise they would
be required to register as an SBSD and/or broker-dealer). For example,
these entities may engage in commercial activities that require them to
have substantial fixed assets to support manufacturing and/or result in
them having significant assets comprised of unsecured receivables.
Requiring them to adhere to a net liquid assets test could result in
their having to obtain significant additional capital or engage in
costly restructurings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\466\ See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a-2. If a broker-
dealer is required to register as a nonbank MSBSP, it would need to
continue to comply with Rule 15c3-1 in addition to proposed new Rule
18a-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term tangible net worth would be defined to mean the nonbank
MSBSP's net worth as determined in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States, excluding goodwill and
other intangible assets.\467\ In determining net worth, all long and
short positions in security-based swaps, swaps, and related positions
would need to be marked to

[[Page 70257]]

their market value.\468\ Further, a nonbank MSBSP would be required to
include in its computation of tangible net worth all liabilities or
obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate that the participant
guarantees, endorses, or assumes, either directly or indirectly.\469\
The proposed definition of tangible net worth would allow nonbank
MSBSPs to include as regulatory capital assets that would be deducted
from net worth under Rule 15c3-1, such as property, plant, equipment,
and unsecured receivables. At the same time, it would require the
deduction of goodwill and other intangible assets.\470\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\467\ See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\468\ Id. This provision is modeled on paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(B)(1) of Rule 15c3-1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi)(B)(1). See also paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) of proposed
new Rule 18a-1.
\469\ See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\470\ The proposed definition of tangible net worth is
consistent with the CFTC's proposed definition of tangible net
equity. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27828 (defining
tangible net equity as ``equity as determined under U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles, and excludes goodwill and other
intangible assets.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because nonbank MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage
in a substantial security-based swap business, they would be required
to comply with Rule 15c3-4 with respect to their security-based swap
and swap activities.\471\ As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of
this release, Rule 15c3-4 requires OTC derivatives dealers and ANC
broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of
internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks
associated with their business activities, including market, credit,
leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.\472\ The proposal
that nonbank MSBSPs be subject to Rule 15c3-4 is designed to promote
sound risk management practices with respect to the risks associated
with OTC derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\471\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\472\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the risk that the failure of a nonbank MSBSP could have a
destabilizing market impact is being addressed in part by the account
equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3--as discussed below in
section II.B.2.c.ii. of this release--that would require a nonbank
MSBSP to deliver collateral to counterparties to cover the
counterparty's current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. The proposed
requirement that nonbank MSBSPs deliver collateral to counterparties is
designed to address a risk that arose during the 2008 credit crisis
(i.e., the existence of large uncollateralized exposures of market
participants to a single entity). The proposed requirements in proposed
new Rule 18a-2 that a nonbank MSBSP maintain positive tangible net
worth and establish risk management controls are designed to serve as
an extra measure of protection but be flexible enough to account for
the potential range of business activities of these entities.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed capital
requirements for nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Is a tangible net worth test an appropriate standard for a
nonbank MSBSP? Would a net liquid assets test capital standard be more
appropriate? If so, describe the rationale for such an approach.
2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be permitted to calculate their tangible
net worth using generally accepted accounting principles in
jurisdictions other than U.S., such as where the nonbank MSBSP is
incorporated, organized, or has its principal office? If so, explain
why.
3. Can the risks to market stability presented by nonbank MSBSPs be
largely addressed through margin requirements?
4. Should proposed new Rule 18a-2 require that a nonbank MSBSP
maintain a minimum fixed-dollar amount of tangible net equity, for
example, equal to $20,000,000 or some greater or lesser amount? If so,
explain the merits of imposing a fixed-dollar amount and identify the
recommended fixed-dollar amount.
5. Should proposed new Rule 18a-2 require that a nonbank MSBSP
compute capital charges for market risk and credit risk? For example,
should such a requirement be modeled on the CFTC's proposed market and
credit risk charges for nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap
participants that are not using internal models and are not FCMs? \473\
If nonbank SBSDs should be required to take market and credit risk
charges, explain why. If not, explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\473\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27809-27812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to a leverage test and if so,
how should it be designed? Explain the rationale for such a test.
7. Should a nonbank MSBSP be subject to a minimum tangible net
worth requirement that is proportional to the amount of risk incurred
by the MSBSP through its outstanding security-based swap transactions?
More specifically, should an MSBSP calculate an ``adjusted tangible net
worth'' by subtracting market risk deductions for their security-based
swaps (either based on the standardized haircuts or on approved models)
from their tangible net worth and be required to maintain sufficient
capital such that this adjusted tangible net worth figure is positive?

B. Margin

1. Introduction
As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, dealers
in OTC derivatives manage credit risk to their OTC derivatives
counterparties through collateral and netting agreements.\474\ The two
types of credit exposure arising from OTC derivatives are current
exposure and potential future exposure. The current exposure is the
amount that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the dealer if
all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were terminated
(i.e., it is the amount of the current receivable from the
counterparty). This form of credit risk arises from the potential that
the counterparty may default on the obligation to pay the current
receivable. The potential future exposure is the amount that the
current exposure may increase in favor of the dealer in the future.
This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the
counterparty may default before providing the dealer with additional
collateral to cover the incremental increase in the current exposure or
that the current exposure will increase after a default when the
counterparty has ceased to provide additional collateral to cover such
increases and before the dealer can liquidate the position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\474\ See Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral
Collateralization Practices; OTC Derivatives: Settlement Procedures
and Counterparty Risk Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dealers may require counterparties to provide collateral to cover
their current and potential future exposures to the counterparty.\475\
On the other hand, they may not require collateral for these purposes
because, for example, the counterparty is deemed to be of low

[[Page 70258]]

credit risk.\476\ Alternatively, agreements between a dealer and its
counterparties could require the counterparties to begin delivering
collateral during the pendency of the transaction if certain ``trigger
events,'' e.g., a downgrade of the counterparty's credit rating, occur.
Prior to the financial crisis, the ability to enter into OTC
derivatives transactions without having to deliver collateral allowed
counterparties to enter into OTC derivatives transactions without the
necessity of using capital to support the transactions.\477\ So, when
``trigger events'' occurred during the financial crisis, counterparties
faced significant liquidity strains in seeking to meet the requirements
to deliver collateral.\478\ As a result, some dealers experienced large
uncollateralized exposures to counterparties experiencing financial
difficulty, which, in turn, risked exacerbating the already severe
market dislocation.\479\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\475\ In the Dodd-Frank Act, collateral collected to cover
current exposure is referred to as variation margin and collateral
collected to cover potential future exposure is referred to as
initial margin. See, e.g., section 15F(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)) and section
4s(e)(1)(A)-(B) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A)-(B)), added by the
Dodd-Frank Act. In this release, collateral collected to cover
potential future exposure is referred to as margin collateral.
\476\ See, e.g., Orice M. Williams, Director, Financial Markets
and Community Investment, General Accountability Office (``GAO''),
Systemic Risk: Regulatory Oversight and Recent Initiatives to
Address Risk Posed by Credit Default Swaps, GAO-09-397T (Mar. 2009),
available at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09397t.pdf (testimony
before the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital
Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises).
\477\ Id. at 13.
\478\ Id. See also GAO, Financial Crisis: Review of Federal
Reserve System Financial Assistance to American International Group,
Inc., GAO-11-616 (Sept. 2011), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585560.pdf (``Financial Crisis: Review of Federal Reserve
System Financial Assistance to American International Group,
Inc.'').
\479\ See Financial Crisis: Review of Federal Reserve System
Financial Assistance to American International Group, Inc. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dodd-Frank Act seeks to address the risk of uncollateralized
credit risk exposure arising from OTC derivatives by, among other
things, mandating margin requirements for non-cleared security-based
swaps and swaps. In particular, section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added
new section 15F to the Exchange Act.\480\ Section 15F(e)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall adopt rules for nonbank
SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs imposing ``both initial and variation margin
requirements on all security-based swaps that are not cleared by a
registered clearing agency.'' \481\ Section 15F(e)(2)(A) of the
Exchange Act provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe
initial and variation margin requirements for non-cleared security-
based swap transactions applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.\482\
Section 15F(e)(3)(A) also provides that ``[t]o offset the greater risk
to the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant and the financial system arising from the use of security-
based swaps that are not cleared,'' the margin requirements proposed by
the Commission and prudential regulators shall ``help ensure the safety
and soundness'' of the SBSDs and the MSBSPs, and ``be appropriate for
the risk associated with non-cleared security-based swaps held'' by an
SBSD or MSBSP.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\480\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 764.
\481\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(2)(B).
\482\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(2)(A). The prudential regulators
have proposed margin rules with respect to non-cleared swaps and
security-based swaps that would apply to bank swap dealers, bank
major swap participants, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs. See Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564. The
prudential regulators refer to collateral to cover current exposure
as variation margin and collateral to cover potential future
exposure as initial margin. Id.
\483\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, sections 4s(e)(1)(A) and (B) of the CEA provide that the
prudential regulators and the CFTC shall prescribe margin requirements
for, respectively, bank swap dealers and bank major swap participants,
and nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants.\484\
Further, section 4s(e)(3)(A) of the CEA provides, among other things,
that ``[t]o offset the greater risk to the swap dealer or major swap
participant and the financial system arising from the use of swaps that
are not cleared,'' the margin requirements adopted by the prudential
regulators and the CFTC shall ``help ensure the safety and soundness''
of swap dealers and major swap participants, and ``be appropriate for
the risk associated with non-cleared swaps held'' by these
entities.\485\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\484\ See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A) and (B). The CFTC has proposed
margin requirements with respect to non-cleared swaps that would
apply to nonbank swap dealers and nonbank major swap participants.
See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732. The CFTC refers to
collateral to cover current exposure as variation margin and
collateral to cover potential future exposure as initial margin. Id.
\485\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The margin requirements that must be established with respect to
non-cleared security-based swaps and non-cleared swaps will operate in
tandem with provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act requiring that security-
based swaps and swaps must be cleared through a registered clearing
agency or registered DCO, respectively, unless an exception to
mandatory clearing exists.\486\ More specifically, section 3C of the
Exchange Act,\487\ as added by section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
creates, among other things, a clearing requirement with respect to
certain security-based swaps. Specifically, this section provides that
``[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to engage in a security-based
swap unless that person submits such security-based swap for clearing
to a clearing agency that is registered under this Act or a clearing
agency that is exempt from registration under this Act if the security-
based swap is required to be cleared.'' \488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\486\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 763 (adding section 3C(a)(1)
of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-3(a)(1) (mandatory clearing of
security-based swaps)) and Public Law 111-203 Sec. 723 (adding
section 2(h) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 2(h) (mandatory clearing of
swaps)). The mandatory clearing provisions in the Exchange Act and
CEA contain exceptions from the mandatory clearing requirement for
certain types of entities, security-based swaps, and swaps. See
Process for Submissions for Review of Security-Based Swaps for
Mandatory Clearing and Notice Filing Requirements for Clearing
Agencies; Technical Amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4
Applicable to All Self-Regulatory Organizations, Exchange Act
Release No. 67286 (June 28, 2012), 77 FR 41602 (July 13, 2012)
(explaining exceptions to mandatory clearing for security-based
swaps) (``Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps'');
Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility
To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (Dec. 30, 2010)
(explaining exceptions to mandatory clearing for swaps). Security-
based swaps and swaps that are not required to be cleared would be
non-cleared security-based swaps and swaps.
\487\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-3 et seq.
\488\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(a)(1) (as added by section 763(a) of the
Dodd-Frank Act). The requirement that a security-based swap must be
cleared will stem from the determination to be made by the
Commission. Such determination may be made in connection with the
review of a clearing agency's submission regarding a security-based
swap, or any group, category, type or class of security-based swap,
the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing. See 15 U.S.C. 78c-
3(b)(2)(C)(ii) (as added by section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act)
(``[t]he Commission shall * * * review each submission made under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), and determine whether the security-based
swap, or group, category, type, or class of security-based swaps,
described in the submission is required to be cleared''.). In
addition, section 3C(b)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that ``[t]he
Commission on an ongoing basis shall review each security-based
swap, or any group, category, type, or class of security-based swaps
to make a determination that such security-based swap, or group,
category, type, or class of security-based swaps should be required
to be cleared.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearing agencies and DCOs that operate as central counterparties
(``CCPs'') manage credit and other risks through a range of controls
and methods, including prescribed margin rules for their members.\489\
Thus, the

[[Page 70259]]

mandatory clearing requirements established by the Dodd-Frank Act for
security-based swaps and swaps, in effect, will establish margin
requirements for cleared security-based swaps and cleared swaps and,
thereby, complement the margin requirements for non-cleared security-
based swaps and non-cleared swaps established by the Commission, the
prudential regulators, and the CFTC.\490\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\489\ See Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and
Governance, Exchange Act Release No. 64017 (Mar. 3, 2011), 76 FR
14472 (Mar. 16, 2011) (``Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and
Governance''). A CCP interposes itself between two counterparties to
a transaction. See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps,
77 FR at 41603. For example, when an OTC derivatives contract
between two counterparties that are members of a CCP is executed and
submitted for clearing, it is typically replaced by two new
contracts--separate contracts between the CCP and each of the two
original counterparties. At that point, the original counterparties
are no longer counterparties to each other. Instead, each acquires
the CCP as its counterparty, and the CCP assumes the counterparty
credit risk of each of the original counterparties that are members
of the CCP. To address the credit risk of acting as a CCP, clearing
agencies and DCOs require their clearing members to post collateral
for proprietary and customer positions of the member cleared by the
clearing agency or DCO. They also may require their clearing members
to collect collateral from their customers. In addition, as
discussed below, the Federal Reserve and the broker-dealer SROs
prescribe margin rules requiring broker-dealers to collect margin
collateral from their customers for financed securities transactions
and facilitated short sales of securities. Id.
\490\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27567 (``In the derivatives clearing process,
central counterparties (CCPs) manage the credit risk through a range
of controls and methods, including a margining regime that imposes
both initial margin and variation margin requirements on parties to
cleared transactions. Thus, the mandatory clearing requirement
established by the Dodd-Frank Act for swaps and security-based swaps
will effectively require any party to any transaction subject to the
clearing mandate to post initial and variation margin to the CCP in
connection with that transaction.'') (footnote omitted). See also
Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, 76 FR at
14482 (proposing a requirement that clearing agencies acting as CCPs
must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to
limit credit exposures to members in normal market conditions, use
risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements, and
review the models and parameters at least monthly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to section 15F(e) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is
proposing new Rule 18a-3 to establish margin requirements for nonbank
SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs with respect to non-cleared security-based
swaps. The provisions of proposed Rule 18a-3 are based on the margin
rules applicable to broker-dealers (the ``broker-dealer margin
rules'').\491\ The goal of modeling proposed new Rule 18a-3 on the
broker-dealer margin rules is to promote consistency with existing
rules and to facilitate the portfolio margining of security-based swaps
with other types of securities. In the securities markets, margin rules
have been set by relevant regulatory authorities (the Federal Reserve
and the SROs) since the 1930s.\492\ The requirement that an SRO file
proposed margin rules with the Commission has promoted the
establishment of consistent margin levels across the SROs, which
mitigates the risk that SROs (as well as their member firms) will
compete by implementing lower margin levels and also helps ensure that
margin levels are set at sufficiently prudent levels to reduce systemic
risk.\493\ Basing proposed Rule 18a-3 on the broker-dealer margin rules
is intended to achieve these same objectives in the market for
security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\491\ Broker-dealers are subject to margin requirements in rules
promulgated by the Federal Reserve (12 CFR 220.1, et seq.), SROs
(see, e.g., FINRA Rules 4210-4240), and, with respect to security
futures, jointly by the Commission and the CFTC (17 CFR 242.400-
406).
\492\ The Federal Reserve originally adopted Regulation T
pursuant to section 7 of the Exchange Act shortly after the
enactment of the Exchange Act. See 1934 Fed. Res. Bull. 675. The
purposes of the Federal Reserve's margin rules include: (1)
Regulation of the amount of credit directed into securities
speculation and away from other uses; (2) protection of the
securities markets from price fluctuations and disruptions caused by
excessive margin credit; (3) protection of investors against losses
arising from undue leverage in securities transactions; and (4)
protection of broker-dealers from the financial exposure involved in
excessive margin lending to customers. See Charles F. Rechlin,
Securities Credit Regulation Sec. 1:3 (2d ed. 2008).
\493\ Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, each SRO
must file with the Commission any proposed change in, addition to,
or deletion from the rules of the exchange electronically on a Form
19b-4 through the Electronic Form 19b-4 Filing System, which is a
secure Web site operated by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1); 17
CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the broker-dealer margin rules, an accountholder is required
to maintain a specified level of equity in a securities account at a
broker-dealer (i.e., the market value of the assets in the account must
exceed the amount of the accountholder's obligations to the broker-
dealer by a prescribed amount).\494\ This equity serves as a buffer in
the event the accountholder fails to meet an obligation to the broker-
dealer and the broker-dealer must liquidate the assets in the account
to satisfy the obligation.\495\ The equity also provides liquidity to
the broker-dealer with which to fund the credit extended to the
accountholder. The amount of the equity required to be maintained in
the account depends on the securities transactions being facilitated
through the resources of the broker-dealer because the equity
requirement increases as the risk of the securities purchased with
borrowed funds or sold short with borrowed securities increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\494\ See, e.g., 12 CFR 220.2; FINRA Rule 4210(a)(5); 17 CFR
242.401(a)(8). Accountholder obligations to the broker-dealer
generally arise from the accountholder borrowing funds from the
broker-dealer to finance securities purchases and the accountholder
relying on the broker-dealer to borrow securities or use its own
securities to make delivery on short sales of securities by the
accountholder.
\495\ The account equity requirement, in effect, mandates that
the account contain sufficient collateral to cover the broker-
dealer's current exposure to the accountholder plus a buffer to
address potential future exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed new Rule 18a-3 is based on these same principles and is
intended to form part of an integrated program of financial
responsibility requirements, along with the proposed capital and
segregation standards. For example, proposed new Rule 18a-1 would
impose a capital charge in certain cases for uncollateralized exposures
arising from security-based swaps. The segregation requirements are
intended to ensure that initial margin collected by SBSDs is protected
from their proprietary business risks.\496\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\496\ See proposed new Rules 18a-1, 18a-3, and 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to model
the nonbank SBSD margin rule for non-cleared security-based swaps on
the broker-dealer margin rules. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Are there other margin standards that would more appropriately
address the risks of non-cleared security-based swaps and/or be more
practical margining programs for non-cleared security-based swaps? If
so, identify them and explain how they would be more appropriate and/or
practical.
2. What are the current margining practices of dealers in OTC
derivatives with respect to contracts that likely would be security-
based swaps subject to proposed new Rule 18a-3? How do those margining
practices differ from the proposed requirements in proposed new Rule
18a-3?
3. As a practical matter, would the structure of proposed new Rule
18a-3 accommodate portfolio margining of security-based swaps and
swaps? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
2. Proposed Margin Requirements for Nonbank SBSDs and Nonbank MSBSPs
a. Scope of Rule 18a-3
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank
MSBSPs.\497\ As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would
require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from their counterparties
to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both current exposure and
potential future exposure to the counterparty (i.e., the rule would
require the account to have prescribed minimum levels of equity);
however, there would be exceptions to

[[Page 70260]]

these requirements for certain types of counterparties and for certain
types of transactions. The collateral collected to address the
potential future exposure (the margin collateral) would need to be
sufficient to meet the level of account equity required by the proposed
rule. The required level of account equity would be based on the risk
of the positions in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\497\ See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank MSBSP to collect
collateral from counterparties to which the nonbank MSBSP has current
exposure and deliver collateral to counterparties that have current
exposure to the nonbank MSBSP; however, there would be exceptions to
these requirements for certain types of counterparties. These
requirements would apply only to current exposure (i.e., nonbank MSBSPs
and their counterparties would not be required to exchange collateral
to cover potential future exposure to each other).
The proposed rule would not identify the types of instruments that
must be delivered as collateral (e.g., U.S. government securities).
However, it would place limitations on the collateral that could be
collected by nonbank SBSDs. First, the rule would require the nonbank
SBSD to take haircuts on the collateral equal to the amounts of the
deductions required under Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended, and
proposed new Rule 18a-1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD. Second, the
rule would prescribe conditions with respect to the collateral modeled
on the conditions in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1, discussed above in
section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, that determine when collateral
can be taken into account for purposes of determining a potential
credit risk charge for exposure to certain counterparties.\498\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\498\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(v)(A)-(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the provisions in proposed new Rule 18a-3 are intended to
establish minimum margin requirements for non-cleared security-based
swaps. A nonbank SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP could establish ``house''
margin requirements that are more conservative than those specified in
the proposed new rule.\499\ For example, a nonbank SBSD could require
that a minimum level of equity must be maintained in the accounts of
counterparties that exceed the level of equity required to be
maintained pursuant to the proposed new rule. In addition, a nonbank
SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP could specifically identify and thereby limit
the types of instruments they will accept as collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\499\ Under broker-dealer margin rules, broker-dealers also can
establish ``house'' margin requirements as long as they are at least
as restrictive as the Federal Reserve and SRO margin rules. See,
e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Daily Calculations
i. Nonbank SBSDs
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require nonbank SBSDs to collect
collateral from their counterparties to non-cleared security-based
swaps to cover both current exposure and potential future exposure,
subject to certain exceptions discussed below.\500\ Consequently,
proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to perform two
calculations as of the close of each business day with respect to each
account carried by the firm for a counterparty to a non-cleared
security-based swap transaction.\501\ A nonbank SBSD would be required
to increase the frequency of the calculations (i.e., perform intra-day
calculations) during periods of extreme volatility and for accounts
with concentrated positions.\502\ These more frequent calculations
would be designed to monitor the nonbank SBSD's counterparty risk
exposure in situations where a default by a counterparty or multiple
counterparties would have a more significant adverse impact on the
financial condition of the nonbank SBSD than under more normal
circumstances.\503\ One consequence of the more frequent calculations
could be that the nonbank SBSD requests that a counterparty deliver
collateral during the day pursuant to a ``house'' margin requirement to
account for changes in the value of the securities and money market
instruments held in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\500\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of proposed new Rule
18a-3.
\501\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of proposed new Rule
18a-3. For purposes of proposed new Rule 18a-3, the term account
would mean an account carried by a nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP for
a counterparty that holds non-cleared security-based swaps. See
paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. In addition, the term
counterparty would mean a person with whom the nonbank SBSD or
nonbank MSBSP has entered into a non-cleared security-based swap
transaction. See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\502\ See paragraph (c)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\503\ Compare FINRA Rule 4210(d) which states that procedures
shall be established by members to: ``(1) review limits and types of
credit extended to all customers; (2) formulate their own margin
requirements; and (3) review the need for instituting higher margin
requirements, mark-to-markets and collateral deposits than are
required by this [margin rule] for individual securities or customer
accounts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed below in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, the
daily calculations would form the basis for the nonbank SBSD to
determine the amount of collateral the counterparty would need to
deliver to cover any current exposure and potential future exposure the
nonbank SBSD has to the counterparty. The proposed rule would except
certain counterparties from this requirement. Even if the counterparty
is not required to deliver collateral, the calculations--by measuring
the current and potential future exposure to the counterparty--would
assist the nonbank SBSD in managing its credit risk and understanding
the extent of its uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty
and across all counterparties. In addition, as discussed above in
section II.A.2.a. of this release, the calculations would be used for
determining the risk margin amount for purposes of calculating the 8%
margin factor to determine the nonbank SBSD's minimum net capital
requirement.\504\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\504\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(16) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first calculation would be to determine the amount of equity in
the account.\505\ For purposes of the rule, the term equity would mean
the total current fair market value of securities positions in an
account of a counterparty (excluding the time value of an over-the-
counter option), plus any credit balance and less any debit balance in
the account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect
to gross derivatives payables and receivables.\506\ Consequently, the
first step in calculating the equity would be to mark-to-market all of
the securities positions in the account, including non-cleared
security-based swap positions. The second step would be to add to that
amount any credit balance in the account or subtract from that amount
any debit balance in the account. Credit balances would include
payables the nonbank SBSD owed to the counterparty. Payables could
relate to cash deposited into the account, the proceeds of the sales of
securities held in the account, and/or interest and dividends earned
from securities held in the account. In addition, payables could relate
to derivatives in the account, including non-cleared security-based
swaps with a net replacement value in the favor of the counterparty.
Debit balances would be receivables to the nonbank SBSD owed by the

[[Page 70261]]

counterparty, including any net replacement values in favor of the
nonbank SBSD arising from derivatives positions and any other amounts
owed to the nonbank SBSD by the counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\505\ See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\506\ See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. The time
value of an OTC option is the amount that the current market value
of the option exceeds the in-the-money amount of the option. See
also, generally, FINRA Rule 4210(a)(5) (defining equity to mean the
customer's ownership interest in the account, computed by adding the
current market value of all securities ``long'' and the amount of
any credit balance and subtracting the current market value of all
securities ``short'' and the amount of any debit balance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As indicated by the proposed definition of equity, the nonbank SBSD
could offset payables and receivables relating to derivatives in the
account by applying a qualifying netting agreement with the
counterparty. To qualify for this treatment, a netting agreement would
need to meet the minimum requirements prescribed in Appendix E to Rule
15c3-1 to qualify for purposes of the credit risk charge discussed
above in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release.\507\ These requirements
are designed to ensure that the netting agreement between the nonbank
SBSD and the counterparty permits the nonbank SBSD to reduce the
receivables and payables relating to derivatives between the two
entities to a single net payment obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\507\ See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-3; 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The equity is the amount that results after marking-to-market the
securities positions and adding the credit balance or subtracting the
debit balance (including giving effect to qualifying netting
agreements). If the value of the securities positions in the account
exceeds the amount of any debit balance, the account would have a
positive equity.\508\ On the other hand, if the amount of the debit
balance is greater, the account would have a negative equity.\509\ The
negative equity in an account would be equal to the nonbank SBSD's
current exposure to the counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\508\ The proposed rule would define the term positive equity to
mean equity of greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new
Rule 18a-3.
\509\ The proposed rule would define the term negative equity to
mean equity of less than $0. See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new
Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second calculation would be to determine a margin amount for
the account to address potential future exposure.\510\ The proposed
rule would prescribe a standardized method and a model-based method for
calculating the margin amount.\511\ The method for determining the
margin amount would be similar to the approach a nonbank SBSD would
need to use to determine haircuts on proprietary security-based swap
positions when computing net capital.\512\ This approach would maintain
consistency between the proposed margin and capital rules.
Specifically, paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 would divide
security-based swaps into two classes: CDS security-based swaps and all
other security-based swaps. Paragraph (d) would define the standardized
methodology for determining the margin amount for each class of
security-based swap by reference to the standardized haircuts that
would apply to the class in proposed new Rule 18a-1 (if a stand-alone
SBSD) or Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended (if a broker-dealer
SBSD).\513\ Paragraph (d) would provide further that, if the nonbank
SBSD was approved to use internal models to compute net capital, the
firm could use its internal VaR model to determine the margin amount
for security-based swaps for which the firm had been approved to use
the model, except that the margin amount for equity security-based
swaps would need to be determined exclusively using the standardized
haircuts.\514\ Consequently, for debt security-based swaps, a nonbank
SBSD approved to use internal models could calculate the margin amount
using the firm's VaR model to the extent the firm is approved to
include these types of positions in the model for the purposes of
computing net capital. For all other positions, a nonbank SBSD would
need to use the standardized haircut approach. Nonbank SBSDs that are
not approved to use internal models to compute net capital would need
to use the standardized haircuts for all positions to calculate the
margin amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\510\ See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\511\ See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. Similarly,
the prudential regulators have proposed that bank SBSDs and bank
swap dealers have the option of using internal models to calculate
initial margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps.
See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR
at 27567-27568 (``With respect to initial margin, the proposed rule
permits a covered swap entity to select from two alternatives to
calculate its initial margin requirements. A covered swap entity may
calculate its initial margin requirements using a standardized
`lookup' table that specifies the minimum initial margin that must
be collected, expressed as a percentage of the notional amount of
the swap or security-based swap. These percentages depend on the
broad asset class of the swap or security-based swap. Alternatively,
a covered swap entity may calculate its minimum initial margin
requirements using an internal margin model that meets certain
criteria and that has been approved by the relevant prudential
regulator.'') (footnotes omitted). On the other hand, the CFTC,
because of concerns about the resources necessary to approve the use
of internal models for margining purposes and the fact that nonbank
swap dealers may not have internal models, proposed that nonbank
swap dealers must use either external models or a standardized
approach to determine initial margin (though the CFTC did propose a
provision under which the CFTC could approve the use of an internal
model should the CFTC obtain sufficient resources). See CFTC Margin
Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23737. The external models proposed by
the CFTC are: (1) a model currently in use for margining cleared
swaps at a DCO; (2) a model currently in use for modeling non-
cleared swaps by an entity subject to regular assessment by a
prudential regulator; or (3) a model available for licensing to any
market participant by a vendor. Id. The use of external models is
not being proposed for nonbank SBSDs because the basis for
permitting firms to use VaR models to compute net capital is to
align their internally developed (i.e., not vender-developed) risk
management processes with the process for computing net capital. See
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at
34428 (the option to use VaR models is ``intended to reduce
regulatory costs for broker-dealers by allowing very highly
capitalized firms that have developed robust internal risk
management practices to use those risk management practices, such as
mathematical risk measurement models, for regulatory purposes'').
\512\ See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-3; proposed new
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\513\ See paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of proposed new Rule
18a-3. As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release,
proposed new Rule 18a-1 and Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended,
would prescribe standardized haircuts for security-based swaps. See
proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of Rule 15c3-1; paragraph
(c)(1)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. Consequently, for CDS
security-based swaps, the nonbank SBSD would use the proposed
maturity/spread grid in proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1) of
Rule 15c3-1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-1
to determine the margin amount. See paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed
new Rule 18a-3. While the required standardized haircuts would be
the same in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed new
Rule 18a-1, the nonbank SBSD would refer to Rule 15c3-1 if it is a
broker-dealer SBSD and proposed new Rule 18a-1 if it is a stand-
alone SBSD. For all equity security-based swaps and debt security-
based swaps (other than CDS security-based swaps), the nonbank SBSD
would use the method of multiplying the notional amount of the
position by the standardized haircut that would apply to the
underlying security as specified in proposed new paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-1 and paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1. See paragraph (d)(ii) of proposed new Rule
18a-3. For equity security-based swaps, this would include being
able to use the methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1, as
proposed to be amended, and in Appendix A to proposed new Rule 18a-
1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD. For debt security-based swaps,
this would include being able to use the offsets that are permitted
in the debt maturity grids in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-1.
See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
\514\ See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, a nonbank SBSD (regardless of whether it is
approved to use internal models to compute net capital) would be
required to calculate the margin amount for equity security-based swaps
using the standardized haircuts, which includes the ability to use the
methodology in Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1. This proposal is designed to
establish a margin requirement for equity security-based swaps that is
consistent with SRO portfolio margin rules for equity securities, which
are based on the Appendix A methodology.\515\ This provision would

[[Page 70262]]

allow broker-dealer SBSDs to include equity security-based swaps in the
portfolios of equity securities positions for which they calculate
margin requirements using the SRO portfolio margin rules.\516\ The
proposal also would ensure a consistent portfolio margin approach for
equity security products across nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers that
are not SBSDs, and thereby reduce opportunity for regulatory arbitrage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\515\ See FINRA Rule 4210(g); CBOE Rule 12.4. See also FINRA,
Portfolio Margin Frequently Asked Questions, available at
www.finra.org. As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release,
Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 permits a broker-dealer to group options,
futures, long securities positions, and short securities positions
involving the same underlying security and stress the current market
price for each position at ten equidistant points along a range of
positive and negative potential future market movements, using an
approved theoretical options pricing model that satisfies certain
conditions specified in the rule. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a. The gains
and losses of each position in the portfolio offset each other to
yield a net gain or loss at each stress point. The stress point that
yields the largest potential net loss for the portfolio would be
used to calculate the aggregate haircut for all the positions in the
portfolio. Id.
\516\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(g)(2)(G) (defining the term
``unlisted derivative'' for purposes of inclusion in the Appendix A
methodology as used in the rule to calculate a portfolio margin
requirement to mean ``any equity-based or equity index-based
unlisted option, forward contract, or security-based swap that can
be valued by a theoretical pricing model approved by the
[Commission].'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed daily
calculation requirements for nonbank SBSDs in proposed new Rule 18a-3.
In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data
in support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Is the proposed definition of equity appropriate? For example,
would the proposed definition be practical in terms of determining the
net equity in an account holding non-cleared security-based swaps? If
the proposed definition is not appropriate, explain why and provide
suggested alternative definitions.
2. Should the definition of equity include the time value of an
over-the-counter option? If so, explain why.
3. Should the terms current market value, credit balance, and debit
balance be defined for the purpose of proposed new Rule 18a-3? For
example, would defining these terms provide greater clarity to the
definition of equity in the proposed rule? If these terms should be
defined, explain why and provide suggested definitions.
4. Are the proposed requirements for netting agreements to qualify
for purposes of determining the amount of equity in an account
appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there additional or
alternative provisions that should be contained in the netting
agreement requirements? If so, identify and explain them.
5. Is the proposed method for calculating the margin amount
appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, is it appropriate to
use the techniques in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended, and
proposed new Rule 18a-1 to determine the margin amount? If not, explain
why not. Are there alternative methods for calculating the margin
amount that would be preferable? If so, identify them and explain why
they would be preferable.
6. Should proposed new Rule 18a-3 allow an alternative method of
calculating the margin amount that would permit a nonbank SBSD to
determine the margin amount for a non-cleared security-based swap based
on the margin required by a registered clearing agency for a cleared
security-based swap whose terms and conditions closely resemble the
terms and conditions of the non-cleared security-based swap (similar to
the CFTC's proposal)? Would there be sufficient similarity between
certain cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps to make this
approach workable? In addition, if this alternative approach was
permitted, how could the potential differences in margin requirements
across clearing agencies be addressed?
7. In addition to internal models, should external models be
permitted such as: (1) a model currently in use for margining cleared
security-based swaps at a clearing agency; (2) a model currently in use
for modeling non-cleared swaps by an entity subject to regular
assessment by a prudential regulator; or (3) a model available for
licensing to any market participant by a vendor? What would be the
advantages and disadvantages of permitting external models?
8. How would the proposed standardized approaches to determining
the margin amount differ from the standardized approaches the
prudential regulators proposed for determining the initial margin
amount?
9. The provisions for using VaR models to compute net capital
require that the model use a 99%, one-tailed confidence level with
price changes equivalent to a ten-business-day movement in rates and
prices. This means the VaR model used for the purpose of determining a
counterparty's margin amount also would need to use a 99%, one-tailed
confidence level with price changes equivalent to a ten-business-day
movement in rates and prices. The ten-business-day requirement is
designed to account for market movements that occur over a period of
time as opposed to a single day. This is designed to ensure that the
VaR model uses potential market moves that are large enough to capture
multi-day moves in rates and prices. Given this purpose, should the VaR
model be required to use a longer period of time (e.g., 15, 20, 25, or
30 business days) to establish a potentially greater margin collateral
requirement for customers given that they may not be subject to capital
and other prudential requirements? Would the 3-times multiplication
factor proposed to be required for VaR models used by nonbank SBSDs
(which, under the proposal, would need to be increased in response to
back-testing exceptions) be necessary if the time period were longer
than 10 business days? If not, explain why not.
ii. Nonbank MSBSPs
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require nonbank MSBSPs to collect
collateral from counterparties to which the nonbank MSBSP has current
exposure and provide collateral to counterparties that have current
exposure to the nonbank MSBSP.\517\ Consequently, a nonbank MSBSP would
be required to calculate as of the close of business each day the
amount of equity in each account of a counterparty.\518\ Consistent
with the proposal for nonbank SBSDs, a nonbank MSBSP would be required
to increase the frequency of its calculations (i.e., perform intra-day
calculations) during periods of extreme volatility and for accounts
with concentrated positions.\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\517\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\518\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. A
nonbank MSBSP would apply the definitions in paragraph (b) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3 for the purposes of complying with the
requirements in the rule. See paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule
18a-3. The term equity would be defined to mean the total current
fair market value of securities positions in an account of a
counterparty (excluding the time value of an over-the-counter
option), plus any credit balance and less any debit balance in the
account after applying a qualifying netting agreement with respect
to gross derivatives payables and receivables. See paragraph (b)(4)
of proposed new Rule 18a-3. The time value of an OTC option is the
amount that the current market value of the option exceeds the in-
the-money amount of the option. In addition, the term account is
proposed to be defined to mean an account carried by a nonbank SBSD
or nonbank MSBSP for a counterparty that holds non-cleared security-
based swaps. See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
Furthermore, the term counterparty is proposed to mean a person with
whom the nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP has entered into a non-
cleared security-based swap transaction. See paragraph (b)(3) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\519\ See paragraph (c)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. These
more frequent calculations would be designed to monitor the nonbank
MSBSP's counterparty risk exposure in situations where a default by
a counterparty or multiple counterparties would have a more
significant adverse impact on the financial condition of the nonbank
MSBSP than under more normal circumstances. One consequence of the
more frequent calculations could be that the nonbank MSBSP requests
that a counterparty deliver collateral during the day pursuant to a
``house'' margin requirement to account for changes in the value of
the securities and money market instruments held in the account.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70263]]

As would be the case for a nonbank SBSD, the first step for a
nonbank MSBSP in calculating the equity in an account would be to mark-
to-market all of the securities positions in the account, including
non-cleared security-based swap positions. The second step would be to
add to that amount any credit balance in the account or subtract from
that amount any debit balance.\520\ The nonbank MSBSP could offset
payables and receivables relating to derivatives in the account by
applying a qualifying netting agreement with the counterparty. To
qualify for this treatment, a netting agreement would need to meet the
minimum requirements prescribed in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 to qualify
for purposes of the credit risk charge discussed above in section
II.A.2.b.iv. of this release.\521\ These requirements, set forth in
paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 18a-3, are designed to ensure that the netting
agreement between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty permits the
nonbank MSBSP to reduce the receivables and payables between the two
entities to a single net payment obligation.\522\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\520\ Credit balances would include payables the nonbank MSBSP
owed to the counterparty. Payables could relate to cash deposited
into the account, the proceeds of the sales of securities held in
the account, and interest and dividends earned from securities held
in the account. In addition, payables could relate to derivatives in
the account such as non-cleared security-based swaps with a net
replacement value in the favor of the counterparty. Debit balances
would be receivables to the nonbank MSBSP owed by the counterparty.
Receivables could relate to derivatives in the account such as non-
cleared security-based swaps with a net replacement value in the
favor of the nonbank MSBSP.
\521\ See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-3; 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(iv).
\522\ See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the value of the securities positions plus the amount of any
cash in the account exceeds the amount of the debit balance, the
account would have positive equity.\523\ This would mean the
counterparty has current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP. On the other
hand, if the amount of the debit balance is greater, the account would
have negative equity.\524\ This would mean the nonbank MSBSP has
current exposure to the counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\523\ The proposed rule would define the term positive equity to
mean equity of greater than $0. See paragraph (b)(7) of proposed new
Rule 18a-3.
\524\ The proposed rule would define the term negative equity to
mean equity of less than $0. See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed new
Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to deliver or collect margin
collateral to collateralize potential future exposure.\525\ For that
reason, Rule 18a-3 would not require nonbank MSBSPs to calculate a
margin amount, and the rule would not require counterparties to provide
margin collateral to nonbank MSBSPs to maintain equity levels above the
nonbank MSBSP's current exposure. When a counterparty provides margin
collateral to collateralize potential future exposure, the counterparty
is exposed to credit risk in the amount that the collateral provided to
the dealer exceeds the dealer's current exposure to the counterparty.
With respect to nonbank SBSDs, collateralizing potential future
exposure is intended to promote the financial responsibility of the
nonbank SBSD, as the margin collateral received from the counterparty
protects the nonbank SBSD from the risks arising from fluctuations in
the value of the underlying positions before the collateral can be
sold. The counterparty, in turn, would be protected by the net liquid
assets test standard applicable to the nonbank SBSD,\526\ which is
significantly more conservative than the tangible net worth capital
standard proposed for nonbank MSBSPs.\527\ The counterparties also
would be protected by the proposed segregation requirements with
respect to the margin collateral delivered by counterparties.\528\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\525\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (only
requiring calculation of the equity in the account of each
counterparty).
\526\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1; proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\527\ See proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\528\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed margin requirements for nonbank MSBSPs are designed to
``neutralize'' the credit risk between a nonbank MSBSP and a
counterparty. The collection of collateral from counterparties would
strengthen the liquidity of the nonbank MSBSP by collateralizing its
current exposure to counterparties. Nonbank MSBSPs, in contrast to
nonbank SBSDs, would be required to deliver collateral to
counterparties to collateralize their current exposure to the nonbank
MSBSP, which would lessen the impact on the counterparties if the
nonbank MSBSP failed, and is intended to account for the fact that
nonbank MSBSPs would be subject to less stringent capital requirements
than nonbank SBSDs.
In addition, as discussed in section II.A.3. of the release, the
entities that may need to register as nonbank MSBSPs could include
companies that engage in commercial activities that are not necessarily
financial in nature (e.g., manufacturing, agriculture, and energy) and
for which a net liquid assets test could be impractical. Finally,
because of these differences in business models, nonbank MSBSPs may not
have the systems and personnel necessary to operate daily margin
collateral programs to address potential future exposure.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed daily
calculation requirements for nonbank MSBSPs. Commenters are referred to
the questions about the daily calculation requirements for nonbank
SBSDs above in section II.B.2.b.i. of this release to the extent those
questions address provisions in proposed new Rule 18a-3 that also apply
to nonbank MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
1. Which types of counterparties would be expected to transact with
nonbank MSBSPs? Which types of security-based swap transactions would
these counterparties enter into with nonbank MSBSPs?
2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to calculate a daily margin
amount for each counterparty? For example, even if they were not
required to collect collateral to cover potential future exposure,
would the calculation of the margin amount better enable them to
measure and understand their counterparty risk?
3. If nonbank MSBSPs should calculate a daily margin amount, how
should such amount be calculated? Should a nonbank MSBSP be required to
calculate a margin amount using the methods prescribed in paragraph (d)
of proposed new Rule 18a-3 or some other method? For example, should
nonbank MSBSPs be permitted to use external models to determine a
margin amount?
4. Would nonbank MSBSPs have the systems and personnel necessary to
operate daily margin collateral programs to calculate a daily margin
amount?
c. Account Equity Requirements
i. Nonbank SBSDs
A nonbank SBSD would be required to calculate as of the close of
each business day: (1) the amount of equity

[[Page 70264]]

in the account of each counterparty; and (2) a margin amount for the
account of each counterparty.\529\ On the next business day following
the calculations, the nonbank SBSD would be required to collect cash,
securities, and/or money market instruments from the counterparty in an
amount at least equal to the negative equity (current exposure) in the
account plus the margin amount (potential future exposure).\530\ The
collateral collected would be designed to ensure that the counterparty
maintains a minimum level of positive net equity in the account. The
proposed rule would require the nonbank SBSD to collect collateral for
this purpose from each counterparty, except as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\529\ See paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. See
also paragraph (b)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (defining the term
equity).
\530\ See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nonbank SBSD would need to collect cash, securities, and/or money
market instruments to meet the account equity requirements in proposed
new Rule 18a-3. Other types of assets would not be eligible as
collateral. In addition, under proposed new Rule 18a-3, the fair market
value of securities and money market instruments held in the account of
a counterparty would need to be reduced by the amount of the deductions
the nonbank SBSD would apply to the positions pursuant to Rule 15c3-1,
as proposed to be amended, or proposed new Rule 18a-1, as applicable,
for the purpose of determining whether the level of equity in the
account meets the minimum requirement.\531\ Accordingly, securities and
money market instruments with no ``ready market'' or which cannot be
publicly offered or sold because of statutory, regulatory, or
contractual arrangements or other restrictions would be subject to a
100% deduction and, therefore, these types of securities and money
market instruments would have no value in terms of meeting the account
equity requirement.\532\ All other securities and money market
instruments in the account would be reduced in value by the amount of
the deductions required in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended, and
proposed new Rule 18a-1, as applicable to the nonbank SBSD.\533\ The
amount of the deductions would increase for securities and money market
instruments with greater market risk and, thereby, account for the risk
that the nonbank SBSD may not be able to liquidate the securities and
money market instruments at current market values to satisfy the
obligation of a defaulted counterparty.\534\ These deductions would
limit the types of securities and money market instruments a
counterparty could provide as collateral and require a counterparty to
increase the amount of collateral delivered to account for the
deductions taken on securities collateral in the account.\535\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\531\ See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\532\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vii); paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\533\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)-
(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\534\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)-
(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\535\ For example, assume an account holds securities and money
market instruments valued at $50, a credit balance of $10, and a
debit balance of $58. The equity in the account would be $2 ($50 of
securities and money market instruments' value + $10 in credits-$58
in debits = $2). Assume that the margin amount calculated for the
account is $10. This would mean that the account needs to have
positive equity of at least $10 (it currently has positive equity of
only $2). Assume that the deduction under Rule 15c3-1 for the $50 of
securities and money market positions held in the account is $7.
This would mean that the counterparty would need to deliver $15 in
cash (i.e., not $8) to meet the minimum $10 account equity
requirement ($50 of securities and money market instruments' value-
$7 deduction + $10 in credits-$58 in debits + $15 cash collateral
deposit = $10). Moreover, if the counterparty delivered securities
and/or money market instruments to meet the account equity
requirement, the fair market value of the securities and money
market instruments would need to be greater than $15 because their
value would be reduced by the amount of the deduction in Rule 15c3-1
or proposed new Rule 18a-1, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prudential regulators and the CFTC are proposing to
specifically identify the asset classes that would be eligible
collateral for purposes of their margin rules.\536\ Proposed new Rule
18a-3 would not limit collateral in this way. However, comment is
sought below in section II.B.3. of this release on the question of
whether to define the term eligible collateral in a manner that is
similar to the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\536\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732.
The proposal of the prudential regulators would limit eligible
collateral to cash, foreign currency to the extent the payment
obligation under the security-based swap or swap is denominated in
the currency, obligations guaranteed by the United States as to
principal and interest, and, with respect to initial margin only, a
senior debt obligation of the Federal National Mortgage Association,
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan
Banks, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any
obligation that is an ``insured obligation,'' as the term is defined
in 12 U.S.C. 2277a(3), of a Farm Credit System bank. See Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27589. The
proposal of the CFTC would limit eligible collateral for initial
margin to cash, foreign currency to the extent the payment
obligation under the security-based swap or swap is denominated in
the currency, obligations guaranteed by the United States as to
principal and interest, and a senior debt obligation of the Federal
National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any obligation that is an
``insured obligation,'' as the term is defined in 12 U.S.C.
2277a(3), of a Farm Credit System bank. CFTC Margin Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 23747. The CFTC's proposal would limit eligible
collateral for variation margin to cash and obligations guaranteed
by the United States as to principal and interest. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason for not proposing a definition of eligible collateral is
that counterparties are expected to engage in a wide range of trading
strategies that include security-based swaps. Consequently, the account
of a counterparty may hold, for example, the security underlying a
security-based swap, as well as a short position, option, and single
stock future on the underlying security.\537\ Because of the
relationship between security-based swaps and these other security
positions, permitting various types of securities to count as
collateral may be more practical for margin arrangements involving
security-based swaps than for other types of derivatives. A more
limited definition of eligible collateral could require a counterparty
that has positive equity in an account equal to or in excess of the
margin amount to deliver additional collateral to the extent the
positions in the account did not meet the definition. The
counterparty's credit exposure to the nonbank SBSD therefore would be
increased in a way that may not be necessary to account for the nonbank
SBSD's potential future exposure to the counterparty.\538\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\537\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210(g) (permitting customer
portfolio margining); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a; Appendix A to proposed new
Rule 18a-1.
\538\ A counterparty will have credit exposure to a nonbank SBSD
to the extent that collateral held in the account of the
counterparty has a mark-to-market value in excess of the nonbank
SBSD's current exposure to the counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission is proposing certain additional requirements for
eligible collateral, which are modeled on the existing collateral
requirements in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.\539\ As discussed above in
section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, collateral ``ideally'' is ``an
asset of stable and predictable value, an asset that is not linked to
the value of the transaction in any way, and an asset that can be sold
quickly and easily if the need arises.'' \540\ The requirements in
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 are designed to achieve these
objectives.\541\ The proposed additional requirements include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\539\ See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\540\ Market Review of OTC Derivative Bilateral
Collateralization Practices at 5.
\541\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The collateral must be subject to the physical possession
or control of the nonbank SBSD;

[[Page 70265]]

The collateral must be liquid and transferable;
The collateral must be capable of being liquidated
promptly by the nonbank SBSD without intervention by any other party;
The collateral agreement between the nonbank SBSD and the
counterparty must be legally enforceable by the nonbank SBSD against
the counterparty and any other parties to the agreement;
The collateral must not consist of securities issued by
the counterparty or a party related to the nonbank SBSD, or to the
counterparty; and
If the Commission has approved the nonbank SBSD's use of a
VaR model to compute net capital, the approval allows the nonbank SBSD
to calculate deductions for market risk for the type of
collateral.\542\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\542\ See paragraphs (c)(4)(i)-(c)(4)(vi) of proposed new Rule
18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These proposed collateral requirements are designed to ensure that
the treatment of collateral requirements remains consistent between the
proposed capital and margin requirements. As discussed above in section
II.A.2.b.v. of this release, a nonbank SBSD would be required to take a
capital charge if a counterparty does not deliver cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments to the nonbank SBSD to meet an account
equity requirement within one business day of the requirement being
triggered. In addition, proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require the
nonbank SBSD to take prompt steps to liquidate securities and money
market instruments in the account to the extent necessary to eliminate
the account equity deficiency.\543\ Under this provision, which is
modeled on a similar requirement in the broker-dealer margin
rules,\544\ a nonbank SBSD could need to liquidate positions in the
account to reduce debits arising from those transactions. The rule
would not require that the liquidations must be completed within a
specific timeframe.\545\ Instead, the rule is designed to give the
nonbank SBSD the flexibility to conduct an orderly liquidation, taking
into account market conditions and the risk profile of the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\543\ See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\544\ See 12 CFR 220.4(d) (providing that if a margin call is
not met within the required time, the broker-dealer must liquidate
securities sufficient to meet the margin call or to eliminate any
margin deficiency existing on the day such liquidation is required,
whichever is less).
\545\ See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There would be four exceptions to the account equity
requirements.\546\ The first would apply to counterparties that are
commercial end users.\547\ The second would apply to counterparties
that are SBSDs.\548\ The third would apply to counterparties that are
not commercial end users and that require their margin collateral to be
segregated pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\549\ The
fourth would apply to accounts of counterparties that are not
commercial end users and that hold legacy non-cleared security-based
swaps.\550\ Under these exceptions, applicable accounts would not need
to meet certain account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3
and, therefore, the nonbank SBSD would be exempted from the
requirements to take prompt steps to liquidate securities in the
account to the extent necessary to eliminate the account equity
deficiency. However, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this
release, in these cases the nonbank SBSD would need to take capital
charges in lieu of meeting the account equity requirements in certain
circumstances.\551\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\546\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A)-(D) of proposed new Rule
18a-3.
\547\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\548\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative A of proposed
new Rule 18a-3. An alternative approach is being proposed that would
not be an exception to the account equity requirement under which a
nonbank SBSD would need to collect collateral from another SBSD to
cover the negative equity in the account and the margin amount for
the account. In addition, the collateral collected to cover the
margin amount would need to be held by an independent third-party
custodian. See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative B of proposed
new Rule 18a-3.
\549\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\550\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\551\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception for Commercial End Users
Under the first exception to the account equity requirements, a
nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments to cover the negative equity (current
exposure) or margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account
of a counterparty that is a commercial end user.\552\ As discussed
above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this proposed exception
to the requirement to collect collateral is intended to address
concerns that have been expressed by commercial end users and others
that the imposition of margin requirements on commercial companies that
use derivatives to mitigate the risk of business activities that are
not financial in nature could unduly disrupt their ability to enter
into hedging transactions. The proposed exception is intended to permit
nonbank SBSDs and commercial end users to negotiate individual
agreements that would reflect the credit risk of the commercial end
user and the nature and extent of the non-cleared security-based swap
transactions with the end user, without creating an undue impediment to
the ability of the commercial end user to hedge its commercial
risks.\553\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\552\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a-3. The
exception would apply to negative equity in the account and the
margin amount calculated for the account. However, a nonbank SBSD
would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth for the
amount of the uncollateralized negative equity and take the proposed
capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above in
section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(iv)(B) (deductions for unsecured receivables); paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1 (deductions for unsecured
receivables); proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1
(proposed capital charge in lieu of margin); paragraph (c)(1)(viii)
of proposed Rule 18a-1 (proposed capital charge in lieu of margin).
As an alternative to these capital charges, ANC broker-dealers and
stand-alone SBSDs using internal models could take the credit risk
charge discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release. See
amendments to paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (a)(2) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\553\ The margin rule proposed by the prudential regulators
would require the entities subject to the rule to establish credit
exposure limits for each nonfinancial end user ``under appropriate
credit processes and standards,'' and to collect collateral to the
extent that individual exposures exceed those limits. See Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27587. The
margin rule proposed by the CFTC would permit entities subject to
the rule and nonfinancial end users ``to set initial margin and
variation margin requirements in their discretion'' but each entity
subject to the proposed rule would be required to calculate daily
exposure amounts for nonfinancial end users for risk management
purposes. See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed exception for commercial end users also is intended to
account for the different risk profiles of commercial end users as
compared with financial end users.\554\ When credit markets are under
strain, as in 2008, financial end users, such as hedge funds, can face
liquidity stress, which increases their risk of default. Further,

[[Page 70266]]

financial end users as a group, due to the nature of their business,
may engage in security-based swap transactions in greater volume than
commercial end users, increasing the risk of substantial concentration
of counterparty exposure to nonbank SBSDs, and potentially creating
greater systemic risk from the failure of a single entity.\555\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\554\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27571 (``Among end users, financial end users are
considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the
profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly
linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end
users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default
during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk
and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.'').
See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (``The
Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not
using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose
greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.'').
\555\ The margin rules proposed by the prudential regulators and
the CFTC would differentiate collateral requirements based on
whether a financial end user is ``high risk'' or ``low risk.'' See
Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at
27571-27572; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23736-23737. A
``low risk'' financial end user is defined in their proposals as an
entity that: (1) is subject to capital requirements established by a
prudential regulator or a state insurance regulator; (2)
predominantly uses OTC derivatives for hedging purposes; and (3)
does not have significant OTC derivatives exposure. See Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27572; CFTC
Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23735-23736. A low risk financial
end user would not be required to deliver initial or variation
margin if the amounts required are less than certain prescribed
thresholds. See id. While not all financial end users present the
same degree of counterparty risk, an exception from the account
equity requirements based on the risk profile of the financial end
user is not being proposed. This is because margin collateral is an
important means of managing credit risk and the concerns expressed
with respect to commercial end users being required to deliver
margin collateral generally do not apply to financial end users as
they customarily deliver margin collateral. As discussed in sections
II.A.1. and II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the proposed capital
standard for nonbank SBSDs is based on the net liquid assets test
embodied in Rule 15c3-1. Under this test, most unsecured receivables
are deducted in full when computing net capital because of their
illiquidity. Proposed new Rule 18a-3 is designed to complement this
treatment of unsecured receivables by limiting the exceptions to the
requirement to collect collateral from counterparties to
circumstances that provide a compelling reason for the trade-off
between the risk-mitigating benefits of collateral and practical
impediments to delivering collateral. With respect to nonbank SBSDs,
there does not appear to be a compelling reason to establish a two-
tiered approach for financial end users. First, financial end users
generally pose more risk than commercial end users. Second, the
different credit risk profiles of financial end users may not always
be clear, which may make it difficult to differentiate between high
and low risk financial end users. Third, market participants have
told the Commission staff that financial end users entering into
security-based swap transactions generally already deliver
collateral to dealers to cover current and potential future
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of the rule, the term commercial end user means any
person (other than a natural person) that: (1) Engages primarily in
commercial activities that are not financial in nature and that is not
a financial entity as that term is defined in section 3C(g)(3) of the
Exchange Act; \556\ and (2) is using non-cleared security-based swaps
to hedge or mitigate risk relating to the commercial activities.\557\
The proposed definition of commercial end user is modeled on the
exception to the mandatory clearing provisions for security-based swaps
in section 3C of the Exchange Act.\558\ Among other things, to qualify
for the mandatory clearing exception, one of the counterparties to the
security-based swap transaction must not be a financial entity and must
be using security-based swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial
risk.\559\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\556\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3). Section 3C(g) of the Exchange
Act defines the term financial entity to mean: (1) a swap dealer;
(2) an SBSD; (3) a major swap participant; (4) an MSBSP; (5) a
commodity pool as defined in section 1a(10) of the CEA; (6) a
private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisors
Act of 1940; (7) an employee benefit plan as defined in paragraphs
(3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income and
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002); or (8) a person predominantly
engaged in activities that are in the business of banking, or in
activities that are financial in nature as defined in section 4(k)
of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
\557\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\558\ Compare 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g)(1), with paragraph (b)(2) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\559\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed definition, an individual could not qualify as a
commercial end user. In addition, because the proposed definition
provides that a commercial end user must engage primarily in commercial
activities that are not financial in nature and must not be a financial
entity as defined in section 3C(g)(3) of the Exchange Act, entities
such as banks, broker-dealers, FCMs, SBSDs, swap dealers, MSBSPs, swap
participants, mutual funds, private funds, commodity pools, and
employee benefit plans would not qualify as a commercial end user.\560\
Furthermore, the proposed definition provides that the commercial end
user must be using non-cleared security-based swaps to hedge or
mitigate commercial risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\560\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g)(3). The prudential
regulators and the CFTC have proposed definitions of financial end
user and financial entity, respectively, in their non-cleared
security-based swap margin rules in addition to their proposed
definitions of nonfinancial end user. See Prudential Regulator
Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27571 (defining
financial end user), and CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at
23736 (defining financial entity). As discussed above, the CFTC and
prudential regulators are proposing margin requirements that would
differentiate collateral requirements based on whether a financial
end user or financial entity is ``high risk'' or ``low risk.'' Id.
In other words, their proposals would provide for potentially
different treatment for three classes of entities: (1) Nonfinancial
end users; (2) financial end users (low risk and high risk); and (3)
entities that are neither a nonfinancial end user nor a financial
end user. Therefore, they need to define the terms financial end
user and financial entity, respectively. Because proposed new Rule
18a-3 would treat financial end users no differently than entities
that are neither a commercial end user nor a financial end user, the
Commission's proposed margin rule does not contain a definition of
financial end user. However, as discussed below, the proposed rule
would provide different treatment for counterparties that are SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rationale for exempting commercial end users from the
requirement to deliver collateral to meet the account equity
requirements is that these end users often do not deliver collateral by
current practice, and requiring them to do so could adversely impact
their ability to mitigate the risk of their commercial activities by
entering into hedging transactions. If an end user is using non-cleared
security-based swaps for purposes other than hedging (e.g., to take
directional investment positions), the rationale for exempting the end
user from the account equity requirements would not apply. An end user
that is using non-cleared security-based swaps for investment purposes
is not acting like a commercial end user, and, as such, no exemption
would be available under the rule.
As discussed below in section II.B.2.e. of this release, a nonbank
SBSD would be required to establish, maintain, and document procedures
and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts holding non-cleared
security-based swaps.\561\ Among other things, a nonbank SBSD would be
required to have procedures and guidelines for determining, approving,
and periodically reviewing credit limits for each counterparty to a
non-cleared security-based swap.\562\ Consequently, if a nonbank SBSD
does not collect collateral from a commercial end user, it would need
to establish a credit limit for the end user and periodically review
the credit limit in accordance with its risk monitoring
guidelines.\563\ The rule would not prohibit a nonbank SBSD from
requiring margin collateral from a commercial end user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\561\ See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\562\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. This is
also consistent with the broker-dealer margin rules. See FINRA Rule
4210(d), which requires that FINRA member firms establish procedures
to: (1) Review limits and types of credit extended to all customers;
(2) formulate their own margin requirements; and (3) review the need
for instituting higher margin requirements, mark-to-markets and
collateral deposits than are required by the Rule for individual
securities or customer accounts. See also FINRA Interpretation
4210(d)/01, available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@rules/documents/industry/p122203.pdf (noting that FINRA
Rule 4210(d) ``requires that members determine the total dollar
amount of credit to be extended to any one customer or on any one
security to limit the potential loss or exposure to the member. It
is important that specific limits be established to prevent any one
customer or group of customers from endangering the member's
capital.'').
\563\ See id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70267]]

Exception for Counterparties That Are SBSDs
The second exception to the account equity requirements in proposed
new Rule 18a-3 would apply to counterparties that are SBSDs.\564\ Two
alternatives with respect to SBSD counterparties are being proposed.
Under the first alternative, a nonbank SBSD would not need to collect
cash, securities, and/or money instruments to collateralize the margin
amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty
that is another SBSD (``Alternative A''). This approach is consistent
with the broker-dealer margin rules, which generally do not require a
broker-dealer to collect margin collateral from another broker-dealer.
Under the second alternative, a nonbank SBSD would be required to
collect cash, securities and/or money market instruments to
collateralize both the negative equity (current exposure) and the
margin amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a
counterparty that is another SBSD (``Alternative B'').\565\ Moreover,
the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments would be required
to be segregated in an account at an independent third-party custodian
pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\566\
Alternative B is consistent with the proposals of the prudential
regulators and the CFTC.\567\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\564\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\565\ Alternative B is not an exception to the account equity
requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3 because it would require
collateral to cover the negative equity and margin amount in an
account of another SBSD. However, its requirement for how the
collateral must be held--at an independent third-party custodian on
behalf of the counterparty--is different from how the proposed rule
requires that collateral from other types of counterparties be held
(other than counterparties that elect segregation under section
3E(f) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)).
\566\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f).
\567\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two alternatives are being proposed in order to elicit detailed
comment on each approach in terms of comparing how they would meet the
goals of the Dodd-Frank Act,\568\ address systemic issues relating to
non-cleared security-based swaps, raise practical issues, alter current
market practices and conventions, result in benefits and costs, and
impact the security-based swap markets and the participants in those
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\568\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(3)(A) (``[t]o offset the greater
risk to the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant and the financial system arising from the use of
security-based swaps that are not cleared,'' the margin requirements
proposed by the Commission and prudential regulators shall ``help
ensure the safety and soundness'' of the SBSD and the MSBSP and ``be
appropriate for the risk associated with non-cleared security-based
swaps held'' by an SBSD and MSBSP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under Alternative A, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect
cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from another SBSD
only to cover the amount of negative equity (the current exposure) in
the account of the counterparty.\569\ Accordingly, under this approach,
the nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments from another SBSD to collateralize the
margin amount (the potential future exposure).\570\ In other words, a
counterparty that is another SBSD would not be required to maintain a
minimum level of positive equity in the counterparty's account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\569\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3-
Alternative A. To the extent the margin amount was not
collateralized, the nonbank SBSD would be required to take the
proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above
in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release.
\570\ Id. Like all counterparties to non-cleared security-based
swaps, counterparties that are SBSDs would be subject to the risk
monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring a nonbank SBSD to deliver collateral to cover potential
future exposure could impact its liquidity. As discussed above in
sections II.A.1. and II.A.2.b.i. of this release, the proposed capital
requirements for nonbank SBSDs are based on a net liquid assets test.
The objective of the test is to require the firm to maintain in excess
of a dollar of highly liquid assets for each dollar of liabilities in
order to facilitate the liquidation of the firm if necessary and
without the need for a formal proceeding. When assets are delivered to
another party as margin collateral, they become unsecured receivables
from the party holding the margin collateral. Consequently, they no
longer are readily available to be liquidated by the delivering party.
In times of market stress, a nonbank SBSD may need to liquidate assets
to raise funds and reduce its leverage. However, if assets are in the
control of another nonbank SBSD, they would not be available for this
purpose. For this reason, the assets would need to be deducted from net
worth when the nonbank SBSD computes net capital under the proposed
capital requirements.\571\ As a result, the nonbank SBSD would need to
maintain the required minimum amount of net capital after taking into
account these deductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\571\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv)(B); paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 18a-1. Collateral provided to
another party as margin would be subject to this 100% deduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promoting the liquidity of nonbank SBSDs is the policy
consideration underlying Alternative A. In addition, the prudential
regulators and the CFTC have received comments on this issue in
response to their proposals raising concerns about requiring bank SBSDs
and swap dealers to exchange collateral to cover potential future
exposure and to have the collateral held by an independent third-party
custodian. For example, some commenters assert that imposing segregated
initial margin requirements on trades between swap entities would
result in a tremendous cost to the financial system in the form of a
massive liquidity drain, and that swap dealers will lose the ability to
reinvest this collateral to finance other lending or derivatives
transactions, thereby reducing capital formation and increasing
costs.\572\ One commenter stated that, in general, with respect to non-
cleared swaps, charging more initial margin (as compared to cleared
swaps) could have unintended consequences, including the inefficient
use of capital by sophisticated market participants in highly regulated
industries, which could create a drag on the financial system, slow
economic

[[Page 70268]]

growth, and diminish customer choice.\573\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\572\ See, e.g., letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice
Chairman, ISDA, and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice
President, Public Policy and Advocacy, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), to David Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47802&SearchText=SIFMA (``SIFMA/ISDA Comment
Letter to the CFTC''); letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice
Chairman, ISDA, and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice
President, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA, to Jennifer J.
Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve, et al. (July 6, 2011),
available at https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2011/11c22ad79.PDF (``SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential
Regulators''); letter from the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of
Representatives, to Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Federal Reserve et al.
(July 22, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47943&SearchText=issa, and letter
from Mark Scanlan, Vice President, Agriculture and Rural Policy,
Independent Community Bankers of America, to the CFTC et al. (July
11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47762&SearchText=scanlan. One commenter noted
that there is no statutory requirement for covered swap entities to
hold initial margin of other covered swap entities at an independent
third party custodian. See letter from Christine Cochran, President,
Commodity Markets Council, to the OCC et al. (July 11, 2011),
available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47777&SearchText=cochran. Here and below, this
release refers to public comments on the margin proposals by the
CFTC and the prudential regulators to more fully reflect the
available views without endorsing those comments or expressing a
view as to the validity of the comments.
\573\ See letter from Mark R. Thresher, Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, Nationwide, to the OCC (June 24,
2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/June/20110628/R-1415/R-1415_062311_81363_349039663039_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter stated that a combination of daily variation
margin, robust operational procedures, legally enforceable netting and
collateral agreements, and regulatory capital requirements provide
comprehensive risk mitigation for collateralized derivatives, and that
any additional initial margin requirements for swaps between swap
entities would be unnecessary and unwarranted.\574\ A commenter argued
that the proposed initial margin requirements are inconsistent with
proven market practice, ignore significant differences in credit
quality among swap dealers and financial entities which justify
different margining treatment, and will lead to excessive amounts of
collateral being required in comparison to the actual risks of the
underlying swap transactions and portfolios.\575\ Finally, a commenter
argued that initial margin requirements should differentiate based on
credit quality, and that the prudential regulators' margin rulemaking
identifies no risk-based justification for layering zero threshold,
bilateral initial margin requirements for all swap dealers above and
beyond their existing variation margin requirements.\576\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\574\ See SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the CFTC; SIFMA/ISDA
Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators. This commenter also
stated that precedent exists in the broker-dealer margin rules for
not imposing any initial margin requirements on trades between swap
entities. Id.
\575\ See letter from Don Thompson, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., to the OCC et
al. (June 24, 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/June/20110627/R-1415/R-1415_062311_81366_349039350535_1.pdf (``J.P. Morgan Letter''). Another commenter
pointed out that life insurers also typically do not post initial
margin and recommended that initial margin requirements be
appropriately sized to reflect the potential exposure during the
close out of a defaulting party. See letter from Carl B. Wilkerson,
Vice President and Chief Counsel, Securities and Litigation,
American Council of Life Insurers, to the OCC et al. (July 11,
2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110728/R-1415/R-1415_071111_81817_507164831320_1.pdf.
\576\ See J.P. Morgan Letter. This commenter stated that initial
margin is appropriate in some circumstances, but it must take into
account the credit quality of counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, a number of comments submitted in response to
the proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC supported
bilateral margining and argued that it should be extended to require
SBSDs and swap dealers to exchange margin collateral with all
counterparties.\577\ For example, one commenter stated that the
financial crisis demonstrated that the premise of one-way margin is
flawed.\578\ This commenter stated that two-way margin requirements
would aid safety and soundness by helping a swap dealer and its
counterparty offset their exposures and prevent them from building up
exposures they cannot fulfill.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\577\ See, e.g., letter from Scott C. Goebel, Senior Vice
President, General Counsel, FMR Co., to John Walsh, Acting
Comptroller of the Currency, OCC (July 11, 2011); letter from Kevin
M. Budd, Associate General Counsel, and Todd F. Lurie, Assistant
General Counsel, MetLife, to OCC et al. (July 11, 2011); letter from
John R. Gidman, on behalf of the Association of Institutional
Investors, to Ms. Jennifer Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve, et
al. (July 11, 2011); letter from R. Glenn Hubbard, Co-Chair, John L.
Thornton, Co-Chair, and Hal S. Scott, Director, Committee on Capital
Markets Regulation, to John Walsh, Acting Comptroller, OCC (July 11,
2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110719/R-1415/R-1415_071111_81821_322996697020_1.pdf; letter
from Dennis M. Kelleher, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Wallace C. Turbeville, Derivatives Specialist, Better Markets, Inc.,
to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve (July 11, 2011),
available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110728/R-1415/R-1415_071111_81861_504963784471_1.pdf; letter from
Americans for Financial Reform, to John Walsh, Acting Comptroller,
OCC (July 11, 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2011/July/20110728/R-1415/R-1415_071111_81864_448738394756_1.pdf.
\578\ Letter from Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, Investment
Company Institute, to David Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11,
2011), available at is https://www.ici.org/pdf/25344.pdf (``ICI
Letter'').
\579\ See the ICI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prudential regulators explained the reasoning behind their
proposal as follows:

Non-cleared swaps transactions with counterparties that are
themselves swap entities pose risk to the financial system because
swap entities are large players in swap and security-based swap
markets and therefore have the potential to generate systemic risk
through their swap activities. Because of their interconnectedness
and large presence in the market, the failure of a single swap
entity could cause severe stress throughout the financial system.
Accordingly, it is the preliminary view of the Agencies that all
non-cleared swap transactions with swap entities should require
margin.\580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\580\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27570-27571 (footnote omitted). See also CFTC
Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23735 (``It is the nature of the
dealer business that dealers are at the center of the markets in
which they participate. Similarly, a major swap participant, by its
terms, is a significant trader. Collectively, [swap dealers and
major swap participants] pose greater risk to the markets and the
financial system than other swap market participants. Accordingly,
under the mandate of Section 4s(e), the Commission believes that
they should be required to collect margin from one another.'').

Alternative B is being proposed in light of the policy
considerations underlying the proposals of the prudential regulators
and the CFTC.\581\ Under Alternative B, a nonbank SBSD would be
required to obtain cash, securities, and/or money market instruments
from another SBSD to cover the negative equity (current exposure) and
margin amount (potential future exposure) in the other SBSD's
account.\582\ In addition, the cash, securities, and/or money market
instruments delivered to cover the margin amount would need to be
carried by an independent third party custodian pursuant to the
requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\583\ Therefore, not
only would there be no exception to the account equity requirement for
counterparties that are SBSDs, but the treatment of the collateral
would be different than for other types of counterparties in that it
would be required to be held by an independent third-party
custodian.\584\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\581\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23744.
\582\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 18a-3--
Alternative B.
\583\ Id.
\584\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception for Counterparties That Elect Segregation Under Section 3E(f)
Under the third exception to the account equity requirements in
proposed new Rule 18a-3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to hold
the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments delivered by a
counterparty that is not a commercial end user to cover the margin
amount (potential future exposure), if the counterparty elects to have
the cash, securities, and/or money market instruments segregated
pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\585\ Section 3E(f) sets
forth provisions under which a counterparty to a non-cleared security-
based swap with an SBSD can require that collateral to cover potential
future exposure must be segregated.\586\ Among other things, section
3E(f) provides that the collateral must be segregated in an account
carried by an independent third-party custodian and designated as a
segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty.\587\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\585\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
This exception would not apply to negative equity in the
counterparty's account, which would need to be collateralized by
cash, securities, and/or money market instruments held by the
nonbank SBSD. See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(2)(B)(i) (providing that the
segregation provisions in section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act do not
apply to variation margin payments).
\586\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\587\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed below in section II.C. of this release, proposed new
Rule 18a-3 would establish certain conditions that

[[Page 70269]]

collateral would need to meet before its value could be included in the
determination of the amount of equity in an account.\588\ Among other
conditions, the collateral would need to be subject to the physical
possession or control of the nonbank SBSD and capable of being
liquidated promptly by the nonbank SBSD without intervention by any
other party.\589\ Margin collateral segregated pursuant to section
3E(f) of the Exchange Act would not meet either of these conditions.
First, the collateral would be in the physical possession or control of
an independent third-party custodian rather than the nonbank SBSD.
Second, the collateral could not be liquidated by the nonbank SBSD
without the intervention of the independent third-party custodian. For
these reasons, the value of the margin collateral held by the
independent third-party custodian could not be included when
determining the amount of equity in the account of the counterparty at
the nonbank SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\588\ See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\589\ See paragraphs (c)(4)(i)-(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception for Accounts Holding Legacy Security-Based Swaps
Under the fourth exception to the account equity requirements in
proposed new Rule 18a-3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to
collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to cover the
negative equity (current exposure) or margin amount (potential future
exposure) in a security-based swap legacy account.\590\ Proposed new
Rule 18a-3 would define security-based swap legacy account to mean an
account that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the
effective date of the rule and that is used to hold only security-based
swaps entered into prior to the effective date of the rule, as well as
collateral for those security-based swaps.\591\ As discussed above in
section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this exception would be designed
to address the impracticality of renegotiating contracts governing
security-based swap transactions that predate the effectiveness of
proposed new Rule 18a-3 in order to come into compliance with the
account equity requirements in the rule.\592\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\590\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
While this exception would apply to negative equity in the account
and the margin amount calculated for the account, a nonbank SBSD
would be required to take a 100% deduction from net worth for the
amount of the uncollateralized current exposure and take the
proposed capital charge in lieu of margin collateral discussed above
in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release. See proposed new paragraph
(c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) of proposed new
Rule 18a-1. In addition, like all counterparties to non-cleared
security-based swaps, these counterparties would be subject to the
risk monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule
18a-3.
\591\ See paragraph (b)(9) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\592\ As noted above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, the
CFTC has proposed a similar exception for legacy swaps. See CFTC
Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 23734. The prudential regulators
proposed to permit a covered swap entity to exclude pre-effective
swaps from initial margin calculations, while requiring these
entities to collect variation margin, consistent with industry
practice. See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed account
equity requirements for counterparties of nonbank SBSDs in proposed new
Rule 18a-3.\593\ In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\593\ As discussed earlier, the Commission is soliciting comment
below in section II.B.3. of this release on whether to define the
term eligible collateral in a manner similar to the prudential
regulators and the CFTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Would it be appropriate to limit the assets that could be used
to collateralize the negative equity and margin amounts in an account
to cash, securities, and money market instruments? Are there other
types of assets that should be permitted to meet the account equity
requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3? If so, identify the other
asset types and compare their liquidity to cash, securities, and money
market instruments.
2. Is the proposed requirement to take deductions on securities and
money market instruments in calculating the amount of equity in an
account appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there other measures
that a nonbank SBSD could be required to take to address the risk that
securities and money market instruments may not be able to be
liquidated at current market values to cover the obligations of a
defaulted counterparty? If so, explain how the other measures would be
an adequate substitute to deductions.
3. Are the proposed conditions (modeled on the Appendix E
conditions) for taking into account collateral in determining the
amount of equity in an account appropriate for proposed new Rule 18a-3?
If not, explain why not. Should any individual condition be eliminated?
If so, explain why. Are there additional conditions that should be
added? If so, identify them and explain how they would promote the goal
of ensuring that collateral can be promptly liquidated to cover the
obligation of a defaulted counterparty.
4. Is the proposed requirement that a nonbank SBSD take prompt
steps to liquidate securities in an account to the extent necessary to
eliminate an account equity deficiency appropriate? For example, should
there be a specific time-frame (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or some other
number of business days) in which the nonbank SBSD is required to
liquidate securities in the account? If so, explain why a specific
time-frame would be preferable to requiring the nonbank SBSD to act
promptly.
5. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for
commercial end users appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should
commercial end users be required to collateralize negative equity and
the margin amount in their accounts? Explain why or why not. Should the
exception apply only to the margin amount (i.e., should commercial end
users be required to collateralize the negative equity in their
accounts)? Explain why or why not.
6. Is the proposed definition of commercial end user appropriate?
If not, explain why not. For example, would the proposed definition of
commercial end user be too broad, or too narrow, in terms of capturing
types of counterparties for which the exception would not be
appropriate? If so, explain why and suggest how the definition could be
modified to address this issue.
7. Should the rule contain a proposed definition of financial end
user? If so, explain why. For example, would a definition of financial
end user similar to the definitions of the prudential regulators and
CFTC provide needed clarity to the definition of commercial end user
(i.e., by specifying certain entities that are not commercial end
users)?
8. Do commercial end users use security-based swaps to hedge
commercial risk? If so, identify the type of commercial risk they hedge
with security-based swaps and explain how security-based swaps are used
to hedge this risk.
9. Should proposed new Rule 18a-3 define the term commercial risk
for the purpose of providing greater clarity as to the meaning of the
term commercial end user? If so, how should the term commercial risk be
defined?
10. Should there be a two-tiered approach with respect to the
account equity requirements for financial end users based on whether
they are low risk or high risk, similar to the proposed approach of the
prudential regulators and the CFTC? If so, explain why.

[[Page 70270]]

11. How do non-commercial end users presently use security-based
swaps? For example, do they use them to hedge commercial risk? If so,
identify the type of commercial risk they hedge with security-based
swaps.
12. With respect to counterparties that are SBSDs, how would
Alternatives A and B compare in terms of promoting the goals of the
Dodd-Frank Act, including limiting the risks posed by non-cleared
security-based swaps? How would each address or fail to address
systemic issues relating to non-cleared security-based swaps?
13. What would be the impact of Alternatives A and B on the
efficient use of capital?
14. What would be the practical effects of Alternatives A and B on
the capital and liquidity positions, or the financial health generally,
of nonbank SBSDs? How would each alter current market practices and
conventions with respect to collateralizing credit exposures arising
from non-cleared security-based swaps? Are there practical issues with
respect to Alternatives A and B? If so, identify and explain them.
15. How would the benefits of Alternatives A and B compare? How
would the costs compare?
16. How would Alternatives A and B impact the market for security-
based swaps? How would they impact participants in those markets?
17. How would Alternatives A and B promote the clearing of
security-based swaps? For example, would Alternative B--because of the
requirement to fund margin collateral requirements--incentivize nonbank
SBSDs to transact in cleared security-based swaps? If so, explain why.
18. What would be the potential impact if the Commission adopted
Alternative A and the prudential regulators and the CFTC adopted rules
similar to Alternative B? Consider and explain the impact competitively
and practically.
19. Would the proposed exception to the account equity requirements
for counterparties that elect segregation under section 3E(f) of the
Exchange Act be appropriate? If not, explain why not.
20. Would the proposed exception to the account equity requirements
for accounts that elect to hold legacy security-based swaps be
appropriate? If not, explain why not.
21. Would it be appropriate to permit legacy security-based swaps
to be held in an entity that is not an SBSD? If so, why, and what
conditions should be imposed on such an entity?
22. Should counterparties be required to post variation margin with
respect to legacy swaps? Is this consistent with current market
practice?
23. Should there be an exception from the account equity
requirements for small banks, savings associations, farm credit system
institutions, and credit unions from the account equity requirements
(e.g., for entities with assets of $10 billion or less)? \594\ Explain
why or why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\594\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g)(3)(B) (requiring the
Commission to consider whether to exempt small banks, savings
associations, farm credit system institutions and credit unions from
the definition of ``financial entity'' contained in Exchange Act
section 3C(g)(3)(A) for the purposes of mandatory clearing of
security-based swaps). See also End-User Exception to Mandatory
Clearing of Security-Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 63556
(Dec. 15, 2010), 75 FR 79992, 80000-80002 (Dec. 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Should there be an exception from the account equity
requirements for affiliates of the nonbank SBSD? For example, do
affiliates present less credit risk than non-affiliates? If there
should be an exception for affiliates, should it be limited to certain
affiliates? For example, should the exception only apply to affiliates
that are subject to capital and other regulatory requirements? Please
explain.
25. Should there be an exception for foreign governmental entities?
Explain why or why not. Should types of foreign governmental entities
be distinguished for purposes of an exception? For example, are there
objective benchmarks based on creditworthiness that could be used to
distinguish between foreign governmental entities for which the
exception to the account equity requirements would and would not be
appropriate? If so, identify the benchmarks and explain how they could
be incorporated into the rule.
26. Do dealers in OTC derivatives currently collect collateral from
foreign governmental entities for their OTC derivatives transactions?
If so, from which types of foreign governmental entities?
27. Do national foreign governments typically guarantee the
obligations of political subdivisions and agencies? If so, identify the
types of political subdivisions and agencies that are guaranteed and
are not guaranteed.
ii. Nonbank MSBSPs
A nonbank MSBSP would be required to calculate as of the close of
each business day the amount of equity in the account of each
counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap.\595\ On the next
business day following the calculation, the nonbank MSBSP would be
required to either collect or deliver cash, securities, and/or money
market instruments to the counterparty depending on whether there was
negative or positive equity in the account of the counterparty.\596\
Specifically, if the account has negative equity as calculated on the
previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to collect
cash, securities, and/or money market instruments in an amount equal to
the negative equity.\597\ Conversely, if the account has positive
equity as calculated on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP
would be required to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market
instruments to the counterparty in an amount equal to the positive
equity.\598\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\595\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\596\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. As
indicated, the nonbank MSBSP would need to deliver cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments and, consequently, other types of
assets would not be eligible as collateral.
\597\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. In
this case, the nonbank MSBSP would have current exposure to the
counterparty in an amount equal to the negative equity.
\598\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank MSBSPs may not maintain two-sided markets or otherwise
engage in activities that would require them to register as an
SBSD.\599\ They will, however, by definition, maintain substantial
positions in particular categories of security-based swaps.\600\ These
positions could create significant risk to counterparties to the extent
the counterparties have uncollateralized current exposure to the
nonbank MSBSP. In addition, they could pose significant risk to the
nonbank MSBSP to the extent it has uncollateralized current exposure to
its counterparties. The proposed account equity requirements for
nonbank MSBSPs are designed to address these risks by imposing a
requirement that nonbank MSBSPs on a daily basis must ``neutralize''
the credit risk between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty either
by collecting or delivering cash, securities, and/or money market
instruments in an amount equal to the positive or negative equity in
the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\599\ See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596.
\600\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67); Entity Definitions Adopting
Release, 77 FR 30596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to
reduce the fair market value of securities and money market instruments
held in the account of a counterparty (or delivered to a counterparty)
for purposes of determining whether the level of equity in the account
meets the minimum

[[Page 70271]]

requirement. As discussed above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release,
the reductions taken by a nonbank SBSD would be based on the deductions
that would apply to the positions pursuant to Rule 15c3-1, as proposed
to be amended, and proposed new Rule 18a-1, as applicable.\601\ Nonbank
MSBSPs would not be subject to these rules and, consequently, would not
be required to comply with them for purposes of proposed new Rule 18a-
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\601\ See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs would be subject to the
requirements in paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3, which are
modeled on the existing collateral requirements in Appendix E to Rule
15c3-1.\602\ As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.iv of this release,
these requirements are designed to ensure that the collateral is an
asset of stable and predictable value, an asset that is not linked to
the value of the transaction in any way, and an asset that can be sold
quickly and easily if the need arises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\602\ See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3; 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(c)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank MSBSPs would be required to take prompt steps to liquidate
securities and money market instruments in the account to the extent
necessary to eliminate an account equity deficiency.\603\ These steps
could include liquidating non-cleared security-based swap positions in
the account to reduce debits arising from those transactions. The rule
would not require that the liquidations must be completed within a
specific timeframe in order to provide the nonbank MSBSP flexibility to
conduct an orderly liquidation, taking into account market conditions
and the risk profile of the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\603\ See paragraph (c)(8) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There would be three exceptions to the account equity requirements
for nonbank MSBSPs.\604\ The first exception would apply to
counterparties that are commercial end users.\605\ Under this
exception, the nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect
collateral from a commercial end user when the account of the end user
has negative equity.\606\ This exception would be consistent with the
proposed exception from the account equity requirements for accounts of
commercial end users at nonbank SBSDs. However, nonbank MSBSPs would
not be required to take a credit risk charge or capital charge relating
to the amount of the uncollected margin.\607\ The reason for this
proposed exception is the concern that requiring commercial end users
to deliver collateral could impair their ability to manage commercial
risks through hedging transactions. A nonbank MSBSP would be required
to deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to a
commercial end user as necessary to collateralize the end user's
current exposure to the nonbank MSBSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\604\ See paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
MSBSPs could choose to collect collateral in these cases.
\605\ See paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\606\ Id.
\607\ Compare paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-
3, with paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule new 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the second exception, a nonbank MSBSP would not be required
to collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments from an
SBSD to collateralize the amount of the negative equity in the account
of the SBSD. Under the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule
18a-3, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral from a
nonbank MSBSP to cover the negative equity and margin amount in the
account of the nonbank MSBSP carried by the nonbank SBSD.\608\ Once a
nonbank SBSD collected these amounts, a nonbank MSBSP would have
current exposure to the nonbank SBSD, at a minimum, equal to the amount
of the positive equity required to be maintained in the nonbank MSBSP's
account at the nonbank SBSD. A regulatory requirement that the nonbank
MSBSP must collect collateral from the nonbank SBSD to collateralize
the amount of the positive equity in the account at the nonbank SBSD
could defeat the purpose of proposed new Rule 18a-3; namely, that
nonbank SBSDs collect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments
to collateralize their potential future exposure to the counterparties,
including nonbank MSBSPs.\609\ In essence, the proposed requirements
reflect a general preference in favor of requiring counterparties to
nonbank SBSDs to fully collateralize their obligations to the nonbank
SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\608\ See paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a-3. As
discussed above, MSBSPs would not be included in the definition of
commercial end user. Consequently, an MSBSP would be required to
deliver cash, securities, and/or money market instruments to
collateralize the negative equity and the margin amount in its
security-based swap account at a nonbank SBSD.
\609\ For example, assume a nonbank SBSD calculates that the
account of a nonbank MSBSP has a negative equity of $20 (current
exposure) and a margin amount of $50 (potential future exposure)
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. On the
next business day, the nonbank SBSD would need to collect cash,
securities, and/or money market instruments to collateralize these
amounts pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
Assume the nonbank MSBSP delivers cash as collateral. It would need
to deliver $70 in cash, of which $50 (as collateral for the margin
amount) would be a receivable from the nonbank SBSD to the nonbank
MSBSP. In other words, the $50 (as a receivable from the nonbank
SBSD) would be the nonbank MSBSP's current exposure to the nonbank
SBSD. If the nonbank MSBSP was required to collect collateral from
the nonbank SBSD to cover this amount, the account of the nonbank
MSBSP at the nonbank SBSD would not meet the minimum equity
requirement of $50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third exception would apply to a security-based swap legacy
account.\610\ Under this exception, consistent with the proposed
corresponding exception applying to accounts with nonbank SBSDs, a
nonbank MSBSP would not be required to collect cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments to collateralize the negative equity in a
security-based swap legacy account. In addition, the MSBSP would not be
required to deliver collateral to cover the positive equity in the
account. This exception would be designed to address the impracticality
of renegotiating contracts governing security-based swap transactions
that predate the effectiveness of proposed new Rule 18a-3 in order to
come into compliance with the account equity requirements in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\610\ See paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
The term security-based swap legacy account would be defined to mean
an account that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the
effective date of the rule and that is used only to hold security-
based swaps entered into prior to the effective date of the rule and
collateral for those security-based swaps. See paragraph (b)(9) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed account
equity requirements for counterparties of nonbank MSBSPs in proposed
Rule 18a-3. Commenters are referred to the questions about the account
equity requirements for nonbank SBSDs above in section II.B.2.c.i. of
this release to the extent those questions address provisions in
proposed new Rule 18a-3 that also apply to nonbank MSBSPs. In addition,
the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of
comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Are the proposed account equity requirements for nonbank MSBSPs
appropriate? If not, explain why not.
2. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to reduce the fair market
value of securities and money market instruments for purposes of
determining whether the level of equity in the account meets the
minimum requirement? What would be the impact of not requiring nonbank
MSBSPs to reduce the fair market value of

[[Page 70272]]

securities and money market instruments for purposes of determining
whether the level of equity in the account meets the minimum
requirement?
3. Should nonbank MSBSPs be required to collect or deliver cash,
securities, and/or money market instruments to collateralize a margin
amount (potential future exposure) in addition to the negative equity
amount (current exposure)? Should they be required to deliver cash,
securities, and/or money market instruments to a commercial end user to
collateralize a margin amount? Please explain.
4. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for
credit exposures to commercial end users appropriate? If not, explain
why not. For example, because nonbank MSBSPs would not be required to
take a credit risk charge or capital charge relating to the amount of
uncollected margin collateral, would nonbank MSBSPs be subject to
additional risks not applicable to nonbank SBSDs? If so, explain why.
If not, explain why not.
5. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for
credit exposures to SBSDs appropriate? If not, explain why not.
6. Is the proposed exception to the account equity requirements for
credit exposures in security-based swap legacy accounts appropriate? If
not, explain why not.
d. $100,000 Minimum Transfer Amount
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would establish a minimum transfer amount
of $100,000 with respect to a particular counterparty.\611\ Under this
provision, a nonbank SBSD and a nonbank MSBSP would not be required to
collect or deliver collateral to meet an account equity requirement if
the amount required to be collected or delivered is equal to or less
than $100,000. If the minimum transfer amount is exceeded, the entire
account equity requirement would need to be collateralized, not just
the amount of the requirement that exceeds $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\611\ See paragraph (c)(6) of proposed Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed minimum transfer provision is designed to establish a
threshold so that the degree of risk reduction achieved by requiring
account equity requirements to be collateralized is sufficiently small
that the costs of delivering collateral may not be justified. The
proposed $100,000 threshold is based on the proposals of the prudential
regulators and the CFTC.\612\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\612\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27575; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at
23735 (``In order to reduce transaction costs, proposed Sec. 23.150
would establish a `minimum transfer amount' of $100,000. Initial and
variation margin payments would not be required to be made if below
that amount. This amount was selected in consultation with the
prudential regulators. It represents an amount sufficiently small
that the level of risk reduction might not be worth the transaction
costs of moving the money. It only affects the timing of collection;
it does not change the amount of margin that must be collected once
the $100,000 level is exceeded.''). Some commenters to the CFTC and
Prudential Regulators proposed margin rules, while generally
supporting the use of minimum transfer amounts, stated that they
should have the flexibility to set higher minimum transfer amounts
and that minimum transfer amounts up to $250,000 were more
consistent with prevailing industry practice. See letter from the
Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47804; letter from Carl B.
Wilkerson, Vice President & Chief Counsel, Securities & Litigation,
American Council of Life Insurers, to the Prudential Regulators and
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at
https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47742;
letter from Lisa M. Ledbetter, Vice President and Deputy General
Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Freddie Mac, to David
A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 11, 2011), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=47771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the minimum transfer
amount in proposed new Rule 18a-3. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Is it appropriate to have a minimum transfer amount? If not,
explain why not. For example, should an account equity requirement be
collateralized regardless of the amount of cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments that would need to be transferred to meet the
requirement?
2. Is $100,000 an appropriate minimum transfer amount? Should the
amount be greater than $100,000 (e.g., $150,000, $200,000, $500,000, or
some other amount)? If so, identify the amount and explain why it would
be a better threshold. Should the amount be less than $100,000 (e.g.,
$75,000, $50,000, $25,000, or some other amount)? If so, identify the
amount and explain why it would be a better threshold.
e. Risk Monitoring and Procedures
A nonbank SBSD would be required to monitor the risk of each
account of a counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap and
establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for
monitoring the risk of such accounts.\613\ The nonbank SBSD also would
be required to review, in accordance with written procedures, and at
reasonable periodic intervals, its non-cleared security-based swap
activities for consistency with the risk monitoring procedures and
guidelines.\614\ The risk monitoring procedures and guidelines would
need to include, at a minimum, procedures and guidelines for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\613\ See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. Paragraph
(e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 would not apply to nonbank MSBSPs. As
discussed below, the proposed risk monitoring procedures are
designed to address the risk that results from dealing in non-
cleared security-based swaps (i.e., the type of activity that would
require a nonbank MSBSP to register as an SBSD). See 15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(a)(1); Entity Definitions Proposing Release, 75 FR at 80174. As
discussed above in section II.A.3 of this release, a nonbank MSBSP
would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4, which requires an
entity subject to its provisions to establish a risk management
control system.
\614\ See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obtaining and reviewing the account documentation and
financial information necessary for assessing the amount of current and
potential future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the
nonbank SBSD;
Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit
limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties;
Monitoring credit risk exposure to the security-based swap
dealer from non-cleared security-based swaps, including the type,
scope, and frequency of reporting to senior management;
Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to
a single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified
range of possible market movements over a specified time period;
Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-
cleared security-based swaps on the nonbank SBSD's overall risk
exposure;
Determining the need to collect collateral from a
particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based
upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the
specific non-cleared security-based swap contracts with the
counterparty;
Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated
positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and
during periods of extreme volatility; and
Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each
counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future
exposure of a non-cleared security-based swap carried in the account of
the counterparty as measured by computing the largest maximum possible
loss that could result from the exposure.

[[Page 70273]]

These proposed requirements are modeled on similar requirements in
FINRA Rule 4240, which establishes an interim pilot program imposing
margin requirements for transactions in credit default swaps executed
by a FINRA member.\615\ As discussed above in section II.A.2.c. of this
release, nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-
4.\616\ Rule 15c3-4 requires an OTC derivatives dealer to establish,
document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to
assist in managing the risks associated with its business activities,
including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational
risks.\617\ Risk management systems are designed to help ensure an
awareness of, and accountability for, the risks taken throughout a firm
and to develop tools to address those risks.\618\ A key objective of a
risk management system is to ensure that a firm does not ignore any
material source of risk.\619\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\615\ See FINRA Rule 4240. The risk monitoring requirements in
FINRA Rule 4240 were, in turn, modeled on risk monitoring
requirement in SRO portfolio margining rules. See FINRA Rule
4210(g); Rules 12.4 and 15.8A of the CBOE.
\616\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\617\ Id.
\618\ See Joint Forum, Bank of International Settlements, Trends
in Risk Integration and Aggregation, (Aug. 2003), available at
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint07.pdf.
\619\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures and guidelines that a nonbank SBSD would establish
pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a-3 would be a part of the broader
system of risk management controls the nonbank SBSD would establish
pursuant to Rule 15c3-4.\620\ The requirement in proposed new Rule 18a-
3 is designed to require specific risk management procedures and
guidelines with respect to the risks of acting as a dealer in non-
cleared security-based swaps, which could result in a nonbank SBSD
carrying accounts for significant numbers of counterparties and
effecting numerous transactions for counterparties on a daily basis.
For example, the nonbank SBSD would be required to have procedures and
guidelines for determining, approving, and periodically reviewing
credit limits for each counterparty, and across all
counterparties.\621\ In addition, the nonbank SBSD would be required to
have procedures and guidelines for determining the need to collect
collateral from a particular counterparty, including whether that
determination was based upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty
and/or the risk of the specific non-cleared security-based swap
contracts with the counterparty.\622\ As discussed above in section
II.B.2.c.i. of this release, nonbank SBSDs would not be required to
collect collateral from a commercial end user to meet the account
equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3.\623\ However, the firm
would be required to determine credit limits for the end user and
analyze the need for collecting collateral from the end user. These
risk monitoring procedures and guidelines are designed to prevent the
nonbank SBSD from allowing its credit exposure to the end user to reach
a level that creates a substantial risk that the default of the end
user could have a material adverse impact on the nonbank SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\620\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\621\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\622\ See paragraph (e)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\623\ See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the requirements in
proposed new Rule 18a-3 to monitor risk and to have risk monitoring
procedures and guidelines. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response
to the following questions:
1. Are the required elements of the risk monitoring procedures and
guidelines appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should there be
additional or alternative required elements to the risk monitoring
procedures and guidelines? If so, identify them and explain why they
should be included.
2. Are the descriptions of the required elements of the risk
monitoring procedures and guidelines in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8)
of proposed new Rule 18a-3 sufficiently clear in terms of what is
proposed to be required of nonbank SBSDs? If not, explain why not and
suggest changes to make the elements more clear.
3. Is it appropriate to require that the risk monitoring procedures
and guidelines be a part of the system of risk management control
prescribed in Rule 15c3-4? If not, explain why not.
4. What are the current practices of dealers in OTC derivatives in
terms of monitoring the risk of counterparties? Are the requirements in
proposed new Rule 18a-3 consistent with current practices? Are they
more limited or are they broader than current practices?
5. Should nonbank MSBSPs be subject to the requirements of
paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3? If so, explain why. If not,
explain why not.
3. Specific Request for Comment To Limit the Use of Collateral
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 does not specifically identify classes of
assets that could be used to meet the account equity requirements in
the rule. The Commission, however, is considering whether it would be
appropriate to adopt limits on eligible collateral similar to those the
prudential regulators and the CFTC proposed.\624\ Specifically, comment
is sought on whether proposed new Rule 18a-3 should define the term
eligible collateral in order to narrowly prescribe the classes of
assets that would qualify as collateral to meet the account equity
requirements. For example, one approach would be to limit eligible
collateral to cash and U.S. government securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\624\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27578; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at
23738-23739.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting eligible collateral to cash and U.S. government securities
could be a way to ensure that a nonbank SBSD will be able to liquidate
the collateral promptly and at current market prices if necessary to
cover the obligations of a defaulting counterparty. During a period of
market stress, the value of collateral other than cash pledged as
margin also may come under stress through rapid market declines and
systemic liquidations and deleveraging by financial institutions.
Generally, U.S. government securities are substantially less
susceptible to this risk than other types of securities and, in fact,
may become the investment of choice during a period of market stress as
investors seek the relative safety of these securities.\625\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\625\ See IMF, Global Financial Stability Report, The Quest for
Lasting Stability (Apr. 2012), available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another approach would be to adopt the definition of eligible
collateral proposed by the prudential regulators or to adopt the
``forms of margin'' proposed by the CFTC.\626\ Both of these proposed
approaches would extend eligible collateral beyond cash and U.S.
government securities but would not permit the use of certain
securities (e.g., listed equities that would be permitted by proposed
Rule 18a-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\626\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27578; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at
23738-23739 (proposing that only certain types of financial
instruments be eligible collateral).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission also seeks comment in response to the following
questions, including empirical data in support of comments:
1. Should the types of assets that could be used to meet the
nonbank

[[Page 70274]]

SBSD account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3 be more
limited? Explain why or why not. For example, are the proposed
provisions that would require a nonbank SBSD to mark-to-market the
value of the collateral, apply haircuts to the collateral, and adhere
to the collateral requirements incorporated from Appendix E to Rule
15c3-1 sufficient to ensure that collateral is able to serve the
purpose of protecting the nonbank SBSD from the credit exposure of a
counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap? If so, explain why.
If not, explain why not.
2. Explain the risk to nonbank SBSDs if they are permitted to
accept a broader range of securities and money market instruments (as
proposed in new Rule 18a-3) to meet the account equity requirements.
3. Should the types of assets that could be used to meet the
nonbank MSBSP account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3 be
more limited? Explain why or why not. Since nonbank MSBSPs would not be
required to apply haircuts to the collateral or adhere to the
collateral requirements incorporated from Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1,
should the types of collateral they are allowed to accept be more
limited? Explain why or why not.
4. Explain the risk to nonbank MSBSPs if they are permitted to
accept a broader range of securities and money market instruments (as
proposed in new Rule 18a-3) to meet the account equity requirements.
5. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of
proposed new Rule 18a-3, should the definition include securities of
government-sponsored entities? If so, identify the government-sponsored
entities and explain why the securities of the identified entity would
be appropriate collateral. Alternatively, explain why securities of
government-sponsored entities generally or individually should not be
included in a potential definition of eligible collateral.
6. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of
proposed new Rule 18a-3, should the definition include immediately-
available cash funds denominated in a foreign currency when the
currency is the same currency in which payment obligations under the
security-based swap are required to be settled? If so, should eligible
collateral be limited to specific foreign currencies? If so, identify
the currencies and explain why the identified currencies would be
appropriate collateral. Alternatively, explain why foreign currencies
generally or individually should not be included in a potential
definition of eligible collateral.
7. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of
proposed new Rule 18a-3, should the definition include immediately-
available cash funds denominated in foreign currency even in cases
where the currency is not the same currency in which payment
obligations under the security-based swap are required to be settled?
If so, should eligible collateral be limited to specific foreign
currencies? If so, identify the currencies and explain why the
identified currencies would be appropriate collateral in this
circumstance. Alternatively, explain why foreign currencies in this
circumstance should not be included in a potential definition of
eligible collateral.
8. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of
proposed new Rule 18a-3, should the definition include securities of
foreign sovereign governments? If so, identify the foreign sovereign
governments and explain why the securities of the identified foreign
sovereign governments would be appropriate collateral. Alternatively,
explain why securities of foreign sovereign governments should not be
included in the definition of eligible collateral.
9. If the term eligible collateral is defined for purposes of
proposed new Rule 18a-3, should the definition include a fully paid
margin equity security, as that term is defined in 12 CFR 220.2,\627\
in the case where a non-cleared equity security-based swap references
the margin equity security? If so, explain why margin equity securities
would be appropriate collateral in this circumstance. Alternatively,
explain why margin equity securities in this circumstance should not be
included in the definition of eligible collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\627\ Regulation T defines margin equity security as a margin
security that is an equity security (as defined in section 3(a)(11)
of the Exchange Act). See 12 CFR 220.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Should there be separate eligible collateral requirements for
collateralizing negative equity and the margin amount? For example,
should the assets permitted to collateralize negative equity be limited
to cash and U.S. government securities, while the assets permitted to
collateralize the margin amount encompass a broader range of
securities?

C. Segregation

1. Background
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides special protections for customers
of stockbrokers (the ``stockbroker liquidation provisions'').\628\
Among other protections, customers share ratably with other customers
ahead of all other creditors in the customer property held by the
failed stockbroker.\629\ Segregation requirements are designed to
identify customer property as distinct from the proprietary assets of
the firm and to protect customer property by, for example, preventing
the firm from using it to make proprietary investments. The goal of
segregation is to facilitate the prompt return of customer property to
customers either before or during a liquidation proceeding if the firm
fails.\630\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\628\ See 11 U.S.C. 741-753. SIPA provides similar protections
for ``customers'' of registered broker-dealers. See 15 U.S.C. 78aaa
et seq. However, SIPA also provides additional protections such as
the right for each customer to receive an advance of up to $500,000
to facilitate the prompt satisfaction of a claim for securities and
cash ($250,000 of the $500,000 may be used to satisfy the cash
portion of a claim).
\629\ See 11 U.S.C. 752.
\630\ See Michael P. Jamroz, The Customer Protection Rule, 57
Bus. Law. 1069 (May 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions designed to ensure that cash
and securities held by an SBSD relating to security-based swaps will be
deemed customer property under the stockbroker liquidation
provisions.\631\ In particular, section 3E(g) of the Exchange Act
provides, among other things, that a security-based swap shall be
considered to be a security as such term is ``used in section
101(53A)(B) and subchapter III of title 11, United States Code'' \632\
and in the stockbroker liquidation provisions.\633\ Section 3E(g) also
provides that an account that holds a security-based swap shall be
considered to be a securities account as that term is ``defined'' in
the stockbroker liquidation provisions.\634\ In addition, section 3E(g)
provides that the terms purchase and sale as defined in sections
3(a)(13) and (14) of the Exchange Act, respectively, shall be applied
to the terms purchase and sale as used in the

[[Page 70275]]

stockbroker liquidation provisions.\635\ Finally, section 3E(g)
provides that the term customer as defined in the stockbroker
liquidation provisions excludes any person to the extent the person has
a claim based on a non-cleared security-based swap transaction except
to the extent of any margin delivered to or by the customer with
respect to which there is a customer protection requirement under
section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act or a segregation requirement.\636\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\631\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 763(d) adding section 3E(g)
to the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g)).
\632\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 101(53A)(B). Section
101(53A)(B) defines a stockbroker to mean a person--(1) with respect
to which there is a customer, as defined in section 741, subchapter
III, title 11, United States Code (the definition section of the
stockbroker liquidation provisions); and (2) that is engaged in the
business of effecting transactions in securities--(i) for the
account of others; or (ii) with members of the general public, from
or for such person's own account. 11 U.S.C. 101(53A)(B).
\633\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741-753.
\634\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741. There is no
definition of securities account in 11 U.S.C. 741. The term
securities account is used in 11 U.S.C. 741(2) and (4) in defining
the terms customer and customer property.
\635\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741-753. Section
3(a)(13) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub.
L. 111-203 Sec. 761(a)), defines the term purchase to mean, in the
case of security-based swaps, the execution, termination (prior to
its scheduled maturity date), assignment, exchange, or similar
transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of rights or obligations
under, a security-based swap, as the context may require. 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(13). Section 3(a)(14) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. L. 111-203 Sec. 761(a)), defines the term sale
to mean, in the case of security-based swaps, the execution,
termination (prior to its scheduled maturity date), assignment,
exchange, or similar transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of
rights or obligations under, a security-based swap, as the context
may require. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(14).
\636\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The provisions of section 3E(g) of the Exchange Act apply the
customer protection elements of the stockbroker liquidation provisions
to cleared security-based swaps, including related collateral, and, if
subject to segregation requirements, to collateral delivered as margin
for non-cleared security-based swaps.\637\ The Dodd-Frank Act
established segregation requirements for cleared and non-cleared
security-based swaps and provided the Commission with the authority to
adopt rules with respect to segregation. In particular, section 763 of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Exchange Act to add new section 3E.\638\
Section 3E sets forth requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs with
respect to the segregation of cleared and non-cleared security-based
swap collateral and provides the Commission with rulemaking authority
in this area.\639\ The Commission also has concurrent authority under
section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act to prescribe segregation
requirements for broker-dealers.\640\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\637\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(g); 11 U.S.C. 741-753.
\638\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 763; 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
\639\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5. Unlike the grants of capital and
margin rulemaking authority in the Dodd-Frank Act, section 3E does
not divide rulemaking authority for segregation requirements for
SBSDs and MSBSPs between the Commission and the prudential
regulators. Compare 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(1), with 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
Consequently, the Commission's rulemaking authority in this area
extends to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
\640\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3). See also Public Law 111-203 Sec.
771 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)(3)(B)). Section 771 of the
Dodd-Frank Act states that unless otherwise provided by its terms,
its provisions relating to the regulation of the security-based swap
markets do not divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the
Commission, the CFTC, or any other Federal or State agency, of any
authority derived from any other provision of applicable law. See
Public Law 111-203 Sec. 771. In addition, section 15F(e)(3)(B) of
the Exchange Act provides that nothing in section 15F ``shall limit,
or be construed to limit, the authority'' of the Commission ``to set
financial responsibility rules for a broker or dealer * * * in
accordance with Section 15(c)(3).'' 15 U.S.C. 78o-8(e)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3E(b)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that a broker,
dealer, or SBSD shall treat and deal with all money, securities, and
property of any security-based swap customer received to margin,
guarantee, or secure a cleared security-based swap transaction as
belonging to the customer.\641\ Section 3E(b)(2) provides that the
money, securities, and property shall be separately accounted for and
shall not be commingled with the funds of the broker, dealer, or SBSD
or used to margin, secure, or guarantee any trades or contracts of any
security-based swap customer or person other than the person for whom
the money, securities, or property are held.\642\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\641\ See section 3E(b)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(b)(1)). As indicated, the provisions of section 3E(b) do not apply
to MSBSPs.
\642\ See section 3E(b)(2) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(b)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3E(c)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that, notwithstanding
section 3E(b), money, securities, and property of cleared security-
based swap customers of a broker, dealer, or SBSD may, for convenience,
be commingled and deposited in the same one or more accounts with any
bank, trust company, or clearing agency.\643\ Section 3E(c)(2) further
provides that the Commission may by rule, regulation, or order
prescribe terms and conditions under which money, securities, and
property of a customer with respect to cleared security-based swaps may
be commingled and deposited with any other money, securities, and
property received by the broker, dealer, or SBSD and required by the
Commission to be separately accounted for and treated and dealt with as
belonging to the security-based swap customer of the broker, dealer, or
SBSD.\644\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\643\ See section 3E(c)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(c)(1)).
\644\ See section 3E(c)(2) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(c)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to non-cleared security-based swaps, section
3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that an SBSD and an MSBSP
shall be required to notify a counterparty of the SBSD or MSBSP at the
beginning of a non-cleared security-based swap transaction that the
counterparty has the right to require the segregation of the funds or
other property supplied to margin, guarantee, or secure the obligations
of the counterparty.\645\ Section 3E(f)(1)(B) provides that, if
requested by the counterparty, the SBSD or MSBSP shall segregate the
funds or other property for the benefit of the counterparty and, in
accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may
promulgate, maintain the funds or other property in a segregated
account separate from the assets and other interests of the SBSD or
MSBSP.\646\ Section 3E(f)(3) provides that the segregated account shall
be carried by an independent third-party custodian and be designated as
a segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty
(``individual segregation'').\647\ In the case of non-cleared security-
based swaps, therefore, each counterparty has the right to require its
collateral to be isolated in an account at an independent custodian
that identifies the counterparty by name, rather than commingled with
collateral of other counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\645\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(A). See also section 3E(f)(2)(A)
of the Exchange Act, which provides that the provisions of section
3E(f)(1) apply only to a security-based swap between a counterparty
and SBSD or MSBSP that is not submitted for clearing to a clearing
agency. See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(2)(A).
\646\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(B).
\647\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The objective of individual segregation is for the funds and other
property of the counterparty to be carried in a manner that will keep
these assets separate from the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD or MSBSP
if it fails financially and becomes subject to a liquidation
proceeding. Having these assets carried in a bankruptcy-remote manner
protects the counterparty from the costs of retrieving assets through a
bankruptcy proceeding caused, for example, because another counterparty
of the SBSD or MSBSP defaults on its obligations to the SBSD or MSBSP.
Section 3E(f)(2)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act provides that the
segregation requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps do not
apply to variation margin payments, so that the right of a counterparty
to require individual account segregation applies only to initial and
not variation margin.\648\ It also provides that the segregation
requirements shall not preclude any commercial arrangement regarding
the investment of segregated funds or other property that may only be
invested in such investments as the Commission may permit by rule or
regulation, and the related allocation of gains and losses

[[Page 70276]]

resulting from any investment of the segregated funds or other
property.\649\ Finally, section 3E(f)(4) provides that if the
counterparty does not choose to require segregation of funds or other
property, the SBSD or MSBSP shall send a quarterly report to the
counterparty that the firm's back office procedures relating to margin
and collateral requirements are in compliance with the agreement of the
counterparties.\650\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\648\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(2)(B)(i).
\649\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(2)(B)(ii). No requirements are
being proposed at this time pursuant to the authority in section
3E(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act.
\650\ See section 3E(f)(4) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(f)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant, in part, to the grants of rulemaking authority in
sections 3E and 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is
proposing new Rule 18a-4 to establish segregation requirements for
SBSDs with respect to cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps that
would supplement the requirements in section 3E.\651\ Proposed new Rule
18a-4 would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., it would apply to bank
SBSDs, stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs).\652\ As discussed
in more detail below, proposed new Rule 18a-4 would prescribe detailed
requirements for how cash, securities, and money market instruments of
a customer with cleared security-based swaps must be segregated when an
SBSD commingles those assets with the cash and securities of other
customers (``omnibus segregation'') pursuant to section 3E(c)(1) of the
Exchange Act.\653\ In addition, the proposed rule would require that
cash, securities, and money market instruments of a customer with
respect to non-cleared security-based swaps must be treated in the same
manner as cash, securities, and money market instruments of a customer
with respect to cleared security-based swaps in cases where the
counterparty does not elect individual segregation \654\ and does not
affirmatively waive segregation altogether.\655\ In other words,
proposed new Rule 18a-4 would establish an alternative omnibus, or
``commingled'', segregation approach for non-cleared security-based
swaps. This approach would be the default requirement under which an
SBSD would be required to segregate securities and funds relating to
non-cleared security-based swaps and, therefore, apply in the absence
of a counterparty electing individual segregation or affirmatively
waiving segregation.\656\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\651\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5; 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3).
\652\ Unlike section 15F of the Exchange Act that divides
responsibility for capital and margin rules between the Commission
and the prudential regulators, section 3E of the Exchange Act
provides authority solely to the Commission. Compare 15 U.S.C. 78o-
10, with 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
\653\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(c)(1).
\654\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\655\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
\656\ As discussed below in section II.C.2.c. of this release,
an SBSD would be required to obtain a subordination agreement from a
counterparty that waives segregation. By entering into the
subordination agreement, the counterparty would affirmatively waive
segregation. The absence of a subordination agreement would mean
that the counterparty is presumed not to have waived segregation and
the SBSD would need to treat the counterparty's cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments pursuant to the omnibus segregation
requirements of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The omnibus segregation requirements in Rule 18a-4 would not apply
to MSBSPs.\657\ Consequently, if an MSBSP holds collateral from a
counterparty with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps, it would
be subject only to the segregation requirements in section 3E of the
Exchange Act with respect to the collateral, and would not be required
to segregate the collateral unless the counterparty required individual
segregation under section 3E.\658\ The omnibus segregation requirements
in Rule 18a-4 may not be practical for MSBSPs for the same reasons
discussed in sections II.A.3. and II.B.2. of this release with respect
to the proposed capital and margin requirements for MSBSPs (i.e., the
potentially wide range of business models under which nonbank MSBSPs
may operate under the proposed rule, and the uncertain impact that
requirements designed for broker-dealers could have on these entities).
MSBSPs will instead be subject to the provisions in section 3E(f) of
the Exchange Act, which provide certain baseline segregation
requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps.\659\ In addition,
counterparties would be able to negotiate customized segregation
agreements with MSBSPs, subject to these provisions.\660\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\657\ As discussed in more detail below, MSBSPs would be subject
to a notification requirement. See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new
Rule 18a-4.
\658\ The provisions of section 3E of the Exchange Act governing
cleared security-based swaps do not apply to nonbank MSBSPs. See 15
U.S.C. 78c-5(b) (referring specifically to a ``broker, dealer, or
security-based swap dealer'' and not to an MSBSP.).
\659\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f).
\660\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in more detail below, the omnibus segregation
requirements of Rule 18a-4 are modeled on the provisions of the broker-
dealer segregation rule--Rule 15c3-3.\661\ Rule 15c3-3 is designed ``to
give more specific protection to customer funds and securities, in
effect forbidding brokers and dealers from using customer assets to
finance any part of their businesses unrelated to servicing securities
customers; e.g., a firm is virtually precluded from using customer
funds to buy securities for its own account.'' \662\ To meet this
objective, Rule 15c3-3 requires a broker-dealer that maintains custody
of customer securities and cash (a ``carrying broker-dealer'') to take
two primary steps to safeguard these assets. The steps are designed to
protect customers by segregating their securities and cash from the
broker-dealer's proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer
fails financially, the securities and cash should be readily available
to be returned to the customers. In addition, if the failed broker-
dealer is liquidated in a formal proceeding under SIPA, the securities
and cash should be isolated and readily identifiable as ``customer
property'' and, consequently, available to be distributed to customers
ahead of other creditors.\663\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\661\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
\662\ See Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers,
Exchange Act Release No. 21651 (Jan. 11, 1985), 50 FR 2690, 2690
(Jan. 18, 1985). See also Broker-Dealers; Maintenance of Certain
Basic Reserves, Exchange Act Release No. 9856 (Nov. 10, 1972), 37 FR
25224, 25224 (Nov. 29, 1972).
\663\ See 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first step required by Rule 15c3-3 is that a carrying broker-
dealer must maintain physical possession or control over customers'
fully paid and excess margin securities.\664\ Physical possession or
control means the broker-dealer must hold these securities in one of
several locations specified in Rule 15c3-3 and free of liens or any
other

[[Page 70277]]

interest that could be exercised by a third-party to secure an
obligation of the broker-dealer.\665\ Permissible locations include a
bank, as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act, and a clearing
agency.\666\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\664\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(d). The term fully paid securities
includes all securities carried for the account of a customer in a
special cash account as defined in Regulation T promulgated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as well as margin
equity securities within the meaning of Regulation T which are
carried for the account of a customer in a general account or any
special account under Regulation T during any period when section 8
of Regulation T (12 CFR 220.8) specifies that margin equity
securities shall have no loan value in a general account or special
convertible debt security account, and all such margin equity
securities in such account if they are fully paid: provided,
however, that the term ``fully paid securities'' shall not apply to
any securities which are purchased in transactions for which the
customer has not made full payment. 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(3). The
term margin securities means those securities carried for the
account of a customer in a general account as defined in Regulation
T, as well as securities carried in any special account other than
the securities referred to in paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 15c3-3. 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(4). The term excess margin securities means those
securities referred to in paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3-3 carried
for the account of a customer having a market value in excess of 140
percent of the total of the debit balances in the customer's account
or accounts encompassed by paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3-3 which the
broker-dealer identifies as not constituting margin securities. 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(5).
\665\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(c). Customer securities held by the
carrying broker-dealer are not assets of the firm. Rather, the
carrying broker-dealer holds them in a custodial capacity and the
possession and control requirement is designed to ensure that the
carrying broker-dealer treats them in a manner that allows for their
prompt return.
\666\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second step is that a carrying broker-dealer must maintain a
reserve of funds or qualified securities in an account at a bank that
is at least equal in value to the net cash owed to customers.\667\ The
account must be titled ``Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of
Customers of the Broker-Dealer'' (``customer reserve account'').\668\
The amount of net cash owed to customers is computed pursuant to a
formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3 (``Exhibit A
formula'').\669\ Under the Exhibit A formula, the broker-dealer adds up
customer credit items (e.g., cash in customer securities accounts) and
then subtracts from that amount customer debit items (e.g., margin
loans).\670\ If credit items exceed debit items, the net amount must be
on deposit in the customer reserve account in the form of cash and/or
qualified securities.\671\ A broker-dealer cannot make a withdrawal
from the customer reserve account until the next computation and even
then only if the computation shows that the reserve requirement has
decreased.\672\ The broker-dealer must make a deposit into the customer
reserve account if the computation shows an increase in the reserve
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\667\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e). The term ``qualified security'' is
defined in Rule 15c3-3 to mean a security issued by the United
States or a security in respect of which the principal and interest
are guaranteed by the United States (``U.S. government security'').
See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(6).
\668\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e)(1). The purpose of giving the
account this title is to alert the bank and creditors of the broker-
dealer that this reserve fund is to be used to meet the broker-
dealer's obligations to customers (and not the claims of general
creditors) in the event the broker-dealer must be liquidated in a
formal proceeding.
\669\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a.
\670\ See id.
\671\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e). Customer cash is a balance sheet
item of the carrying broker-dealer (i.e., the amount of cash
received from a customer increases the amount of the carrying
broker-dealer's assets and creates a corresponding liability to the
customer). The reserve formula is designed to isolate these broker-
dealer assets so that an amount equal to the net liabilities to
customers is held as a reserve in the form of cash or U.S.
government securities. The requirement to establish this reserve is
designed to effectively prevent the carrying broker-dealer from
using customer funds for proprietary business activities such as
investing in securities. The goal is to put the carrying broker-
dealer in a position to be able to readily meet its cash obligations
to customers by requiring the firm to make deposits of cash and/or
U.S. government securities into the customer reserve account in the
amount of the net cash owed to customers.
\672\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the Exhibit A formula permits the broker-dealer to
offset customer credit items only with customer debit items.\673\ This
means the broker-dealer can use customer cash to facilitate customer
transactions such as financing customer margin loans and borrowing
securities to make deliveries of securities customers have sold
short.\674\ As discussed above in section II.B. of this release, the
broker-dealer margin rules require securities customers to maintain a
minimum level of equity in their securities accounts. In addition to
protecting the broker-dealer from the consequences of a customer
default, this equity serves to over-collateralize the customers'
obligations to the broker-dealer. This buffer protects the customers
whose cash was used to facilitate the broker-dealer's financing of
securities purchases and short-sales by customers. For example, if the
broker-dealer fails, the customer debits, because they generally are
over-collateralized, should be attractive assets for another broker-
dealer to purchase or, if not purchased by another broker-dealer, they
should be able to be liquidated to a net positive equity.\675\ The
proceeds of the debits sale or liquidation can be used to repay the
customer cash used to finance the customer obligations. This cash plus
the funds and/or U.S. government securities held in the customer
reserve account should equal or exceed the total amount of customer
credit items (i.e., the total amount owed by the broker-dealer to its
customers).\676\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\673\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a.
\674\ For example, if a broker-dealer holds $100 for customer A,
the broker-dealer can use that $100 to finance a security purchase
of customer B. The $100 the broker-dealer owes customer A is a
credit in the formula and the $100 customer B owes the broker-dealer
is a debit in the formula. Therefore, under the Exhibit A formula
there would be no requirement to maintain cash and/or U.S.
government securities in the customer reserve account. However, if
the broker-dealer did not use the $100 held in customer A's account
for this purpose, there would be no offsetting debit and,
consequently, the broker-dealer would need to have on deposit in the
customer reserve account cash and/or U.S. government securities in
an amount at least equal to $100.
\675\ The attractiveness of the over-collateralized debits
facilitates the bulk transfer of customer accounts from a failing or
failed broker-dealer to another broker-dealer.
\676\ See Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers; Amended
Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 18417 (Jan. 13, 1982), 47 FR 3512,
3513 (Jan. 25, 1982) (``The alternative approach is founded on the
concept that, if the debit items in the Reserve Formula can be
liquidated at or near their contract value, these assets along with
any cash required to be on deposit under the [customer protection]
rule, will be sufficient to satisfy all liabilities to customers
(which are represented as credit items in the Reserve Formula).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would contain certain provisions that are
modeled on corresponding provisions of Rule 15c3-3.\677\ Paragraph (a)
of the proposed rule would define key terms used in the rule.\678\
Paragraph (b) would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter
maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities
collateral (a term defined in paragraph (a)) and specify certain
locations where excess securities collateral could be held and would be
deemed to be in the SBSD's control.\679\ Paragraph (c) would require an
SBSD to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of
security-based swap customers and have on deposit in that account at
all times an amount of cash and/or qualified securities (a term defined
in paragraph (a)) determined through a computation using the formula in
Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4.\680\ A broker-dealer SBSD would
need to treat security-based swap accounts separately from other
securities accounts and, consequently, would need to perform separate
possession and control and reserve account computations for security-
based swap accounts and other securities accounts. The former would be
subject to the possession and control and reserve account requirements
in proposed new Rule 18a-4 and the latter would continue to be subject
to the analogous requirements in Rule 15c3-3. This would keep separate
the segregated customer property related to security-based swaps from
customer property related to other securities, including property of
retail securities customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\677\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3, with proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\678\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a), with paragraph (a) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\679\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b)-(d), with paragraph (b) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\680\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (c) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d) of Rule 18a-4 would contain certain additional
provisions that do not have analogues in Rule 15c3-3. First, it would
require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section
3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first
non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty.\681\
Second, it would require the SBSD to obtain subordination agreements
from counterparties that opt out of the segregation requirements in
proposed

[[Page 70278]]

new Rule 18a-4 because they either elect individual segregation
pursuant to the provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act \682\
or agree that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.\683\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\681\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of proposed
new Rule 18a-4.
\682\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\683\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in more detail below, the omnibus segregation
requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-4 are designed to accommodate the
operational aspects of an SBSD collecting cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments from security-based swap customers to margin
cleared security-based swaps and delivering cash, securities, and/or
money market instruments to registered clearing agencies to meet margin
requirements of the clearing agencies with respect to the customers'
transactions. Similarly, the omnibus segregation requirements are
designed to accommodate the current practice of dealers in OTC
derivatives to collect cash, securities, and/or money market
instruments from a counterparty to cover current and potential future
exposure arising from an OTC derivatives transaction with the
counterparty and concurrently deliver cash, securities, and/or money
market instruments to another dealer as collateral for an OTC
derivatives transaction that hedges (takes the opposite side of) the
OTC derivatives transaction with the counterparty. At the same time,
the omnibus segregation requirements are designed to isolate, identify,
and protect cash, securities, and/or money market instruments received
by the SBSD as collateral for cleared and non-cleared security-based
swaps, whether the collateral is held by the SBSD, a registered
clearing agency, or another SBSD.
Finally, the Commission is proposing a conforming amendment to add
new paragraph (p) to Rule 15c3-3 to state that a broker-dealer that is
registered as an SBSD pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act must
also comply with the provisions of Rule 18a-4.\684\ This proposed
amendment would clarify that a broker-dealer SBSD must comply with both
Rule 15c3-3 and Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\684\ See proposed paragraph (p) of Rule 15c3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the approach of
proposed new Rule 18a-4. In addition, the Commission requests comment,
including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the
following questions:
1. Should there be rules under section 3E(f)(1)(B)(i) of the
Exchange Act with respect to how an SBSD and an MSBSP must segregate
funds and other property relating to non-cleared security-based swaps
to supplement the individual segregation provisions in section 3E(f)?
If so, describe the types of requirements the rules should impose.
2. Should there be rules under section 3E(f)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the
Exchange Act with respect to how an SBSD and an MSBSP may invest funds
or other property relating to non-cleared security-based swaps to
supplement the individual segregation provisions in section 3E(f)? If
so, describe the types of requirements the rules should impose. For
example, should the rules require that the funds may be invested only
in U.S. government securities or in qualified securities as that term
is defined in paragraph (a)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-4? Explain why
or why not.
3. Is it appropriate to model the segregation provisions for
security-based swap customers on the provisions of Rule 15c3-3? If not,
explain why and identify another segregation model.
4. Should MSBSPs be required to comply with all the omnibus
segregation requirements of proposed new Rule 18a-4? If so, explain
why. If not, explain why not.
5. Should the omnibus segregation requirements accommodate the
ability to hold swaps in security-based swap customer accounts to
facilitate a portfolio margin treatment for related or offsetting
positions in the account? What practical or legal impediments may exist
to doing so? If swaps could be held in the account along with security-
based swaps, how would the existence of differing bankruptcy regimes
for securities and commodities instruments impact the ability to unwind
positions or distribute assets to customers in the event of insolvency
of the SBSD?
2. Proposed Rule 18a-4
a. Possession and Control of Excess Securities Collateral
Paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 18a-4 would require an SBSD to promptly
obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all
excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based
swap customers.\685\ Physical possession or control as used in Rule
15c3-3 means a broker-dealer cannot lend or hypothecate securities
subject to the requirement and must hold them itself or, as is more
common, in a satisfactory control location.\686\ As discussed below,
physical possession or control is intended to have the same meaning in
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\685\ This paragraph is modeled on paragraph (b)(1) of Rule
15c3-1. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(b)(1), with paragraph (b)(1) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\686\ See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for
Broker-Dealers, 72 FR 12862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term security-based swap customer would be defined to mean any
person from whom or on whose behalf the SBSD has received or acquired
or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with
respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap
transaction.\687\ The definition would exclude a person to the extent
that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract,
agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the
capital of the SBSD or is subordinated to all claims of security-based
swap customers of the SBSD.\688\ This proposed definition of security-
based swap customer is modeled on the current definition of customer in
Rule 15c3-3.\689\ As discussed above, an SBSD would be required to
obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that elect
individual segregation pursuant to the self-executing provisions of
section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act \690\ or that waive segregation.\691\
Because these counterparties would enter into subordination agreements,
they would not meet the definition of security-based swap customer and,
consequently, the omnibus segregation requirements of proposed new Rule
18a-4 would not apply to their funds and other property.\692\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\687\ See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. Paragraph
(a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a-4 would define the term cleared
security-based swap to mean a security-based swap that is, directly
or indirectly, submitted to and cleared by a clearing agency
registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1). Any other security-based swap would
be a non-cleared security-based swap.
\688\ See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\689\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(1), with paragraph (a)(6) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4. The proposed definition also is based on
the definitions of ``customer'' in 11 U.S.C. 741(2) and 15 U.S.C.
78lll(2), which, respectively, apply to liquidations of stockbrokers
under the stockbroker liquidation provisions and broker-dealers
under the SIPA. As discussed above in section II.C.1 of this
release, under these liquidation provisions, customers receive
special protections such as priority claims to customer property
over general creditors. See 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 78aaa
et seq.
\690\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\691\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
\692\ Counterparties that elect individual segregation would not
need the protections of the omnibus segregation requirements because
their funds and other property would be held by an independent
third-party custodian and, therefore, the third-party custodian--
rather than the SBSD--would owe the securities and funds to the
counterparty. Counterparties that waive segregation, in effect, have
agreed that their funds and other property can be used by the SBSD
for its proprietary business purposes. Therefore, they have agreed
to forego the benefits of segregation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70279]]

Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would define the term excess securities
collateral to mean securities and money market instruments carried for
the account of a security-based swap customer that have a market value
in excess of the current exposure of the SBSD to the customer,
excluding: (1) Securities and money market instruments held in a
qualified clearing agency account but only to the extent the securities
and money market instruments are being used to meet a margin
requirement of the clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap
transaction of the customer; and (2) securities and money market
instruments held in a qualified registered security-based swap dealer
account but only to the extent the securities and money market
instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other
SBSD resulting from the SBSD entering into a non-cleared security-based
swap transaction with the other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-
cleared security-based swap transaction between the SBSD and the
customer. The proposed definition of excess securities collateral is
based on the provisions of Rule 15c3-3 requiring a broker-dealer to
maintain physical possession or control of fully paid and excess margin
securities (i.e., securities that are not being used to secure the
obligations of the customer to the broker-dealer).\693\ Under the
proposed definition of excess securities collateral, securities and
money market instruments of a security-based swap customer of the SBSD
that are not being used to collateralize the SBSD's current exposure to
the customer would need to be in the physical possession or control of
the SBSD unless one of the two exceptions in the definition applies to
the securities and money market instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\693\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(d); 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(3)
(defining the term fully paid securities); 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(4)
(defining the term margin securities); 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(5)
(defining the term excess margin securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first exception in the definition refers to securities and
money market instruments held in a qualified clearing agency account
but only to the extent the securities and money market instruments are
being used to meet a margin requirement of the clearing agency
resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the customer. This
exception is designed to accommodate the margin requirements of
clearing agencies, which will require SBSDs to deliver margin
collateral to the clearing agency to cover exposures arising from
cleared security-based swaps of the SBSD's security-based swap
customers.\694\ Customer securities and money market instruments
provided to the clearing agency for this purpose would not meet the
definition of excess securities collateral and, therefore, would not be
subject to the physical possession or control requirement.\695\ This
exception would allow the clearing agency to hold the securities as
collateral against obligations of the SBSD's customers arising from
their cleared security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\694\ As discussed above, security-based swap clearing agencies
will require SBSDs to deliver margin collateral for the security-
based swap transactions of the SBSD's customers that are cleared by
the clearing agency.
\695\ While the Commission is proposing this exemption, these
customer securities and money market instruments would still be
required to be included in the SBSD's reserve formula calculation
under proposed new Rule 18a-4a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term qualified clearing agency account would be defined to mean
an account of an SBSD at a clearing agency established to hold funds
and other property in order to purchase, margin, guarantee, secure,
adjust, or settle cleared security-based swaps of the SBSD's security-
based swap customers that meets the following conditions:
The account is designated ``Special Clearing Account for
the Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of
[name of the SBSD]''; \696\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\696\ See paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3-3, which
requires a broker-dealer to maintain a ``Special Reserve Bank
Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR
240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice
provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property
in the account are being held by the clearing agency for the exclusive
benefit of the security-based swap customers of the SBSD in accordance
with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from
any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the clearing agency;
\697\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\697\ See paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires
a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where
it maintains a customer reserve account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written contract between the
SBSD and the clearing agency which provides that the funds and other
property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security
interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the clearing agency or
any person claiming through the clearing agency, except a right,
charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a cleared
security-based swap transaction effected in the account.\698\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\698\ See paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires
a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank where it maintains
a ``Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of
Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii)
of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These provisions are designed to ensure that securities and money
market instruments of security-based swap customers related to cleared
security-based swaps provided to a clearing agency are isolated from
the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as property of the
security-based swap customers.
The second exception in the definition of excess securities
collateral is for securities and money market instruments held in a
qualified registered security-based swap dealer account but only to the
extent the securities and money market instruments are being used to
meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD resulting from the SBSD
entering into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the
other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-cleared security-based swap
transaction between the SBSD and the customer. This exception is
designed to accommodate the practice of dealers in OTC derivatives
transactions maintaining ``matched books'' of transactions in which an
OTC derivatives transaction with a counterparty is hedged with an
offsetting transaction with another dealer. SBSDs, as dealers in
security-based swaps, are expected to actively manage the risk of their
non-cleared security-based swap positions by entering into offsetting
transactions with other SBSDs.\699\ These other SBSDs may require
margin collateral from the SBSD.\700\ Customer securities and

[[Page 70280]]

money market instruments provided to another SBSD for this purpose
would be excepted from the definition of excess securities collateral
and, therefore, would not be subject to the physical possession or
control requirement. Thus, this provision would allow an SBSD to
finance customer transactions in non-cleared security-based swaps by
using customer collateral to secure offsetting transactions with
another SBSD, provided that the collateral is held in an account with
the other SBSD that meets certain requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\699\ For example, assume an SBSD and a counterparty enter into
a CDS security-based swap on XYZ Company with a notional amount of
$10 million and term of five years and in which the SBSD is the
seller of protection and counterparty is the buyer of protection.
The SBSD could enter into a matching transaction (a CDS security-
based swap on XYZ Company with a notional amount of $10 million and
term of five years) with another SBSD in which the SBSD is the buyer
of protection and the other SBSD is the seller of protection. This
would match the transaction with the counterparty with the
transaction with the other SBSD and hedge the SBSD's risk resulting
from the transaction with the customer.
\700\ As discussed above in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release,
an SBSD would not be required to collect collateral equal to the
margin amount if the counterparty was another SBSD under the
Alternative A account equity requirement in proposed new Rule 18a-3.
See paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative A of proposed new Rule
18a-3. Consequently, an SBSD would not be required to maintain a
minimum level of positive equity in its account at another SBSD with
respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. This would mean that
the SBSD may not need to provide collateral to the other SBSD other
than an amount necessary to cover the current exposure of the other
SBSD, which, in turn could reduce the need to use securities and
money market instruments of security-based swap customers to
collateralize hedging transactions. However, under the Alternative B
account equity requirement, an SBSD would be required to provide
collateral equal to the margin amount to the other SBSD. See
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)--Alternative B of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
This could increase the need to use securities and money market
instruments of security-based swap customers to collateralize
hedging transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term qualified registered security-based swap dealer account
(``qualified SBSD account'') would be defined to mean an account at
another SBSD registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15F of
the Exchange Act that is not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets
the following conditions:
The account is designated ``Special Account for the
Exclusive Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the
SBSD]''; \701\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\701\ See paragraph (a)(4)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3-
3, which requires a broker-dealer to maintain a ``Special Reserve
Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.'' Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the
other SBSD provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and
other property held in the account are being held by the other SBSD for
the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of the SBSD
in accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept
separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the other
SBSD; \702\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\702\ See paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3,
which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from
a bank where it maintains a ``Special Reserve Bank Account for the
Exclusive Benefit of Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written contract between the
SBSD and the other SBSD which provides that the funds and other
property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security
interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the other SBSD or any
person claiming through the SBSD, except a right, charge, security
interest, lien, or claim resulting from a non-cleared security-based
swap transaction effected in the account; \703\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\703\ See paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account, this provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3,
which requires a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank
where it maintains a ``Special Reserve Bank Account for the
Exclusive Benefit of Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with
paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account and the assets in the account are not subject
to any type of subordination agreement.\704\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\704\ See paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.

These conditions are largely identical to the conditions for a
qualified clearing agency account and are similarly designed to ensure
that securities and money market instruments of security-based swap
customers relating to non-cleared security-based swaps provided to
another SBSD are isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and
are identified as property of the security-based swap customers.
Further, the account and the assets in the account could not be subject
to any type of subordination agreement. This condition is designed to
ensure that if the other SBSD holding the qualified SBSD account fails,
the SBSD accountholder will be treated as a security-based swap
customer in a liquidation proceeding and, therefore, could make a pro
rata claim for customer property with other customers ahead of all
other creditors.\705\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\705\ See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 (excluding
persons who subordinate their claims against the SBSD to all other
creditors from the definition of security-based swap customer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would identify five
satisfactory control locations for excess securities collateral.\706\
Rule 15c3-3 identifies the same locations as satisfactory control
locations.\707\ Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that an SBSD has
control of excess securities collateral only if the securities and
money market instruments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\706\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\707\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(c), with paragraph (b)(2) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4. Rule 15c3-3 identifies two control
locations that the Commission is not proposing be identified in
proposed new Rule 18a-4. First, paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 15c3-3
identifies as a control location ``a special omnibus account in the
name of such broker or dealer with another broker or dealer in
compliance with the requirements of section 4(b) of Regulation T
under the Act (12 CFR 220.4(b)), such securities being deemed to be
under the control of such broker or dealer to the extent that he has
instructed such carrying broker or dealer to maintain physical
possession or control of them free of any charge, lien, or claim of
any kind in favor of such carrying broker or dealer or any persons
claiming through such carrying broker or dealer.'' See 17 CFR
240.15c3-3(c)(2). Stand-alone SBSDs are not expected to maintain
such accounts. Second, Rule 15c3-3 identifies as a control location
``a foreign depository, foreign clearing agency or foreign custodian
bank which the Commission upon application from a broker or dealer,
a registered national securities exchange or a registered national
securities association, or upon its own motion shall designate as a
satisfactory control location for securities.'' See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3(c)(4). See also Interpretative Release: Guidelines for Control
Locations for Foreign Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 10429
(Oct. 12, 1973), 38 FR 29217, 29217 (Oct. 23, 1973). As discussed
below, the last control location identified in Rule 15c3-3 and
proposed to be identified in new Rule 18a-4 is such other location
``as the Commission shall upon application from a broker or dealer
find and designate to be adequate for the protection of customer
securities.'' See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(7) and paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4. Under the Commission's proposal, SBSDs
seeking to have a foreign depository, foreign clearing agency, or
foreign custodian bank identified as a satisfactory control location
would need to apply to the Commission under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are represented by one or more certificates in the custody
or control of a clearing corporation or other subsidiary organization
of either national securities exchanges, or of a custodian bank in
accordance with a system for the central handling of securities
complying with the provisions of Exchange Act Rule 8c-1(g) and Exchange
Act Rule 15c2-1(g) the delivery of which certificates to the SBSD does
not require the payment of money or value, and if the books or records
of the SBSD identify the security-based swap customers entitled to
receive specified quantities or units of the securities so held for
such security-based swap customers collectively; \708\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\708\ See paragraph (b)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(1), with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are the subject of bona fide items of transfer; provided
that securities and money market instruments shall be deemed not to be
the subject of bona fide items of transfer if, within 40 calendar days
after they have been transmitted for transfer by the SBSD to the issuer
or its transfer agent, new certificates conforming to the instructions
of the SBSD have not been received by the SBSD, the SBSD has not

[[Page 70281]]

received a written statement by the issuer or its transfer agent
acknowledging the transfer instructions and the possession of the
securities and money market instruments, or the security-based swap
dealer has not obtained a revalidation of a window ticket from a
transfer agent with respect to the certificate delivered for transfer;
\709\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\709\ See paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(3) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(3), with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are in the custody or control of a bank as defined in
section 3(a)(6) of the Act, the delivery of which securities and money
market instruments to the SBSD does not require the payment of money or
value and the bank having acknowledged in writing that the securities
and money market instruments in its custody or control are not subject
to any right, charge, security interest, lien or claim of any kind in
favor of a bank or any person claiming through the bank; \710\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\710\ See paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(5), with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of proposed new
Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are held in or are in transit between offices of the SBSD;
or are held by a corporate subsidiary if the SBSD owns and exercises a
majority of the voting rights of all of the voting securities of such
subsidiary, assumes or guarantees all of the subsidiary's obligations
and liabilities, operates the subsidiary as a branch office of the
SBSD, and assumes full responsibility for compliance by the subsidiary
and all of its associated persons with the provisions of the Federal
securities laws as well as for all of the other acts of the subsidiary
and such associated persons; \711\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\711\ See paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(6) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(6), with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are held in such other locations as the Commission shall
upon application from an SBSD find and designate to be adequate for the
protection of customer securities.\712\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\712\ See paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(c)(7), with paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed new Rule
18a-4. See Guidelines for Control Locations for Foreign Securities,
Exchange Act Release No. 10429 (Oct. 12, 1973, 38 FR 29217 (Oct. 23,
1973) (prescribing the process under Rule 15c3-3 for a broker-dealer
to apply to the Commission to utilize a foreign control location).
Among other things, certain conditions must be met for the foreign
control location to be deemed satisfactory. A broker-dealer must
represent in an application to the Commission that the conditions
are satisfied. An application submitted shall be considered accepted
unless the Commission rejects the application within 90 days of
receipt by the Commission. Id.

The identification of these locations as satisfactory control locations
is designed to limit where the SBSD can hold excess securities
collateral. The identified locations are places from which the
securities and money market instruments can promptly be retrieved and
returned to the security-based swap customers.
Paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 18a-4 would require that each business day
the SBSD must determine from its books and records the quantity of
excess securities collateral that the firm had in possession and
control as of the close of the previous business day and the quantity
of excess securities collateral the firm did not have in possession or
control on that day.\713\ The paragraph would provide further that the
SBSD must take steps to retrieve excess securities collateral from
certain specifically identified non-control locations if securities and
money market instruments of the same issue and class are at these
locations.\714\ Specifically, paragraph (b)(3) would provide that if
securities or money market instruments of the same issue and class are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\713\ See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. The
provisions in this paragraph are modeled on the provisions in
paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(d), with
paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\714\ See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject to a lien securing an obligation of the SBSD, then
the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the
determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the
securities or money market instruments from the lien and must obtain
physical possession or control of the securities and money market
instruments within two business days following the date of the
instructions; \715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\715\ See paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(d)(1), with paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Held in a qualified clearing agency account, then the
SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination
is made, must issue instructions for the release of the securities or
money market instruments by the clearing agency and must obtain
physical possession or control of the securities or money market
instruments within two business days following the date of the
instructions; \716\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\716\ See paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. As
discussed above, securities held in a qualified clearing agency
account are not excess securities collateral, but only to the extent
the securities are being used to meet a margin requirement of the
clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of
the customer. See paragraph (a)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Consequently, if securities held in a qualified clearing agency
account are not necessary to meet a margin requirement of the
clearing agency, they would be excess securities collateral and the
SBSD would need to move them to a satisfactory control location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Held in a qualified SBSD account maintained by another
SBSD, then the SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the
determination is made, must issue instructions for the release of the
securities and money market instruments by the other SBSD and must
obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market
instruments within two business days following the date of the
instructions; \717\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\717\ See paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. As
discussed above, securities held in a qualified SBSD account are not
excess securities collateral but only to the extent the securities
are being used to meet a margin requirement of the other SBSD
resulting from the SBSD entering into a non-cleared security-based
swap transaction with the other SBSD to offset the risk of a non-
cleared security-based swap transaction between the SBSD and the
customer. See paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Consequently, if securities held in a qualified clearing agency
account are not necessary to meet a margin requirement of the other
SBSD and/or are not collateralizing a transaction that offsets the
risk of n non-cleared security-based swap with the customer, they
would be excess securities collateral and the SBSD would need to
move them to a satisfactory control location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loaned by the SBSD, then the SBSD, not later than the next
business day on which the determination is made, must issue
instructions for the return of the loaned securities and money market
instruments and must obtain physical possession or control of the
securities or money market instruments within five business days
following the date of the instructions; \718\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\718\ See paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(d)(1), with paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failed to receive more than 30 calendar days, then the
SBSD, not later than the next business day on which the determination
is made, must take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or
control of the securities or money market instruments through a buy-in
procedure or otherwise; \719\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\719\ See paragraph (b)(3)(v) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(2) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(d)(2), with paragraph (b)(3)(v) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receivable by the SBSD as a security dividend, stock split
or similar distribution for more than 45 calendar days, then the SBSD,
not later than the next business day on which the determination is
made, must take

[[Page 70282]]

prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the securities
or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or otherwise;
\720\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\720\ See paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (d)(3) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(d)(3), with paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Included on the books or records of the SBSD as a
proprietary short position or as a short position for another person
more than 10 business days (or more than 30 calendar days if the SBSD
is a market maker in the securities), then the SBSD must, not later
than the business day following the day on which the determination is
made, take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of
such securities or money market instruments.\721\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\721\ See paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on a proposed amendment to Rule 15c3-3 that is
still pending. See Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for
Broker-Dealers, 72 FR at 12895. The provisions of paragraph
(b)(3)(vii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 are intended to achieve the
same objectives of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-3. See id.
at 12865-66 (explaining the basis for the proposed amendment to Rule
15c3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed physical
possession and control requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-4. In
addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in
support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Are possession and control requirements modeled on Rule 15c3-3
appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not.
2. Is the proposed definition of security-based swap customer
appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the
definition.
3. Is the proposed definition of excess securities collateral
appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the
definition.
4. Is the proposed exception in the definition of excess securities
collateral for securities and money market instruments held in a
qualified clearing agency account appropriate? If not, explain why not.
Would this proposed exception raise practical or legal issues? If so,
explain why.
5. Is the proposed definition of qualified clearing agency account
appropriate? If not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the
definition.
6. Is the proposed exception in the definition of excess securities
collateral for securities and money market instruments held in a
qualified registered security-based swap dealer account appropriate? If
not, explain why not. Would this proposed exception raise practical or
legal issues? If so, explain why.
7. Is the proposed definition of qualified registered security-
based swap dealer account appropriate? For example, is the condition
that the qualified registered security-based swap dealer account not be
held by an affiliate of the SBSD appropriate? If the definition is not
appropriate, explain why not and suggest modifications to the
definition.
8. How do dealers in OTC derivatives that will be security-based
swaps use offsetting transactions to hedge the risk of these positions?
Would the proposed possession and control requirements for non-cleared
security-based swaps adversely affect the ability of SBSDs to enter
into hedging transactions? If so, explain why and suggest modifications
to the requirements that could address this issue.
9. Are the control locations identified in proposed new Rule 18a-4
appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not. Should
the two additional control locations in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of
Rule 15c3-3 that are not being incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a-
4 be included in the rule? If so, explain why.
10. Should the process for applying to the Commission to have a
location designated to be adequate for the protection of customer
securities and money market instruments under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4 be similar to the current process for a broker-
dealer to utilize a foreign control location under Rule 15c3-3 (i.e., a
process in which the SBSD must submit an application representing that
certain conditions are met and in which an application is deemed
accepted if not specifically rejected by the Commission within 90
days)? Alternatively, should the Commission be required to formally act
on each application through the issuance of an order?
11. Are the steps in paragraph (b)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4
that an SBSD would be required to take to move securities and money
market instruments from non-control locations to control locations
appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why not.
12. Are there any possession and control provisions in Rule 15c3-3
that are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a-4 that should
be included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why they
should be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a-4.
b. Security-Based Swap Customer Reserve Account
Paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 18a-4 would require an SBSD, among other
things, to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of
security-based swap customers separate from any other bank account of
the SBSD.\722\ The term special account for the exclusive benefit of
security-based swap customers (``Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account'')
would be defined to mean an account at a bank that is not the SBSD or
an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets the following conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\722\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. The
provisions of paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 are modeled
on paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with
paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is designated ``Special Account for the
Exclusive Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of the
SBSD]''; \723\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\723\ See paragraph (a)(7)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on
paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires a broker-dealer to
maintain a ``Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit
of Customers'' (the ``Rule 15c3-3 Customer Reserve Account'').
Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (a)(7)(i) of proposed
new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the
bank provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other
property held in the account are being held by the bank for the
exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of the SBSD in
accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept
separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the bank;
\724\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\724\ See paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on
paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires a broker-dealer to
obtain a written notification from a bank where it maintains a Rule
15c3-3 Customer Reserve Account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with
paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written contract between the
SBSD and the bank which provides that the funds and other property in
the account shall at no time be used directly or indirectly as security
for a loan or other extension of credit to the SBSD by the bank and,
shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim
of any kind in favor of the bank or any person claiming through the
bank.\725\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\725\ See paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
Similar to the proposed conditions for a qualified clearing agency
account and a qualified SBSD account, this provision is modeled on
paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires a broker-dealer to
obtain a written contract from a bank where it maintains a ``Special
Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.''
Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of proposed
new Rule 18a-4.

[[Page 70283]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These conditions are largely identical to the conditions for a
qualified clearing agency account and qualified SBSD account and are
similarly designed to ensure that cash and qualified securities
deposited into the special bank account (as discussed below) are
isolated from the proprietary assets of the SBSD and identified as
property of the security-based swap customers.
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that the
SBSD must at all times maintain in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Account, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified
securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth
in Exhibit A to Rule 18a-4.\726\ The formula in Exhibit A to proposed
new Rule 18a-4 is modeled on the formula in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-1,
which requires a broker-dealer to add up various credit items and debit
items.\727\ The credit items include credit balances in customer
accounts and funds obtained through the use of customer
securities.\728\ The debit items include money owed by customers (e.g.,
from margin lending), securities borrowed by the broker-dealer to
effectuate customer short sales, and required margin posted to certain
clearing agencies as a consequence of customer securities
transactions.\729\ If, under the formula, customer credit items exceed
customer debit items, the broker-dealer must maintain cash and/or
qualified securities in that net amount in a Rule 15c3-3 Customer
Reserve Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\726\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4; Exhibit A
to proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\727\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, with Exhibit A to proposed new
Rule 18a-4.
\728\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, Items 1-9. Broker-dealers are
permitted to use customer margin securities to, for example, obtain
bank loans to finance the funds used to lend to customers to
purchase the securities. The amount of the bank loan is a credit in
the formula because this is the amount that the broker-dealer would
need to pay the bank to retrieve the securities. Similarly, broker-
dealers may use customer margin securities to make stock loans to
other broker-dealers in which the lending broker-dealer typically
receives cash in return. The amount payable to the other broker-
dealer on the stock loan is a credit in the formula because this is
the amount the broker-dealer would need to pay the other broker-
dealer to retrieve the securities.
\729\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, Items 10-14. Item 13 identifies as
a debit item margin required and on deposit with the Options
Clearing Corporation for all option contracts written or purchased
in accounts of securities customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, Item
13. Similarly, Item 14 identifies as a debit item margin related to
security futures products written, purchased, or sold in accounts
carried for security-based swap customers required and on deposit
with a clearing agency registered with the Commission under section
17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) or a DCO registered with
the CFTC under section 5b of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 78q-1). These debits
reflect the fact that customer options and security futures
transactions that are cleared generate margin requirements in which
the broker-dealer must deliver collateral to the Options Clearing
Corporation in the case of options or a clearing agency or DCO in
the case of security futures products. Identifying the collateral
delivered to the Options Clearing Corporation, a clearing agency, or
a DCO as a debit item permits the broker-dealer to use customer cash
or securities to meet margin requirements generated by customer
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The formula in Exhibit A for determining the amount to be
maintained in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account similarly would
require an SBSD to add up credit items and debit items.\730\ If, under
the formula, the credit items exceed the debit items, the SBSD would be
required to maintain cash and/or qualified securities in that net
amount in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account.\731\ The credit and
debit items identified in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4 are the
same as the credit and debit items in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-1, though
Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4 would identify two additional
debit items.\732\ As discussed above, SBSDs will be required to deliver
collateral to meet margin requirements of clearing agencies arising
from cleared security-based swap transactions of their customers. In
addition, SBSDs may deliver collateral to other SBSDs to meet margin
requirements under proposed new Rule 18a-3 and, possibly, to meet
``house'' margin requirements of the other SBSD with respect to non-
cleared security-based swaps the SBSD is using to hedge the risk of
customer non-cleared security-based swaps. Consequently, Exhibit A to
proposed new Rule 18a-4 would identify the following debit items that
are not identified in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\730\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4a. Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3 has
a number of ``Notes'' that provide further explanation of the credit
and debit items. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, Notes A-G. Exhibit A to
proposed new Rule 18a-4 would have substantially similar notes. See
Notes A-G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\731\ As discussed above, the account would need to be at a bank
that is not the SBSD or an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets
certain additional conditions. See paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new
Rule 18a-4.
\732\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, with Exhibit A to proposed new
Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin related to cleared security-based swap transactions
in accounts carried for security-based swap customers required and on
deposit at a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to
section 17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1); and
Margin related to non-cleared security-based swap
transactions in accounts carried for security-based swap customers held
in a qualified registered SBSD account at another SBSD.

These debit items would serve the same purpose as the debit items in
Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3 that identify margin required and on deposit
at the Options Clearing Corporation, a registered clearing agency, and
a DCO.\733\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\733\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a, Items 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the total credits exceed the total debits, an SBSD would need to
maintain that amount on deposit in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Account in the form of funds and/or qualified securities.\734\ An SBSD
would be permitted under the proposed rule to use qualified securities
to meet this account deposit requirement to implement section 3E(d) of
the Exchange Act.\735\ Section 3E(d) provides that money of security-
based swap customers received by an SBSD to margin, guarantee, or
secure a cleared security-based swap may be invested in obligations of
the United States, obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and
interest by the United States, general obligations of a State or any
subdivision of a State (``municipal securities''), and in any other
investment that the Commission may by rule or regulation
prescribe.\736\ Section 3E(d) further provides that such investments
shall be made in accordance with such rules and regulations and subject
to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe.\737\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\734\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\735\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(d).
\736\ Id.
\737\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term qualified security as used in proposed new Rule 18a-4
would be defined to mean: (1) Obligations of the United States; (2)
obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United
States; and (3) general obligations of any State or subdivision of a
State that are not traded flat or are not in default, were part of an
initial offering of $500 million or greater, and were issued by an
issuer that has published audited financial statements within 120 days
of its most recent fiscal year-end.\738\ Rule 15c3-3 contains a similar
definition of qualified security, except the definition does not
include municipal securities.\739\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\738\ See paragraph (a)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\739\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(6) (defining the term qualified
security to mean a security issued by the United States or a
security in respect of which the principal and interest are
guaranteed by the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While section 3E(d) of the Exchange Act permits the use of
municipal

[[Page 70284]]

securities, the rule imposes conditions on their use designed to ensure
that only municipal securities with the most reliable valuations--and
therefore greater safety and liquidity--are permitted to meet the Rule
18a-4 Customer Reserve Account funding requirement in paragraph (c)(1)
of proposed new Rule 18a-4 (consistent with the objective of the
current definition of ``qualified security'' in Rule 15c3-3).\740\
Because of the diversity and breadth of the municipal market, the
availability of issuer information and the related ability to value and
trade a particular municipal security can vary considerably.\741\ The
objective of segregation requirements is to isolate customer assets
from a firm's proprietary business and, therefore, enable the firm to
quickly return the assets to the customers if the firm fails. Rule
15c3-3 limits the definition of qualified securities to U.S. government
securities to ensure that securities deposited in a customer reserve
account can be liquidated quickly at current market values even in
stressed market conditions. The proposed conditions for depositing
municipal securities into the SBSD's Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Account are designed to help ensure that only securities that are
likely to have significant issuer information available and that can be
valued and liquidated quickly at current market values are permitted to
meet the minimum account deposit requirement.\742\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\740\ See paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(A)-(C) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
\741\ Despite its size and importance, the municipal securities
market has not been subject to the same level of regulation as other
sectors of the U.S. capital markets. See Commission, Report on the
Municipal Securities Market (July 31, 2012) (``Municipal Securities
Report''), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/munireport073112.pdf. The Municipal Securities Report notes concerns
about access to issuer information; the presentation and
comparability of information; and the existence/adequacy of
disclosure controls and procedures. Id. at iv, 108-09. For example,
the Municipal Securities Report notes that studies have shown that
disclosure of audited annual financial statements by many municipal
issuers is particularly slow. Id. at 76. By the time annual
financial statements are filed or otherwise publicly available, many
municipal market analysts and investors believe that the financial
information has diminished usefulness or has lost relevance in
assessing the current financial position of a municipal issuer. Id.
Correspondingly, weaker or more distressed entities are more likely
to have later audit completion times. Id. In addition, the Municipal
Securities Report notes that although there have been improvements
in the availability of pricing information about completed trades
(i.e., post-trade information), the secondary market for municipal
securities remains opaque. Investors have very limited access to
information regarding which market participants would be interested
in buying or selling a municipal security, and at which prices
(i.e., pre-trade information). Id. at vi, 115.
\742\ See Municipal Securities Report at 113-115 (recognizing
the municipal securities market's ``relatively low liquidity'' and
the ``relatively opaque'' pre-trade information about municipal
securities' prices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first proposed condition for municipal securities is that they
must be general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds are backed
by the full faith and credit and/or taxing authority of the
issuer.\743\ They normally are issued to finance non-revenue producing
public works projects (e.g., schools and roads) and generally are paid
off with funds from taxes or fees. Issuers typically have the ability
to raise taxes in order to service the debt obligations of these
municipal securities. In contrast, revenue bonds are issued to fund
projects that will eventually generate revenue (e.g., a toll road). The
anticipated revenue is used to make payments of principal and interest
owing on the bonds. Revenue bonds generally do not permit the
bondholders to compel taxation or legislative appropriation of funds
not pledged for the purpose of servicing the debt obligations of these
municipal securities.\744\ Consequently, the creditworthiness of
revenue bonds depends on the success of the project being financed,
whereas the creditworthiness of general obligation bonds ultimately
depends on the taxing authority of the issuer. Therefore, general
obligation bonds tend to have lower rates of default than other types
of municipal securities.\745\ In order to limit the use of municipal
securities in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account to the most
creditworthy instruments,\746\ the proposed definition of qualified
security would limit the use of municipal securities to general
obligation bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\743\ See Municipal Securities Report at 7.
\744\ Id.
\745\ See, e.g., Moody's Investor Services (``Moody's''),
Special Comment: U.S. Municipal Bonds Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-
2011, at 1 (Mar. 7, 2012), available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_140114. See also
Municipal Securities Report, at 7 (noting reports indicate that a
majority of defaults in the municipal securities market are in
conduit revenue bonds issued for nongovernmental purposes, such as
multi-family housing, healthcare (hospitals and nursing homes), and
industrial development bonds (for economic development and
manufacturing purposes).
\746\ See Fitch Ratings (``Fitch''), Default Risk and Recovery
Rates on U.S. Municipal Bonds, note 116, at 1 (Jan. 9, 2007),
available at https://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/ordredirect.html?open&id=fitchdefaultreport.html Fitch is not aware
of any state or local municipality of size that has experienced a
permanent or extended default on its general obligation bonds since
the Great Depression, so that in one of its studies, Fitch assumed a
100% recovery rate on general obligation bonds). Id. See also
Moody's, Special Comment: Moody's US Municipal Bond Rating Scale, 11
(Nov. 2002), available at https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/DefaultResearch/2001700000407258.pdf. Similarly, Moody's
acknowledged the ``anticipated near 100% recovery rate on any
defaulted general obligation bond,'' because there have been no
defaults among Moody's-rated issuers of general obligation bonds
since at least 1970. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second proposed condition for the use of municipal securities
is that they must be part of an initial offering of $500 million or
greater. The size of the initial offering is an indication of the size
of the market for a particular issuer's municipal securities.
Additionally, the secondary market for a municipal security is
generally smaller than for the initial offering.\747\ The $500 million
threshold is designed to be large enough to ensure that the market for
a particular issuer's securities is large enough that the securities
can be liquidated quickly and at their current market price in order to
raise cash to return to an SBSD's customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\747\ While almost all municipal bonds trade in the first month
following the initial offering, only 15% trade in the second month,
and even fewer trade in subsequent months. Municipal Securities
Report at 113-14 (citing Richard C. Green, Burton Hollifield and
Normal Sch[uuml]rhoff, Financial Intermediation and the Costs of
Trading in an Opaque Market, 20 Rev. Fin. Stud. 275, 282 (2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third proposed condition for the use of municipal securities is
that they must be issued by an issuer that has published audited
financial statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-
end.\748\ Prices for municipal securities issued by issuers that have
published relatively current information about their financial
condition may tend to be more transparent than prices for municipal
securities issued by issuers for which such financial information is
not available, because investors and analysts have more current
information to assess the creditworthiness of the issuer and to inform
pricing decisions.\749\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\748\ See, e.g., Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Additional Voluntary
Submissions by Issuers to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market
Access System (``EMMA[supreg]''), Exchange Act Release No. 62183
(May 26, 2010), 75 FR 30876 (June 2, 2010) (``MSRB Rule Filing'').
The MSRB stated that, ``issuers that seek to make their financial
information available under the voluntary annual filing undertaking
also would be bringing the timing of their disclosures into closer
conformity with the timeframes that investors in the registered
securities market have come to rely upon.'' Id. at 30882.
\749\ See MSRB Notice 2010-15 (June 2, 2010), available at
https://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Regulatory-Notices/2010/2010-15.aspx?n=1 (requesting voluntary submissions of audited
financial statements within 120 calendar days of the fiscal year-
end, or as a transitional alternative available through December 31,
2013, within 150 calendar days of the fiscal year-end). Timely
financial reporting ``is critical to the functioning of an efficient
trading market,'' especially since bond ratings are only updated
when a significant change is about to occur, and credit reports
represent a costly alternative. Municipal Securities Report at 74
(citing Jeff L. Payne and Kevin L. Jensen, An Examination of
Municipal Audit Delay, J. Acc. & Pub. Pol'y, Vol. 21, Issue 1, 3
(2002)).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70285]]

As discussed above, an SBSD would be required to add up credit
items and debit items pursuant to the formula in Exhibit A to proposed
new Rule 18a-1. If, under the formula, the credit items exceed the
debit items, the SBSD would be required to maintain cash and/or
qualified securities in that net amount in the Rule 18a-4 Customer
Reserve Account. Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would
require an SBSD to take certain deductions for purposes of this
requirement.\750\ The amount of cash and/or qualified securities in the
Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account would need to equal or exceed the
amount required pursuant to the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new
Rule 18a-1after applying the deductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\750\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the SBSD would need to deduct the percentage of the value of
municipal securities specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-
1.\751\ Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-1 prescribes the standardized
haircuts a broker-dealer must apply to municipal securities when
computing net capital. For the purposes of proposed new Rule 18a-4, the
SBSD would need to apply the standardized haircuts to municipal
securities held in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account even if the
firm is approved to use VaR models for purposes of computing its net
capital under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be amended, or
proposed new Rule 18a-1. The purpose of these deductions would be to
account for potential market losses that may be incurred when municipal
securities held in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account are liquidated
to return funds to security-based swap customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\751\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the SBSD would need to deduct the aggregate value of the
municipal securities of a single issuer to the extent the value exceeds
2% of the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a-4 Customer
Reserve Account. The Commission preliminarily believes that this
deduction would serve as a reasonable benchmark designed to avoid the
potential that the SBSD might use customer funds to establish a
concentrated position in municipal securities of a single issuer. A
concentrated position could be more difficult to liquidate at current
market values.
Third, the SBSD would need to deduct the aggregate value of all
municipal securities to the extent the amount of the securities exceeds
10% of the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a-4 Customer
Reserve Account. The Commission preliminarily believes that this
deduction would serve as a reasonable benchmark designed to limit the
amount of customer funds an SBSD could invest in municipal
securities.\752\ As noted above, the segregation provisions are
designed to prevent an SBSD from using customer property for
proprietary business purposes such as paying expenses. The purpose of
the deposits into the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account is to create
a reserve to protect the funds of security-based swap customers. The
deposits are not intended as a means for the SBSD to earn investment
returns by, for example, establishing positions in higher yielding
municipal securities. The 10% threshold is designed to limit the
ability of the SBSD to use the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account
deposit requirement to invest in municipal securities, for the purpose
of obtaining higher yields than U.S. government securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\752\ Compare to Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(M)(1) (imposing undue
concentration charges on certain securities in the proprietary
account of a broker-dealer whose market value exceeds more than 10%
of the ``net capital'' of a broker-dealer before application of
haircuts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth, the SBSD would be required to deduct the amount of funds
held in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account at a single bank to the
extent the amount exceeds 10% of the equity capital of the bank as
reported by the bank in its most recent Consolidated Report of
Condition and Income (``Call Report'').\753\ This provision is
consistent with a pending proposed amendment to Rule 15c3-3.\754\ As
the Commission stated when proposing the amendment to Rule 15c3-3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\753\ With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the supervision of
savings associations was transferred from the Office of Thrift
Supervision to the OCC for federal savings associations and to the
FDIC for state savings associations on the ``transfer date,'' which
is defined as one year after enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act,
subject to an additional six month extension. See section Public Law
111-203 Sec. Sec. 300-378. See also List of OTS Regulations to be
Enforced by the OCC and the FDIC Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act,
OCC, FDIC, 76 FR 39246 (July 6, 2011). Supervision of savings and
loan holding companies and their subsidiaries (other than depository
institutions) was transferred from the OTS to the Federal Reserve.
Therefore, in February 2011, the OTS, the OCC, and the FDIC proposed
to require, ``savings associations currently filing the Thrift
Financial Report to convert to filing the Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income or Call Reports beginning with the reporting
period ending on March 31, 2012.'' Proposed Agency Information
Collection Activities; Comment Request, 76 FR 7082, 7082 (Feb. 8,
2011).
\754\ Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-
Dealers, 72 FR at 12864.

Broker-dealers must deposit cash or ``qualified securities''
into the customer reserve account maintained at a ``bank'' under
Rule 15c3-3(e). Rule 15c3-3(f) further requires the broker-dealer to
obtain a written contract from the bank in which the bank agrees not
to re-lend or hypothecate securities deposited into the reserve
account. Consequently, the securities should be readily available to
the broker-dealer. Cash deposits, however, are fungible with other
deposits carried by the bank and may be freely used in the course of
the bank's commercial lending activities. Therefore, to the extent a
broker-dealer deposits cash in a reserve bank account, there is a
risk the cash could be lost or inaccessible for a period if the bank
experiences financial difficulties. This could adversely impact the
broker-dealer and its customers if the balance of the reserve
deposit is concentrated at one bank in the form of cash.\755\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\755\ Id.

The deduction in proposed new Rule 18a-4 is designed to address the
same risk to SBSDs that the Commission identified with respect to
concentrating in a single bank cash deposits in a customer reserve
account maintained under Rule 15c3-1.
Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that it
is unlawful for an SBSD to accept or use credits identified in the
items of the formula set forth in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4
except to establish debits for the specified purposes in the items of
the formula.\756\ This provision would prohibit the SBSD from using
customer cash and cash realized from the use of customer securities for
purposes other than those identified in the debit items in Exhibit A to
proposed new Rule 18a-4. Thus, the SBSD would be prohibited from using
customer cash to, for example, pay expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\756\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17
CFR 240.15c3-3(e)(2), with paragraph (c)(2) of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that the
computations necessary to determine the amount required to be
maintained in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account must be made
daily as of the close of the previous business day and any deposit
required to be made into the account must be made on the next business
day following the computation no later than one hour after the opening
of the bank that maintains the account.\757\ Paragraph (c)(3) also
would provide that the SBSD may make a

[[Page 70286]]

withdrawal from the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account only if the
amount remaining in the account after the withdrawal is equal to or
exceeds the amount required to be maintained in the account.\758\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\757\ See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\758\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require a daily computation as
opposed to the weekly computation that is required by Rule 15c3-3. The
margin requirements of clearing agencies and other SBSDs for security-
based swaps are expected generally to be determined on a daily basis,
which will require SBSDs to deliver collateral to, and receive the
return of collateral from, clearing agencies and other SBSDs on a daily
basis.\759\ If the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account computation were
performed on a weekly basis, the SBSD might need to fund margin
requirements relating to customer security-based swaps using its own
funds for up to a week because the customer cash necessary to meet the
requirement is ``locked up'' in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account
and cannot be withdrawn for a number of days, which could cause
liquidity strains on the SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\759\ As discussed above in section II.B.2.b.i. of this release,
proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to calculate
the equity in the account of each counterparty on a daily basis and
to collect collateral needed to collateralize an account equity
requirement on the next business day. See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)-(ii)
of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require
an SBSD to promptly deposit funds or qualified securities into a Rule
18a-4 Customer Reserve Account of the SBSD if the amount of funds and/
or qualified securities held in one or more Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Accounts falls below the amount required to be maintained pursuant to
the rule.\760\ This proposal is designed to require an SBSD to use its
own resources to fund the deposit requirement if there is a shortfall
in the amount of cash or qualified securities maintained in its Rule
18a-4 Customer Reserve Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\760\ See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the requirements for
the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account in proposed new Rule 18a-4. In
addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in
support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Are Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account requirements modeled on
Rule 15c3-3 appropriate for security-based swaps? If not, explain why
not.
2. Is the proposed definition of special account for the exclusive
benefit of security-based swap customers appropriate? If not, explain
why not and suggest modifications to the definition.
3. Are the proposed credit and debit items in Exhibit A to proposed
new Rule 18a-4 appropriate? If not, explain why not. Are there
alternative or additional credit and debit items that should be
included in the formula? If so, describe them and explain why they
should be included in the formula.
4. How would the formula computation for a broker-dealer SBSD
differ from the formula computation for a stand-alone SBSD? For
example, the debit items relating to financing securities transactions
would not apply to stand-alone SBSDs as financing securities
transactions would need to be conducted in a broker-dealer.
Consequently, should there be a separate Exhibit A formula for stand-
alone SBSDs?
5. Are the two additional debit items in Exhibit A to proposed new
Rule 18a-4 relating to margin collateral required and on deposit at
clearing agencies, DCOs, and other SBSDs appropriate? If not, explain
why not.
6. Note G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4 is analogous to
Note G to Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3. Note G to Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-3
prescribes (and Note G to Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-1 would
prescribe) the conditions for when a clearing agency or DCO can qualify
for purposes of including debits in the reserve formula under Item 14
(margin related to security futures products). Should these conditions
apply to when a clearing agency would qualify for purposes of including
debits in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account formula under Item
15? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, could the
Note G conditions, if applied to Item 15, be used instead of the
proposed definition of qualified clearing agency account in proposed
new Rule 18a-4? Would the Note G conditions be a workable alternative
to the proposed definition? Would the Note G conditions achieve the
same customer protection objectives as the proposed definition?
7. Is the proposed definition of qualified security appropriate? If
not, explain why not and suggest modifications to the definition. For
example, should additional types of securities be included in the
definition? If so, identify the types of securities and explain why
they should be included in the definition and how their inclusion would
meet the objective of segregation that customer cash is not used to
make proprietary investments.
8. Is the proposed condition to the definition of qualified
security that municipal securities be general obligation bonds in the
definition appropriate? If not, explain why not. Identify other types
of municipal securities that should be included and explain how their
inclusion would be consistent with the objective that only the most
highly liquid securities (i.e., securities capable of being liquidated
at market value even during times of market stress) be permitted to
meet the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account deposit requirement.
9. It is expected that the proposed condition that municipal
securities be part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater in
the definition of qualified security would limit qualifying securities
to a very small percentage of general obligation municipal security
issuances.\761\ Would the $500 million threshold be appropriate? If
not, explain why not. For example, should this threshold be a greater
amount (e.g., $750 million, $1 billion, or some other amount) or a
lesser amount (e.g., $250 million, $100 million, or some other amount)?
If so, indicate the recommended threshold and explain why it would be
preferable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\761\ Data source: Mergent's Municipal Bond Securities Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Is the proposed condition that municipal securities must be
issued by an issuer that has published audited financial statements
within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end in the definition of
qualified security appropriate? If not, explain why not.
11. The MSRB Rule Filing contemplates those issuers who are engaged
in the voluntary annual filing undertaking will be able to provide the
information to the MSRB's Electronic Muni Market Access System within
150 calendar days after the end of the applicable fiscal year prior to
January 1, 2014. The 150 calendar day time frame is an interim measure
and would no longer be available after January 1, 2014. Should
municipal securities that otherwise meet the definition of qualified
securities be permitted if the issuer submits financial information
within 150 calendar days after the end of the applicable fiscal year
during this transitional period that would end on January 1, 2014?
12. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities held in a
Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account equal to the percentage specified
in paragraph

[[Page 70287]]

(c)(2)(vi) of Rule 15c3-1 appropriate? If not, explain why not.
13. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities of a single
issuer held in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account in excess of 2% of
the amount required to be maintained in the account appropriate? If
not, explain why not. For example, should the threshold be greater
(e.g., 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, or some other amount) or lesser (e.g., 1.5%,
1%, 0.5%, or some other amount)? If so, identify the recommended
threshold and explain why it would be preferable.
14. Is the proposed deduction for municipal securities held in a
Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account in excess of 10% of the amount
required to be maintained in the account appropriate? If not, explain
why not. For example, should the threshold be greater (e.g., 15%, 20%,
25%, 30%, or some other amount) or lesser (e.g., 7%, 5%, 3%, or some
other amount)? If so, identify the recommended threshold and explain
why it would be preferable.
15. Is the proposed deduction for the amount that funds held in a
Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve Account at a single bank exceed 10% of the
equity capital of the bank as reported by the bank in its most recent
Call Report appropriate? If not, explain why not. For example, should
the threshold be greater (e.g., 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or some other
amount) or lesser (e.g., 7%, 5%, 3%, or some other amount)? If so,
identify the recommended threshold and explain why it would be
preferable.
16. Is it appropriate to require that the computations to determine
the amount required to be maintained in the Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Account must be made daily as of the close of the previous business day
and any deposit required to be made into the account must be made on
the next business day following the computation? If not, explain why
not. For example, should the computations be required on a weekly basis
consistent with Rule 15c3-3? If so, explain why.
17. Are there any customer reserve account provisions in Rule 15c3-
1 that are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a-4 that
should be included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why
they should be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a-4.
18. More generally, are there any provisions in Rule 15c3-1 that
are not being incorporated in proposed new Rule 18a-4 that should be
included in the rule? If so, identify them and explain why they should
be incorporated into proposed new Rule 18a-4.
c. Special Provisions for Non-Cleared Security-Based Swap
Counterparties
Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require an SBSD and
an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the
Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-
based swap with the counterparty.\762\ Paragraph (d) also would require
an SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from counterparties that opt
out of the omnibus segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-4
because they either elect individual segregation pursuant to the self-
executing provisions of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act \763\ or
agree that the SBSD need not segregate their assets at all.\764\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\762\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of proposed
new Rule 18a-4.
\763\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\764\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice Requirement
The provisions in section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act allow a program
by which a counterparty to non-cleared security-based swaps with an
SBSD or an MSBSP can choose individual segregation.\765\ These
provisions provide a framework of baseline requirements that can be
supplemented by commercial arrangements between counterparties and
SBSDs and MSBSPs. Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would augment these
provisions by prescribing when the notice specified in section
3E(f)(1)(A) must be provided to the counterparty by the SBSD or MSBSP.
Section 3E(f)(1)(A) provides that an SBSD and an MSBSP shall be
required to notify the counterparty at the ``beginning'' of a non-
cleared security-based swap transaction about the right to require
segregation of the funds or other property supplied to margin,
guarantee, or secure the obligations of the counterparty.\766\ To
provide greater clarity as to the meaning of ``beginning'' as used in
the statute, paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require
an SBSD or MSBSP to provide the notice in writing to a counterparty
prior to the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap
transaction with the counterparty occurring after the effective date of
the rule.\767\ Consequently, the notice would need to be given in
writing to the counterparty prior to the execution of a transaction
and, therefore, before the counterparty is required to deliver margin
collateral to the SBSD or MSBSP. The notice, therefore, would give the
counterparty an opportunity to determine whether to elect individual
segregation, waive segregation, or, by not electing individual
segregation or waiving segregation, to have the collateral segregated
pursuant to the omnibus segregation provisions of proposed new Rule
18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\765\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\766\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
\767\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subordination Agreements
Paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require an SBSD
to obtain agreements from counterparties that either elect individual
segregation or waive segregation altogether that such counterparties
subordinate all of their claims against the SBSD to the claims of
security-based swap customers.\768\ By entering into subordination
agreements, these counterparties would not meet the definition of
security-based swap customer in proposed new Rule 18a-4.\769\ They also
would not be entitled to share ratably with security-based swap
customers in the fund of customer property held by the SBSD if it is
liquidated. This provision would be consistent with text in Rule 15c3-3
concerning the exclusion of persons whose interests are subordinated
from the definition of ``customer.'' \770\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\768\ See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\769\ See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\770\ See paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 15c3-3 defining ``customer''
for purposes of Rule 15c3-3 to specifically exclude ``any other
person to the extent that person has a claim for property or funds
which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of
law, is part of the capital of the broker-dealer or is subordinated
to the claims of creditors of the broker-dealer. 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.C.1. of this release, segregation
requirements are designed to identify customer property as distinct
from the proprietary assets of the firm and to protect the customer
property by, for example, preventing the firm from using it to make
proprietary investments. The goal of segregation is to facilitate the
prompt return of customer property to customers either before or during
a liquidation proceeding if the firm fails. However, if a
counterparty's property is held by a third-party custodian because the
counterparty elects individual segregation or if the counterparty
waives segregation, there is no need to isolate the counterparty's
property since it is with the third-party custodian in the former case
or the counterparty has agreed that the SBSD can use it for proprietary
purposes in the latter case. The subordination provisions in proposed
new Rule 18a-4 are designed to clarify the rights of counterparties

[[Page 70288]]

that have their property held by the SBSD and elect segregation and the
rights of counterparties that either elect to have their property held
by a third-party custodian or waive segregation.
An SBSD would need to obtain a conditional subordination agreement
from a counterparty that elects individual segregation.\771\ The
agreement would be conditional because the subordination agreement
required under the proposed rule would not be effective in a case where
the counterparty's assets are included in the bankruptcy estate of the
SBSD. Specifically, the proposed rule would provide that the
counterparty would need to subordinate claims but only to the extent
that funds or other property provided by the counterparty to the
independent third-party custodian are not treated as customer property
under the stockbroker liquidation provisions in a liquidation of the
security-based swap dealer.\772\ Counterparties that choose individual
segregation are opting to have their funds and other property held in a
manner that makes the counterparty's property bankruptcy remote from
the SBSD. If the arrangement is effective, the counterparties should
not have any customer claims to cash, securities, or money market
instruments used to margin their non-cleared security-based swap
transactions in a liquidation of the SBSD, as their property will be
held by the independent third party custodian. However, because there
is a possibility that an individual segregation arrangement would not
be effective, the subordination agreement of a counterparty that
chooses individual segregation would be conditioned on the funds and
other property of the counterparty not being included in the bankruptcy
estate of the SBSD. If a counterparty elects individual segregation but
the election is not effective in keeping the counterparty's assets
bankruptcy remote, then the counterparty should be treated as a
security-based swap customer with a pro rata priority claim to customer
property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\771\ See paragraph (d)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\772\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An SBSD also would need to obtain an unconditional subordination
agreement from a counterparty that waives segregation altogether.\773\
By opting out of segregation, the counterparty agrees that cash,
securities, and money market instruments delivered to the SBSD can be
used by the SBSD for proprietary purposes and need not be isolated from
the proprietary assets of the SBSD. Therefore, these counterparties are
foregoing the protections of segregation, which include the right to
share ratably with other customers in customer property held by the
SBSD. If these counterparties were deemed security-based swap
customers, they could have a pro rata priority claim on customer
property. This result could disadvantage the security-based swap
customers that did not waive segregation by diminishing the amount of
customer property available to be distributed to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\773\ See paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment on the special provisions
for non-cleared security-based swaps in proposed new Rule 18a-4. In
addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in
support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Is the requirement to have notice be given in writing prior to
the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction
with the counterparty occurring after the effective date of the rule
appropriate? If not, explain why not. Should the notice be required on
a periodic basis such as monthly or annually? If so, explain why. If
not, explain why not. Should the notice be required before every
transaction? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
2. Describe the current practices and arrangements for individual
segregation. For example, are these arrangements based on tri-party
agreements between the SBSD, counterparty, and independent third-party
custodian? If so, describe the terms of the these third-party
agreements. Under these agreements, how would the SBSD perfect its
security interest in the funds and other property held by the third-
party custodian? What terms would the counterparty require that are
designed to ensure that funds or property held by the independent
third-party custodian at the time of a liquidation proceeding of the
SBSD are not included in the bankruptcy estate of the SBSD?
3. Is it appropriate to require counterparties electing individual
segregation to subordinate their claims to security-based swap
customers? If not, explain why not and describe other measures that
could be taken to ensure that security-based swap customers whose cash,
securities, and money market instruments are subject to the omnibus
segregation requirements have a first priority claim to these assets
over counterparties whose funds and other property are individually
segregated at a third party custodian.
4. Is it appropriate to require counterparties who waive all right
to segregation to subordinate their claims to security-based swap
customers? If not, explain why not and describe other measures that
could be taken to ensure that security-based swap customers whose cash,
securities, and money market instruments are subject to the omnibus
segregation requirements have a first priority claim to these assets
over counterparties who waive all right to segregation.

III. General Request for Comment

In responding to the specific requests for comment above,
interested persons are encouraged to provide supporting data and
analysis and, when appropriate, suggest modifications to proposed rule
text. Responses that are supported by data and analysis provide great
assistance to the Commission in considering the practicality and
effectiveness of proposed new requirements as well as weighing the
benefits and costs of proposed requirements. In addition, commenters
are encouraged to identify in their responses a specific request for
comment by indicating the section number of the release.
The Commission also seeks comment on the proposals as a whole. In
this regard, the Commission seeks comment, including empirical data in
support of comments, on the following:
1. Are there financial responsibility programs other than the
broker-dealer financial responsibility program that could serve as a
better model for establishing financial responsibility requirements for
SBSDs and MSBSPs? If so, identify the program and explain how it would
be a better model for implementing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act
mandating capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank
MSBSPs.
2. Should any of the proposed quantitative requirements (e.g.,
minimum capital thresholds, margin risk factor, standardized haircuts)
be modified? If so, how? Are there new quantitative requirements that
should be used? What would be the financial or other consequences for
individual firms and the financial markets of such modified or new
quantitative requirements and how would such consequences differ from
the proposed requirements? Please provide detailed data regarding such
consequences and describe in detail any econometric or other
mathematical models, or economic analyses of data, that would

[[Page 70289]]

be relevant for evaluating or modifying any quantitative requirements.
3. How would the proposals integrate with provisions in other
titles and subtitles of the Dodd-Frank Act and any regulations or
proposed regulations under those other titles and subtitles?
4. How would the proposals integrate with other proposals
applicable to SBSDs or MSBSPs in the Exchange Act and any applicable
regulations adopted under authority in the Exchange Act?
5. As discussed throughout this release, many of the proposed
amendments are based on dollar amounts that are prescribed in existing
requirements. Should any of these proposed dollar amounts be adjusted
to account for inflation?
6. What should the implementation timeframe be for the proposed
amendments and new rules? For example, should the compliance date be
90, 120, 150, 180, or some other number of days after publication?
Should the proposed requirements have different time frames before
their compliance dates are triggered? For example, would it take longer
to come into compliance with certain of these proposals than others? If
so, rank the requirements in terms of the length of time it would take
to come into compliance with them and propose a schedule of compliance
dates.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

Certain provisions of the proposed rule amendments and proposed new
rules would contain a new ``collection of information'' within the
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\774\ The
Commission is submitting the proposed rule amendments and proposed new
rules to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review in
accordance with the PRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The titles for
the collections of information are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\774\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rule 18a-1 and related appendices, Net capital requirements for
security-based swap dealers for which there is not a prudential
regulator (a proposed new collection of information);
(2) Rule 18a-2, Capital requirements for major security-based swap
participants for which there is not a prudential regulator (a proposed
new collection of information);
(3) Rule 18a-3, Non-cleared security-based swap margin requirements
for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap
participants for which there is not a prudential regulator (a proposed
new collection of information);
(4) Rule 18a-4, Segregation requirements for security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new
collection of information); and
(5) Rule 15c3-1 Net capital requirements for brokers or dealers
(OMB Control Number 3235-0200).

The burden estimates contained in this section do not include any other
possible costs or economic effects beyond the burdens required to be
calculated for PRA purposes.

A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed Rules and
Rule Amendments

1. Proposed Rule 18a-1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange
Act.\775\ Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that the
Commission shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank
SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. Proposed new Rule 18a-1 \776\ would establish
minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs and the amendments
to Rule 15c3-1 \777\ would augment the current capital requirements for
broker-dealers to address broker-dealers that register as SBSDs and to
enhance the provisions applicable to ANC broker-dealers (all of which
the Commission preliminarily estimates would register as SBSDs). The
proposed new rule and amendments would establish a number of new
collection of information requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\775\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec. 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o-10.
\776\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1. See also section II.A. of
this release.
\777\ See proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1. See also section
II.A. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, under proposed Rule 18a-1, a stand-alone SBSD would need to
apply to the Commission to be authorized to use internal models to
compute net capital.\778\ As part of the application process, a stand-
alone SBSD would be required to provide the Commission staff with,
among other things: (1) A comprehensive description of the firm's
internal risk management control system; (2) a description of the VaR
models the firm will use to price positions and compute deductions for
market risk; (3) a description of the firm's internal risk management
controls over the VaR models, including a description of each category
of person who may input data into the models; and (4) a description of
the back-testing procedures that that firm will use to review the
accuracy of the VaR models.\779\ In addition, under proposed Rule 18a-
1, a stand-alone SBSD authorized to use internal models would review
and update the models it uses to compute market and credit risk, as
well as backtest the models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\778\ See paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
This collection of information requirement already exists in Rule
15c3-1 and applies to broker-dealers seeking to become ANC broker-
dealers.
\779\ See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, under proposed Rule 18a-1 and amendments to Rule 15c3-1,
nonbank SBSDs that are approved to use models to compute deductions for
market and credit risk under Rule 18a-1 and ANC broker-dealers would be
required to perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly and, based
on the results of that test, maintain liquidity reserves to address
funding needs.\780\ The result of the test must be provided within 10
business days to senior management that has the responsibility to
oversee risk management of the nonbank SBSD or ANC broker-dealer. The
assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test must be reviewed at
least quarterly by senior management that has responsibility to oversee
risk management at the nonbank SBSD and at least annually by senior
management of the nonbank SBSD.\781\ In addition, if such a nonbank
SBSD or ANC broker-dealer is part of a consolidated entity using
liquidity stress tests, the nonbank SBSD or ANC broker-dealer would
need to justify and document any differences in the assumptions used in
their liquidity stress tests from those used in the liquidity stress
tests of the consolidated entity.\782\ Furthermore, the nonbank SBSDs
and ANC broker-dealers would be required to establish a written
contingency funding plan.\783\ The plan would need to address the
policies and roles and responsibilities of relevant personnel for
meeting the liquidity needs of the firm and communications with the
public and other market participants during a liquidity stress
event.\784\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\780\ See proposed new paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3-1; paragraph
(f) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\781\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\782\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\783\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\784\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, nonbank SBSDs, including broker-dealer SBSDs, would be
required to comply with certain requirements of

[[Page 70290]]

Rule 15c3-4.\785\ Rule 15c3-4 requires OTC derivatives dealers and
firms subject to its provisions, to establish, document, and maintain a
system of internal risk management controls to assist the firm in
managing the risks associated with business activities, including
market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.\786\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\785\ See 17 CFR 240.18a-1(g); 15c3-1(a)(10)(ii). See also 17
CFR 240.15c3-4.
\786\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth, under paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3-1 and
paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1, broker-
dealers, broker-dealers registered as SBSDs, and stand-alone SBSDs not
using models would be required to use an industry sector classification
system that is documented and reasonable in terms of grouping types of
companies with similar business activities and risk characteristics,
used for credit default swap reference names for purposes of
calculating ``haircuts'' on security-based swaps under the applicable
net capital rules.\787\ These firms could use a classification system
of a third-party or develop their own classification system, subject to
these limitations, and would need to be able to demonstrate the
reasonableness of the system they use.\788\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\787\ See paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\788\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii)(A) of
Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (c)(1)(vii)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule
18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth, under paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a-1, stand-alone
SBSDs would be required to provide the Commission with certain written
notices with respect to equity withdrawals.\789\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\789\ See paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, under paragraph (c)(5) of Appendix D to proposed Rule 18a-
1, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to file with the Commission two
copies of any proposed subordinated loan agreement (including
nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) at least 30 days prior to
the proposed execution date of the agreement.\790\ The rule would also
require an SBSD to file with the Commission a statement setting forth
the name and address of the lender, the business relationship of the
lender to the SBSD, and whether the SBSD carried an account for the
lender effecting transactions in security-based swaps at or about the
time the proposed agreement was filed.\791\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\790\ See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-1d.
\791\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Rule 18a-2
Proposed new Rule 18a-2 would establish capital requirements for
nonbank MSBSPs.\792\ In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required
at all times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.\793\ The
proposed definition of tangible net worth would allow nonbank MSBSPs to
include as regulatory capital assets that would be deducted from net
worth under Rule 15c3-1, such as property, plants, equipment, and
unsecured receivables. At the same time, it would require the deduction
of goodwill and other intangible assets.\794\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\792\ See proposed new Rule 18a-2. See also section II.A.3 of
this release.
\793\ See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\794\ The proposed definition of tangible net worth under
proposed new Rule 18a-2 is consistent with the CFTC's proposed
definition of tangible net equity. See CFTC Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27828 (Defining tangible net equity as ``equity as
determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and
excludes goodwill and other intangible assets.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage in a
substantial security-based swap business, the Commission is proposing
that they be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4,\795\ which requires
OTC derivatives dealers and other firms subject to its provisions to
establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management
controls to assist the firm in managing the risks associated with their
business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity,
legal, and operational risks.\796\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\795\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\796\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Rule 18a-3
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would establish minimum margin requirements
for non-cleared security-based swap transactions entered into by
nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs.\797\ Proposed Rule 18a-3 would
prescribe the requirements for nonbank SBSDs or nonbank MSBSPs to
collect or post collateral with regard to non-cleared security-based
swap transactions. The provisions of proposed Rule 18a-3 contain a
collection of information requirement for nonbank SBSDs. Specifically,
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to
monitor the risk of each account and establish, maintain, and document
procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts as part
of the risk management control system required by Rule 15c3-4.\798\ In
addition, the rule would require a nonbank SBSD to review, in
accordance with written procedures and at reasonable periodic
intervals, its non-cleared security-based swap activities for
consistency with the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines required
by paragraph (e) of Rule 18a-3. The nonbank SBSD would also be required
to determine whether information and data necessary to apply the risk
monitoring procedures and guidelines required by paragraph (e) of Rule
18a-3 are accessible on a timely basis and whether information systems
are available to adequately capture, monitor, analyze, and report
relevant data and information. Finally, the rule would require that the
risk monitoring procedures and guidelines must include, at a minimum,
procedures and guidelines for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\797\ See proposed new Rule 18a-3. See also section II.B. of
this release for a more detailed description of the proposed rule.
\798\ See paragraph (e) to proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obtaining and reviewing account documentation and
financial information necessary for assessing the amount of current and
potential future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the
SBSD;
Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit
limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties;
Monitoring credit risk exposure to the SBSD from non-
cleared security-based swaps, including the type, scope, and frequency
of reporting to senior management;
Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to
a single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified
range of possible market movements over a specified time period;
Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-
cleared security-based swaps on the SBSD's overall risk exposure;
Determining the need to collect collateral from a
particular counterparty, including whether that determination was based
upon the creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the
specific non-cleared security-based swap contracts with the
counterparty;
Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated
positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and
during periods of extreme volatility; and
Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each
counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future
exposure of a non-cleared security-based swap carried in the

[[Page 70291]]

account of the counterparty as measured by computing the largest
maximum possible loss that could result from the exposure.
4. Proposed Rule 18a-4
Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would establish segregation requirements
for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which
would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., they would apply to bank
SBSDs, nonbank stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs), as well as
notification requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.\799\ The provisions of
proposed Rule 18a-4 are modeled on Rule 15c3-3, the broker-dealer
segregation rule.\800\ Paragraph (a) of the proposed new rule would
define key terms used in the rule.\801\ Paragraph (b) would require an
SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or
control of all excess securities collateral (a term defined in
paragraph (a)) and specify certain locations where excess securities
collateral could be held and deemed in the SBSD's control.\802\
Paragraph (c) would require an SBSD to maintain a special account for
the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers and have on
deposit in that account at all times an amount of cash and/or qualified
securities (a term defined in paragraph (a)) determined through a
computation using the formula in Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-
4.\803\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\799\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4. See also section II.C. of
this release for a more detailed description of the proposal.
\800\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
\801\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a), with paragraph (a) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\802\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b)-(d), with paragraph (b) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\803\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (c) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would contain provisions
that are not modeled specifically on Rule 15c3-1. First, it would
require an SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section
3E(f)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act to a counterparty in writing prior to
the execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction
with the counterparty.\804\ Second, it would require the SBSD to obtain
subordination agreements from counterparties that opt out of the
segregation requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-4 because they either
elect individual segregation pursuant to the self-executing provisions
of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act \805\ or agree that the SBSD need
not segregate their assets at all.\806\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\804\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(A); proposed paragraph (d)(1) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\805\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\806\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, paragraph (a)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would
define qualified clearing agency account to mean an account of an SBSD
at a clearing agency established to hold funds and other property in
order to purchase, margin, guarantee, secure, adjust, or settle cleared
security-based swaps of the SBSD's security-based swap customers that
meets the following conditions (which would contain collection of
information requirements):
The account is designated ``Special Clearing Account for
the Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of
[name of the SBSD]''; \807\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\807\ See paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 15c3-3, which
requires a broker-dealer to maintain a ``Special Reserve Bank
Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR
240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice
provided to and retained by the SBSD that the funds and other property
in the account are being held by the clearing agency for the exclusive
benefit of the cleared security-based swap customers of the SBSD in
accordance with the regulations of the Commission and are being kept
separate from any other accounts maintained by the SBSD with the
clearing agency; \808\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\808\ See paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires
a broker-dealer to obtain a written notification from a bank where
it maintains a customer reserve account. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account is subject to a written contract between the
SBSD and the clearing agency which provides that the funds and other
property in the account shall be subject to no right, charge, security
interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor of the clearing agency or
any person claiming through the clearing agency, except a right,
charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a cleared
security-based swap transaction effected in the account.\809\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\809\ See paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. This
provision is modeled on paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-3, which requires
a broker-dealer to obtain a contract from a bank where it maintains
a ``Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of
Customers.'' Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(f), with paragraph (a)(3)(ii)
of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under paragraph (a)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-4, a qualified SBSD
account would be defined to mean an account at another SBSD registered
with the Commission pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act that is
not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets conditions that are largely
identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing agency account.
Finally, paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require an
SBSD, among other things, to maintain a special account for the
exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers separate from any
other bank account of the SBSD.\810\ The term special account for the
exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers would be defined
under paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 to mean an account at
a bank that is not an affiliate of the SBSD and that meets conditions
that are largely identical to the conditions for a qualified clearing
agency account and qualified SBSD account.\811\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\810\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. The
provisions of paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-1 are modeled
on paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3-3. Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with
paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\811\ See paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-4. See also
Section II.C.1. of this release for a more detailed description of
the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that the
SBSD must at all times maintain in a Rule 18a-4 Customer Reserve
Account, through deposits into the account, cash and/or qualified
securities in amounts computed in accordance with the formula set forth
in Exhibit A to Rule 18a-4.\812\ The formula in Exhibit A to proposed
new Rule 18a-4 is modeled on the formula in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3-
3.\813\ Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that
the computations necessary to determine the amount required to be
maintained in the special bank account must be made daily as of the
close of the previous business day and any deposit required to be made
into the account must be made on the next business day following the
computation no later than 1 hour after the opening of the bank that
maintains the account.\814\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\812\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4; Exhibit A
to proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\813\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3a.
\814\ See paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Use of Information

As discussed more fully above, the Commission and SROs, as
applicable, would use the information collected under new Rules 18a-1,
18a-2, 18a-3 and 18a-4, as well as the amendments to Rule 15c3-1 to
determine whether an SBSD, MSBSP, or ANC broker-dealer, as applicable,
is in compliance with each applicable rule and to help fulfill their
oversight responsibilities. The

[[Page 70292]]

collections of information would also help to ensure that SBSD, MSBSPs
and broker-dealers are meeting their obligations under the proposed
rules and rule amendments and have the required policies and procedures
in place.
Proposed new Rules 18a-1 and 18a-2, as well as the proposed
amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would be integral parts of the Commission's
financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs, and ANC broker-
dealers, respectively. Proposed Rule 18a-1 and Rule 15c3-1 are designed
to ensure that nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers (including broker-
dealer SBSDs), respectively, have sufficient liquidity to meet all
unsubordinated obligations to customers and counterparties and,
consequently, if the SBSD or broker-dealer fails, sufficient resources
to wind-down in an orderly manner without the need for a formal
proceeding. The collections of information in proposed new Rule 18a-1,
Rule 18a-2 and the amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would facilitate the
monitoring of the financial condition of nonbank SBSDs, nonbank MSBSPs
and broker-dealers by the Commission.
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would prescribe, among other things,
requirements for nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral with regard to
non-cleared security-based swap transactions. Under proposed Rule 18a-
3, a nonbank SBSD would be required to establish and implement risk
monitoring procedures with respect to counterparty accounts.\815\ The
purpose of the proposed rule is to limit risks to individual firms and
systemic risk arising from non-cleared security-based swaps. The
collections of information in proposed Rule 18a-3 would assist
examiners in determining whether SBSDs are in compliance with
requirements in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\815\ See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would establish segregation requirements
for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which
would apply to all types of SBSDs (i.e., they would apply to bank
SBSDs, nonbank stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer SBSDs), as well as
establish notice requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Proposed new Rule
18a-4 would be an integral part of the Commission's financial
responsibility program for SBSDs. Its purpose is to protect the rights
of security-based swap customers and their ability to promptly obtain
their property from an SBSD. The collection of information requirements
in the proposed new rule would facilitate the process by which the
Commission monitors how SBSDs are fulfilling their custodial
responsibilities to SBSD customers. Proposed Rule 18a-4 also would
require that an SBSD provide certain notices to counterparties.\816\
These notices would alert counterparties to the alternatives available
to them with respect to segregation of non-cleared security-based
swaps. The Commission staff would use this new collection of
information in its examination and oversight program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\816\ See paragraphs (a) and (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Respondents

Consistent with the Entity Definitions Adopting Release, the
Commission staff estimates that 50 or fewer entities ultimately may
have to register with the Commission as SBSDs.\817\ In addition,
consistent with the Entity Definitions Adopting Release, based on
available data regarding the single-name credit default swap market--
which the Commission believes will comprise the majority of security-
based swaps--the Commission staff estimates that the number of MSBSPs
likely will be five or fewer and, in actuality, may be zero.\818\
Therefore, to capture the likely number of MSBSPs that may be subject
to the collections of information for purposes of this PRA, the
Commission staff estimates for purposes of this PRA that 5 entities
will register with the Commission as MSBSPs. Accordingly, for the
purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission staff
estimates there are 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\817\ Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30725. This
estimate--which potentially overstates the number of potential
entities that ultimately have to register with the Commission as
SBSDs--is consistent with the data regarding activities and
positions of participants in the single-name credit default swap
market summarized in a memorandum of the Commission staff. See
Memorandum (Mar. 15, 2012), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-39-10/s73910-154.pdf (``CDS Data Analysis''). Depending
on the final capital requirements as well as other requirements for
SBSDs and how businesses choose to respond to such requirements, the
actual number of SBSDs may be significantly fewer. See Business
Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major-Security
Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 64766 (June 29,
2011), 76 FR 42396, 42442 (July 18, 2011) (``Business Conduct
Release''). See also SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR at
65808.
\818\ Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30727,
30729. The number of MSBSPs likely will depend on the final capital
requirements and other requirements for MSBSPs and how businesses
choose to respond to such requirements. See Business Conduct
Release, 76 FR at 42442. See also SBSD Registration Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 65808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission previously estimated that 16 broker-dealers would
likely seek to register as SBSDs.\819\ The Commission is retaining this
estimate for purposes of this release.\820\ Accordingly, for the
purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission staff
estimates there are 16 broker-dealer SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\819\ See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR at 65808.
No comments were received on this estimate.
\820\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because proposed Rules 18a-1 and 18a-3 would apply only to nonbank
SBSDs, including nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies the
Federal Reserve regulates, the number of respondents subject to these
proposed rules would be less than the 50 entities expected to register
with the Commission as an SBSD, as many of the dealers that currently
engage in OTC derivative activities are banks, and would therefore be
``bank SBSDs.'' \821\ Because the Commission staff estimates that 16
broker-dealers would likely register as SBSDs, there would be an
estimated maximum of 34 bank SBSDs.\822\ However, because of business
planning purposes, risk management purposes, potential regulatory
requirements, or other reasons, some of these entities would likely
register with the Commission as nonbank stand-alone SBSDs. Therefore,
as stated above, because many of the dealers that currently engage in
OTC derivatives activities are banks, the Commission staff estimates
that approximately 75% of the maximum estimated bank SBSDs will
register as bank SBSDs, and the remainder (approximately 25%) will
register as stand-alone nonbank SBSDs. As a result, for purposes of the
reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 9
entities will register as stand-alone SBSDs.\823\ Therefore, for
purposes of the reporting burdens, the Commission staff estimates

[[Page 70293]]

that approximately 25 nonbank SBSDs would be subject to Rules 18a-1 and
18a-3.\824\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\821\ See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012 (May 2012), at Appendix
1, available at https://www2.isda.org/functional-areas/research/surveys/margin-surveys/ (``ISDA Margin Survey 2012''). ISDA is a
global trade association for OTC derivatives. The ISDA margin survey
is conducted annually to examine the state of collateral use and
management among derivatives dealers and end-users. See id.; ISDA
Margin Survey 2011, available at https://www2.isda.org/functional-areas/research/surveys/margin-surveys/ (``ISDA Margin Survey
2011''). Appendix 1 to the survey lists firms that responded to the
survey including the largest dealer banks. See ISDA Margin Survey
2012 at Appendix 1; ISDA Margin Survey 2011 at Appendix 1. See also
Economic Analysis in section V.A. of this release (discussing
overview of OTC derivatives market).
\822\ 50 SBSDs-16 broker-dealer SBSDs = 34 maximum estimated
bank SBSDs.
\823\ 34 maximum estimated bank SBSDs x 25% = 8.5, rounded to 9
stand-alone nonbank SBSDs.
\824\ 16 broker-dealer SBSDs + 9 stand-alone SBSDs = 25 nonbank
SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the 9 stand-alone SBSDs, the Commission staff estimates that,
based on its experience with ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives
dealers, the majority of stand-alone SBSDs would apply to use internal
models.\825\ Consequently, the Commission is estimating that 6 of the 9
stand-alone SBSDs would apply to use internal models under Rule 18a-1.
Because the Commission staff estimates that 6 stand-alone SBSDs would
apply to the Commission to use internal models, the Commission staff
estimates that three stand-alone SBSDs would not use models.\826\ For
purposes of estimating the number of respondents with respect to the
proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, the Commission staff estimates that
there would be 10 respondents currently subject to the collection of
information as it relates to Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.\827\ Finally,
because the Commission staff estimates that 10 of the broker-dealers
registered as SBSDs would be ANC broker-dealers, the Commission staff
estimates that 6 broker-dealers registered as SBSDs would not use
internal models.\828\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\825\ See section II.A.2.a.iii. of this release (discussing
minimum capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs); section
II.A.2.b.iii. of this release (discussing the use of VaR models).
VaR models, while more risk sensitive than standardized haircuts,
tend to substantially reduce the amount of the deductions to
tentative net capital in comparison to the standardized haircuts
because the models recognize more offsets between related positions
than the standardized haircuts. Therefore, the Commission expects
that stand-alone SBSDs that have the capability to use internal
models to calculate net capital would chose to do so.
\826\ 9 stand-alone SBSDs-6 stand-alone SBSDs using internal
models = 3 stand-alone SBSDs not using models.
\827\ These 10 broker-dealer respondents likely would also
register as SBSDs because these entities are expected to engage in a
broad range of activities.
\828\ 16 broker-dealers registered as SBSDs-10 ANC broker-dealer
SBSDs = 6 broker-dealer SBSDs not using internal models.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Type of respondent respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBSDs..................................................... 50
Bank SBSDs................................................ 25
Nonbank SBSDs............................................. 25
Broker-Dealer SBSDs....................................... 16
Stand-Alone SBSD.......................................... 9
ANC Broker-Dealer SBSDs................................... 10
Broker-Dealer SBSDs (Not Using Models).................... 6
Stand-Alone SBSDs (Using Models).......................... 6
Stand-Alone SBSDs (Not Using Models)...................... 3
Nonbank MSBSPs............................................ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of these
estimates of the number of respondents. Commenters should provide
specific data and analysis to support any comments they submit with
respect to the number of respondents, including identifying any sources
of industry information that could be used to estimate the number of
respondents.

D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden

1. Proposed Rule 18a-1 and Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
Proposed Rule 18a-1 and the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1
would have collection of information requirements that result in one-
time and annual hour burdens for nonbank SBSDs and ANC broker-dealers.
The estimates in this section are based in part on the Commission's
experience with burden estimates for similar collections of information
requirements, including the current collection of information
requirements for Rule 15c3-1.\829\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\829\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, under paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a-1, the
Commission is proposing that a stand-alone SBSD be required to file an
application for authorization to compute net capital using internal
models.\830\ The requirements for the application would be set forth in
paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a-1, which is modeled on the
application requirements of Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.\831\ ANC broker-
dealers--the number of which would include broker-dealer SBSDs that
seek to use internal models--currently are subject to this application
requirement. Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the
proposed requirements of paragraph (d) of Rule 18a-1 would result in
one-time and annual hour burdens for stand-alone SBSDs.\832\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\830\ A broker-dealer SBSD seeking Commission authorization to
use internal models to compute market and credit risk charges would
apply under the existing provisions of Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1,
which apply to ANC broker-dealers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e.
\831\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a) and paragraph (d) of proposed
Rule 18a-1. Consequently, the Commission is using the current
collection of information for Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 as a basis
for this new collection of information.
\832\ The requirements that would be imposed on paragraphs (d)
and (e) of proposed Rule 18a-1 are consistent with the requirements
of Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on its experience with ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives
dealers, the Commission expects that stand-alone SBSDs that apply to
the Commission to use internal models to calculate net capital will
already have developed models to calculate market and credit risk and
will already have developed internal risk management control systems.
On the other hand, the Commission notes that proposed Rule 18a-1
contains additional requirements that stand-alone SBSDs may not yet
have incorporated into their models and control systems.\833\
Therefore, stand-alone SBSDs would incur one-time hour burdens and
start-up costs in order to develop their VaR models in accordance with
the requirements of proposed Rule 18a-1, as well as to submit such
models along with its application under paragraph (d) of proposed Rule
18a-1 to the Commission for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\833\ See sections II.A.2.b.iii., II.A.2.c., and II.A.2.d. of
this release (describing requirements for VaR models and other
requirements under proposed Rule 18a-1 for stand-alone SBSDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These estimates are based on currently approved PRA estimates for
the ANC firms and OTC derivatives dealers.\834\ While these estimates
are averages, the burdens may vary depending on the size and complexity
of each stand-alone SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\834\ See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940; OTC Derivatives
Dealers, 63 FR 59362; Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR at 34452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission staff estimates that each of the 6 stand-alone
nonbank SBSDs that apply to use the internal models would spend
approximately 1,000 hours to develop and submit its VaR model and the
description of its risk management control system to the Commission as
well as to create and compile the various documents to be included with
the application and to work with the Commission staff through the
application process.\835\ This includes approximately 100 hours for an
in-house attorney to complete a review of the application.\836\
Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the total burden
associated with the application process for the stand-alone SBSDs would
result in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 6,000
hours.\837\ In addition, the Commission staff allocated 75% (4,500
hours) of these one-time burden hours \838\ to internal burden and the

[[Page 70294]]

remaining 25% (1,500 hours) to external burden to hire outside
professionals to assist in preparing and reviewing the stand-alone
SBSD's application for submission to the Commission.\839\ The
Commission staff estimates $400 per hour for external costs for
retaining outside consultants, resulting in a one-time industry-wide
external cost of $600,000.\840\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\835\ This estimate is based on the current hour burdens under
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.
\836\ Id. See also OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940;
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR at
34452.
\837\ 6 stand-alone SBSDs x 1,000 hours = 6,000 hours.
\838\ The internal hours likely would be performed by an in-
house attorney (1,500 hours), a risk management specialist (1,500
hours), and compliance manager (1,500 hours). Therefore, the
estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: ((in-house attorney for 1,500 hours at $378 per hour) +
(risk management specialist for 1,500 hours at $259 per hour) +
(compliance manager for 1,500 hours at $279 per hour)) = $1,374,000.
The hourly rates use for internal professionals used throughout this
section IV. of the release are taken from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2011, modified to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
\839\ 6,000 hours x .75 = 4,500 hours; 6,000 hours x .25 = 1,500
hours. This allocation is based on the Commission's experience in
implementing the ANC rules for broker-dealers. Larger firms tend to
perform these tasks in-house due to the proprietary nature of these
models as well as the high fixed-costs in hiring an outside
consultant. However, smaller firms may need to hire an outside
consultant to perform certain of these tasks.
\840\ 1,500 hours x $400 per hour = $600,000. See PRA Analysis
in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48334 (providing
an estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside attorney). See also
Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act
Release No. 64514 (May 18, 2011) 76 FR 33430, 33504 (June 8, 2012)
(providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage outside attorneys and
outside professionals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission staff estimates that a stand-alone SBSD approved to
use internal models would spend approximately 5,600 hours per year to
review and update the models and approximately 160 hours each quarter,
or approximately 640 hours per year, to backtest the models.\841\
Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that the total burden
associated with reviewing and back-testing the models for the 6 stand-
alone SBSDs would result in an industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 37,440 hours per year.\842\ In addition, the Commission
staff has allocated 75% (28,080) \843\ of these burden hours to
internal burden and the remaining 25% (9,360) to external burden to
hire outside professionals to assist in reviewing, updating and
backtesting the models.\844\ The Commission staff estimates $400 per
hour for external costs for retaining outside professionals, resulting
in an industry-wide external cost of $3.7 million annually.\845\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\841\ These hour burdens are consistent with the current hour
burdens under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 for ANC broker-dealers.
\842\ 6 Stand-alone SBSDs x [5,600 hours + 640 hours] = 37,440
hours.
\843\ These functions likely would be performed by a risk
management specialist (14,040 hours) and a senior compliance
examiner (14,040 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for
this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((risk management
specialist for 14,040 hours at $259 per hour) + (senior compliance
examiner for 14,040 hours at $230 per hour)) = $6,865,560.
\844\ 37,440 hours x .75 = 28,080; 37,440 hours x .25 = 9,360
hours. This allocation is based on the Commission's experience in
implementing the ANC rules for broker-dealers. Larger firms tend to
perform these tasks in-house due to the proprietary nature of these
models as well as the high fixed-costs in hiring an outside
consultant. However, smaller firms may need to hire an outside
consultant to perform these tasks.
\845\ 9,360 hours x $400 per hour = $3,744,000. See PRA Analysis
in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48334 (providing an
estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside attorney). See also
Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, 76 FR at
33504 (providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage outside
attorneys and outside professionals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand-alone SBSDs electing to file an application with the
Commission to use a VaR model will incur start-up costs including
information technology costs to comply with proposed Rule 18a-1.
Because each stand-alone SBSD's information technology systems may be
in varying stages of readiness to enable these firms to meet the
requirements of the proposed rules, the cost of modifying their
information technology systems could vary significantly. Based on the
estimates for the ANC broker-dealers,\846\ it is expected that a stand-
alone SBSD would incur an average of approximately $8.0 million to
modify its information technology systems to meet the VaR requirements
of the proposed new Rule 18a-1, for a total one-time industry-wide cost
of $48 million.\847\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\846\ Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69
FR 34428.
\847\ 6 stand-alone SBSDs x $8 million = $48 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, under paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a-1 and proposed new
paragraph (f) of Rule 15c3-1, stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to
use models to compute deductions for market and credit risk under Rule
18a-1 and ANC broker-dealers would be subject to liquidity stress test
requirements. The Commission staff estimates that the proposed
requirements resulting from these provisions would result in a one-time
burden to applicable stand-alone SBSDs and ANC broker-dealers as they
would need to develop models for the liquidity stress test, document
the results of the test to provide to senior management, document
differences in the assumptions used in the liquidity stress test of the
firm from those used in a consolidated entity of which the firm is a
part, and develop a written contingency funding plan.\848\ Based on
experience supervising ANC broker-dealers,\849\ the Commission staff
estimates that each of the 6 stand-alone SBSDs and 10 ANC broker-
dealers would spend an average of approximately 200 hours to comply
with these requirements, resulting in an average industry-wide one-time
internal hour burden of approximately 3,200 hours.\850\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\848\ See section II.A.2.d. of this release (discussing
liquidity stress test and written contingency funding plan).
\849\ Based on Commission staff experience supervising the ANC
broker-dealers, all of the ANC broker-dealers that are part of a
holding company generally have a written contingency funding plan,
generally at the holding company level. This proposed rule would
require that each ANC broker-dealer and stand-alone SBSD using
internal models maintain a written contingency funding plan at the
entity level (in addition to any holding company plan). Therefore,
the proposed hour burdens are averages for all firms, including the
ANC broker-dealers, which may already conduct these activities
within their organizations, and smaller firms, including stand-alone
broker-dealers which may not currently undertake these proposed
activities.
\850\ [10 ANC broker-dealers + 6 stand-alone SBSDs] x 200 hours
= 3,200 hours. Based on Commission staff experience supervising the
ANC broker-dealers, the Commission staff expects that these
functions would likely be performed internally by an in-house
attorney (1,600 hours) and a risk management specialist (1,600).
Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would
be calculated as follows: ((in-house attorney for 1,600 hours at
$378 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 1,600 hours at $259
per hour)) = $1,019,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of annual hour burden, the Commission staff estimates that
a stand-alone SBSD or ANC broker-dealer would spend an average of
approximately 50 hours \851\ per month testing and documenting the
results of its liquidity stress test and reviewing its contingency
funding plan, resulting in a total industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 9,600 hours.\852\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\851\ This PRA estimate is based, in part, on the 160 hours per
quarter it would take an ANC broker-dealer to review and backtest
its models under the current collection of information in Rule 15c3-
1. See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR
at 34452.
\852\ [6 Stand-alone SBSDs + 10 ANC broker-dealers] x 50 hours x
12 months = 9,600 hours. These functions would be performed by a
senior compliance examiner (4,800 hours) and a risk management
specialist (4,800 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs
for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((senior
compliance examiner for 4,800 hours at $230 per hour) + (risk
management specialist for 4,800 hours at $259 per hour)) =
$2,347,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, under paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a-1, a stand-
alone SBSD would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4 (except for
certain provisions of that rule) as if it were an OTC derivatives
dealer.\853\ ANC broker-dealers currently are required to comply with
Rule 15c3-4.\854\ Nonbank SBSDs would be required to comply with Rule
15c3-4, which requires the establishment of a risk management

[[Page 70295]]

control system.\855\ The Commission adopted Rule 15c3-4 in 1998 as part
of the OTC derivatives dealer oversight program.\856\ The rule requires
an OTC derivatives dealer to establish, document, and maintain a system
of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks
associated with its business activities, including market, credit,
leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.\857\ It also
requires OTC derivatives dealers to establish, document, and maintain
procedures designed to prevent the firm from engaging in securities
activities that are not permitted by OTC derivatives dealers pursuant
to Rule 15a-1.\858\ Rule 15c3-4 identifies a number of elements that
must be part of an OTC derivatives dealer's internal risk management
control system.\859\ These include, for example, that the system have:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\853\ See paragraph (g) to proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\854\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii).
\855\ See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3-1 (17
CFR 240.15c3-1); paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. See also
17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\856\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR
59362.
\857\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\858\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; 17 CFR 240.15a-1.
\859\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A risk control unit that reports directly to senior
management and is independent from business trading units; \860\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\860\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separation of duties between personnel responsible for
entering into a transaction and those responsible for recording the
transaction in the books and records of the OTC derivatives dealer;
\861\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\861\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periodic reviews (which may be performed by internal audit
staff) and annual reviews (which must be conducted by independent
certified public accountants) of the OTC derivatives dealer's risk
management systems; \862\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\862\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of risk, risk monitoring, and risk
management.\863\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\863\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15c3-4 further provides that the elements of the internal risk
management control system must include written guidelines, approved by
the OTC derivatives dealer's governing body, that discuss a number of
matters, including for example:
Quantitative guidelines for managing the OTC derivatives
dealer's overall risk exposure; \864\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\864\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The type, scope, and frequency of reporting by management
on risk exposures; \865\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\865\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures for and the timing of the governing body's
periodic review of the risk monitoring and risk management written
guidelines, systems, and processes; \866\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\866\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The process for monitoring risk independent of the
business or trading units whose activities create the risks being
monitored; \867\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\867\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The performance of the risk management function by persons
independent from or senior to the business or trading units whose
activities create the risks; \868\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\868\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authority and resources of the groups or persons
performing the risk monitoring and risk management functions; \869\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\869\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appropriate response by management when internal risk
management guidelines have been exceeded; \870\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\870\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures to monitor and address the risk that an OTC
derivatives transaction contract will be unenforceable; \871\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\871\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures requiring the documentation of the
principal terms of OTC derivatives transactions and other relevant
information regarding such transactions; \872\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\872\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(xi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedures authorizing specified employees to commit
the OTC derivatives dealer to particular types of transactions.\873\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\873\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c)(5)(xii).

Rule 15c3-4 also requires management to periodically review, in
accordance with the written procedures, the business activities of the
OTC derivatives dealer for consistency with risk management
guidelines.\874\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\874\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the nature of the written guidelines described above, the
Commission staff estimates that the requirement to comply with Rule
15c3-4 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens to nonbank
SBSDs. The Commission staff estimates that the average amount of time a
firm would spend implementing its risk management control system would
be 2,000 hours,\875\ resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden
of 30,000 hours across the 15 nonbank SBSDs not already subject to Rule
15c3-4.\876\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\875\ This estimates is based on the one-time burden estimated
for an OTC derivatives dealer to implement is controls under Rule
15c3-1. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940. This also is
included in the current PRA estimate for Rule 15c3-4.
\876\ 25 nonbank SBSDs--10 ANC broker-dealer SBSDs = 15 nonbank
SBSDs. 15 nonbank SBSDs x 2,000 hours = 30,000 hours. This number is
incremental to the current collection of information for Rule 15c3-1
with regard to complying with the provisions of Rule 15c3-4 and,
therefore, excludes the 10 respondents included in the collection of
information for that rule. These hours would likely be performed by
a combination of an in-house attorney (10,000 hours), a risk
management specialist (10,000 hours), and an operations specialist
(10,000 hours). Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this
hour burden would be calculated as follows: ((in-house attorney for
10,000 hours at $378 per hour) + (risk management specialist for
10,000 hours at $259 per hour) + (operations specialist for 10,000
hours at $117 per hour)) = $7,540,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule would require a nonbank SBSD to consider a number
of issues affecting its business environment when creating its risk
management control system. For example, a nonbank SBSD would need to
consider, among other things, the sophistication and experience of
relevant trading, risk management, and internal audit personnel, as
well as the separation of duties among these personnel, when designing
and implementing its internal control system's guidelines, policies,
and procedures. This would help to ensure that the control system that
is implemented would adequately address the risks posed by the firm's
business and the environment in which it is being conducted. In
addition, this would enable a nonbank SBSD derivatives dealer to
implement specific policies and procedures unique to its circumstances.
In implementing its policies and procedures, a nonbank SBSD would
be required to document and record its system of internal risk
management controls. In particular, a nonbank SBSD would be required to
document its consideration of certain issues affecting its business
when designing its internal controls. A nonbank SBSD would also be
required to prepare and maintain written guidelines that discuss its
internal control system, including procedures for determining the scope
of authorized activities. The Commission staff estimates that each of
these 15 nonbank SBSDs \877\ would spend approximately 250 hours per
year reviewing and updating their risk management control systems to
comply with Rule 15c3-4, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour
burden of approximately 3,750 hours.\878\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\877\ 25 nonbank SBSDs-10 ANC broker-dealer/SBSDs = 15 nonbank
SBSDs.
\878\ 15 nonbank SBSDs x 250 hours = 3,750 hours. These hour
burden estimates are consistent with similar collections of
information under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. These hours likely
would be performed by a risk management specialist. Therefore, the
estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: Risk management specialist for 3,750 hours at $259 per hour
= $971,250.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70296]]

Nonbank SBSDs may incur start-up costs to comply with the
provisions of Rule 15c3-4 incorporated into proposed Rule 18a-1,
including information technology costs. The information technology
systems of nonbank SBSDs may be in varying stages of readiness to
enable these firms to meet the requirements of the proposed rules so
the cost of modifying their information technology systems could vary
significantly. Based on the estimates for similar collections of
information,\879\ it is expected that a nonbank SBSDs would incur an
average of approximately $16,000 for initial hardware and software
expenses, while the average ongoing cost would be approximately $20,500
per nonbank SBSD to meet the requirements of the proposed new Rule 18a-
1, for a total industry-wide initial cost of $240,000 and ongoing cost
of $307,500 per year.\880\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\879\ Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access, Exchange Act Release No. 63421 (Nov. 3, 2010), 75 FR
69792, 69814 (Nov. 15, 2010).
\880\ 15 nonbank SBSDs x $16,000 = $240,000; 15 nonbank SBSDs x
$20,500 =$307,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(iii) of Rule 15c3-1 and
paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(3)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1, broker-dealer
SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs not using models would be required to use
an industry sector classification system that is documented and
reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with similar
business activities and risk characteristics used for credit default
swap reference obligors for purposes of calculating ``haircuts'' on
security-based swaps under applicable net capital rules.
As discussed above, the Commission staff estimates that 6 broker-
dealer SBSDs and 3 nonbank SBSDs not using models would utilize the
credit default swap haircut provisions under the proposed amendments to
Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-1, respectively. Consequently,
these firms would use an industry sector classification system that is
documented for the credit default swap reference obligors. The
Commission expects that these firms would utilize external
classifications systems because of reduced costs and ease of use as a
result of the common usage of several of these classification systems
in the financial services industry. The Commission staff estimates that
nonbank SBSDs not using models would spend approximately 1 hour per
year documenting these industry sectors, for a total annual hour burden
of 9 hours.\881\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\881\ (3 nonbank SBSDs not using models x 1 hour) + (6 broker-
dealer SBSDs x 1 hour) = 9 hours. This function would likely be
performed by an internal compliance attorney. Therefore, the
estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: Internal compliance attorney for 9 hours at $322 per hour =
$2,898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth, under paragraph (i) of proposed new Rule 18a-1, a nonbank
SBSD would be required to file certain notices with the Commission
relating to the withdrawal of equity capital.\882\ Broker-dealers--
which would include broker-dealer SBSDs--currently are required to file
these notices under paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3-1.\883\ The Commission
staff estimates that the notice requirements would result in annual
hour burdens to stand-alone SBSDs. The Commission staff estimates that
each of the 9 stand-alone SBSDs would file approximately 2 notices
annually with the Commission.\884\ In addition, the Commission staff
estimates that it would take a stand-alone SBSD approximately 30
minutes to file these notices, resulting in an industry-wide annual
hour burden of 4.5 hours.\885\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\882\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1(i).
\883\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(e).
\884\ This estimate is based on the number of notices currently
filed by broker-dealers under the current collection of information
under Rule 15c3-1.
\885\ [9 stand-alone SBSDs x 2 notices] x 30 minutes = 4.5
hours. This estimate is based on the 30 minutes it is estimated to
take a broker-dealer to file a similar notice under Rule 15c3-1. The
Commission believes the stand-alone SBSDs would likely perform these
functions internally using an internal compliance attorney.
Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would
be calculated as follows: Internal compliance attorney for 4.5 hours
at $322 per hour = $1,449.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, under Appendix D to proposed new Rule 18a-1, a nonbank
SBSD would be required to file a proposed subordinated loan agreement
with the Commission (including nonconforming subordinated loan
agreements).\886\ Broker-dealers--which would include broker-dealer
SBSDs--currently are subject to such a requirement. The Commission
staff estimates this proposed requirement would result in one-time and
annual hour burdens for stand-alone SBSDs. Based on staff experience
with Rule 15c3-1, the Commission staff estimates that each of the 9
stand-alone SBSDs would spend approximately 20 hours of internal
employee resources drafting or updating its subordinated loan agreement
template to comply with the proposed requirement, resulting in an
industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 180 hours.\887\ In
addition, based on staff experience with Rule 15c3-1, the Commission
staff estimates that each stand-alone SBSD would file 1 proposed
subordinated loan agreement with the Commission per year and that it
would take a firm approximately 10 hours to prepare and file the
agreement, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 90 hours.\888\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\886\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(5) to proposed Rule 18a-1.
Broker-dealer SBSDs would be subject to the provisions of Appendix D
to Rule 15c3-1. 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d.
\887\ 9 stand-alone SBSDs x 20 hours = 180 hours. This function
would likely be performed by an in-house attorney. Therefore, the
estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: in-house attorney for 180 hours at $378 per hour = $68,040.
\888\ 9 stand-alone SBSDs x 1 loan agreement x 10 hours = 90
hours. This function would likely be performed by an in-house
attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal costs for this hour
burden would be calculated as follows: In-house attorney for 90
hours at $378 per hour = $34,020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Rule 18a-2
Proposed new Rule 18a-2 would establish capital requirements for
nonbank MSBSPs.\889\ In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required
at all times to have and maintain positive tangible net worth.\890\
Because MSBSPs, by definition, will be entities that engage in a
substantial security-based swap business, under the proposed rules,
they would be required to comply with Rule 15c3-4,\891\ which requires
OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-dealers to establish, document,
and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in
managing the risks associated with their business activities, including
market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.\892\
The Commission staff estimates that the requirement to comply with Rule
15c3-4 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens to nonbank
MSBSPs. The Commission staff estimates that the average amount of time
a firm would spend implementing its risk management control system
would be 2,000 hours,\893\ resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour
burden of 10,000 hours.\894\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\889\ See proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\890\ See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\891\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\892\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
\893\ This estimate is based on the one-time burden estimated
for an OTC derivatives dealer to implement is controls under Rule
15c3-1. OTC Derivatives Dealers, 62 FR 67940. This also is included
in the current PRA estimate for Rule 15c3-4.
\894\ 5 MSBSPs x 2,000 hours = 10,000 hours. These hours would
likely be performed by a combination of an internal compliance
attorney (3,333.33 hours), a risk management specialist (3,333.33
hours), and an operations specialist (3,333.33 hours). Therefore,
the estimated internal costs for this hour burden would be
calculated as follows: ((internal compliance attorney for 3,333.33
hours at $322 per hour) + (risk management specialist for 3,333.33
hours at $259 per hour) + (operations specialist for 3,333.33 hours
at $117 per hour)) = $2,326,664.34.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70297]]

The proposed rule would require a nonbank MSBSP to consider a
number of issues affecting its business environment when creating its
risk management control system. For example, a nonbank MSBSP would need
to consider, among other things, the sophistication and experience of
relevant trading, risk management, and internal audit personnel, as
well as the separation of duties among these personnel, when designing
and implementing its internal control system's guidelines, policies,
and procedures. This would help to ensure that the control system that
is implemented would adequately address the risks posed by the firm's
business and the environment in which it is being conducted. In
addition, this would enable a nonbank MSBSP to implement specific
policies and procedures unique to its circumstances.
In implementing its policies and procedures, a nonbank MSBSP would
be required to document and record its system of internal risk
management controls. In particular, a nonbank MSBSP would be required
to document its consideration of certain issues affecting its business
when designing its internal controls. A nonbank MSBSP would also be
required to prepare and maintain written guidelines that discuss its
internal control system, including procedures for determining the scope
of authorized activities. The Commission staff estimates that each of
the 5 MSBSPs would spend approximately 250 hours per year reviewing and
updating their risk management control systems to comply with Rule
15c3-4, resulting in an industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 1,250 hours.\895\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\895\ 5 MSBSPs x 250 hours = 1,250 hours. These hour burden
estimates are consistent with similar collections of information
under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. These hours would likely be
performed by a risk management specialist. Therefore, the estimated
internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows:
Risk management specialist for 1,250 hours at $259 per hour =
$323,750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because nonbank MSBSPs may not initially have the systems or
expertise internally to meet the risk management requirements of
proposed new Rule 18a-2, these firms would likely hire an outside risk
management consultant to assist them in implementing their risk
management systems. The Commission staff estimates that a nonbank MSBSP
may hire an outside management consultant for approximately 200 hours
to assist the firm for a total start-up cost to the nonbank MSBSP of
$80,000 per MSBSP, or a total of $400,000 for all nonbank MSBSPs.\896\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\896\ 5 nonbank MSBSPs x $80,000 = $400,000. See also PRA
Analysis in Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 48344
(providing an estimate of $400 an hour to engage an outside
attorney); Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations,
76 FR at 33504 (providing estimate of $400 per hour to engage
outside attorneys and outside professionals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank MSBSPs may incur start-up costs to comply with proposed
Rule 18a-2, including information technology costs. The information
technology systems of a nonbank MSBSP may be in varying stages of
readiness to enable these firms to meet the requirements of the
proposed rules so the cost of modifying their information technology
systems could vary significantly. Based on the estimates for similar
collections of information,\897\ the Commission staff expects that a
nonbank MSBSP would incur an average of approximately $16,000 for
initial hardware and software expenses, while the average ongoing cost
would be approximately $20,500 per nonbank MSBSP to meet the
requirements of the proposed new Rule 18a-2, for a total industry-wide
initial cost of $80,000 and ongoing cost of $102,500.\898\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\897\ Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access, 75 FR at 69814.
\898\ 5 nonbank MSBSPs x $16,000 = $80,000; 5 nonbank MSBSPs x
$20,500 = $102,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Rule 18a-3
Proposed paragraph (e) of new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank
SBSD to establish and implement risk monitoring procedures with respect
to counterparty accounts.\899\ Therefore, paragraph (e) to proposed
Rule 18a-3 would result in one-time and annual hour burdens for nonbank
SBSDs. In this regard, nonbank SBSDs would need to develop a
comprehensive written risk analysis methodology for assessing the
potential risk to the firm over a specified range of possible market
movements over a specified time period that would meet the requirements
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\899\ See paragraph (e) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because these firms would already be required to comply with Rule
15c3-4,\900\ the Commission staff estimates that each of the 25 nonbank
SBSDs would spend an average of approximately 210 hours establishing
the written risk analysis methodology, resulting in an industry-wide
one-time hour burden of approximately 5,250 hours.\901\ In addition,
based on staff experience, the Commission staff estimates that a
nonbank SBSD would spend an average of approximately 60 hours per year
reviewing the written risk analysis methodology and updating it as
necessary, resulting in an average industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 1,500 hours.\902\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\900\ See section II.A.2.c. of this release (describing risk
management provisions of Rule 15c3-4).
\901\ 25 nonbank SBSDs x 210 hours = 5,250 hours. See generally
Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance, 76 FR at
14510 (estimating 210 one-time burden hours and 60 annual hours to
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin
requirements to limit a clearing agency's credit exposures to
participants in normal market conditions and use risk-based models
and parameters to set and review margin requirements.). These hours
would likely be performed internally by an assistant general counsel
(1,750 hours), a compliance attorney (1,750 hours), and a risk
management specialist (1,750 hours). Therefore, the estimated
internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows:
((assistant general counsel for 1,750 hours at $407 per hour) +
(risk management specialist for 1,750 hours at $259 per hour) +
(compliance attorney for 1,750 hours at $322 per hour)) =
$1,729,000.
\902\ 25 stand-alone SBSDs x 60 hours = 1,500 hours. These hours
would likely be performed by a compliance attorney. Therefore, the
estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: Compliance attorney for 1,500 hours at $322 per hour =
$483,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 25 respondents subject to the collection of information may
incur start-up costs in order to comply with this collection of
information. These costs may vary depending on the size and complexity
of the nonbank SBSD. In addition, the start-up costs may be less for
the 16 nonbank SBSD respondents also registered as broker-dealers
because these firms may already be subject to similar requirements with
respect to other margin rules.\903\ For the remaining 9 nonbank SBSDs,
because these written procedures may be novel undertakings for these
firms, the Commission staff assumes these nonbank SBSDs would have
their written risk analysis methodology reviewed by outside counsel. As
a result, the Commission staff estimates that these nonbank SBSDs would
likely incur $2,000 in legal costs, or $18,000 in the aggregate initial
burden to review and comment on these materials.\904\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\903\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4210 and 4240. See also Business
Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42445 (noting burden for paragraph (g) of
proposed Rule 15Fh-3 is based on existing FINRA rules).
\904\ The Commission staff estimates the review of the written
risk analysis methodology would require 5 hours of outside counsel
time at a cost of $400 per hour. See also Business Conduct Release,
76 FR at 42445.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proposed Rule 18a-4
Under proposed new Rule 18a-4, SBSDs would be required to establish
special accounts with banks and obtain written acknowledgements from,
and

[[Page 70298]]

enter into written contracts with, the banks. These special accounts
would include: (1) The qualified clearing agency account under
paragraph (a)(3); (2) the qualified SDSD account under paragraph
(a)(4); and the special account for the exclusive benefit of security-
based swap customers under paragraph (a)(7) of proposed new Rule 18a-4,
(collectively, the ``special accounts''). Based on staff experience
with Rule 15c3-3, the Commission staff estimates that each of the 50
SBSDs would establish six special accounts at banks (two for each type
of special account). Further, based on staff experience with Rule 15c3-
3, the Commission staff estimates that each SBSD would spend
approximately 30 hours to draft and obtain the written acknowledgement
and agreement for each account, resulting in an industry-wide one-time
hour burden of approximately 9,000 hours.\905\ The Commission staff
estimates that 25% \906\ of the 50 SBSDs or approximately 13 would
establish a new special account each year because, for example, they
change their banking relationship, for each type of special account.
Therefore, the Commission staff estimates an industry-wide annual hour
burden of approximately 1,170 hours.\907\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\905\ 50 SBSDs x 6 special accounts x 30 hours = 9,000 hours. A
compliance attorney would likely perform this function. Therefore,
the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated
as follows: Compliance attorney for 9,000 hours at $322 per hour =
$2,898,000.
\906\ This number is based on the currently approved PRA
collection for Rule 15c3-3.
\907\ 13 SBSDs x 3 types of special accounts x 30 hours = 1,170
hours. A compliance attorney would likely perform this function.
Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be
calculated as follows: Compliance attorney for 1,170 hours at $322
per hour = $376,740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that the
SBSD must at all times maintain in a special account, through deposits
into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed
in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 18a-
4,\908\ modeled on the formula in Appendix A to Rule 15c3-3. Paragraph
(c)(3) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would provide that the computations
necessary to determine the amount required to be maintained in the
special bank account must be made on a daily basis. Variation in size
and complexity between these SBSDs would make it very difficult to
develop a meaningful figure for the amount of time required to
calculate each reserve computation. Based on experience with the Rule
15c3-3 reserve computation PRA burden hours and with the OTC
derivatives industry, the Commission staff estimates that it would take
between one and five hours to compute each reserve computation, and
that the average time spent across all the SBSDs would be approximately
2.5 hours. Accordingly, the Commission staff estimates that the
resulting annual hour burden for paragraph (c)(3) of proposed new Rule
18a-3 would be approximately 31,250 hours.\909\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\908\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 and
Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\909\ 50 SBSDs x 250 business days x 2.5 hours/day = 31,250
hours. This task would likely be performed by a financial reporting
manager. Therefore, the estimated internal cost for this hour burden
would be calculated as follows: Financial reporting manager for
31,250 hours at $309 per hour = $9,656,250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4, an SBSD or an
MSBSP would be required to provide a notice to a counterparty pursuant
to section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the
first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with the counterparty
occurring after the effective date of the proposed rule.\910\ All 50
SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would be required to provide these notices to their
counterparties. The Commission staff estimates that these 55 entities
would engage outside counsel to draft and review the notice at a cost
of $400 per hour for an average of 10 hours per respondent, resulting
in a one-time cost burden of $220,000 for all of these 55
entities.\911\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\910\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\911\ [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] x $400 per hour x 10 hours =
$220,000. The Commission expects that these functions would likely
be performed by outside counsel with an expertise in financial
services law to help ensure that counterparties are receiving the
proper notice under the statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of notices sent in the first year the rule is effective
would depend on the number of counterparties with which each SBSD and
MSBSP engages in security-based swap transactions. The number of
counterparties an SBSD and MSBSP would have would vary depending on the
size and complexity of the firm and its operations. The Commission
staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would have
approximately 1,000 counterparties at any given time.\912\ Therefore,
the Commission staff estimates that approximately 55,000 notices would
be sent in the first year the rule is effective.\913\ The Commission
staff estimates that the each of the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs would spend
approximately 10 minutes sending out the notice, resulting in an
industry-wide one-time hour burden of approximately 9,167 hours.\914\
The Commission staff further estimates that the 50 SBSDs and 5 MSBSPs
would establish account relationships with 200 new counterparties per
year. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that approximately
11,000 notices would be sent annually,\915\ resulting in an industry-
wide annual hour burden of approximately 1,833 hours.\916\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\912\ The Commission previously estimated that there are
approximately 8,500 market participants in security-based swap
transactions. See Business Conduct Release, 76 FR at 42443. Based on
the 8,500 market participants and Commission staff experience
relative to the securities and OTC derivatives industry, the
Commission staff estimates that each SBSD and MSBSP would have 1,000
counterparties at any given time. The number of counterparties may
widely vary depending on the size of the SBSD or MSBSP. A large firm
may have thousands or counterparties at one time, while a smaller
firm may have substantially less than 1,000. The Commission staff
also estimates, based on staff experience, that these entities would
establish account relationships with approximately 200 new
counterparties a year, or approximately 20% of a firm's existing
counterparties.
\913\ [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] x 1,000 counterparties = 55,000
notices.
\914\ (55,000 notices x 10 minutes)/60 minutes = 9,167 hours. A
compliance clerk would likely send these notices. Therefore, the
estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: Compliance clerk for 9,167 hours at $60 per hour =
$550,020. The hourly rates use for internal office employees used
throughout this section are taken from SIFMA's Office Salaries in
the Securities Industry 2011, modified by the Commission staff to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 2.93 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
\915\ [50 SBSDs + 5 MSBSPs] x 200 counterparties = 11,000
notices.
\916\ (11,000 notices x 10 minutes)/60 minutes = 1,833 hours. A
compliance clerk would likely send these notices. Therefore, the
estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: compliance clerk for 1,833 hours at $60 per hour =
$109,980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under proposed new Rule 18a-4(d)(2), an SBSD would be required to
obtain agreements from counterparties that do not choose to require
segregation of funds or other property pursuant to Section 3E(f) of the
Exchange Act or paragraph (c)(3) of Rule 18a-4 in which the
counterparty agrees to subordinate all of its claims against the SBSD
to the claims of security-based swap customers of the SBSD.\917\ The
Commission staff estimates that an SBSD would spend, on average,
approximately 200 hours to draft and prepare standard subordination
agreements, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour burden of
10,000 hours.\918\ Because the SBSD would enter into these agreements
with

[[Page 70299]]

security-based swap customers, after the SBSD prepares a standard
subordination agreement in-house, the Commission staff also estimates
that an SBSD would have outside counsel a review the standard
subordination agreements and that the review would take approximately
20 hours at a cost of approximately $400 per hour. As a result, the
Commission staff estimates that each SBSD would incur one-time costs of
approximately $8,000,\919\ resulting in an industry-wide one-time cost
of approximately $400,000.\920\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\917\ See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\918\ 200 hours x 50 SBSDs = 10,000 hours. An in-house attorney
would likely draft these agreements because the Commission staff
expects that drafting contracts would be one of the typical job
functions of an in-house attorney. Therefore, the estimated internal
cost for this hour burden would be calculated as follows: In-house
attorney for 10,000 hours at $378 per hour = $3,780,000.
\919\ $400 x 20 hours = $8,000.
\920\ $8,000 x 50 = $400,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, the Commission staff estimates that each of the
50 SBSDs would have approximately 1,000 counterparties at any given
time. The Commission staff further estimates that approximately 50% of
these counterparties would either elect individual segregation or waive
segregation altogether.\921\ The Commission staff estimates that an
SBSD would spend 20 hours per counterparty to enter into a written
subordination agreement, resulting in an industry-wide one-time hour
burden of approximately 500,000 hours.\922\ Further, as discussed the
Commission staff estimates that each of the 50 SBSDs would establish
account relationships with 200 new counterparties per year. The
Commission staff further estimates that 50% or 100 of these
counterparties would either elect individual segregation or waive
segregation altogether. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates an
industry-wide annual hour burden of approximately 100,000 hours.\923\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\921\ Based on discussions with market participants, the
Commission staff understands that many large buy-side financial end
users currently ask for individual segregation and the Commission
staff assumes that many of these end users will continue to do so.
However, Commission staff believes that some smaller end users may
not choose to incur additional cost that may come with individual
segregation. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that
approximately 50% of counterparties will either elect individual
segregation or waiver segregation altogether.
\922\ 50 SBSDs x 500 counterparties x 20 hours = 500,000 hours.
These functions would likely be performed by a compliance attorney
(250,000 hours) and a compliance clerk (250,000 hours). Therefore,
the estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated
as follows: ((compliance attorney for 250,000 hours at $322 per
hour) + (compliance clerk for 250,000 hours at $60 per hour)) =
$95,500,000.
\923\ 50 SBSDs x 100 counterparties x 20 hours = 100,000 hours.
These functions would likely be performed by a compliance attorney
(50,000 hours) and a compliance clerk 50,000 hours). Therefore, the
estimated internal cost for this hour burden would be calculated as
follows: ((compliance attorney for 50,000 hours at $322 per hour) +
(compliance clerk for 50,000 hours at $60 per hour)) = $19,100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Collection of Information Is Mandatory

The collections of information pursuant to the proposed amendments
and new rules are mandatory, as applicable, for ANC broker-dealers,
SBSDs, and MSBSPs.

F. Confidentiality

The Commission expects to receive confidential information in
connection with the proposed collections of information. To the extent
that the Commission receives confidential information pursuant to these
collections of information, the Commission is committed to protecting
the confidentiality of such information to the extent permitted by
law.\924\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\924\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78 x (governing the public
availability of information obtained by the Commission); 5 U.S.C.
552 et seq. (Freedom of Information Act--``FOIA''). See also
paragraph (d)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1(d). FOIA provides at
least two pertinent exemptions under which the Commission has
authority to withhold certain information. FOIA Exemption 4 provides
an exemption for ``trade secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.''
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). FOIA Exemption 8 provides an exemption for
matters that are ``contained in or related to examination,
operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for
the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision
of financial institutions.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Retention Period for Recordkeeping Requirements

ANC broker-dealers are required to preserve for a period of not
less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible
place, certain records required under Rule 15c3-4 and certain records
under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1.\925\ Rule 17a-4 specifies the required
retention periods for a broker-dealer.\926\ Many of a broker-dealer's
records must be retained for three years; certain other records must be
retained for longer periods.\927\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\925\ See 17 CFR 17a-4(b)(9), (10), and (12).
\926\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
\927\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, the recordkeeping burdens with respect to some
requirements in proposed new Rules 18a-1 through 18a-4 will be
addressed in the SBSD and MSBSP recordkeeping requirements, which will
the subject of a separate release.

H. Request for Comment

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3306(c)(2)(B), the Commission requests
comment on the proposed collections of information in order to:
Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information would have practical
utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the
burden of the proposed collections of information;
Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those who respond, including through
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct their comments to the Office of Management
and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington,
DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, and refer to File No. S7-08-12. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collections of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Federal Register; therefore, comments to OMB are best assured of having
full effect if OMB receives them within 30 days of this publication.
Requests for the materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with
regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer
to File No. S7-08-12, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information
Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

V. Economic Analysis

The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules.
Some of these costs and benefits stem from statutory mandates, while
others are affected by the discretion exercised in implementing the
mandates. The following economic analysis seeks to identify and
consider the benefits and costs--including the effects on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation--that would result from the proposed
capital, margin, and segregation rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs and from
the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1. The costs and benefits
considered in proposing these new rules and amendments are discussed
below and have informed the policy choices described throughout this
release.

[[Page 70300]]

The Commission discusses below a baseline against which the rules
may be evaluated. For the purposes of this economic analysis, the
baseline is the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today prior to
the effectiveness of the statutory and regulatory provisions that will
govern these markets in the future pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. With
respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, the baseline for
purposes of this economic analysis is the current capital regime for
broker-dealers under Rule 15c3-1.\928\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\928\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the Commission does not have comprehensive information on the
U.S. OTC derivatives markets, the Commission is using the limited data
currently available in considering in this economic analysis the
effects of the proposals, including their intended benefits and
anticipated possible costs.\929\ Additionally, the Commission requests
that commenters identify sources of data and information as well as
provide data and information to assist the Commission in analyzing the
economic consequences of the proposed rules. More generally, the
Commission requests comment on all aspects of this initial economic
analysis, including on whether the analysis has: (1) Identified all
benefits and costs, including all effects on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation; (2) given due consideration to each benefit and
cost, including each effect on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation; and (3) identified and considered reasonable alternatives to
the proposed new rules and rule amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\929\ Information that is available for the purposes of this
economic analysis includes an analysis of the market for single-name
credit default swaps performed by the Commission's Division of Risk,
Strategy, and Financial Innovation. See CDS Data Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If these proposed rules and rule amendments are adopted, their
benefits and costs would affect competition, efficiency, and capital
formation in the security-based swap market broadly, with the impact
not being limited to SBSDs and MSBSPs. Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act
provides that whenever the Commission engages in rulemaking under the
Exchange Act and is required to consider or determine whether an action
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the Commission
shall also consider, in addition to the protection of investors,
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.\930\ In addition, section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act
requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to
consider the effect such rules would have on competition.\931\ Section
23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the Commission from
adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act.\932\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\930\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\931\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
\932\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed more fully in section II. above, the Commission is
proposing: (1) Rules 18a-1 and 18a-2, and amendments to Rule 15c3-1, to
establish capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs;
(2) Rule 18a-3 to establish customer margin requirements applicable to
nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs for non-cleared security-based swaps;
and (3) Rule 18a-4 to establish segregation requirements for SBSDs and
notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and
MSBSPs.\933\ Some of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would apply
to broker-dealers that are not registered as SBSDs or MSBSPs to the
extent that they hold positions in security-based swaps and swaps. The
Commission also is proposing to amend Rule 15c3-1 to increase the
minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers. Finally, the
Commission is proposing a liquidity requirement for ANC broker-dealers
and for nonbank stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models to compute
net capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\933\ The Commission is also proposing a conforming amendment to
Rule 15c3-3 to clarify that broker-dealer SBSDs must comply with
Rule 15c3-3 and Rule 18a-4, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sections below present an overview of the OTC derivatives
markets, a discussion of the general costs and benefits of the proposed
financial responsibility requirements, and a discussion of the costs
and benefits of each proposed amendment and new rule. The sections that
follow also incorporate a consideration of the potential effects of the
proposed amendments and new rules on competition, efficiency, and
capital formation.

A. Baseline of Economic Analysis

1. Overview of the OTC Derivatives Markets--Baseline for Proposed Rules
18a-1 Through 18a-4
As stated above, to assess the costs and benefits of these rules, a
baseline must be established against which the rules may be evaluated.
For the purposes of this economic analysis, the baseline is the OTC
derivatives markets \934\ as they exist today prior to the
effectiveness of the statutory and regulatory provisions that will
govern these markets in the future pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.\935\
The markets as they exist today are dominated, both globally and
domestically, by a small number of firms, generally entities affiliated
with or within large commercial banks.\936\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\934\ OTC derivatives may include forwards, swaps and options on
foreign exchange, and interest rate, equity and commodity
derivatives.
\935\ The baseline, however, for amendments to Rule 15c3-1 is
the current financial responsibility regime for broker-dealers under
this rule.
\936\ See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The OTC derivatives markets have been described as opaque because,
for example, transaction-level data about OTC derivatives trading
generally is not publicly available.\937\ This economic analysis is
supported, where possible, by data currently available to the
Commission from The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation Trade
Information Warehouse (``DTCC-TIW''). This evaluation takes into
account data regarding the security-based swap market and especially
data regarding the activity--including activity that may be suggestive
of dealing behavior--of participants in the single-name credit default
swap market.\938\ While a large segment of the security-based swap
market is comprised of single-name credit default swaps, these
derivatives do not comprise the entire security-based swap market.\939\
Moreover, credit

[[Page 70301]]

default swaps are a small percentage of the overall OTC derivatives
market, which, in addition to security-based swaps, includes foreign
currency swaps and interest rate swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\937\ See Orice M. Williams, GAO, Systemic Risk: Regulatory
Oversight and Recent Initiatives to Address Risk Posed by Credit
Default Swaps at 2, 5, 27. See also Robert E. Litan, The Brookings
Institution, The Derivatives Dealers' Club and Derivatives Market
Reform: A Guide for Policy Makers, Citizens and Other Interested
Parties 15-20 (Apr. 7, 2010), available at https://www.brookings.edu/
~/media/research/files/papers/2010/4/07%20derivatives%20litan/0407--
derivatives--litan.pdf; Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Registration, Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No.
63347 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 77306, 77354 (Dec. 10, 2010); IOSCO,
The Credit Default Swap Market, Report FR05/12, (June 2012),
available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD385.pdf
(stating although the amount of public information on CDS has
increased over recent years, the CDS market is still quite opaque).
\938\ The CDS Data Analysis provides reasonably comprehensive
information regarding the credit default swap activities and
positions of U.S. market participants, but the Commission notes that
the data does not encompass those credit default swaps that both:
(i) Do not involve U.S. counterparties; and (ii) are based on non-
U.S. reference entities. Reliance on this data should not be
interpreted to indicate our views as to the nature or extent of the
application of Title VII to non-U.S. persons; instead, it is
anticipated that issues regarding the extraterritorial application
of Title VII will be addressed in a separate release.
\939\ In addition, it is reasonable to believe that the
implementation of Title VII itself will change the security-based
swap market, and, with the full implementation of Title VII--which
in part is conditioned on the implementation of the proposed
financial responsibility program--more information will be available
for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Available information about the global OTC derivatives markets
suggests that swap transactions, in contrast to security-based swap
transactions, dominate trading activities, notional amounts, and market
values.\940\ For example, the BIS estimates that the total notional
amounts outstanding and gross market value of global OTC derivatives
were over $648 trillion and $27.2 trillion, respectively, as of the end
of 2011.\941\ Of these totals, the BIS estimates that foreign exchange
contracts, interest rate contracts, and commodity contracts comprised
approximately 88% of the total notional amount and 84% of the gross
market value.\942\ Credit default swaps, including index credit default
swaps, comprised approximately 4.4% of the total notional amount and
5.8% of the gross market value. Equity-linked contracts, including
forwards, swaps and options, comprised approximately an additional 1.0%
of the total notional amount and 2.5% of the gross market value.\943\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\940\ See BIS, Statistical Release: OTC derivatives statistics
at end-December 2011, 5 (May 2012), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1205.pdf (reflecting data reported by central banks in
14 countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, England, Italy,
Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the
United States, Australia, and Spain).
\941\ Id. at 12 (``Nominal or notional amounts outstanding are
defined as the gross nominal or notional value of all deals
concluded and not yet settled on the reporting date * * * Gross
market values are defined as the sums of the absolute values of all
open contracts with either positive or negative replacement values
evaluated at market prices prevailing on the reporting date * * *
gross market values supply information about the potential scale of
market risk in derivatives transactions. Furthermore, gross market
value at current market prices provides a measure of economic
significance that is readily comparable across markets and
products.'').
\942\ Id.
\943\ Id. Similarly, the OCC has found that interest rate
products comprised 81% of the total notional amount of OTC
derivatives held by bank dealers whereas credit derivative contracts
comprised 6.4% and equity contracts comprised 1% of that notional
amount. See OCC, Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives
Activities, Fourth Quarter 2011, available at https://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq411.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs
would apply to dealers and participants in the security-based swap
markets, they are expected to affect a substantially smaller portion of
the U.S. OTC derivatives markets than the proposed financial
responsibility rules for swap dealers and major swap participants
proposed by the CFTC and prudential regulators.\944\ In addition,
though the proposed capital, segregation and margin rules apply to all
security-based swaps, not just single-name credit default swaps, the
data on single-name credit default swaps are currently sufficiently
representative of the market to help inform this economic analysis
because currently an estimated 95% of all security-based swap
transactions appear likely to be single-name credit default swaps.\945\
The majority of these single-name credit default swaps, both in terms
of aggregate total notional amount and total volume by product type,
are based on corporate and sovereign reference entities.\946\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\944\ See CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802; Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27564.
\945\ See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30636.
See also Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48205 (defining
the term security-based swap).
\946\ Data compiled by the Commission's Division of Risk,
Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions
from the DTCC-TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the number of transactions is larger in single-name credit
default swaps than in index credit default swaps, the aggregate total
notional amount of the latter exceeds that of single-name credit
default swaps.\947\ For example, the total aggregate notional amount
for single-name credit default swaps was $6.2 trillion, while the
aggregate total notional amount for index credit default swaps was
$16.8 trillion over the sample period of January 1, 2011 to December
31, 2011. For the same sample period, however, single-name credit
default swaps totaled 69% of transactional volume, while index credit
default swaps comprised 31% of the total transactional volume.\948\ The
majority of trades in both notional amount and volume for both single-
name and index credit default swaps over the 2011 sample period were
new trades in contrast to assignments, increases, terminations or
exits.\949\ The analysis of the 2011 data further shows that by total
notional amount and total volume the majority of single-name and index
credit default contracts have a tenor of 5 years.\950\ In addition, the
data from the sample period indicates that the geographical
distribution of counterparties' parent country domiciles in single name
contracts are concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and
Switzerland.\951\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\947\ Id. This data also shows the average mean and median
single-name and index credit default swap notional transaction size
in millions is 6.47 and 4.12, and 39.22 and 14.25, respectively.
\948\ Id.
\949\ Id.
\950\ Id.
\951\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As described more fully in the CDS Data Analysis,\952\ based on
2011 transaction data, Commission staff identified entities currently
transacting in the credit default swap market that may register as
SBSDs by analyzing various criteria of their dealing activity. The
results suggest that there is currently a high degree of concentration
of potential dealing activity in the single-name credit default swap
market. For example, using the criterion that dealers are likely to
transact with many counterparties who themselves are not dealers, the
analysis of the 2011 data show that only 28 out of 1,084 market
participants have three or more counterparties that themselves are not
recognized as dealers by ISDA.\953\ In addition, the analysis suggests
that dealers appear, based on the percentage of trades between buyer
and seller principals, in the majority of all trades on either one or
both sides in single-name and index credit default swaps.\954\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\952\ See CDS Data Analysis.
\953\ Id. at Table 3c. The analysis of this transaction data is
imperfect as a tool for identifying dealing activity, given that the
presence or absence of dealing activity ultimately turns upon the
relevant facts and circumstances of an entity's security-based swap
transactions, as informed by the dealer-trader distinction. Criteria
based on the number of an entity's counterparties that are not
recognized as dealers nonetheless appear to be useful for
identifying apparent dealing activity in the absence of full
analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances, given that
engaging in security-based swap transactions with non-dealers would
be consistent with the conduct of seeking to profit by providing
liquidity to others, as anticipated by the dealer-trader
distinction.
\954\ Data compiled by the Commission's Division of Risk,
Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default transactions
from the DTCC-TIW between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
Additionally, according to the OCC, at the end of the first quarter
of 2012, derivatives activity in the U.S. banking system continues
to be dominated by a small group of large financial institutions.
Four large commercial banks represent 93% of the total banking
industry notional amounts and 81% of industry net current credit
exposure. See OCC, Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives
Activities, First Quarter 2012, available at https://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq112.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This concentration to a large extent appears to reflect the fact
that those larger entities are well-capitalized and therefore possess
competitive advantages in engaging in OTC security-based swap dealing
activities by providing potential counterparties with adequate
assurances of financial performance.\955\ As such, it is

[[Page 70302]]

reasonable to conclude that currently there likely are high barriers to
entry in terms of capitalization in connection with security-based swap
dealing activity.\956\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\955\ See, e.g., Craig Pirrong, Rocket Science, Default Risk and
The Organization of Derivatives Markets, Working Paper 17-18 (2006),
available at https://www.cba.uh.edu/spirrong/Derivorg1.pdf (noting
that counterparties seek to reduce risk of default by engaging in
credit derivative transactions with well-capitalized firms). See
also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30739-30742.
\956\ See id. at 18-19 (noting lack of success among new
entrants into derivatives dealing market due to perception that AAA
rating for subsidiary is less desirable than a slightly lower rating
for a larger entity, and suggesting that there are ``economies of
scale in bearing default risk'' that may induce ``substantial
concentration in dealer activities''). See also Entity Definitions
Adopting Release, 77 FR at 30739-30742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than OTC derivatives dealers, which are subject to
significant limitations on their activities, broker-dealers
historically have not participated in a significant way in security-
based swap trading for at least two reasons. First, because the
Exchange Act has not previously defined security-based swaps as
``securities,'' they have not been required to be traded through
registered broker-dealers.\957\ And second, a broker-dealer engaging in
security-based swap activities is currently subject to existing
regulatory requirements with respect to those activities, including
capital, margin, segregation, and recordkeeping requirements.
Specifically, the existing broker-dealer capital requirements make it
relatively costly to conduct these activities in broker-dealers, as
discussed in section II.A.2. of this release. As a result, security-
based swap activities are currently mostly concentrated in entities
that are affiliated with the parent companies of broker-dealers, but
not in broker-dealers themselves.\958\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\957\ See definition of ``security'' in section 3(a)(10) of the
Exchange Act and ``security-based swap'' in section 3(a)(68) of the
Exchange Act.
\958\ See ISDA Margin Survey 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

End users enter into OTC derivatives transactions to take
investment positions or to hedge commercial and financial risk. These
non-dealer end users of OTC derivatives are, for example, commercial
companies, governmental entities, financial institutions, investment
vehicles, and individuals. Available data suggests that the largest end
users of credit default swaps are, in descending order, hedge funds,
asset managers, and banks, which may have a commercial need to hedge
their credit exposures to a wide variety of entities or may take an
active view on credit risk.\959\ Based on the available data, the
Commission further estimates that commercial end users currently
participate in the security-based swap markets on a very limited
basis.\960\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\959\ This information is based on available market data from
DTCC-TIW compiled by the Commission's Division of Risk, Strategy,
and Financial Innovation. For example, data compiled by the
Commission's Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on
credit default transactions from the DTCC-TIW between January 1,
2011 and December 31, 2011 suggests that for single-name credit
default swap transactions, dealer to dealer transactions composed
68.26% of trades between buyer and seller principals over the sample
period.
\960\ For example, data compiled by the Commission's Division of
Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation on credit default
transactions from the DTCC-TIW between January 1, 2011 and December
31, 2011 suggest that the total percentage of trades between buyer
and seller principals over the sample period for single-name credit
default swaps was only 0.03% of the total trade counterparty
distribution for non-financial end users, which are composed of non-
financial companies and family trusts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, this baseline for proposed new Rules 18a-1 through 18a-4
will be further discussed in the applicable sections of the release
below.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its preliminary
estimates of the scale and composition of the OTC derivatives market,
including the relative size of the security-based swap segment of that
market. In addition, the Commission requests that commenters provide
data and sources of data to quantify:
1. The average daily and annual volume of OTC derivatives
transactions;
2. The volume of transactions in each class of OTC derivatives
(e.g., interest rate swaps, index credit default swaps, single-name
credit default swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, and equity-based
swaps);
3. The total notional amount of all pending swap transactions;
4. The total current exposure of all pending swap transactions;
5. The total notional amount of all pending security-based swap
transactions;
6. The total current exposure of all pending security-based swap
transactions;
7. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives (e.g.,
banks, broker-dealers, unregulated entities);
8. The capital levels of dealers, particularly those not subject to
regulatory capital requirements;
9. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives dealers that
engage in both a swap and security-based swap business;
10. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives that engage
only in a swap business;
11. The types and numbers of dealers in OTC derivatives that engage
only in a security-based swaps business;
12. The classes of end users (e.g., commercial end users, financial
end users, and others) and the number of end users in each class;
13. The types of OTC derivatives transactions that each class of
end user commonly engages in;
14. The amount of assets posted for OTC derivatives to
collateralize current exposure;
15. The amount of assets posted for OTC derivatives to
collateralize potential future exposure;
16. The type of assets used as collateral; and
17. The amount of assets that are held under the different types of
collateral arrangements (e.g., held by the dealer but not segregated,
held by the dealer in omnibus segregation, held by a third-party
custodian).
2. Baseline for Amendments to Rule 15c3-1
As discussed in more detail above, the Commission is proposing
amendments to Rule 15c3-1.\961\ These amendments would establish
minimum net capital requirements for broker-dealers that register as
SBSDs, increase the minimum net capital requirements for ANC broker-
dealers, narrow the current treatment of credit risk charges for ANC
broker-dealers to apply only to uncollateralized receivables from
commercial end users arising from security-based swaps, and establish
liquidity requirements for ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs using
internal models. Some of those proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would
also apply to broker-dealers not registering as SBSDs or MSBSPs to the
extent they hold security-based swap positions or non-security-based
swap positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\961\ See section II.B. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.A.1. of this release, the existing
broker-dealer capital requirements are contained in Rule 15c3-1 \962\
and seven appendices to Rule 15c3-1.\963\ The baseline for this
economic analysis with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-
1 is

[[Page 70303]]

the broker-dealer capital regime as it exists today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\962\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
\963\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a (Options); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1b
(Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness for certain
commodities transactions); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1c (Consolidated
computations of net capital and aggregate indebtedness for certain
subsidiaries and affiliates; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1d (Satisfactory
subordination agreements); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e (Deductions for market
and credit risk for certain brokers or dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f
(Optional market and credit risk requirements for OTC derivatives
dealers); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1g (Conditions for ultimate holding
companies of certain brokers or dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, current Rule 15c3-1 requires broker-dealers to
maintain a minimum level of net capital (meaning highly liquid capital)
at all times.\964\ The rule requires that a broker-dealer perform two
calculations: (1) A computation of the minimum amount of net capital
the broker-dealer must maintain; \965\ and (2) a computation of the
amount of net capital the broker-dealer is maintaining.\966\ The
minimum net capital requirement is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount
specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying one of two
financial ratios: the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital
ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio.\967\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\964\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
\965\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
\966\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2). The computation of net
capital is based on the definition of ``net capital'' in paragraph
(c)(2) of Rule 15c3-1. Id.
\967\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In computing net capital, the broker-dealer must, among other
things, make certain adjustments to net worth such as deducting
illiquid assets and taking other capital charges and adding qualifying
subordinated loans.\968\ ``Tentative net capital'' is defined as the
amount remaining after these deductions.\969\ The final step in
computing net capital is to deduct from the mark-to-market values of
the proprietary positions (e.g. in securities, money market
instruments, and commodities) that are included in its tentative net
capital prescribed percentages (``standardized haircuts'').\970\ The
standardized haircuts are designed to account for the market risk
inherent in these proprietary positions and to create a buffer of
liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities
business.\971\ With Commission approval, ANC broker-dealers and OTC
derivative dealers are permitted to calculate deductions for market
risk and credit risk from tentative net capital using internal models
in lieu of the standardized haircuts.\972\ Because the use of internal
models to compute net capital generally can substantially reduce the
deductions for proprietary positions compared to standardized haircuts
and only certain risks are addressed by these internal models, current
Rule 15c3-1 imposes substantially higher minimum capital requirements
for ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers as compared to other
types of broker-dealers.\973\ For example, under current Rule 15c3-1,
ANC broker-dealers are required to at all times maintain tentative net
capital of not less than $1 billion and net capital of not less than
$500,000,\974\ and they are required to provide notice to the
Commission if their tentative net capital falls below $5 billion.\975\
The current rule requires that a broker-dealer must ensure that its net
capital exceeds its minimum net capital requirement at all times.\976\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\968\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(i)-(xiii).
\969\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(15).
\970\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
\971\ See, e.g., Uniform Net Capital Rule, 42 FR 31778
(``[Haircuts] are intended to enable net capital computations to
reflect the market risk inherent in the positioning of the
particular types of securities enumerated in [the rule]'').
\972\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3-
1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f. As part of the application to use internal
models, an entity seeking to become an ANC broker-dealer or an OTC
derivatives dealer must identify the types of positions it intends
to include in its model calculation. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-
3e(a)(1)(iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f(a)(1)(ii). After approval, the ANC
broker-dealer or OTC derivatives dealer must obtain Commission
approval to make a material change to the model, including a change
to the types of positions included in the model. See 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(8); 17 CFR 240.15c3-f(a)(3).
\973\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5) and (a)(7).
\974\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(i).
\975\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(ii).
\976\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the baseline of the current capital regime will be further
discussed in the applicable sections of the release below.

B. Analysis of the Proposals and Alternatives

1. Overview--The Proposed Financial Responsibility Program
Generally, the financial responsibility requirements the Commission
is proposing today are intended to enhance the financial integrity of
SBSDs and MSBSPs. As discussed more fully below, in proposing these
requirements, the Commission is seeking to appropriately consider both
the potential benefits of minimizing the risk that the failure of one
firm will cause financial distress to other firms and disrupt financial
markets and the U.S. financial system and the potential costs to that
firm, the financial markets, and the U.S. financial system if SBSDs and
MSBPs are required to comply with overly restrictive capital, margin
and segregation requirements. This introductory section reviews at a
general level certain considerations regarding the economic analysis of
the proposed rules that is set forth in greater detail below.
As discussed in section I. of the release, the current broker-
dealer financial responsibility requirements serve as the template for
the proposals for several reasons. First, the financial markets in
which SBSDs and MSBSPs are expected to operate are similar to the
financial markets in which broker-dealers operate in the sense that
they are driven in significant part by dealers that buy and sell on a
regular basis and that take principal risk. Second, like nonbank
dealers in securities but unlike bank SBSDs, nonbank SBSDs will not be
able to rely on a backstop provider of liquidity but rather need to be
able to liquidate assets quickly in the event of a counterparty
default. Third, the broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements
have existed for many years and have facilitated the prudent operation
of broker-dealers.\977\ Fourth, some broker-dealers likely will be
registered as nonbank SBSDs so as to be able to offer customers a
broader range of services than would be permitted as a stand-alone
SBSD. Therefore, establishing consistent financial responsibility
requirements would avoid potential competitive disparities between
stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs. And fifth, by placing an
emphasis on maintaining liquid assets and requiring the segregation of
customer funds, the current broker-dealer financial responsibility
requirements have generally been successful in limiting losses to
customers due to broker-dealer defaults.\978\ Consequently, the current
broker-dealer financial responsibility requirements provide a
reasonable template for building a financial responsibility program for
SBSDs and MSBSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\977\ For example, one of the objectives of the broker-dealer
financial responsibility requirements is to protect customers from
the consequences of the financial failure of a broker-dealer in
terms of safeguarding customer securities and funds held by the
broker-dealer. In this regard, SIPC, since its inception in 1971,
has initiated customer protection proceedings for only 324 broker-
dealers, which is less than 1% of the approximately 39,200 broker-
dealers that have been members of SIPC during that timeframe. During
the same period, only $1.1 billion of the $117.5 billion of cash and
securities distributed for accounts of customers came from the SIPC
fund rather than debtors' estates. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report.
\978\ For example, of the more than 625,200 claims satisfied in
completed or substantially completed cases since SIPC's inception in
1971, as of December 31, 2011, a total of 351 were for cash and
securities whose value was greater than the limits of protection
afforded by SIPA. The 351 claims, unchanged during 2011, represent
less than one-tenth of one percent of all claims satisfied. The
unsatisfied portion of claims, $47.2 million, is unchanged in 2011.
These remaining claims approximate three-tenths of one percent of
the total value of securities and cash distributed for accounts of
customers in those cases. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report. These figures
do not include the SIPA liquidations of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC and Lehman Brothers Inc., which are not complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the Commission recognizes that there may be other
appropriate

[[Page 70304]]

approaches to establishing financial responsibility requirements--
including, for example, requirements based on the Basel Standard in the
case of entities that are part of a bank holding company, as has been
proposed by the CFTC.\979\ Generally, the bank capital model requires
the holding of specified levels of capital as a percentage of ``risk
weighted assets.'' \980\ In general, it does not require a full capital
deduction for unsecured receivables, given that banks, as lending
entities, are in the business of extending credit to a range of
counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\979\ CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
\980\ The prudential regulators also have proposed capital rules
that would require a covered swap entity to comply with the
regulatory capital rules already made applicable to that covered
swap entity as part of its prudential regulatory regime. Prudential
Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27568. The
prudential regulators note that they have ``had risk-based capital
rules in place for banks to address over-the-counter derivatives
since 1989 when the banking agencies implemented their risk-based
capital adequacy standards * * * based on the first Basel Accord.''
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This approach could promote a consistent view and management of
capital within a bank holding company structure. However, it would not
be a net liquid assets standard. In addition, applying capital rules
designed for banks to a non-bank entity would raise various practical
and policy issues that are not directly implicated by the proposed
approach. First, it would need to be clear whether a regulator with
primary responsibility for the non-bank entity would defer to bank
regulators with respect to the interpretation of Basel standards as
applied to the entity, or instead develop its own interpretation of
those standards. Further, it would need to be clear how trading and
other risks of the non-bank entity and its bank affiliate or affiliates
would be expected to be managed, whether such risks would be managed
holistically at the holding company level or separately at the entity
level, and what limitations, if any, would apply to transfers of risks
from a bank to its non-bank entity affiliate, or vice versa. In
addition, to the extent that bank capital standards would permit the
non-bank entity to hold more illiquid assets as regulatory capital, an
additional liquidity standard might be required at the entity level in
order to assure that the entity maintained sufficient liquidity to
support its trading activity. Similarly, if the non-bank entity were an
SBSD that held assets for customers, the impact of any reduced
liquidity associated with the application of bank capital standards on
the ability of the entity to quickly wind down operations and
distribute assets to customers would need to be considered. The
Commission specifically seeks comment as to whether to adapt Basel
capital standards to non-bank affiliates of banks, and how such a
regime would work in practice--including how it would address the
issues described above and similar challenges.
The Commission also recognizes that in determining appropriate
financial responsibility requirements--whether based on current broker-
dealer rules or other alternative approaches described above--it must
assess and consider a number of different costs and benefits, and the
determinations it ultimately makes can have a variety of economic
consequences for the relevant firms, markets, and the financial system
as a whole. On the one hand, the capital and margin requirements in
particular are broadly intended to work in tandem to strengthen the
financial system by reducing the potential for default to an acceptable
level and limiting the amount of leverage that can be employed by SBSDs
and other market participants. Requiring particular firms to hold more
capital or exchange more margin may reduce the risk of default by one
or more market participants and reduce the amount of leverage employed
in the system generally, which in turn may have a number of important
benefits. The failure of an SBSD could result in immediate financial
loss to its counterparties or customers, particularly those that are
not able to avoid losses by liquidating collateral or those that have
delivered assets for custody by the SBSD. Since the primary benefit of
the capital and margin requirements is to reduce the probability of a
SBSD failure, potential counterparties may be more willing to transact
when they have greater assurance that they will be paid following a
credit event. Depending on the size of the SBSD and its
interconnectedness with other market participants, such a default also
could have adverse spillover or contagion effects that could create
instability for the financial markets more generally, such as limiting
the willingness of healthy market participants to extend credit to each
other, and thus substantially reduce liquidity and valuations for
particular types of financial instruments.\981\ Further, to the extent
that market participants generally perceive that the prudential
requirements are sufficient to protect them from losses due to a
counterparty's default, the security-based swap market may experience
increased trading activity, reduced transaction costs, improved
liquidity, enhanced capital formation, and an improved ability to
manage risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\981\ See, e.g., Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen,
Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity, Review of Financial Studies,
22 Review of Financial Studies 2201 (2009); Denis Gromb and Dimitri
Vayanos, A Model of Financial Market Liquidity Based on Intermediary
Capital, 8 Journal of the European Economic Association 456 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, as described below, higher financial
responsibility requirements for individual firms also give rise to
direct costs for the firms involved and potentially significant
collective costs for the markets and the financial system as a whole.
For example, overly restrictive requirements that increase the cost of
trading by individual firms could reduce their willingness to engage in
such trading, adversely affecting liquidity in the security-based swaps
markets and increasing transaction costs for market participants.
Similarly, capital requirements that are set high enough to limit or
restrict the willingness or ability of new firms to enter the market
may impair or reduce competition in the markets, which in turn could
also adversely affect liquidity and price discovery and increase
transaction costs. Any such reduction in liquidity or price discovery,
or increase in transaction costs, could adversely affect efficiency and
impose direct costs on those market participants who rely on security-
based swaps to manage or hedge the risks arising from their business
activities that may support or promote capital formation. Even if the
cost of overly restrictive financial responsibility requirements were
shouldered only by those market participants that are subject to them,
the excess amount of capital or margin tied up as a result of those
requirements would not be available for potentially more efficient
uses, which thereby could impair effective capital allocation and
formation.
Although, in establishing appropriate financial responsibility
requirements that are neither insufficient nor excessive, the
Commission must seek to consider these and other potential benefits and
costs, the Commission notes that it is difficult to quantify such
benefits and costs. For example, although the adverse spillover effects
of defaults on liquidity and valuations were evident during the
financial crisis,\982\ it is difficult to quantify the

[[Page 70305]]

effects of measures intended to reduce the default probability of the
individual intermediary, the ensuing prevention of contagion, and the
adverse effects on liquidity and valuation. More broadly, it is
difficult to quantify the costs and benefits that may be associated
with steps to mitigate or avoid a future financial crisis. Similarly,
although capital, margin, or segregation requirements may, among other
things, affect liquidity and transaction costs in the security-based
swap markets, and result in a different allocation of capital than may
otherwise occur, it is difficult to quantify the extent of these
effects, or the resulting effect on the financial system more
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\982\ See aggregate derivatives claims on Lehman Brothers
Special Finance initially filed by the top 30 financial institution
counterparties was estimated to be approximately $22 billion,
available at https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1386611 and https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1430484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These difficulties are further aggravated by the fact that only
limited public data related to the security-based swap market, in
general, and to security-based swap market participants in particular,
exist, all of which could assist in quantifying certain benefits and
costs. It also is difficult to demonstrate empirically that the
customer protections associated with the proposed financial
responsibility requirements would alter the likelihood that any
specific market participant would suffer injury, or the degree to which
the participant would suffer injury, from participating in an under- or
over-regulated security-based swap market.
In light of these challenges, much of the discussion of the
proposed rules in this economic analysis will remain qualitative in
nature, although where possible the economic analysis attempts to
quantify these benefits and costs. The inability to quantify these
benefits and costs, however, does not mean that the benefits and costs
of the proposals are any less significant. In addition, as noted above,
the proposed rules include a number of specific quantitative
requirements--such as numerical thresholds, limits, deductions and
ratios. The Commission recognizes that the specificity of each such
quantitative requirement could be read by some to imply a definitive
conclusion based on quantitative analysis of that requirement and its
alternatives. These quantitative requirements have not been derived
directly from econometric or mathematical models. Instead, they reflect
a preliminary assessment by the Commission, based on qualitative
analysis, regarding the appropriate financial standard for an
identified issue, drawing (as noted above) from the Commission's long-
term experience in administering its existing broker-dealer financial
responsibility regime as well as its general experience in regulating
broker-dealers and markets and from comparable quantitative
requirements in its own rules and those of other regulators.
Accordingly, the discussion generally describes in a qualitative way
the primary costs, benefits and other economic effects that the
Commission has identified and taken into account in developing these
specific quantitative requirements. The Commission emphasizes that it
invites comment, including relevant data and analysis, regarding all
aspects of the various quantitative requirements reflected in the
proposed rules.
Finally, the Commission notes that the proposals ultimately
adopted, like other requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, could have a
substantial impact on international commerce and the relative
competitive position of intermediaries operating in various, or
multiple, jurisdictions. U.S. or foreign firms could be advantaged or
disadvantaged depending on how the rules ultimately adopted by the
Commission compare with corresponding requirements in other
jurisdictions. Such differences could in turn affect cross-border
capital flows and the ability of global firms to most efficiently
allocate capital among legal entities to meet the demands of their
counterparties. The Commission intends to address the potential
international implications of the proposed capital, margin and
segregation requirements, together with the full spectrum of other
issues relating to the application of Title VII to cross-border
security-based swap transactions, in a separate proposal.
a. Nonbank SBSDs
In addition to fulfilling a statutory requirement, it is expected
that the proposed capital, margin and segregation rules should be
beneficial to market participants by advancing market transparency,
risk reduction and counterparty protection as Title VII of the Dodd-
Frank Act intended.\983\ It can be further expected that these benefits
manifest themselves over the long-term and benefit the market as a
whole. To the extent that the proposed rules increase the safety and
soundness of entities that register as nonbank SBSDs and not just
codify current practice, the proposals should specifically reduce the
likelihood of default by an intermediary with substantial positions in
security-based swaps and possible negative spillover effects. This
would further imply that without the proposed rules in place, such an
event could result in significant losses to counterparties whose
exposures to the defaulting dealer are not sufficiently secured, which,
depending on the size of individual counterparty exposures, could lead
to defaults of those counterparties. Such events could then deter
intermediaries from entering into financing transactions,\984\ even
with creditworthy counterparties, which could ultimately adversely
affect valuation and liquidity in the broader financial markets.\985\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\983\ See section I. of this release.
\984\ See, e.g., Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen,
Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity, Review of Financial Studies
at 22; Denis Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos, A Model of Financial Market
Liquidity Based on Intermediary Capital at 8.
\985\ See aggregate derivatives claims on Lehman Brothers
Special Finance initially filed by the top 30 financial institution
counterparties was estimated to be approximately $22 billion,
available at https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1386611 and https://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/LBH/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1430484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from the positive impact on the safety and soundness of the
security-based swap market, the proposed new rules and rule amendments
could create the potential for regulatory arbitrage to the extent that
they differ from corresponding rules other regulators adopt. As noted
above in section I. of this release, the Commission is proposing
capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs that differ in some
respects from the prudential regulators' proposed capital and margin
requirements for bank SBSDs.\986\ Depending on the final rules the
Commission adopts, the financial responsibility requirements could make
it more or less costly to conduct security-based swaps trading in banks
as compared to nonbank SBSDs. For example, if the application of the
proposed 8% margin risk factor substantially increases capital
requirements for nonbank SBSDs compared to the risk-based capital
requirements imposed by the prudential regulators on the same activity,
bank holding companies could be incentivized to conduct these
activities in their bank affiliates.\987\ On the other hand, if the
Commission does not require nonbank SBSDs to collect initial margin in
their transactions with each other, as is generally current market
practice,\988\ while the prudential regulators require the collection
of initial margin for the same trades as their proposed rules suggest,
intermediaries could have an incentive

[[Page 70306]]

to conduct business through nonbank entities.\989\ These differences
could create competitive inequalities and affect the allocation of
trading activities within a holding company structure.
The proposed financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs would
also result in costs to individual market participants and may affect
the amount of capital available to support security-based swap
transactions generally.\990\ As described in section V.B.1 immediately
above, if SBSDs are required to maintain an excessive amount of
capital, that amount may result in certain costs for the markets and
the financial system, including the potential for the reduced
availability of security-based swaps for market participants who would
otherwise use such transactions to hedge the risks of their business,
or engage in other activities that would promote capital formation. In
addition, in some cases, these costs may include costs to financial
conglomerates to restructure their security-based swap activities or
move them into affiliates that register as SBSDs.\991\ Nonbank SBSDs as
well as other market participants would also incur costs to hire
compliance personnel and to establish internal systems, procedures and
controls designed to ensure compliance with the new requirements. Some
of these costs were discussed in the PRA analysis in section IV of this
release. Finally, the full cost impact of the proposed financial
responsibility requirements will depend to some extent on other rules
related to SBSDs (e.g., registration) that the Commission has not yet
adopted.\992\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\986\ See section I. of this release.
\987\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564.
\988\ See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011.
\989\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564.
\990\ See section II. of this release.
\991\ See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR 65784.
\992\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\993\ If the rules succeed in improving competition among
dealers in the security-based swap market rules this pass-through
behavior should be less of a concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This economic analysis considers the overall benefits and costs of
the proposed new rules and amendments, keeping in mind that the
benefits may be distributed across market participants, accrue over the
long-term, and are difficult to quantify or to measure as easily as
certain costs.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the
general costs and benefits of the proposed rules. The Commission
requests data to quantify and estimates of the costs and the value of
the benefits of the proposals described above. The Commission also
requests data to quantify the impact of the proposals against the
baseline. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to
the following questions:
1. In general terms, how effectively would the proposed rules limit
systemic risk arising from security-based swap transactions? Please
explain.
2. In general, how would the proposed rules and rule amendments
impact the capital of entities that would need to register as nonbank
SBSDs? For example, would they require these entities to hold more
capital? If so, what would be the impact of the availability of sources
of funding to these entities?
3. How important is parity of treatment between nonbank SBSDs and
bank SBSDs in terms of regulatory requirements, and how should parity
be understood? For example, should nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs be
required to hold the same amounts of capital to support a certain level
of security-based swaps business?
4. To what extent would the proposed regulatory requirements impact
the amount of liquidity provided for or required by security-based swap
market participants, and to what extent will that affect the funding
cost for the financial sector in particular and the economy in general?
Please quantify.
b. Nonbank MSBSPs
As with their application to nonbank SBSDs, in addition to
fulfilling a statutory requirement, it is expected that the proposed
capital, margin and notification requirements under the segregation
rules for MSBSPs will advance market transparency, risk reduction and
counterparty protection as Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act
intended.\994\ However, in contrast to capital and margin requirements
for nonbank SBSDs, the proposed rules for nonbank MSBSPs are intended
to limit the impact on counterparties of a potential default by a
nonbank MSBSP, rather than to create prudential standards that would
render the possibility of its failure more remote. Capital standards of
the type that would apply to SBSDs \995\ may not be practical for
nonbank MSBSPs, depending on their individual business models and
whether they are subject to any other prudential requirements.
Accordingly, the proposals are intended to ensure that nonbank MSBSPs
meet a minimum capital standard by maintaining a positive tangible net
worth,\996\ collateralize their current exposures to end users, and
post collateral to counterparties that covers at least the amount of
the current exposure of those counterparties to them.\997\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\994\ See section I. of this release.
\995\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\996\ See proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\997\ See proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These proposed requirements are expected to have a relatively
smaller aggregate effect than the proposed financial responsibility
requirements for nonbank SBSDs because they are likely to affect
relatively fewer entities. The Commission expects that only 5 or fewer
entities will register as nonbank MSBSPs with the Commission.\998\
Another approach, discussed further below, would subject MSBSPs to a
capital regime similar to that proposed for nonbank SBSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\998\ See section IV.C. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed financial responsibility requirements for MSBSPs would
also result in costs to individual market participants and may affect
the amount of capital available to support security-based swap
transactions overall and the financial markets generally. To the extent
that the proposed capital and margin requirements are too restrictive,
it could limit capital formation and the use of security-based swaps to
hedge risks associated with the MSBSP's business activities.\999\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\999\ See section II. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed requirements may also impose more limited compliance
burdens on MSBSPs. For example, nonbank MSBSPs as well as other market
participants would also incur costs to hire compliance personnel and to
establish internal systems, procedures and controls designed to ensure
compliance with the new requirements.\1000\ Some of these costs are
discussed in the PRA analysis in section IV. of this release. Finally,
the full cost impact of the proposed financial responsibility
requirements will depend to some extent on other rules related to
MSBSPs (e.g., registration) that the Commission has not yet
adopted.\1001\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1000\ See section V.C. of this release.
\1001\ See SBSD Registration Proposing Release, 76 FR 65784.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70307]]

Costs related to specific sections of the proposed new rules and
rule amendments are discussed below. Some of these costs may be largely
fixed in nature; other costs (such as minimum capital requirements and
margin costs) may be variable as they reflect the level of the nonbank
MSBSP's security-based swap activity.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the
general costs and benefits of the proposed rules on MSBSPs. The
Commission requests data to quantify and estimates of the costs and the
value of the benefits of the proposals for MSBSPs described above.
2. The Proposed Capital Rules
a. Nonbank SBSDs and ANC Broker-Dealers
As discussed above in section II.A. of this release, proposed new
Rule 18a-1 would prescribe capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs,
and proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1 would prescribe capital
requirements for broker-dealer SBSDs and increase existing capital
requirements for ANC broker-dealers.\1002\ The proposed amendments to
Rule 15c3-1 would apply to broker-dealers that are not registered as
SBSDs to the extent they hold positions in security-based swaps and
swaps. In addition, the Commission is proposing liquidity requirements
for ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models
to compute net capital.\1003\ Finally, the Commission is proposing to
require that all nonbank SBSDs comply with Rule 15c3-4, which requires
the establishment of a risk management control system.\1004\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1002\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\1003\ See proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 15c3-1; paragraph (f)
of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\1004\ See proposed new paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (g) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3-
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As described above, the capital and other financial responsibility
requirements for broker-dealers generally provide a reasonable template
for crafting the corresponding requirements for nonbank SBSDs. For
example, among other considerations, the objectives of capital
standards for both types of entities are similar. Rule 15c3-1 is a net
liquid assets test that is designed to require a broker-dealer to
maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet all obligations to customers
and counterparties and have adequate additional resources to wind-down
its business in an orderly manner without the need for a formal
proceeding if it fails financially. The objective of the proposed
capital standards for nonbank SBSDs is the same.
In addition, as discussed in section II.A.1. above, the Dodd-Frank
Act divided responsibility for SBSDs and MSBSPs by providing the
prudential regulators with authority to prescribe the capital and
margin requirements for bank SBSDs and the Commission with authority to
prescribe capital and margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs.\1005\ This
division also suggests it may be appropriate to model the capital
requirements for nonbank SBSDs on the capital standards for broker-
dealers, while the capital requirements for bank SBSDs are modeled on
capital standards for banks (as reflected in the proposal by the
prudential regulators).\1006\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1005\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-10, in general; 15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(e)(2)(A)-(B), in particular.
\1006\ The prudential regulators have proposed capital
requirements for bank SBSDs and bank swap dealers that are based on
the capital requirements for banks. See Prudential Regulator Margin
and Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.A.1. above, certain differences in the
activities of securities firms, banks, and commodities firms,
differences in the products at issue, or the balancing of relevant
policy choices and considerations, appear to support this distinction
between nonbank SBSDs and bank SBSDs. First, based on the Commission
staff's understanding of the activities of nonbank dealers in OTC
derivatives, nonbank SBSDs are expected to engage in a securities
business with respect to security-based swaps that is more similar to
the dealer activities of broker-dealers than to the activities of
banks; indeed, some broker-dealers likely will be registered as nonbank
SBSDs.\1007\ Second, existing capital standards for banks and broker-
dealers reflect, in part, differences in their funding models and
access to certain types of financial support, and those same
differences also will exist between bank SBSDs and nonbank SBSDs. For
example, banks obtain funding through customer deposits and can obtain
liquidity through the Federal Reserve's discount window; whereas
broker-dealers do not--and nonbank SBSDs will not--have access to these
sources of funding and liquidity. Third, Rule 15c3-1 currently contains
provisions designed to address dealing in OTC derivatives by broker-
dealers and, therefore, to some extent already can accommodate this
type of activity (although, as discussed below, proposed amendments to
Rule 15c3-1 would be designed to more specifically address the risks of
security-based swaps and the potential for increased involvement of
broker-dealers in the security-based swaps markets).\1008\ For these
reasons, the proposed capital standard for nonbank SBSDs is a net
liquid assets test modeled on the broker-dealer capital standard in
Rule 15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1007\ Id.
\1008\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e. See also
Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting Release, 69 FR 34428;
OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The net liquid assets test is designed to allow a broker-dealer to
engage in activities that are part of conducting a securities business
(e.g., taking securities into inventory) but in a manner that places
the firm in the position of holding at all times more than one dollar
of highly liquid assets for each dollar of unsubordinated liabilities
(e.g., money owed to customers, counterparties, and creditors). For
example, Rule 15c3-1 allows securities positions to count as allowable
net capital, subject to standardized or internal model-based
haircuts.\1009\ The rule, however, does not permit most unsecured
receivables to count as allowable net capital.\1010\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1009\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e; 17
CFR 240.15c3-1f.
\1010\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This aspect of the rule severely limits the ability of broker-
dealers to engage in activities, such as unsecured lending, that
generate unsecured receivables. The rule also does not permit fixed
assets or other illiquid assets to count as allowable net capital,
which creates disincentives for broker-dealers to own real estate and
other fixed assets that cannot be readily converted into cash. For
these reasons, Rule 15c3-1 incentivizes broker-dealers to confine their
business activities and devote capital to activities such as
underwriting, market making, and advising on and facilitating customer
securities transactions.
Proposed new Rule 18a-1 and the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1
would provide a number of benefits, as well as impose certain costs on
nonbank SBSDs, broker-dealer SBSDs, and broker-dealers, which are
described below. In considering costs, in cases where the Commission is
proposing amendments to Rule 15c3-1, the baseline is the current
broker-dealer capital regime under Rule 15c3-1.\1011\ The proposed rule
also will have possible effects on competition, efficiency, and capital
formation, which will be discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1011\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70308]]

i. Minimum Capital Requirements
The following table provides a summary of the proposed minimum
capital requirements under the proposed new Rule 18a-1 and proposed
amendments to Rule 15c3-1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO12.001

Stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs that are not approved to
use internal models, that is, are neither ANC broker-dealers nor OTC
derivatives dealers, would be required to maintain net capital of the
larger of $20 million or 8% of the firm's margin factor. The proposed
$20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement would be consistent with
the fixed-dollar minimum requirement applicable to OTC derivatives
dealers and already familiar to existing market participants.\1012\ OTC
derivatives dealers are limited purpose broker-dealers that are
authorized to trade in certain derivatives, including security-based
swaps, use internal models to calculate net capital, and they are
required to maintain minimum tentative net capital of $100 million and
minimum net capital of $20 million.\1013\ These current fixed-dollar
minimums have been the minimum capital standards for OTC derivative
dealers for over a decade and to date, there have been no indications
that these minimums are not adequately meeting the objective of
requiring OTC derivatives dealers to maintain sufficient levels of
regulatory capital to account for the risks inherent in their
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1012\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5). The CFTC proposed a $20
million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement for FCMs that
are registered as swap dealers, regardless of whether the firm is
approved to use internal models to compute regulatory capital. See
CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. Further, the CFTC
proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar ``tangible net equity'' minimum
requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are
not FCMs and are not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company.
Finally, the CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar Tier 1 capital
minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants
that are not FCMs and are affiliated with a U.S. bank holding
company (the term ``Tier 1 capital'' refers to the regulatory
capital requirement for U.S. banking institutions). Id.
\1013\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the proposed $20 million fixed-dollar minimum requirement
for stand-alone SBSDs not using internal models to calculate net
capital would be substantially higher than the fixed-dollar minimums in
Rule 15c3-1 currently applicable to broker-dealers that do not use
internal models.\1014\ The proposed more stringent minimum capital
requirement of $20 million for stand-alone SBSDs not approved to use
models reflects the facts that these firms: (1) Unlike broker-dealers,
will be able to deal in security-based swaps, which, in general, pose
risks that are different from, and in some respects greater than, those
arising from dealing in securities; but (2) unlike OTC derivative
dealers have direct customer relationships and have custody of customer
funds.\1015\ Therefore, without the increased requirements, a failure
of a stand-alone SBSD would, ceteris paribus, be more likely than a
failure of an OTC derivatives dealer and, as a consequence of the
relationships with customers, would have a broader adverse impact on a
larger number of market participants, including customers and
counterparties.\1016\ Consequently, these heightened requirements
should enhance the safety and soundness of the nonbank SBSDs, and
thereby reduce systemic risk, as well as increase market participants'
confidence in the security-based swap markets. Stand-alone SBSDs not
approved to use internal models would not, however, be subject to a
minimum tentative net capital requirement, which is applied to only
firms that use internal models to account for risks not fully captured
by the models.\1017\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1014\ For example, a broker-dealer that carries customer
accounts has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $250,000; a
broker-dealer that does not carry customer accounts but engages in
proprietary securities trading (defined as more than ten trades a
year) has a fixed-dollar minimum requirement of $100,000; and a
broker-dealer that does not carry accounts for customers or
otherwise receive or hold securities and cash for customers, and
does not engage in proprietary trading activities, has a fixed-
dollar minimum requirement of $5,000. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(2).
\1015\ See 17 CFR 240.3b-12; 17 CFR 240.15a-1.
\1016\ The proposal is consistent with the CFTC's proposed
capital requirements for nonbank swap dealers, which impose $20
million fixed-dollar minimum requirements regardless of whether the
firm is approved to use internal models to compute regulatory
capital. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802.
\1017\ OTC derivatives dealers are subject to a $100 million
minimum tentative net capital requirement. ANC broker-dealers are
currently subject to a $1 billion minimum tentative net capital
requirement. The minimum tentative net capital requirements are
designed to address risks that may not be captured when using
internal models rather than standardized haircuts to compute net
capital. See OTC Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR at 59384; Alternative
Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of
Consolidated Supervised Entities; Proposed Rule, Exchange Act
Release No. 48690 (Oct. 24, 2003), 68 FR 62872, 62875 (Nov. 6,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand-alone SBSDs using models would be required to maintain
minimum net capital of the higher of $20 million or the 8% margin
factor, as well as a minimum tentative net capital of $100 million, a
requirement that also applies to OTC derivatives dealers. Models to
calculate deductions from tentative net capital for proprietary
positions take only market and credit risk into account and therefore
generally lead to lower deductions and higher levels of net
capital.\1018\ The minimum

[[Page 70309]]

tentative net capital requirement for firms using models is intended to
provide an additional assurance of adequate capital to reflect this
concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1018\ See, e.g., Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR at 34455 (describing benefits of alternative net
capital requirements for broker-dealers using models stating a
``major benefit for the broker-dealer will be lower deductions from
net capital for market and credit risk that we expect will result
from the use of the alternative method.''). Therefore, it is likely
that for new entrants to capture substantial volume in security-
based swaps they will need to use VaR models. See also OTC
Derivatives Dealer Release, 63 FR 59362 (discussing benefits of
minimum capital requirements as an additional measure of
protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, because the tentative net capital calculation does not
take account of market risk deductions, the minimum $100 million
tentative net capital requirement might be a less effective standard in
cases where a dealer maintains a substantial amount of less liquid
positions that require relatively large deductions for market risk. As
an alternative, the Commission could impose a minimum requirement that
increases according to the nature and size of the positions held, for
example, 25% of the market risk deductions that are required to be
taken in determining actual net capital. This approach could better
scale the tentative net capital requirement according to the risk of
the proprietary positions held by an SBSD. On the other hand, a
variable tentative net capital test would not serve as an accurate
measure of risk if the model did not appropriately capture all material
risks of the positions or the assumptions underlying the use of the
model were no longer appropriate. The variable tentative net capital
test also could increase the tentative net capital requirement in some
cases to a level that could limit or discourage the entry of firms that
do not presently compete in the security-based swap markets. Further,
as noted above, the minimum net capital requirement in each case would
increase in accordance with an increase in the amount of business
conducted as a result of the 8% margin factor. The Commission is
specifically seeking comment on this alternative in section II.A.1. of
this release.
Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, ANC broker-dealers
would be required to maintain: (1) Tentative net capital of not less
than $5 billion; and (2) net capital of not less than the greater of $1
billion or the financial ratio amount required pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 15c3-1 plus the 8% margin factor.\1019\ These relatively
high minimum capital requirements for ANC dealers (as compared with the
requirements for other types of broker-dealers) reflect the substantial
and diverse range of business activities engaged in by ANC broker-
dealers and their importance as intermediaries in the securities
markets.\1020\ Further, the heightened capital requirements reflect the
fact that, as noted above, VaR models are more risk sensitive but also
generally permit substantially reduced deductions to tentative net
capital as compared to the standardized haircuts as well as the fact
that VaR models may not capture all risks.\1021\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1019\ See proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule
15c3-1.
\1020\ As noted above, the six ANC broker-dealers collectively
hold in excess of one trillion dollars' worth of customer
securities.
\1021\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR 34428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on financial information reported by the ANC broker-dealers
in their monthly FOCUS Reports filed with the Commission, the six
current ANC broker-dealers maintain capital levels in excess of these
proposed increased minimum requirements. For example, at the end of
2011, the interquartile range of net capital and tentative net capital
levels among the six ANC broker-dealers were from $1.11 billion to
$7.77 billion and from $1.32 billion to $9.69 billion, respectively.
Further, ANC broker-dealers are currently required to notify the
Commission if their tentative net capital falls below $5 billion.\1022\
This notification provision is used by the Commission to trigger
increased supervision of the firm's operations and to take any
necessary corrective action and is similar to corollary ``early
warning'' requirements for OTC derivatives dealers.\1023\ Consequently,
this $5 billion ``early warning'' level currently acts as the de facto
minimum tentative net capital requirement since the ANC broker-dealers
seek to avoid providing this regulatory notice that their tentative net
capital has fallen below the early warning level.\1024\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1022\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(ii).
\1023\ OTC derivatives dealers are required to provide
notification promptly (but within 24 hours) if their tentative net
capital falls below 120% of the firm's required minimum tentative
net capital amount. See 17 CFR 240.17a-11(c)(3). Rule 17a-11 also
requires ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers to provide
same day notification if their tentative net capital falls below
required minimums. See 17 CFR 240.17a-11(b)(2).
\1024\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although increases to minimum tentative and minimum net capital
requirements are being proposed, the proposals may not present a
material cost to the current ANC broker-dealers, because they already
hold more than the proposed minimum requirements in the amendments to
Rule 15c3-1. The more relevant number is the proposed increase in the
early warning notification threshold from $5 billion to $6 billion. The
existing early warning requirement for OTC derivatives dealers triggers
a notice when the firm's tentative net capital falls below an amount
that is 120% of the firm's required minimum tentative net capital
amount of $100 million ($120 million = 1.2 x $100 million).\1025\ The
proposed new ``early warning'' threshold for ANC broker-dealers of $6
billion (= 1.2 x $5 billion) in tentative net capital is modeled on
this requirement. In general, because the amount of actual net capital
is subject to volatility commensurate with market volatility in
proprietary instruments, the Commission expects ANC broker-dealers to
maintain a reasonable cushion in excess of the minimum. Since, based on
the Commission staff's supervision of the ANC broker-dealers, the
current ANC broker-dealers report tentative net capital levels
generally well in excess of $6 billion, the costs to the ANC broker-
dealers to comply with this new requirement are not expected to be
material.\1026\ However, these costs may be prohibitive to new entrants
that wish to register as broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models if
they currently do not, or cannot, maintain these proposed capital
levels. As noted below, such barriers to entry may prevent or reduce
competition among SBSDs, which in turn can lead to higher transaction
costs and less liquidity than would otherwise exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1025\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-11(c)(3).
\1026\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the proposed minimum fixed tentative and minimum net
capital requirements, the proposed 8% margin factor would be part of
determining a nonbank SBSD's minimum net capital requirement.\1027\ The
8% margin factor is intended to establish a minimum capital requirement
that scales with the level of a nonbank SBSD's security-based swap
activity and to limit the amount of leverage a nonbank SBSD can employ
by requiring an increase in capital commensurate with the amount of
leverage extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1027\ Since the 8% margin factor would be additive to the
minimum capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers conducting a
security-based swap business, the cost impact to an ANC broker-
dealer using its current minimum capital requirements under Rule
15c3-1 and 15c3-1e as a baseline, would at minimum, increase by the
8% margin factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 8% margin factor ratio requirement also is similar to an
existing requirement in the CFTC's net capital rule for FCMs,\1028\ and
the CFTC has proposed a similar requirement for swap dealers and major
swap participants registered as FCMs.\1029\

[[Page 70310]]

Under the CFTC's proposal, an FCM would be required to maintain
adjusted net capital \1030\ that is equal to or greater than 8% of the
risk margin required for customer and non-customer exchange-traded
futures and swaps positions that are cleared by a DCO.\1031\ Because
exchange-traded futures, however, are generally more liquid and give
rise to lower margins than non-cleared security-based swaps with the
same notional amount, the proposed 8% margin factor (which includes
margin for both cleared and non-cleared swaps) would require allocating
substantially more capital to support a non-cleared security-based swap
contract compared to a futures contract. Requiring such additional
capital could impose the types of costs on these firms and the markets
more generally that are described above in section V.B.1. of this
release. On the other hand, applying the 8% margin factor to non-
cleared security-based swaps (rather than just cleared security-based
swaps) would permit the nonbank SBSD's minimum capital requirement to
vary based on this aspect of its business, which can entail similar
leverage and present greater credit risk than cleared security-based
swaps. This would have the benefit of further promoting the goals of
the financial responsibility rules described above in section V.B.1. of
this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1028\ See 17 CFR 1.17(a)(1)(i)(B).
\1029\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The 8%
calculation under the CFTC's proposal relates to cleared swaps or
futures transactions, whereas the 8% margin factor proposed in new
Rule 18a-1 would be based on cleared and non-cleared security-based
swaps.
\1030\ The CFTC has proposed that swap dealers and major swap
participants that are also FCMs would be required to meet the
existing FCM requirement to hold minimum levels of adjusted net
capital, and also would be required to calculate the required
minimum level as the greatest of the following: (1) A fixed dollar
amount which under the CFTC's proposed rules would be $20 million;
(2) the amount required for FCMs that also act as retail foreign
exchange dealers; (3) 8% of the proposed risk margin; (4) the amount
required by a registered futures association of which the FCM is a
member; or (4) for an FCM, that is also a broker-dealer, the amount
required by Commission rules. See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76
FR 27802.
\1031\ See CFTC Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR 27802. The
CFTC's proposed 8% margin requirement is intended to establish a
minimum capital requirement that corresponds to the level of risk
arising from the FCM's swap activity. Id. at 27807. One commenter
objected to the inclusion of the 8% test in the CFTC's capital
proposal, noting that margin and capital are complementary concepts
in that both incorporate counterparty risk, and accordingly, the
higher the initial margin requirement for a particular swap, the
less regulatory capital a swap dealer should need to carry the
client's position. The commenter believed that the CFTC's 8% charge
would lead to allocations of dealer and client funding and capital
to client portfolios in amounts disproportionately large in
comparison to the risks of the relevant transactions. This commenter
recommended to the CFTC that the CFTC defer incorporating swaps into
the 8% margin multiplier for capital until after margin and capital
requirements are finalized and the CFTC and market participants have
had an opportunity to evaluate margin levels and the
interrelationship between swap margin and capital. Letter from John
M. Damgard, President, Futures Industry Association, Robert G.
Pickel, Chief Executive Officer, ISDA and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr.,
Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA, to the
CFTC (July 7, 2011) (``FIA/ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter to the CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on FOCUS Report information as of year-end 2011,
approximately ten broker-dealers, including the current ANC broker-
dealers, maintain tentative net capital in excess of $5 billion,\1032\
approximately 31 broker-dealers maintain net capital in excess of $1
billion, approximately 145 broker-dealers maintain tentative net
capital in excess of $100 million, and approximately 270 broker-dealers
maintain net capital in excess of $20 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1032\ These 10 broker-dealers also maintain tentative net
capital in excess of $6.0 billion based on FOCUS Report information
as of year-end 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the proposed increase in minimum capital and early warning
requirements for ANC broker-dealers will not affect firms that already
have this classification, it would reduce the number of additional
firms (from 31 to 4, according to FOCUS Report data) that would
currently qualify for this designation and hence represents a
significant potential cost for additional registrants. As noted above,
these costs may be prohibitive to new entrants that wish to register as
ANC broker-dealer SBSDs using internal models. If these additional
costs were not imposed or were lower, there might be greater
opportunities for more competition in the security-based swap markets,
which in turn could lower transaction costs and increase liquidity in
these markets. However, setting capital levels that allow new entrants
that do not have sufficient capital to engage in the diverse business
of ANC broker dealers could be disruptive to the market. In addition,
to the extent that potential new entrants are able to operate
effectively in these markets as stand-alone SBSDs (i.e., swap dealers
that are not registered as broker-dealers), they would be eligible for
lower minimum capital requirements and competition could further
increase without compromising the heightened requirements for ANC
broker-dealers.
With respect to the derivatives markets in particular, it is
difficult to quantify the impact of the proposed capital requirements
against the baseline of the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today
because prior to the adoption of Title VII, swaps and security-based
swaps were by and large unregulated.\1033\ As discussed above in
section V.A. of this release, however, most trading in security-based
swaps and other derivatives is currently conducted by large banks and
their affiliates. Among these entities are the current ANC broker-
dealers. Other broker-dealers affiliated with firms presently
conducting business in security-based swaps may be among the 270
broker-dealers that maintain net capital in excess of $20 million.
Consequently, broker-dealers presently trading in security-based swaps
may not need to raise significant new amounts of capital in order to
register as nonbank SBSDs. At the same time, the proposed minimum
capital requirements could discourage entry by entities other than the
approximately 270 broker-dealers that already have capital in excess of
the required minimums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1033\ See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 48207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above in section II.A.1. of this release, the
Commission is seeking comment on possible modifications to the capital
requirements in ways that may lessen potential compliance costs. First,
to the extent that a nonbank SBSD that is approved to use models may be
required to register as a broker-dealer solely to conduct certain
brokerage activity, e.g., sending customer orders for execution to a
security-based swap execution facility, the Commission could modify the
capital requirements by setting lower minimum capital requirements for
such firms than apply to ANC broker-dealers. Further, the requirements
for OTC derivatives dealers could be amended to allow these firms to
conduct a broader range of activities. This modification could increase
the ability of firms that are not capitalized at minimum capital
requirements proposed for the ANC firms to use models and compete for
business in security-based swaps.
The Commission also could consider modifications that would
increase the flexibility for a broader group of firms to conduct a
derivatives business that extends beyond security-based swaps. For
example, the Commission could determine to allow a firm to register
jointly as an OTC derivatives dealer and SBSD. This modification could
allow the registrant to conduct a broader range of derivatives
activities than dealing only in security-based swaps, and to be able to
use internal models for capital purposes without being subject to much
higher capital requirements that apply to ANC broker-dealers. On the
other hand, there could be practical difficulties in merging the
registration regimes. For example, because OTC derivatives dealers are
prohibited from having custody of customers' assets, while nonbank
SBSDs would be

[[Page 70311]]

permitted to do so, subject to compliance with new Rule 18a-4, dual
registrants could be required to maintain separate sets of compliance
processes and procedures, based on product type.
Alternatively, the Commission could provide conditional relief on a
case-by-case basis to allow a firm that is registered as an SBSD to
conduct dealing activity in derivatives other than security-based
swaps. This also could provide a means for an entity to do business in
a broad set of derivative instruments, subject to the basic capital
standards that would apply to SBSDs. This approach also could allow the
Commission to fashion exemptive relief on a case-by-case basis, pending
further consideration of how and whether to reconcile the SBSD and OTC
derivatives dealer regimes. On the other hand, allowing SBSDs to deal
in products that OTC derivatives dealers can deal in, without the
restrictions that apply to their activities, could undermine the
purpose for the restrictions. The Commission is specifically soliciting
comment on these potential approaches above in section II.A.1.
ii. Standardized Haircuts
As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, under
proposed new Rule 18a-1 and the amendments to Rule 15c3-1, a nonbank
SBSD would be required to apply standardized haircuts to its
proprietary positions, unless the Commission approved it to use
internal models for specific positions. In general, all haircut regimes
are intended to be conservative estimates of risk as they tend to
overcompensate for the actual risks and hence generally impose higher
costs in terms of capital compared to VaR models.\1034\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1034\ Commenters to the proposed CFTC capital rule for swap
dealers stated that they believe that model-based approaches are
generally superior to grid-based approaches. One commenter argued
that grid-based approaches are generally insufficiently risk
sensitive, are not part of integrated risk management systems, and
are hard to keep up-to-date to include innovative product and
trading strategies. FIA/ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter to the CFTC. Grid-
based approaches, however, provide alternatives to firms that are
unable to or chose not to use models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release, for positions
that are not security-based swaps, broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone
SBSDs also would be required to apply the standardized haircuts
currently set forth in Rule 15c3-1.\1035\ Standardized ``haircuts'' for
credit default swaps would be based on a maturity grid approach.
Modeled after similar ``haircut'' approaches currently employed under
Rule 15c3-1, the proposed approach for credit default swaps is designed
to be more risk-sensitive than a haircut approach that determines
market deductions based on the type of each position without
recognizing offsets among securities with similar risk characteristics
(the proposed rules also permit firms to reduce the required haircut
for certain netted positions). The number of maturity and spread
categories in the proposed grid for credit default swaps is based on
staff experience with the maturity grids for other securities in Rule
15c3-1 and, in part, on FINRA Rule 4240.\1036\ While the haircut grid
design takes into account that positions in credit defaults swaps with
larger spreads or longer tenors are riskier and hence should be
supported by larger haircuts, the Commission is specifically seeking
comment on the design of the grid and particularly whether the haircuts
appropriately reflect the risk inherent in long and short positions of
credit defaults swaps across the spread and tenor spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1035\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi); paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of
proposed new Rule 18a-1. See also section II.A.2.b.vi. of this
release (discussing the treatment of swaps).
\1036\ See Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin
Requirements for Credit Default Swaps), Exchange Act Release No.
66527 (Mar. 7, 2012) (File No. SR-FINRA-2012-015) (in which FINRA
amended the maturity grid in Rule 4240 in the interest of regulatory
clarity and efficiency, and based upon FINRA's experience in the
administration of the rule). While FINRA Rule 4240 is one reference
point, the maturity grid it specifies does not appear to have been
widely used by market participants, in part because a significant
amount of business in the current credit default swap market is
conducted by entities that are not members of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps can be
divided into two broad categories: Those that reference equity
securities and those that reference debt instruments. Since each type
of security-based swap can be viewed as being equivalent to a highly-
levered synthetic position in the referenced instrument and therefore
has the same price volatility as the referenced instrument, the
standardized haircut for these categories of security-based swaps would
be the deduction currently prescribed in Rule 15c3-1 applicable to the
instrument referenced by the security-based swap multiplied by the
contract's notional amount.\1037\ It is likely that a nonbank SBSD that
maintains substantial positions in such instruments would maintain
portfolios of multiple instruments in such categories with offsetting
long and short positions to hedge its risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1037\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1. For example,
if a dealer maintained a position in a security-based swap with a
notional amount of $1 million that provided the dealer with long
exposure to a nonconvertible debt security maturing in 2\1/2\ years
(assuming no offsetting short positions), the dealer would look to
Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(F) to find the applicable haircut percentage
(5%) and the firm would be required to take a capital deduction of
$50,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Commission's proposed standardized haircuts for these
categories of security-based swaps, nonbank SBSDs would also be able to
recognize the offsets currently permitted under Rule 15c3-1.\1038\ In
particular, as discussed below, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to
treat equity security-based swaps under the provisions of Appendix A to
Rule 15c3-1, which produces a single haircut for portfolios of equity
options and related positions.\1039\ This method would permit a nonbank
SBSD to compute deductions for a portfolio of equity security-based
swaps using a comprehensive risk perspective by accounting for the risk
of the entire portfolio, rather than the risk of each position within
the portfolio.\1040\ Appendix A provides a relatively less costly
mechanism for a nonbank SBSD to calculate haircuts (in contrast to the
standardized haircuts) since it is used for other equity derivatives
and generally may reduce haircuts for a nonbank SBSD by allowing a swap
referencing an equity security to be considered as part of a related
portfolio. This, in turn, may permit a nonbank SBSD to more efficiently
deploy this capital savings in other areas of its operations, as well
as enhance operational efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1038\ See proposed new paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) of Rule 15c3-
1; paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
\1039\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a; Appendix A to proposed new Rule
18a-1.
\1040\ See section II.A.2.b.ii. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to treat a debt
security-based swap in the same manner as debt instruments are treated
in the Rule 15c3-1 grids in terms of allowing offsets between long and
short positions where the instruments are in the same maturity
categories, subcategories, and in some cases, adjacent
categories.\1041\ Consequently, nonbank SBSDs could recognize the
offsets and hedges that those provisions permit to reduce the
deductions on portfolios of debt security-based swaps, and thereby
reduce their capital costs. This, in turn, may permit a nonbank SBSD to
more efficiently deploy this capital savings in other areas of its
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1041\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed approaches, like other types of standardized haircuts,
likely will require a higher amount of capital to conduct security-
based swaps

[[Page 70312]]

business, in contrast to a VaR model. While the standardized haircuts
and proposed CDS grid recognize certain offsets, standardized haircuts
generally result in higher costs of capital because the standardized
approaches do not recognize other ways in which a nonbank SBSD may
mitigate its exposures, including unwinding unprofitable trades,
entering into certain hedges that would not be recognized under the
proposed capital rules, and portfolio diversification. The higher
amounts that may result from using the standardized haircut and a grid-
based approach \1042\ may be acceptable for nonbank SBSDs that
occasionally trade in security-based swaps but not in a substantial
enough volume to justify the initial and ongoing systems and personnel
costs to develop, implement, and monitor the performance of internal
models. On the other hand, firms that conduct a substantial business in
securities-based swaps in general will need to use the more cost-
efficient models to measure and manage the risks of their positions
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1042\ See section II.A.2.b.2. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The benefit of the standardized haircut approach of measuring
market risk, besides its inherent simplicity, is that it may reduce the
likelihood of default or failure by nonbank SBSDs that have not
demonstrated that they have the risk management capabilities, of which
VaR models are an integral part, or capital levels to support the use
of VaR models. Therefore, the standardized haircut approach, in turn,
may improve customer protections and reduce systemic risk. In addition,
a standardized haircut approach may reduce costs for the nonbank SBSD
related to the risk of failing to observe or correct a problem with the
use of VaR models that could adversely impact the firm's financial
condition, because the use of VaR models would require the allocation
by the nonbank SBSD of additional firm resources and personnel.
Conversely, if the proposed standardized haircuts are too
conservative, they could make the conduct of security-based swaps
business too costly, preventing or impairing the ability of firms to
engage in security-based swaps, increasing transaction costs, reducing
liquidity, and reducing the availability of security-based swaps for
risk mitigation by end users.
iii. Capital Charge in Lieu of Margin Collateral
As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, the Commission
is proposing certain capital charges in lieu of margin. Generally,
margin collateral is designed to serve as a buffer to account for a
decrease in the market value of the counterparty's positions between
the time of default and liquidation. If the amount of the margin
collateral is insufficient to make up the difference, the nonbank SBSD
will incur losses. The proposal requires the nonbank SBSD to hold
sufficient net capital to enable it to, first, withstand such losses
and to cover counterparty exposures that are not sufficiently secured
with liquid collateral, and, second, to create a strong incentive for
dealers to collateralize these exposures. Consequently, this proposed
capital charge may serve as an alternative to margin collateral,
enhance the financial soundness of the nonbank SBSD and, in turn,
ultimately reduce systemic risk.
With respect to cleared security-based swaps, the rules would
impose a capital charge if a nonbank SBSD collects margin collateral
from a counterparty in an amount that is less than the deduction that
would apply to the security-based swap if it were a proprietary
position of the nonbank SBSD (i.e., less than an amount determined by
using the standardized haircuts in Rule 15c3-1, as proposed to be
amended, and in proposed new Rule 18a-1 or a VaR model, as
applicable).\1043\ As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release,
the proposed capital charge, therefore, is designed to protect the
nonbank SBSDs against this risk, and thereby, serves to increase the
safety and soundness of the nonbank SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1043\ See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv)(A) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(viii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed charge, however, could impose additional capital
costs on cleared transactions where the amount of the additional costs
would depend on the differences between amounts required under Rule
18a-1 and margin amounts the clearing agency sets. It is difficult to
estimate the cost impact of this proposal because there is currently a
lack of trading for customers in cleared security-based swaps that
could be used for comparative purposes.\1044\ In addition, requiring
nonbank SBSDs to take a capital charge equal to the difference between
the haircut amount and the clearing agency margin could reduce
incentives to use cleared security-based swap contracts, which would be
inconsistent with the goal of reducing systemic risk. However,
incentives to clear security-based swaps will be substantially affected
by a variety of other factors, including the amount of margin required
for non-cleared contracts, and clearing volume will also be affected by
mandatory clearing determinations by the Commission under Section
763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. In general, it is unclear whether the
additional costs to conduct business on a cleared basis would
materially affect the volume of business that SBSDs conduct on an
uncleared basis when they have the choice to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1044\ See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77
FR 41602 (although the volume of interdealer CDS cleared to date is
quite large, many security-based swap transactions are still
ineligible for central clearing, and many transactions in security-
based swaps eligible for clearing at a CCP continue to settle
bilaterally. Voluntary clearing of security-based swaps in the U.S.
is currently limited to CDS products. Central clearing of security-
based swaps began in March 2009 for index CDS products, in December
2009 for single-name corporate CDS products, and in November 2011
for single-name sovereign CDS products. At present, there is no
central clearing in the U.S. for security-based swaps that are not
CDS products, such as those based on equity securities.). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.A.2.b.v. of the release, with respect to
non-cleared security-based swaps, the Commission is proposing capital
charges to address three exceptions in proposed new Rule 18a-3 (nonbank
SBSD margin rule), including margin not collected from commercial end
users, margin collateral collected but segregated pursuant to section
3E(f) of the Exchange Act, and margin that has not been collected for a
legacy swap.\1045\ The rule is designed to reduce systemic risk by
requiring capital to cover counterparty exposures, because the capital
levels will serve in lieu of margin as a buffer in case of counterparty
defaults. If the nonbank SBSD did not hold capital in lieu of margin, a
counterparty default could lead to the default of the nonbank SBSD
itself. This capital charge should have the benefit of reducing the
likelihood of default of the nonbank SBSD due to under-margined
counterparty exposure. Conversely it will increase the cost of capital
for nonbank SBSDs that engage in non-cleared security-based swaps
because they must use their own capital to support the counterparty's
transaction, which in turn could reduce the liquidity of such security-
based swaps. However, the proposed rule imposes a charge only if a firm
fails to collect margin under Rule 18a-3, and thus no additional costs
would be imposed on a nonbank SBSDs that

[[Page 70313]]

collects margin. Therefore, the proposed rule is designed to create a
strong incentive for nonbank SBSDs to collect margin and collateralize
counterparty exposures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1045\ This proposed rule also provides the nonbank SBSDs
certain flexibility in determining whether to collect margin from
certain counterparties exempt from certain requirements of proposed
Rule 18a-3 and thus attempts to appropriately consider both the
concerns of commercial end users and other entities/transactions
exempt from proposed new Rule 18a-3 and the need to enhance the
financial soundness of the nonbank SBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The charge for collateral segregated in individual accounts under
Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act reflects the potential that
collateral collected by an SBSD but held in a third-party custodian
account may not be readily liquidated immediately following a
counterparty's default. Accordingly, this aspect of the rule would
create an additional capital cost to SBSDs that hold collateral in
independent third-party accounts.\1046\ If these costs are passed on to
counterparties electing an independent segregation option, they could
deter counterparties from electing the option and reduce their
flexibility in determining the optimal way to hold their collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1046\ See discussion above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this
release. See also discussion above in section V.B.1. of this release
(discussing quantification of costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third proposed capital charge would apply to margin not
collected in the case of legacy non-cleared security-based swaps. This
proposal should benefit nonbank SBSDs and their counterparties in that
it is designed to avoid the difficulties of requiring a nonbank SBSD to
renegotiate security-based swap contracts to come into compliance with
the new margin collateral requirements, which would be a complex and
costly task. Based on discussions with market participants, this
proposal, however, may impose substantial costs in the form of capital
charges on firms that have legacy contracts.\1047\ Because broker-
dealers, however, currently do not conduct significant business in
security-based swaps, and any newly-registered SBSDs may not enter into
security-based swap transactions before the effectiveness of these
proposed rules and, therefore, not have any legacy security-based
swaps, this cost of capital may be immaterial. However, the costs could
be significant if legacy security-based swaps are assigned to a
security-based swap dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1047\ As discussed above in section II.B.2. of this release,
this exception would be designed to address the impracticality of
renegotiating contracts governing security-based swap transactions
that predate the effectiveness of proposed new Rule 18a-3 in order
to come into compliance with the account equity requirements in the
rule. See discussion above in section V.A.1. of this release
(discussing quantification of costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Credit Risk Charge
As discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release, consistent
with existing rules affecting broker-dealers,\1048\ proposed Rule 18a-1
and the amendments to Rule 15c3-1 rule would require firms to take a
100% charge for the amount of any unsecured receivable, including any
uncollateralized receivable currently owed under a security-based swap.
As an alternative to taking this capital charge in lieu of margin to a
commercial end user, as discussed in section II.A.2.b.iv. of the
release, ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models
would be permitted instead to take a credit risk charge using a
methodology in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 for uncollateralized
receivables arising from security-based swaps with (and only with)
commercial end users in lieu of the 100% deduction otherwise required
by the rules.\1049\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1048\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(iv)(B)-(D); proposed new Rule
18a-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)-(D).
\1049\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.
Paragraph (c)(1) of Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 requires an ANC
broker-dealer to take a counterparty exposure charge in an amount
equal to: (i) The net replacement value in the account of each
counterparty that is insolvent, or in bankruptcy, or that has senior
unsecured long-term debt in default; and (ii) for a counterparty not
otherwise described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of Appendix E, the credit
equivalent amount of the broker's or dealer's exposure to the
counterparty, as defined in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this Appendix E,
multiplied by the credit risk weight of the counterparty, as defined
in paragraph (c)(4)(vi) of Appendix E, multiplied by 8%. 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule is designed to provide an alternative, less
costly way (in lieu of the 100% deduction otherwise required by the
rules) to recognize credit exposure incurred in transactions with
commercial end users for those nonbank SBSDs approved to use internal
models. Nonbank SBSDs would be permitted to use this approach because
they are required to implement processes for analyzing credit risk to
OTC derivative counterparties and to develop mathematical models for
estimating credit exposures arising from OTC derivatives transactions
and determining risk-based capital charges for those exposures.\1050\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1050\ See Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 and proposed new Rule 18a-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rule, however, will increase costs \1051\ for nonbank SBSDs
that do substantial trading with commercial end users and do not
collect margin for transactions in non-cleared security-based swaps
from them. Available data suggests that commercial end users presently
do not conduct substantial trading in non-cleared security-based
swaps.\1052\ Therefore, the proposed credit risk charge may not have an
immediate cost impact on nonbank SBSDs when compared to the baseline of
the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today. However, costs, in
terms of higher capital charges and opportunity costs, could become
significant if commercial end users begin to trade security-based swaps
in greater volume and exposures to the nonbank SBSDs remain
uncollateralized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1051\ See section V.B.1. of this release (discussing
quantification of costs).
\1052\ See generally CDS Data Analysis; ISDA Margin Survey 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the extent that commercial end users do trade in security-based
swaps, the ability of a nonbank SBSD to use internal models likely
would give it a significant cost advantage over nonbank SBSDs not using
models once the initial infrastructure investment to use the models has
been made. In addition, ANC broker-dealers currently are permitted to
add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables from counterparties
arising from OTC derivatives transactions (i.e., they can add back the
amount of the uncollateralized current exposure).\1053\ This treatment
would be narrowed under the proposed capital requirements for nonbank
SBSDs as well as for ANC broker-dealers to the extent that it would
apply only to uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users
arising from security-based swaps. In contrast, uncollateralized
receivables from other types of counterparties would be subject to a
100% deduction from net worth to limit the potential that the rules
would permit a substantial amount of unsecured exposures for ANC
broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs.\1054\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1053\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c). OTC derivatives dealers are
permitted to treat such uncollateralized receivables in a similar
manner. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1f.
\1054\ See proposed amendments to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule
15c3-1e. See section II.A.2.b.iv. of this release (discussing credit
risk charges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to FOCUS Reports and staff experience supervising the ANC
broker-dealers, ANC broker-dealers have not engaged in a large volume
of OTC derivatives transactions since the rules were adopted in 2004.
Therefore, they have not had significant amounts of unsecured
receivables that would be subject to the credit risk charge provisions
in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. However, when the Dodd-Frank OTC
derivatives reforms are implemented, ANC broker-dealers could
significantly increase their holdings of OTC derivatives. An increase
in derivatives exposure that is uncollateralized would increase the
exposure of the ANC broker-dealers to their derivatives counterparties.
In turn, however, this proposed amendment should strengthen the capital
position of the ANC broker-

[[Page 70314]]

dealers, and thereby reduce the likelihood of default of one of these
entities. Because ANC broker-dealers currently do not trade in
significant amounts of OTC derivatives, and therefore, do not currently
have significant amounts of unsecured receivables related to OTC
derivatives transactions, the cost impact as compared to the baseline
of the current capital regime for broker-dealers should not be material
for these firms.
v. Funding Liquidity Stress Test Requirement
As discussed in section II.A.2.d. of this release, the Commission
is proposing a funding liquidity stress requirement \1055\ to be
conducted by the ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone SBSDs that use
internal models at least monthly that takes into account certain
assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days. These required
assumed conditions would be:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1055\ Compare BCBS, Basel III: International framework for
liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring (Dec. 2010),
available at https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs188.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness
of the firm severe enough to trigger contractual credit-related
commitment provisions of counterparty agreements; \1056\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1056\ See Federal Reserve Enhanced Prudential Standards and
Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594, 608
(Jan. 5, 2012) (noting that effective liquidity stress testing
should be conducted over a variety of time horizons to adequately
capture rapidly developing events, and other conditions and outcomes
that may materialize in the near or long term).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier
of its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material
amount of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and
unfunded committed lines of credit;
The potential for a material net loss of secured funding;
The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement
financing for less liquid assets;
The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit
at clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net
worth or which is not funded by customer assets;
A material increase in collateral required to be
maintained at registered clearing agencies of which the firm is a
member; and
The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by
market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to
enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses,
positions, and commitments of the firm, including those related to
customer businesses of the firm.\1057\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1057\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(1) to Rule 15c3-1 and
paragraph (f)(1) of proposed new Rule 18a-1.

These proposed minimum elements are designed to ensure that ANC broker-
dealers and stand-alone SBSDs using internal models employ a stress
test that is severe enough to produce an estimate of a potential
funding loss of a magnitude that might be expected in a severely
stressed market.
The benefit of the proposed liquidity stress test requirement is an
additional level of protection against disruptions in the ability to
obtain funding for a firm with significant proprietary positions in
securities or derivatives.\1058\ The proposed liquidity requirement is
intended to increase the likelihood that a firm could withstand a
general loss of confidence in the firm itself, or the markets more
generally and stay solvent for up to 30 days, during which time it
could either regain the ability to obtain funding in the ordinary
course or else better position itself for resolution, with less
collateral impact on other market participants and the financial
system. As such, this proposal may reduce the likelihood and severity
of a fire sale and, therefore, mitigate spillover effects and lower
systemic risk.\1059\ This, in turn, may increase confidence in the
security-based swap markets and may lead to an increase in trading in
this market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1058\ See letter from Christopher Cox, Chairman, Commission, to
Dr. Nout Wellink, Chairman, BCBS (Mar. 20, 2008), available at
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-48_letter.pdf (highlighting
importance of liquidity management in meeting obligations during
stressful market conditions). See also Enhanced Prudential Standards
and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, 77 FR 594,
608 (Jan. 5, 2012) (proposing that liquidity stress testing must be
tailored to reflect a covered company's capital structure, risk
profile, complexity, activities, size and other appropriate risk-
related factors stating that stress testing will be directly tied to
the covered company's business profile and the regulatory
environment in which it operates.). The minimum factors described
above are intended to specifically address factors relevant to the
regulatory environment in which ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone
SBSD using internal models operate.
\1059\ See Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny, Fire Sales in
Finance and Macroeconomics, 25 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29-
48 (Winter 2011) (surveying literature on fire sales, which implies
that if financial institutions are not liquidity restraints during
fire sales, price and liquidity spirals should less likely occur).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal, however, would impose additional opportunity costs
of capital, and other costs on ANC broker-dealers and nonbank SBSDs
directly related to the amount of the required liquidity reserve
because a nonbank SBSD would be unable to deploy the assets that are
maintained for the liquidity reserve in other, potentially more
efficient ways.
In addition, smaller firms may incur more implementation costs,
because, in general, large firms already run stress tests and maintain
a liquidity reserve based on those tests.\1060\ In addition, the
required assumed conditions are designed to be consistent with the
liquidity stress tests performed by ANC broker-dealers (based on staff
experience in supervising the ANC broker-dealers) and to address the
types of outflows experienced by ANC broker-dealers and other broker-
dealers in times of stress. Therefore, while the opportunity cost of
the liquidity requirements might be substantial, they are not expected
to impose liquidity standards that are materially different from what
is observed now among the ANC broker-dealers and thus should not
represent an undue burden at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1060\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, under the proposals, an ANC broker-dealer and a stand-
alone SBSD using internal models would be required to establish a
written contingency funding plan. The plan would need to clearly set
out the strategies for addressing liquidity shortfalls in emergency
situations,\1061\ and would need to address the policies, roles, and
responsibilities for meeting the liquidity needs of the firm and
communicating with the public and other market participants during a
liquidity stress event.\1062\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1061\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(4) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
\1062\ See proposed new paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (f)(4) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal may reduce the likelihood of default of a nonbank
SBSD that uses internal models or an ANC broker-dealer, and thus, in
turn, reduce systemic risk. Based on staff experience supervising ANC
broker-dealers and monitoring the ultimate holding companies of these
firms, most of these entities have a written contingency funding plan,
generally, at the holding company level. To the extent that these firms
are required to implement a written contingency funding plan at the
nonbank SBSD level or ANC level, these firms may incur personnel,
technology or other operational costs to develop and implement such a
plan.\1063\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1063\ See section V.C. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Risk Management Procedures
As discussed in section II.A.2.c. above, nonbank SBSDs would be
required to comply with the risk management provisions of Rule 15c3-4,
as if they were OTC derivatives dealers, because the risks of trading
by nonbank SBSDs in security-based swaps,

[[Page 70315]]

including market, credit, operational, and legal risks, are similar to
the risks faced by OTC derivatives dealers in trading other types of
OTC derivatives.\1064\ These requirements may reduce the risk of
significant losses by nonbank SBSDs. The internal risk management
control system requirements also should reduce the risk that the
problems of one firm will spread because each nonbank SBSD should have
a better understanding of the nonbank's exposures and the risks of
those exposures. The nonbank SBSDs may incur costs in better modifying
documents and their information technology systems to meet these
requirements, but these costs could vary significantly among nonbank
SBSDs depending on the degree to which their risk management systems
are documented and on size of each firm and the types of business it
engages in.\1065\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1064\ For example, individually negotiated OTC derivative
products, including security-based swaps, generally are not very
liquid. Market participants face risks associated with the financial
and legal ability of counterparties to perform under the terms of
specific transactions. The additional exposure to credit risk,
liquidity risk, and other risks makes it necessary for OTC
derivatives market participants to implement a risk management
control system.
\1065\ See section V.C. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Capital Requirements for MSBSPs
As discussed in section II.A.3. of the release, proposed new Rule
18a-2 would require nonbank MSBSPs to have and maintain positive
tangible net worth at all times.\1066\ Entities that may need to
register as MSBSPs may engage in a diverse range of business activities
very different from, and broader than, the securities activities
conducted by broker-dealers (otherwise they would be required to
register as an SBSD and/or broker-dealer). Because nonbank MSBSPs, by
definition, will be entities that have substantial exposure to
security-based swaps, they would also be required to comply with Rule
15c3-4,\1067\ which requires OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-
dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk
management.\1068\ This proposal is designed to promote sound risk
management practices with respect to the risks associated with trading
in OTC derivatives. Nonbank MSBSPs may incur implementation costs, such
as technology costs to comply with the risk management practices
proposed by the rule. These are discussed in section V.C. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1066\ See paragraph (a) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\1067\ See paragraph (c) of proposed new Rule 18a-2.
\1068\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Risk management controls at nonbank MSBSPs may promote the
stability of these firms and, consequently, the stability of the entire
financial system. This, in turn, may protect the financial industry
from systemic risk.
The Commission could instead impose capital requirements that are
the same as, or modeled on, those that are being proposed for nonbank
SBSDs, which could more effectively reduce the risk of failure of
MSBSPs and thereby reduce systemic risk. In general, nonbank SBSDs and
MSBSPs can be expected to differ in terms of the range and types of
their counterparty relationships and, by definition, MSBSPs will not
maintain two-sided exposure to a range of instruments that is
characteristic of dealer activity. The systemic impact of the failure
of an MSBSP will depend on various factors, including the ability of
its counterparties to readily liquidate assets posted by the MSBSP as
collateral, without suffering a loss. Although the Commission is
proposing to require MSBSPs to post collateral to eliminate their
current exposure to counterparties in security-based swaps, the
collateral may not be sufficient to avoid losses during a period of
market volatility. At the same time, imposing a capital regime on
MSBSPs that is based on a net liquid assets test could impact the
ability of an MSBSP to pursue business activities and strategies
unrelated to its activities involving financial instruments. For
example, these entities may engage in commercial activities that
require them to have substantial fixed assets to support manufacturing
and/or result in them having significant assets comprised of unsecured
receivables. Requiring them to adhere to a net liquid assets test could
result in their having to obtain significant additional capital or
engage in costly restructurings. The Commission is specifically seeking
comment on this approach in section II.A.3. of this release.
As stated above, at present, entities that may be required to be
registered as MSBSPs are expected to be companies that engage in a
diverse range of business. For these reasons, it would be difficult to
quantify how much additional capital, if any, or costs the capital
requirements under proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require these entities
to maintain or incur and compare these amounts against the current
baseline of the OTC derivatives market as it exists today.\1069\ Given
that proposed new Rule 18a-2 would only require that a nonbank MSBSP
maintain a positive tangible net worth at all times, and 5 or fewer
entities are expected to register as nonbank MSBSPs,\1070\ these costs
are not expected to be material because it is not expected that these
firms would have to alter their existing business practice in any
substantial way to comply with the proposed positive tangible net worth
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1069\ See section V.A.1. of this release.
\1070\ See section IV. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition, and Capital Formation
The proposed financial responsibility requirements should reduce
the risk of a failure of any major market participant in the security-
based swap market, which in turn reduces the possibility of a general
market failure, and thus promotes confidence for market participants to
transact in security-based swaps for investment and hedging purposes.
The proposed capital requirements are designed to promote confidence in
nonbank SBSDs among customers, counterparties, and the entities that
provide financing to nonbank SBSDs and, thereby, lessen the potential
that these market participants may seek to rapidly withdraw assets and
financing from SBSDs during a time of market stress. This heightened
confidence is expected to increase trading activity and promote
competition among dealers. The proposed financial responsibility
requirements, in significant part, will affect efficiency and capital
formation through their impact on competition.\1071\ Specifically,
markets that are competitive can, ceteris paribus, be expected to
promote a more efficient allocation of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1071\ See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at
30742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any new entrant will increase the number of competing entities, and
the extent to which competition increases will depend on the number of
additional entrants and their success in attracting business from
established market participants. As discussed in section IV. of this
release, the Commission expects up to 50 entities to register as SBSDs.
The number of registered firms will depend, among other factors, on
whether potential new entrants determine that the cost impact of the
proposed financial responsibility requirements would allow them to
compete effectively for business. To the extent that costs associated
with the proposed rules are high however, they

[[Page 70316]]

may negatively affect competition within the security-based swap
markets. This may, for example, lead smaller dealers or entities for
whom dealing is not a core business to exit the market because
compliance with the proposed minimum capital requirements is not
feasible because of cost considerations. The same costs might also
deter the entry of new SBSDs or MSBSPs into the market, and if
sufficiently high, increase concentration among nonbank SBSDs.
The possibility of using VaR to calculate haircuts may permit a
nonbank SBSD to more efficiently deploy capital in other parts of its
operations (because VaR models could reduce capital charges and thereby
could make additional capital available), which should be a factor in
the decision to enter the security-based swap markets in general and
through which type of registrant in particular. Because of the reduced
charges for market and credit risk, a nonbank SBSD may be able to
reallocate capital from the nonbank SBSD to affiliates that may receive
a higher return than the nonbank SBSD.\1072\ Therefore, the success of
new entrants in competing for security-based swap business also will
likely depend on the extent to which they obtain the Commission's
approval to use a VaR model.\1073\ Hence, the Commission expects a
positive impact on competition especially among SBSDs that use internal
models, whether they are stand-alone SBSDs or ANC broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1072\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR 34428.
\1073\ See, e.g., Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR at 34455 (describing benefits of alternative net
capital requirements for broker-dealers using models stating a
``major benefit for the broker-dealer will be lower deductions from
net capital for market and credit risk that we expect will result
from the use of the alternative method.'') Therefore, it is likely
that for new entrants to capture substantial volume in security-
based swaps they will need to use VaR models. See also OTC
Derivatives Dealer Release, 63 FR 59362 (discussing benefits of
minimum capital requirements as an additional measure of
protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, some of the entities that presently compete in the market
may opt to conduct these activities in registered broker-dealer
affiliates; this development would not increase the number of
competitors. But other firms that currently do not deal in security-
based swaps or do not do so in any significant degree, may choose to
compete either as a stand-alone SBSD or as a broker-dealer SBSD. This
may increase the number of competing firms.
The proposals ultimately adopted, like other requirements
established under the Dodd-Frank Act, could have a substantial impact
on international commerce and the relative competitive position of
intermediaries operating in various, or multiple, jurisdictions. In
particular, intermediaries operating in the U.S. and in other
jurisdictions could be advantaged or disadvantaged if corresponding
requirements are not established in other jurisdictions or if the
Commission's rules are substantially more or less stringent than
corresponding requirements in other jurisdictions. This could, among
other potential impacts, affect the ability of intermediaries and other
market participants based in the U.S. to participate in non-U.S.
markets, the ability of non-U.S.-based intermediaries and other market
participants to participate in U.S. markets, and whether and how
international firms make use of global ``booking entities'' to
centralize risks related to security-based swaps. As discussed in
section I. of this release, these issues have been the focus of
numerous comments to the Commission and other regulators, Congressional
inquiries, and other public dialogue.
Accordingly, substantial differences between the U.S. and foreign
jurisdictions in the costs of complying with the financial
responsibility requirements for security-based swaps between U.S. and
foreign jurisdictions could reduce cross-border capital flows and
hinder the ability of global firms to most efficiently allocate capital
among legal entities to meet the demands of their counterparties. As
discussed in section I. of this release, the potential international
implications of the proposed capital, margin, and segregation
requirements warrant further consideration.\1074\ The Commission
intends to publish a comprehensive release seeking public comment on
the full spectrum of issues relating to the application of Title VII to
cross-border security-based swap transactions and non-U.S. persons that
act in capacities regulated under the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1074\ See BCBS, IOSCO, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-
cleared Derivatives (July 2012), available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD387.pdf (consultative document seeking
comment on a paper on margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared
derivatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The willingness of end users to trade with a nonbank SBSD dealer
will depend on their evaluation of the risks of trading with that
particular firm compared to more established firms, and their ability
to negotiate favorable price and other terms. As discussed in section
V.A. of this release, end users of security-based swaps are mostly
comprised of hedge funds and other asset management and financial
firms. Many of these entities are sophisticated participants that trade
in substantial volume and generally post collateral for their security-
based swap positions.\1075\ These end users are relatively well-
positioned to negotiate price and other terms with competing dealers
and to take advantage of greater choice of nonbank SBSD counterparties.
These same participants, when transacting in the securities markets,
often trade with a variety of competing dealers, including through
prime brokerage relationships. To the extent that the proposals result
in increased competition, participants in the security-based swap
markets should be able to take advantage of this increased competition
and negotiate improved terms, resulting generally in narrower spreads
and better prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1075\ See, e.g., Independent Amounts at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, benefits may be expected to also arise from the
ability of nonbank SBSDs, which now conduct substantial business in
security-based swaps, to consolidate those operations within their
affiliated U.S. broker-dealers. This flexibility may yield efficiencies
for clients conducting business in securities and security-based swaps,
including netting benefits,\1076\ a reduction in the number of account
relationships required with affiliated entities, and a reduction in the
number of governing agreements. These potential benefits are at some
tension with benefits from an increase in the number of competitors, to
the extent that netting benefits will be maximized by holding a large
portfolio of positions at the same entity,\1077\ rather than trading
with a variety of competing dealers. Further, because the proposals
would permit the conduct of a security-based swap business in an entity
jointly registered as a broker-dealer SBSD,\1078\ they would facilitate
the potential for those firms to offer portfolio margin for a variety
of positions. From the standpoint of a holding company with multiple
financial affiliates, aggregating security-based swaps business in a
single entity,

[[Page 70317]]

such as a broker-dealer SBSD, could help to simplify and streamline
risk management, allow more efficient use of capital, as well as
operational efficiencies, and avoid the need for multiple netting and
other agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1076\ See, e.g., paragraph (c)(5) of proposed new Rule 18a-
3(c)(5). See letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice
President, Managing Director and General Counsel, Managed Funds
Association, to David A. Stawick, Secretary of the CFTC (July 11,
2011) (``Effective netting agreements lower systemic risk by
reducing both the aggregate requirement to deliver margin and
trading costs for market participants.'').
\1077\ See Darrell Duffie and Haoxiang Zhu, Does a Central
Clearing Party Reduce Counterparty Risk, Stanford University Working
Paper (Mar. 6, 2010) (showing that netting in the context of CCPs
results in significant reductions in counterparty exposures).
\1078\ See, e.g., amendments to Rule 15c3-1 (proposing minimum
net capital requirements for broker-dealers engaging in a security-
based swap business).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While these arguments generally suggest the possibility of positive
effects of the proposed rules on competition, efficiency and capital
formation, financial responsibility requirements that impose too many
competitive burdens pose the risk of imposing excessive regulatory
costs that could deter the efficient allocation of capital. Such rules
also may be expected to reduce the capital formation benefits that
otherwise would be associated with security-based swaps. Specifically,
financial responsibility requirements that are overly stringent may
prevent entries in the security-based swap markets and thereby may
either increase spreads and trading costs or even reduce the
availability of security-based swaps. In both instances, end users
would face higher cost to meet their business needs.
Apart from their impact on the extent of dealer competition and
efficiencies for end users, the proposed new rules and rule amendments
could create the potential for regulatory arbitrage to the extent that
they differ from corresponding rules other regulators adopt. As noted
above in section I. of this release, the proposals of the prudential
regulators and the CFTC were considered in developing the Commission's
proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and
MSBSPs. The Commission's proposals differ in some respects from
proposals of the prudential regulators and the CFTC. While some
differences are based on differences in the activities of securities
firms, banks, and commodities firms, or differences in the products at
issue, other differences may reflect an alternative approach to
balancing the relevant policy choices and considerations. Depending on
the final rules the Commission adopts, the financial responsibility
requirements could make it more or less costly to conduct security-
based swaps trading in banks as compared to nonbank SBSDs. For example,
high capital requirements may discourage certain entities from
participating in the security-based swap markets, particularly if the
regulatory costs for nonbank SBSDs are high. Likewise, if the
application of the proposed 8% margin risk factor substantially
increases capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs compared to risk-based
capital requirements imposed by the prudential regulators on the same
activity, bank holding companies could be incentivized to conduct these
activities in their bank affiliates.\1079\ These differences could
create competitive inequalities and affect the allocation of trading
activities within a holding company structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1079\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, in significant part, the effect of the proposals for
nonbank MSBSPs on efficiency and capital formation will also be linked
to the effect of these requirements on competition,\1080\ as
competitive markets, ceteris paribus, can be expected to promote a more
efficient allocation of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1080\ See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at
30742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, if the proposals for MSBSPs are accompanied by too many
competitive burdens, the proposals risk the imposition of excessive
regulatory costs that could deter the efficient allocation of capital.
Such rules also may be expected to reduce the capital formation
benefits that otherwise would be associated with security-based swaps.
Requirements for nonbank MSBSPs that are overly stringent may prevent
entries in the security-based swap markets and thereby may reduce the
availability of security-based swaps, forcing end users to use less
effective financial instruments to meet their business needs.
Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the
general costs and benefits of the proposed capital rules for SBSDs and
MSBSPs. In addition, the Commission requests comment in response to the
following questions:
1. Would the minimum capital requirements represent a barrier to
entry to firms that may otherwise seek to trade security-based swaps as
SBSDs? If so, which types of firms would be foreclosed?
2. Is it correct to assume that firms that have the risk management
capability to act as a dealer in security-based swaps generally would
also meet or be readily able to meet the proposed capital minimums?
3. To what extent will firms that receive approval to use VaR
models be able to dominate trading in security-based swaps, whether
because of costs to other firms in applying a haircut methodology to
security-based swaps or for other reasons?
4. What would be the impact of market concentration on reduction in
systemic risk? For example, would concentration of positions in a
relatively few firms exacerbate systemic risk by exaggerating the
impact of the failure of a single firm? Conversely, would high capital
requirements better protect against systemic risk by reducing the risk
of failure of a nonbank SBSD?
5. Do the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs
proportionately reflect the increased risk associated with the use of
internal models and trading in a portfolio of instruments, including
securities, security-based swaps, and other derivatives?
6. The Commission requests comment on how much additional capital
would be required, if any, as a result of the proposed 8% margin factor
based on a sample portfolio of security-based swaps and how the result
compares to the amount these firms currently hold against the same
risk.
7. Under the proposed 8% margin factor, the relation between
exposure and capital is linear. Is this type of formal approach
appropriate for risks associated with security-based swaps? Should the
risk margin factor be increased at higher levels of exposure, or should
it increase on some other basis?
8. How would firms' current risk management practices for
calculating their exposures to counterparties compare to the proposed
8% margin factor, if nonbank SBSDs were only required to comply with a
fixed minimum net capital standard?
9. From a systemic risk perspective, should the proposed capital
rules for nonbank SBSDs encourage the conduct of security-based swaps
trading outside of broker-dealer affiliates?
10. From a systemic risk perspective, are the proposed increases in
the minimum net capital (from $500 million to $1 billion) and minimum
tentative net capital ($1 billion to $5 billion) requirements for ANC
broker-dealers adequate? From a systematic risk perspective, is the
proposed increase in the ``early warning'' level from $5 billion to $6
billion for ANC broker-dealers adequate?
11. Would the proposed CDS grid impose any additional costs on
nonbank SBSDs in comparison to the current haircut charges for similar
debt securities under Rule 15c3-1?
12. Would a nonbank SBSD incur additional costs resulting from the
proposed liquidity stress test based on current practice? The
Commission requests that commenters quantify the extent of the
additional cost the proposed stress test would yield based on
hypothetical firm portfolios, and provide the Commission with such
data.
13. Are the factors proposed in the liquidity funding stress test
adequate? If

[[Page 70318]]

not, are there other factors that should be included?
14. How would proposed new Rule 18a-2 impact entities that may be
required to register as MSBSPs?
15. Would proposed new Rule 18a-2 require nonbank MSBSPs to hold
additional capital, in comparison to current capital levels maintained
at these firms? If yes, please quantify the amount.
16. What additional costs, if any, would a nonbank MSBSP incur in
making adjustments to risk management practices to conform to the
specific provisions of Rule 15c3-4?
17. If stand-alone SBSDs would not be able to claim flow-through
capital benefits for consolidated subsidiaries or affiliates under Rule
18a-1c, in contrast to Appendix C of existing Rule 15c3-1, would stand-
alone SBSDs be competitively disadvantaged? If yes, please explain.
18. Would the Commission's proposals lead to greater competition
among intermediaries for security-based swaps business, greater
concentration, or neither? How important are the goals of reduction in
systemic risk versus promotion of competition in crafting rules in this
area, and to what extent are they competing goals? If they are not
competing goals, how should the achievement of both goals inform the
Commission's overall approach?
19. Will the Commission's proposals affect the competitive position
of U.S. firms in the global security-based swaps market? How in general
would they impact global trading in these products? How could the
Commission best address any anti-competitive effects? For example,
should the Commission permit U.S. firms trading with off-shore
counterparties to collect margin based on the rules of the jurisdiction
where the counterparty is located, provided the Commission determines
that those rules are comparable to the U.S. regime? How would
comparability be determined?
20. The Commission specifically requests comment on the potential
impact of interagency differences in specific aspects of capital and
margin requirements. Which specific aspects of the proposed rules could
have the most impact in determining the type of legal entity in which
trading is conducted? What would be the market or economic effects?
3. The Proposed Margin Rule--Rule 18a-3
As discussed in section II.B. of this release, pursuant to section
15F(e) of the Exchange Act, proposed new Rule 18a-3 would establish
margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs with respect
to transactions with counterparties in non-cleared security-based
swaps.\1081\ As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would
require nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral from their counterparties
to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both current exposure and
potential future exposure to the counterparty (i.e., the rule would
require the account to have prescribed minimum levels of equity);
however, there would be exceptions to these requirements for certain
types of counterparties. Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would have a number of
benefits as well as impose certain costs on nonbank SBSDs, nonbank
MSBSPs, as well as other market participants, including commercial end
users. The proposed rule also would have possible effects on
competition, efficiency, and capital formation, which will be discussed
further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1081\ See proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two types of credit exposure arising from OTC derivatives are
current exposure and potential future exposure. The current exposure is
the amount that the counterparty would be obligated to pay the dealer
if all the OTC derivatives contracts with the counterparty were
terminated (i.e., it is the amount of the current receivable from the
counterparty). This form of credit risk arises from the potential that
the counterparty may default on the obligation to pay the current
receivable. The potential future exposure is the amount that the
current exposure may increase in the favor of the dealer in the future.
This form of credit risk arises from the potential that the
counterparty may default before providing the dealer with additional
collateral to cover the incremental increase in the current exposure or
the current exposure will increase after a default when the
counterparty has ceased to provide additional collateral to cover such
increases and before the dealer can liquidate the position.
Rule 18a-3 is intended to support a goal of the Dodd-Frank Act by
promoting centralized clearing of sufficiently standardized
products,\1082\ which, in turn, may help to mitigate credit risk.\1083\
Specifically, Rule 18a-3, by creating stringent margin requirements for
non-cleared contracts, is meant to create incentives for participants
to clear security-based swaps, where available and appropriate for
their needs.\1084\ Central clearing can provide systemic benefits by
limiting systemic leverage and aggregating and managing risks by a
central counterparty.\1085\ At the same time, realization of these
benefits assumes that central counterparties are appropriately
capitalized and sufficiently collateralize their exposures to their
clearing members. Under the proposed rule, the market will benefit from
the required collateralization of non-cleared security-based swaps.
Specifically, the required collateralization should improve
counterparty risk management, reduce the risk of contagion from a
defaulting counterparty, and ultimately reduce systemic risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1082\ The Dodd-Frank Act seeks to ensure that, wherever
possible and appropriate, derivatives contracts formerly traded
exclusively in the OTC market be cleared. See, e.g., Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, The Restoring
American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111-176, 34
(stating that ``[s]ome parts of the OTC market may not be suitable
for clearing and exchange trading due to individual business needs
of certain users. Those users should retain the ability to engage in
customized, non-cleared contracts while bringing in as much of the
OTC market under the centrally cleared and exchange-traded framework
as possible.'').
\1083\ For example, when an OTC derivatives contract between two
counterparties that are members of a CCP is executed and submitted
for clearing, it is typically replaced by two new contracts--
separate contracts between the CCP and each of the two original
counterparties. At that point, the original counterparties are no
longer counterparties to each other. Instead, each acquires the CCP
as its counterparty, and the CCP assumes the counterparty credit
risk of each of the original counterparties that are members of the
CCP. See Stephen Cecchetti, Jacob Gyntelberg, and Mark Hollanders,
Central counterparties for over-the-counter derivatives, BIS
Quarterly Review (Sept. 2009), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt0909f.pdf. Structured and operated appropriately, CCPs
may improve the management of counterparty risk and may provide
additional benefits such as multilateral netting of trades. See also
Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77 FR at 41603.
\1084\ See Daniel Heller and Nicholas Vause, Expansion of
Central Clearing, BIS Quarterly Review (June 2011) (arguing
expansion of central clearing within or across segments of the
derivatives markets could economize both on margin and non-margin
resources).
\1085\ See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77
FR 41602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While available data suggests that clearing of security-based swaps
has been increasing, significant segments of the security-based swap
markets remain uncleared, even where a CCP is available to clear the
product in question on a voluntary basis.\1086\ The mandatory clearing
determinations made pursuant to Exchange Act section 3C(a)(1) will
alter current clearing practices at the time such determinations are
made. The Commission has not yet made any mandatory clearing
determinations under the authority of section 3C(a)(1) of the Exchange
Act and cannot estimate

[[Page 70319]]

at this time how much of the security-based swap markets may ultimately
be subject to such determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1086\ See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77
FR 41602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other costs resulting from proposed new Rule 18a-3 may result from
reducing the availability of liquid assets for purposes other than
posting collateral. Data available to the Commission suggests that
existing collateral practices vary widely by type of market participant
and counterparty.\1087\ For example, the ISDA Margin Survey 2012, which
provides global estimates regarding the use of collateral in the OTC
derivatives business based on a survey of ISDA members as of the end of
2011,\1088\ stated that 71% of all OTC derivatives transactions were
subject to collateral agreements; the average percentage was 96% for
the largest dealers responding to the survey.\1089\ The percent of
trades subject to collateral agreements was higher, however, for credit
derivatives (93.4% of all trades) and about the same as the general
average for equity derivatives (72.7%).\1090\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1087\ See, e.g., ISDA Margin Survey 2012. Proposed new Rule
18a-3 would distinguish by counterparty type in that the rule would
provide specific exemptions from the rule for certain
counterparties, such as commercial end users. See section II.B. of
this release.
\1088\ ISDA Margin Survey 2012. The ISDA Margin Survey 2012 also
states that the estimated amount of collateral in circulation in the
non-cleared OTC derivatives market at the end of 2011 was
approximately $3.6 trillion, which is up 24% from last year's
estimated amount of $2.9 trillion.
\1089\ Id. The threshold for classification as a ``large''
program under the ISDA survey is more than 3,000 agreements.
Overall, 84% of all OTC derivatives transactions executed by the
largest dealers were subject to collateral agreements. Hedge fund
exposures tend to be the most highly collateralized of all types of
counterparty exposures with average collateralization levels
exceeding 100% of net exposures, a figure that reflects
``Independent Amounts'' (initial margin) posted by such firms. ISDA
Margin Survey 2011 at Table 3.3.
\1090\ ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at Table 3.2. The fourteen
largest reporting firms reported an average 96.1% of credit
derivatives trades were subject to collateral arrangements during
2011, and 85.5% of equity derivatives trades were subject to
collateral agreements. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ISDA Margin Survey 2011 reported on the extent of
collateralization (percentage of net exposures) by type of
counterparty.\1091\ The amount reported for all counterparties and all
OTC derivatives was 73.1%.\1092\ The ISDA Margin Survey 2011 also
indicates that the collateralization levels by large dealers of their
net exposures to their bank and broker-dealer dealer counterparties was
88.6%.\1093\ For hedge funds, the average collateralization levels were
178%, reflecting a greater tendency to collect initial margin from
those participants.\1094\ Finally, exposures to non-financial
corporations (37.3%) and sovereign governments (17.6%) had much lower
levels of coverage.\1095\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1091\ See ISDA Margin Survey 2011. This information was not
reported in the ISDA Margin Survey 2012.
\1092\ Id.
\1093\ Id.
\1094\ Id.
\1095\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data from the ISDA Margin Survey 2011 and the ISDA Margin
Survey 2012 support the premises that margin practices widely vary,
that larger dealers tend to collateralize their net exposures, that
exposures to financial end users tend to be collateralized with both
variation (current exposure) and initial margin (potential future
exposure), and that much of the exposure to non-financial end users
generally is not collateralized.\1096\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1096\ See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011; ISDA Margin Survey
2012. The results of the survey, however, could be substantially
different if limited only to U.S. participants, because the data
contained in the ISDA Margin Survey 2011 and ISDA Margin Survey 2012
is global. Id. For example, 47% of the institutions responding to
the ISDA Margin Survey 2012 were based in Europe, the Middle East,
or Africa, and 31% were based in the Americas. ISDA Margin Survey
2012 at Chart 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 18a-3 is generally modeled on the broker-dealer margin rules
in terms of establishing an account equity requirement; requiring
nonbank SBSDs to collect collateral to meet the requirement; and,
subject to haircuts, allowing a range of securities for which there is
a ready market to be used as collateral.\1097\ The goals of modeling
proposed new Rule 18a-3 on the broker-dealer margin rules are to create
a framework that will limit counterparty exposure of nonbank SBSDs
while promoting consistency with existing rules. This consistency may
also facilitate the ability to provide portfolio margining of security-
based swaps with other types of securities, and in particular single
name credit default swaps along with bonds that serve as reference
obligations for the credit default swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1097\ Broker-dealers are subject to margin requirements in
Regulation T promulgated by the Federal Reserve (12 CFR 220.1, et
seq.), in rules promulgated by the SROs (see, e.g., FINRA Rules
4210-4240), and with respect to security futures, in rules jointly
promulgated by the Commission and the CFTC (17 CFR 242.400-406).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the securities markets, margin rules have been set by relevant
regulatory authorities (the Federal Reserve and the SROs) since the
1930s.\1098\ The requirement that an SRO file proposed margin rules
with the Commission has promoted the establishment of consistent margin
levels across the SROs, which mitigates the risk that SROs (as well as
their member firms) will compete by implementing lower margin levels
and helps ensure that margin levels are set at sufficiently prudent
levels to reduce systemic risk.\1099\ Basing proposed Rule 18a-3 on the
broker-dealer margin rules is intended to achieve these same objectives
in the market for security-based swaps. This consistency between margin
requirements for securities and security-based swaps should ultimately
benefit participants in the securities markets, reduce the potential
for regulatory arbitrage, and lead to consistent interpretation and
enforcement of applicable regulatory requirements across U.S.
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1098\ The Federal Reserve originally adopted Regulation T
pursuant to section 7 of the Exchange Act shortly after the
enactment of the Exchange Act. See 1934 Fed. Res. Bull. 675. The
purposes of the Federal Reserve's margin rules include: (1)
Regulation of the amount of credit directed into securities
speculation and away from other uses; (2) protection of the
securities markets from price fluctuations and disruptions caused by
excessive margin credit; (3) protection of investors against losses
arising from undue leverage in securities transactions; and (4)
protection of broker-dealers from the financial exposure involved in
excessive margin lending to customers. See Charles F. Rechlin,
Securities Credit Regulation Sec. 1:3 (2d ed. 2008).
\1099\ Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, each
SRO must file with the Commission any proposed change in, addition
to, or deletion from the rules of the exchange electronically on a
Form 19b-4 through the Electronic Form 19b-4 Filing System, which is
a secure Web site operated by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)
and 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The discussion below focuses on the impact of specific provisions
of proposed new Rule 18a-3 and their potential benefits and costs. With
respect to certain provisions, the Commission has identified
alternatives to the proposed approach and is seeking comment on the
relative costs and benefits of adopting the alternatives, in comparison
to the proposed approach. As to whether nonbank SBSDs should be
required to collect initial margin in transactions with each other, the
Commission is expressly proposing alternative formulations of the rule.
a. Calculation of Margin Amount
Proposed new Rule 18a-3 would require a nonbank SBSD to perform two
calculations (and a nonbank MSBSP to perform one calculation) as of the
close of each business day with respect to each account carried by the
firm for a counterparty to a non-cleared security-based swap
transaction.\1100\ Even if the counterparty is not required to deliver
collateral, the calculation(s) would assist the nonbank SBSD or the
nonbank MSBSPs in managing its credit risk (and determining how much
needs to be

[[Page 70320]]

collateralized) and understanding the extent of its uncollateralized
credit exposure to the counterparty and across all counterparties.
These required calculations also would provide examiners with enhanced
information about non-cleared security-based swaps, allowing the
Commission and other appropriate regulators to gain ``snapshot''
information at a point in time for examination purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1100\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (c)(2)(i) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As described in section II.B. of the release, paragraph (d) of
proposed new Rule 18a-3 would prescribe a standardized method for
calculating the margin amount as well as a model-based method if the
non-bank SBSD is approved to use internal models.\1101\ The benefits of
consistent treatment of the standardized haircut and internal models as
between the proposed capital rules and proposed new Rule 18a-3 may
increase operational efficiencies and reduce costs at the nonbank SBSD
by permitting the use of congruent systems and processes to comply with
both capital and margin requirements.\1102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1101\ See paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. ``Margin
amount'' is generally initial margin or potential future exposure.
These terms may be used interchangeably throughout this section.
\1102\ See proposed new Rule 18a-1; proposed new Rule 18a-3;
proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As is the case with the impact of standardized haircuts on
regulatory capital, as described in section II.B. of the release,
nonbank SBSDs required to use standardized haircuts under Rule 18a-3(d)
to determine the margin amount generally will be required to collect
higher margin amounts from counterparties for non-cleared security-
based swap transactions than nonbank SBSDs that are approved to use
internal models will need to collect, because VaR models generally
result in lower charges than the standardized haircut provisions.\1103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1103\ See Alternative Net Capital Requirements Adopting
Release, 69 FR 34428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, this proposed requirement would impose additional
operational and technology costs to install or upgrade systems needed
to perform daily calculations under proposed new Rule 18a-3. These
costs may vary because broker-dealers registering as nonbank SBSDs may
already have systems in place, as current margin rules \1104\ for
securities require daily margin calculations for customer accounts,
while new entrants may incur higher operational or other systems costs
to comply with this requirement. Finally, secondary costs (such as
reduced profits) could arise if commercial end users or other
counterparties reduce trading in non-cleared security-based swaps
because of the increased collateral requirements required by Rule 18a-
3, or if these entities determine to trade instead with non-U.S.
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1104\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4220 (Daily Record of Required
Margin); 12 CFR 220.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Account Equity Requirements
As described in section II.B. to this release, a nonbank SBSD and
nonbank MSBSP generally would need to collect cash and/or securities to
meet the account equity requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3.\1105\
This proposal recognizes that counterparties may engage in a wide range
of trading strategies that include security-based swaps. Because of the
relation between security-based swaps and other securities positions,
permitting various types of securities to count as collateral may be
more practical for margin arrangements involving security-based swaps
than for other types of derivatives. This flexibility to accept a broad
range of securities, along with consistency with existing margin
requirements,\1106\ takes advantage of efficiencies that result from
correlations between securities and security-based swaps.\1107\
However, it may increase the risk that SBSDs will incur a shortfall if,
as a result, they hold less liquid collateral that cannot be quickly
sold for an amount that covers the nonbank SBSD's exposure to the
counterparty.\1108\ This risk may be mitigated by the collateral
haircut and other requirements regarding the liquidity of collateral
under the proposed rule.\1109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1105\ By requiring most counterparties to deliver collateral,
the proposed margin requirements are intended to prevent
counterparties from employing undue leverage in their portfolios of
security-based swaps, which can exacerbate the magnitude of losses
in relation to the financial resources of the counterparty in the
case of default.
\1106\ See the Federal Reserve's Regulation T, 12 CFR 220.1, et
seq. and SRO margin rules, such as FINRA Rule 4210 and CBOE Rule
12.3. The consideration in adopting final rules will be informed by
the comments received.
\1107\ The ISDA Margin Survey 2012 states with regard to the
types of assets used as collateral, that the use of cash and
government securities as collateral remains predominant,
constituting 90.4% of collateral received and 96.8% of collateral
delivered. ISDA Margin Survey 2012 at 8, Table 2.1.
\1108\ Gary Gorton and Guillermo Ordo[ntilde]ez, Collateral
Crises, Yale University Working Paper (Mar. 2012) (arguing that
during normal times collateral values are less precise, but during
volatile times are reassessed). This reassessment can possibly lead
to large negative shocks in their values, which by deduction can
lead to market disruptions if collateral needs to be liquidated.
\1109\ See paragraphs (c)(3)-(c)(4) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an alternative, the Commission could limit eligible collateral
to the most highly liquid categories, as proposed by the prudential
regulators and the CFTC and described in section II.B.2.c. of this
release.\1110\ This alternative could limit the potential that an SBSD
would incur a loss following default of a counterparty based on changes
in market values of less liquid collateral that occur before the SBSD
is able to sell the collateral, and therefore could limit the potential
for a default by the SBSD to other counterparties. On the other hand,
if Rule 18a-3 required a counterparty to deliver additional collateral
beyond assets already held in the counterparty's account because the
existing assets did not qualify as eligible collateral, the rule could
have the effect of increasing the counterparty's exposure to the SBSD
and draining liquidity from the counterparty in a way that may not be
necessary to account for the nonbank SBSD's potential future exposure
to the counterparty, and may increase costs for both the nonbank SBSD
and its counterparties.\1111\ Also, granting counterparties the
flexibility to post a variety of collateral types to meet margin
requirements may result in reduced costs for end users and could
encourage increased trading of security-based swaps, thereby increasing
competition. The extent of increased trading of non-cleared security-
based swaps, however, may depend on the extent to which portfolio
margin treatment would materially increase the amount of net equity
that counterparties would have available to serve as collateral,
compared to the amount that would result if they were limited to very
highly liquid securities, such as U.S. Treasury securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1110\ Commenters argued that the scope of eligible collateral
should be significantly expanded by arguing that there are other
assets that are highly liquid and suitable for credit support if a
counterparty fails and if eligible collateral remains narrowly
defined, the liquidity of eligible assets could be highly affected
and sourcing of adequate margin could become difficult. See, e.g.,
CFTC SIFMA/ISDA Letter.
\1111\ This alternative may also increase demand for highly
liquid collateral and potentially cause shortages in the supply of
cash and government bonds. See IMF, Global Financial Stability
Report: The Quest for Lasting Stability 96 and 120 (Apr. 2012),
available at https://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/GFSR/2012/01/pdf/
text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Commercial End Users
As discussed in section II.B.2.c.i. of this release, under proposed
new Rule 18a-3, a nonbank SBSD would not be required to collect cash or
securities to cover the negative equity (current exposure) or margin
amount (potential future exposure) in the account of a counterparty
that is a commercial end user.\1112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1112\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a-3 (defining
the term commercial end user).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70321]]

As discussed above in section II.A.2.b.v. of this release, this
proposed exception to the requirement to collect collateral is intended
to benefit commercial end users in order to address concerns that have
been expressed by them and others that the imposition of margin
requirements on commercial companies that use derivatives to mitigate
the risk of business activities that are not financial in nature could
unduly disrupt their ability to enter into such hedging transactions.
The proposed exception for commercial end users also is intended to
account for the different risk profiles of commercial end users as
compared with financial end users.\1113\ This exception may increase
efficiencies by allowing such end users to more cost efficiently manage
business risks and thereby better compete in their respective
industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1113\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27571 (``Among end users, financial end users are
considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the
profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly
linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end
users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default
during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk
and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.'').
See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (``The
Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not
using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose
greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time, to the extent of any dealer exposure to
commercial end users, the proposed exception for commercial end users
could lead to uncollateralized exposure by nonbank SBSDs to commercial
end users. To address this concern and because collecting collateral is
an important means of mitigating risk, Rule 18a-1 would require nonbank
SBSDs not approved to use internal models to take a capital charge
equal to the margin amount calculated for the commercial end user to
the extent the firm does not collect cash or securities equal to that
amount.\1114\ Requiring a firm to hold capital in lieu of margin \1115\
in these cases is designed to reflect both the needs of commercial end
users and concerns that permitting nonbank SBSDs to assume credit
exposure without the protection of margin could lead to the assumption
of inappropriate risks. In this way the proposal is intended to ensure
the safety and soundness of nonbank SBSDs and be proportionate to the
amount of uncollateralized exposures to commercial end users.\1116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1114\ See proposed paragraph (c)(2)(xiv) of Rule 15c3-1;
paragraph (c)(1)(xiv) of proposed Rule 18a-1.
\1115\ See section II.A.2.b.v. of this release (discussing
proposed charge capital in lieu of margin collateral).
\1116\ As discussed above in section II.A. of this release,
nonbank SBSDs that have been approved to use internal models for
credit risk would take a much smaller capital charge, i.e., 8% of
net replacement value multiplied by the counterparty factor. These
firms also would be permitted to take a smaller charge with respect
to the unsecured receivables from commercial end user
counterparties, which may provide a competitive advantage for
nonbank SBSDs that are capable of and have received approval to
model credit risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The extent of the impact of the intended benefit to commercial end
users, however, would depend on whether nonbank SBSDs choose to trade
with commercial end user counterparties on an uncollateralized basis,
notwithstanding the capital charges under Rule 18a-1. In addition,
nonbank SBSDs subject to this capital charge are expected to, at least
partially, pass the increased cost of capital through to commercial end
users in the form of increased transaction pricing.\1117\ Accordingly,
any potential economic benefit associated with an exception from Rule
18a-3 for commercial end users in non-cleared security-based swaps may
be offset to the extent that nonbank SBSDs determine to pass on any
costs incurred as a result of the additional capital charges.\1118\ In
summary, the Commission does not expect those costs will be material,
unless commercial end users begin to account for meaningful volume in
non-cleared security-based swap trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1117\ Even under these conditions, a nonbank SBSD still retains
the option to collect margin from its counterparties.
\1118\ See Antonio S. Mello and John E. Parsons, Margins,
Liquidity and the Cost of Hedging, MIT Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy Research Working Paper 2012-005 (May 2012)
(presenting a replication argument to show that a non-margined swap
is equivalent to a package of (1) a margined swap, plus (2) a
contingent line of credit). The paper concludes that a mandate to
clear and therefore to margin derivatives trades forces dealers to
market these two components separately, but otherwise makes no
additional demand on non-financial corporations, and therefore, a
clearing and margin mandate does not add any real costs to a non-
financial corporation seeking to hedge its commercial risk). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an alternative, the Commission could limit this proposed
exception for commercial end users and require nonbank SBSDs to collect
collateral from commercial end users with regard to their transactions
in non-cleared security-based swaps. This alternative would protect the
nonbank SBSDs by requiring that transactions with commercial end users
be collateralized. However, in contrast to the Commission's proposal,
this alternative would limit the flexibility of nonbank SBSDs and
commercial end users to negotiate the terms of their non-cleared
security-based swap transactions. In considering this approach, the
Commission would need to consider the benefit of any additional
protections to SBSDs against losses in transactions with commercial end
users in light of increased costs to such end users or less
accessibility to them of hedging instruments.
ii. SBSDs--Alternatives A and B
As described in section II.B. to the release, the Commission is
proposing specific alternative margin requirements with respect to
counterparties that are nonbank SBSDs. Under Alternative A, which would
create an exception from proposed new Rule 18a-3, a nonbank SBSD would
need collateral only to cover the current exposure (negative equity) in
the account of a counterparty that is another SBSD. Under Alternative
B, a nonbank SBSD would be required to collect collateral to cover both
the current exposure (negative equity) and the potential future
exposure (margin amount) in the account of a counterparty that is
another SBSD \1119\ and further segregate the margin amount in an
account carried by an independent third-party custodian pursuant to the
requirements of Section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act.\1120\ Alternative B
is consistent with the proposals of the prudential regulators and the
CFTC.\1121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1119\ Alternative B is not an exception to the account equity
requirements in proposed new Rule 18a-3 because it would require the
nonbank SBSD to collect collateral to cover the negative equity and
margin amount in an account of another SBSD.
\1120\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f).
\1121\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564; CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR 23732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section V.A. above, the baseline of this economic
analysis is the OTC derivatives markets as they exist today. The CDS
Data Analysis suggests there is currently a high degree of
concentration of potential dealing activity in the single-name credit
default swap market. Based on discussions with market participants, the
Commission staff understands that dealers in security-based swaps
presently collect variation margin covering current exposure but
generally do not collect initial margin covering potential future
exposure from other dealers.\1122\ Accordingly, relative to the
existing market for security-based swaps, Alternative A would not
create additional costs for dealers resulting from transactions with
other dealers in security-based swaps. Alternative B would impose
substantially greater costs

[[Page 70322]]

to inter-dealer transactions compared to the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1122\ See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011; ISDA Margin Survey
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives A and B would both require the exchange of variation
margin; the difference between the alternatives therefore is, first and
foremost, whether to require nonbank SBSD counterparties to exchange
initial margin. The cost impact would depend on how significant initial
margin is in relation to variation margin, which will vary by type of
contract, extent of market volatility, and other factors. The goal for
either alternative is to reduce systemic risk without imposing undue
additional cost to the extent that the ability of counterparties to
trade security-based swaps is severely compromised. However, the
benefit of collecting the margin amount under Alternative B would be
the further protection of a nonbank SBSD from market exposure during
the period of unwinding a position from a defaulting counterparty when
that counterparty, by definition, would not be able to post additional
variation margin.
Requiring a nonbank SBSD to post initial margin, however, could
significantly impact its liquidity and therefore limit the ability of
the nonbank SBSD to trade in security-based swaps. Permitting a firm to
retain a pool of liquid assets that would not otherwise be used to post
initial margin could permit the nonbank SBSD to use this capital more
efficiently, for example by increasing its investment in information
technology or increasing its investments that offer a higher rate of
return. The potential benefit of Alternative B is that it would limit
the aggregate amount of leverage in the financial system associated
with security-based swaps. A principal purpose of Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Act, including those provisions that apply to capital and
margin requirements for dealers, is to reduce systemic risk,
particularly risks associated with relatively opaque bilateral, non-
cleared derivative transactions. Requiring dealers to collateralize
their potential future exposure to each other by exchanging both
initial and variation margin may further reduce systemic risk by
reducing leverage and the potential that a default by a single large
dealer could translate to defaults of counterparty dealers with
potential ripple effects throughout the system.
On the other hand, the requirement to exchange initial margin would
not only impose costs to the extent that it would result in
substantially less capital available to support the security-based swap
business or other dealer activity, but also it could contribute to the
instability of a nonbank SBSD. The instability stems from the
possibility that assets posted to the custodian account might in the
case of a counterparty default not be immediately returned to a nonbank
SBSD to absorb losses or meet other liquidity demands. In this regard,
the ability of a dealer counterparty to demand and obtain the return of
initial margin held by a third-party custodian could be subject to
various uncertainties, including the potential for counterparty
disputes that might be subject to court resolution. During periods of
general market instability or loss of confidence, even a brief delay in
being able to access liquid assets could prove decisive.\1123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1123\ See Manmohan Singh, Velocity of Pledged Collateral:
Analysis and Implications, IMF Working Paper, WP/11/256 (Nov. 2011)
(stating that the decline in leverage and re-use of collateral may
be viewed positively from a financial stability perspective, but
from a monetary policy perspective, however, the lubrication in the
global financial markets is now lower as the velocity of money-type
instruments has declined.). Singh argues that the ``velocity of
collateral,'' analogous to the concept of the ``velocity of money''
indicates the liquidity impact of collateral. A security that is
owned by an economic agent and can be pledged as re-usable
collateral leads to chains. Therefore, Singh argues that a shortage
of acceptable collateral would have a negative cascading impact on
lending similar to the impact on the money supply of a reduction in
the monetary base. Id. at 16. See also Manmohan Singh and James
Aitken, The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking
System, IMF Working Paper WP/10/172 (July 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prudential regulators and the CFTC have received comment
letters regarding the liquidity impact of their proposed rules, as well
as public research reports attempting to estimate the liquidity
impact.\1124\ Each of these commenters used different methods, data and
assumptions to arrive at a liquidity impact estimate and respond to the
amount of initial margin required by the prudential regulators' and
CFTC's proposed margin rules. Overall, each of these commenters
concluded that the liquidity impact of the proposed initial margin
rules proposed by the CFTC and the prudential regulators was
significant.\1125\ One such estimate, however, noted that the numbers
should be viewed as an ``order of magnitude estimate'' and that ``[o]ne
cannot predict which entities will use derivatives in the future nor
the amounts and types of products that will be used.'' \1126\
Consequently, while it is difficult to estimate the costs imposed by
requiring dealers to post initial margin, commenters to the CFTC and
prudential regulators' proposed margin rules and others have estimated
that the cost would be significant. These estimates are discussed in
detail below.\1127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1124\ See OCC Economics Department, Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act--Impact Analysis for Swaps Margin and Capital Rule, (Apr. 15,
2011) (``OCC Unfunded Mandates Report''); SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter
to the Prudential Regulators; J.P. Morgan Letter; Bank of America-
Merrill Lynch, No Margin for Error, Part 3: Dodd-Frank Implements
QE3, Credit Derivatives Strategist (Nov. 5, 2011) (``BAML Report'').
\1125\ See Manmohan Singh, Collateral, Netting and Systemic Risk
in the OTC Derivatives Market, IMF Working Paper WP 10/99 (1999) (a
study by the IMF arguing that moving OTC derivatives to centralized
clearing would require between $170 and $220 billion in initial
margin collateral).
\1126\ SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators at
38.
\1127\ See BCBS, IOSCO, Margin Requirements for Non-centrally-
cleared Derivatives. The Working Group on Margin Requirements is
conducting a Quantitative Impact Study to better quantify the impact
of the proposed margin requirements set forth in the consultative
paper. See id. at Part C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter to the prudential regulators' proposed margin rule
stated that imposing segregated initial margin requirements on trades
between swap entities would result in a tremendous cost to the
financial system in the form of a massive liquidity drain.\1128\ This
commenter estimated that the effect of the proposed rule would result
in a cost of $428 billion in initial margin for swap dealers.\1129\
Another commenter predicted that the initial margin requirements will
result in a huge drain of liquid assets from the U.S. economy because
they would require very large amounts of collateral to be posted as
initial margin and placed in segregated custodial accounts.\1130\ This
commenter attempted to quantify this amount by calculating the amounts
of initial margin that the firm would have to collect from 34 of its
largest professional dealer counterparties by reference to the ``Lookup
Table'' percentages of notional approach set forth in Appendix A to the
prudential regulators' margin rulemaking.\1131\ Application of this
approach to the commenter's existing portfolio with those 34
counterparties yielded an estimated amount of initial margin that the
firm would have to collect equal to $1.4 trillion.\1132\ The commenter
noted that since the interdealer initial margin requirements are
reciprocal, it would also be obligated to post $1.4 trillion.\1133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1128\ SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators.
\1129\ Id. at 36.
\1130\ J.P. Morgan Letter.
\1131\ J.P. Morgan Letter; Prudential Regulator Margin and
Capital Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27592.
\1132\ J.P. Morgan Letter at 5.
\1133\ Id. In the J.P. Morgan Letter, however, it was noted that
it is likely that most swap dealers would use the model based
approach, and not the ``lookup table'', to calculate initial margin
which would likely produce smaller initial margin amounts. In the
letter, it was argued that there is substantial uncertainty about
the model approval process and timing and accordingly the large
amounts resulting from application of the lookup table are relevant.
Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70323]]

In addition, the OCC Unfunded Mandates Report estimated that the
initial margin collected under the prudential regulators' proposed
margin rule in one year could total $2.56 trillion.\1134\ The report
pointed out, however, that several factors are likely to reduce the
impact of the proposed rule, including a move to central clearing and
the fact that dealers are likely to use internal models that permit
netting. The report estimated that currently roughly 20% of swap
contracts trade through clearing houses.\1135\ Assuming that the
proportion of cleared to non-cleared swaps will at a minimum remain at
one in five, the report further estimated the required funds to cover
the initial margin requirement under the proposed rule to be $2.05
trillion (0.80 x $2.56 trillion).\1136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1134\ OCC Unfunded Mandates Report at 5. The report also used
the ``lookup table'' to estimate the initial margin impact of the
prudential regulators' proposed margin rule, and noted the proposed
rule would apply to any swap that is a national bank, a federally
chartered branch or agency of a foreign bank, or a federal savings
association. Id. at 2.
\1135\ OCC Unfunded Mandates Report at 5.
\1136\ Id. The report also estimated that the actual cost of the
initial margin requirement is the opportunity cost of collateral
that under the prudential regulators' rule must be segregated into a
custodial account with a presumably lower rate of return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the BAML Report stated that its calculations suggested
that the regulatory changes may eventually result in initial margin
requirements of $200 billion to $600 billion for US banks, as current
derivatives portfolios turn over.\1137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1137\ BAML Report at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, as stated above, commenters concluded that the
liquidity impact of the initial margin rules proposed by the CFTC and
the prudential regulators was significant.\1138\ However, one commenter
acknowledged that the numbers should be viewed as an ``order of
magnitude estimate'' and that ``[o]ne cannot predict which entities
will use derivatives in the future nor the amounts and types of
products that will be used.'' \1139\ The Commission seeks comment on
the liquidity impact of its proposals below and in section II.B. of
this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1138\ See also Manmohan Singh, Collateral, Netting and Systemic
Risk in the OTC Derivatives Market.
\1139\ SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the CFTC at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Margin Requirements for Nonbank-MSBSPs
As described in section II.B. of this release, a nonbank MSBSP
would be required to calculate as of the close of each business day the
amount of equity in the account of each counterparty to a non-cleared
security-based swap.\1140\ On the next business day following the
calculation, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to either collect or
deliver cash, securities, and/or money instruments to the counterparty
depending on whether there was negative or positive equity in the
account of the counterparty.\1141\ Specifically, if the account had
negative equity on the previous business day, the nonbank MSBSP would
be required to collect cash, securities, and or money market
instruments in an amount equal to the negative equity.\1142\
Conversely, if the account had positive equity on the previous business
day, the nonbank MSBSP would be required to deliver cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments to the counterparty in an amount equal
to the positive equity.\1143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1140\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
\1141\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of proposed new Rule 18a-3. As
indicated, the nonbank MSBSP would need to deliver cash, securities,
and/or money market instruments and, consequently, other types of
assets would not be eligible as collateral.
\1142\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
In this case, the nonbank MSBSP would have current exposure to the
counterparty in an amount equal to the negative equity.
\1143\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed new Rule 18a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonbank MSBSPs are not expected to maintain two-sided markets or
otherwise engage in activities that would require them to register as
an SBSD.\1144\ They will, however, by definition, maintain substantial
positions in particular categories of security-based swaps.\1145\ These
positions could create significant risk to counterparties to the extent
the counterparties have uncollateralized current exposure to the
nonbank SBSD. In addition, they could pose significant risk to the
nonbank MSBSP to the extent it has uncollateralized current exposure to
its counterparties. The proposed account equity requirements for
nonbank MSBSPs seek to address these risks by imposing a requirement
that nonbank MSBSPs on a daily basis must ``neutralize'' the credit
risk between the nonbank MSBSP and the counterparty either by
collecting or delivering cash, securities, and/or money market
instruments in an amount equal to the positive or negative equity in
the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1144\ See Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596.
\1145\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67); Entity Definitions Adopting
Release, 77 FR 30596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The collection of collateral from counterparties would strengthen
the liquidity of the nonbank MSBSP by collateralizing its current
exposure to counterparties. The delivery of collateral to
counterparties to collateralize their current exposure to the nonbank
MSBSP would lessen the impact on the counterparties if the nonbank
MSBSP failed.
The requirement for nonbank MSBSPs to post current exposure to
certain counterparties under proposed new Rule 18a-3 would impose an
incremental opportunity cost for these nonbank MSBSPs only to the
extent that they do not currently post collateral to cover current
exposure. The requirement that nonbank MSBSPs collect variation margin
from certain counterparties also would represent an incremental cost to
those counterparties users to the extent they do not currently post
such margin.
As stated above, proposed new Rule 18a-3 contains an exception for
trades between nonbank MSBSPs and commercial end users, so those end
users would not face additional costs because of this exception.
Instead of the proposed approach, the Commission could adopt margin
requirements for nonbank MSBSPs that are consistent with those proposed
for nonbank SBSDs, by requiring them to collect initial margin from all
non-dealer counterparties. This approach could better protect the MSBSP
from loss in the event of a counterparty default, and thereby lessen
the possibility of a default by the MSBSP. On the other hand, such a
requirement would increase the credit exposure of counterparties to the
MSBSP by the amount of the initial margin that they provide to the
MSBSP and could increase their risk of loss if the MSBSP were to fail
and they were unsuccessful in obtaining the return of amounts owed to
them. The Commission is seeking comment on this alternative.
d. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition, and Capital Formation
The proposed margin requirements to collect collateral from their
counterparties to non-cleared security-based swaps to cover both
current exposure and potential future exposure are designed to insulate
security-based swap market participants from the negative fallout of a
defaulting counterparty. Basing proposed Rule 18a-3 on the broker-
dealer margin rules is intended to achieve those objectives in the
market for security-based swaps. Moreover, the consistency between
margin requirements for securities and security-based swaps should
ultimately promote efficiency in the securities

[[Page 70324]]

markets, and in turn, enhance competition in the security-based swap
markets.
The proposed rule offers built-in flexibilities that should enhance
the efficiency in the application of the rule. For example, granting
counterparties the flexibility to post a variety of collateral types to
meet margin requirements may result in increased efficiencies for end
users, and could encourage increased trading of security-based swaps
and thereby increase competition. Furthermore, the proposed exception
for commercial end users is intended to account for the different risk
profiles of commercial end users as compared with financial end
users.\1146\ This exception may increase efficiencies by allowing SBSDs
to optimally choose to collect collateral or take a capital charge,
which in turn might allow end users to more cost efficiently manage
business risks and thereby better compete in their respective
industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1146\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR at 27571 (``Among end users, financial end users are
considered more risky than nonfinancial end users because the
profitability and viability of financial end users is more tightly
linked to the health of the financial system than nonfinancial end
users. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default
during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk
and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.'').
See also CFTC Margin Proposing Release, 76 FR at 27735 (``The
Commission believes that financial entities, which are generally not
using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, potentially pose
greater risk to CSEs than non-financial entities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the flexibility to use models to calculate margins instead
of applying the standard haircuts could have an adverse impact on
competition if the differences in these margin amounts are sufficiently
large. If this was the case, a nonbank SBSD not approved to use models
will find it difficult to compete with an SBSD approved to use models.
However, it is conceivable that SBSDs not approved to use models would
tend to do business only in cleared security-based swaps and SBSDs that
use models would compete in both cleared and non-cleared security-based
swaps. This separation could have a negative impact on competition in
non-cleared security-based swaps. If, however, SBSDs that are approved
to use models manage counterparty risk more efficiently, the market for
non-cleared security-based swaps might be systemically less risky than
it would be if SBSDs not using models participated actively in that
market. It is unclear whether the benefit from the reduction in
systemic risk would outweigh the potential cost of the reduced
competition.
There also is a trade-off between Alternatives A and B for SBSDs.
Under Alternative A the reduced demand on posting and collecting
collateral should lead to more efficient allocation of capital and
hence improve competition, but it comes at the cost of being less
resilient to counterparty defaults and hence might overall increase
systemic risk. In addition, if the Commission does not require nonbank
SBSDs to collect initial margin in their transactions with each other,
as is generally current market practice,\1147\ while the prudential
regulators require the collection of initial margin for the same trades
as their proposed rules suggest, intermediaries could have an incentive
to conduct business through nonbank entities.\1148\ Under Alternative
B, the requirement to exchange initial margin would impose costs on the
nonbank SBSD in the form of a capital charge to the extent the nonbank
SBSD must post initial margin. This could result in substantially less
liquidity available to the nonbank SBSD to support its security-based
swap business or other dealer activity, but to the extent it limits the
amount of uncleared SBSD transactions among nonbank SBSDs as a whole,
it could lead to lower systemic risk. Moreover, if this requirement
results in a significant increase in costs because of the required
capital charge, nonbank SBSDs could be motivated to conduct trading
either in bank SBSDs or offshore because they would not need to take
the capital charge. Especially in the latter case, this may not only
adversely affect domestic competition if the only dealers able to
absorb the increased expenses are the ones currently participating in
the market, it also could increase systemic risk worldwide if the
regulatory environment in foreign jurisdictions are less stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1147\ See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2011.
\1148\ See Prudential Regulator Margin and Capital Proposing
Release, 76 FR 27564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the
costs and benefits of proposed Rule 18a-3. In addition, the Commission
requests comment in response to the following questions:
1. In many respects, the proposed rules reflect an interplay
between capital and margin requirements. How should each set of rules
take account of the other? For example, does the proposed alternative
capital charge in lieu of collecting margin from commercial end users
appropriately account for the increased exposure to the dealer? Does it
over-state the exposure?
2. What would be the general market impact of requiring that
dealers post both variation and initial margin in transactions with
each other? Commenters are asked to supply data on the volume of
interdealer transactions in security-based swaps and the aggregate
dollar impact of this proposal. How does the impact of requiring
dealers to exchange both variation and initial margin compare with the
aggregate dollar impact of requiring that nonbank SBSDs collect only
variation margin?
3. With regard to Alternatives A and B regarding interdealer
margin, the Commission requests that commenters provide the following
data points to the Commission:
The relative amounts of variation and initial margin for
sample dealer portfolios of security-based swaps;
The industry dollar impact and liquidity impact of
requiring lock up of initial margin for dealer portfolios; and
How the amount of initial margin would compare to overall
dealer capital.
4. The Commission also requests comment on the potential legal
limitations involved in obtaining a return of collateral that has been
posted to a third party custodian, the costs involved, and whether
there are ways to overcome these limitations.
5. The Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits, if
the Commission, as an alternative to proposed new Rule 18a-3, permitted
nonbank SBSDs to apply to the Commission to use internal models solely
to compute the margin amount in paragraph (d) to Rule 18a-3 (without
seeking approval to use internal models for capital purposes). Would
this alternative impact the Commission's oversight responsibility of
nonbank SBSDs?
6. What is the cost impact, if any, of permitting nonbank SBSDs to
accept securities as collateral that may be less liquid than Treasury
securities in the case of severe market disruptions? Would this cost be
mitigated by the haircut and collateral requirements in proposed Rule
18a-3?
7. What would be the costs and benefits of an initial margin
requirement between nonbank SBSDs counterparties dependent on the
firm's minimum net capital requirement (e.g., based on firm size)?
8. Proposed Rule 18a-3(d) would require that firms approved to use
VaR models calculate margin amount using a 99%, 10 business-day period.
How would this proposal affect sample portfolios of security-based
swaps based on existing internal firm models and current market
practices, including margin practices at registered clearing

[[Page 70325]]

agencies? The Commission requests data from market participants to
assist it in evaluating this proposal.
9. Would the margin requirements under proposed new Rule 18a-3
incentivize counterparties to trade in cleared security-based swaps? If
certain security-based swaps cannot be cleared, would the proposed
margin requirements render the use of these non-cleared contracts
inefficient?
10. Will nonbank MSBSPs incur operational, technology or other
costs to calculate the amount of equity in the account of a
counterparty, as required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed new
Rule 18a-3?
4. Proposed Segregation Rule--Rule 18a-4
Proposed new Rule 18a-4 would establish segregation requirements
for cleared and non-cleared security-based swap transactions, which
would apply to bank SBSDs, nonbank stand-alone SBSDs, and broker-dealer
SBSDs.\1149\ The goal of proposed new Rule 18a-4 is to protect customer
assets by ensuring that cash and securities that SBSDs hold for
security-based swap customers are isolated from the proprietary assets
of the SBSD and identified as property of such customers.\1150\ This
approach would facilitate the prompt return of customer property to
customers either before or during liquidation proceedings if the firm
fails,\1151\ and is therefore expected to provide market participants
who enter into security-based swap transactions with an SBSD the
confidence that their accounts will remain separate from the SBSD in
the event of bankruptcy.\1152\ As such, proposed new Rule 18a-4 will
have a number of benefits as well as impose certain costs on SBSDs and
MSBSPs, as well as other market participants. The proposed rules are
expected to have possible effects on competition, efficiency, and
capital formation, which are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1149\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4. See also section II.C. of
this release for a more detailed description of the proposal. The
provisions of proposed new Rule 18a-4 are modeled on the broker-
dealer segregation rule, Rule 15c3-3. 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
\1150\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\1151\ See generally Michael P. Jamroz, The Customer Protection
Rule, 57 Bus. Law. 1069 (May 2002). See also section II.C. of this
release for a more detailed description of the proposal.
\1152\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed earlier in this release, Rule 18a-4 is in substantial
part modeled on provisions of Rule 15c3-3 that require a carrying
broker-dealer to take two primary steps to safeguard these assets. The
first step required by Rule 15c3-3 is that a carrying broker-dealer
must maintain physical possession or control over customers' fully paid
and excess margin securities.\1153\ The second step is that a carrying
broker-dealer must maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities
in a customer reserve account at a bank that is equal in value to the
net cash owed to customers, computed in accordance with the Exhibit A
formula.\1154\ The corollary provisions of Rule 18a-4 are likewise
intended to require that customer funds are adequately protected from
loss in the event of the SBSD's failure. Further, this protection would
be provided to customers who have not affirmatively elected to require
individual account segregation of their assets under section 3E(f) of
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1153\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(d).
\1154\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e). The term ``qualified security'' is
defined in Rule 15c3-3 to mean a security issued by the United
States or a security in respect of which the principal and interest
are guaranteed by the United States. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (a) of the proposed new rule would define key terms used
in the rule.\1155\ Paragraph (b) would require an SBSD to promptly
obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all
excess securities collateral (a term defined in paragraph (a)) and
specify certain locations where excess securities collateral could be
held and deemed in the SBSD's control.\1156\ Paragraph (c) would
require an SBSD to maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit
of security-based swap customers and have on deposit in that account at
all times an amount of cash and/or qualified securities (a term defined
in paragraph (a)) determined through a computation using the formula in
Exhibit A to proposed new Rule 18a-4.\1157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1155\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(a), with paragraph (a) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\1156\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b)-(d), with paragraph (b) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\1157\ Compare 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(e), with paragraph (e) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d) of proposed new Rule 18a-4 would contain provisions
that are designed to implement the individual account segregation
requirements of section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, and therefore, are
not modeled specifically on Rule 15c3-3. First, it would require an
SBSD and an MSBSP to provide the notice required by section 3E(f)(1)(A)
of the Exchange Act prior to the execution of the first non-cleared
security-based swap transaction with the counterparty.\1158\ Second, it
would require the SBSD to obtain subordination agreements from
counterparties that opt out of the segregation requirements in proposed
new Rule 18a-4 because they either elect individual segregation
pursuant to the self-executing provisions of section 3E(f) of the
Exchange Act \1159\ or agree that the SBSD need not segregate their
assets at all.\1160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1158\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)(A); paragraph (d)(1) of
proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\1159\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(1)-(3).
\1160\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Available information suggests that customer assets related to OTC
derivatives are currently not consistently segregated from dealer
proprietary assets. With respect to non-cleared derivatives, available
information suggests that there is no uniform segregation practice but
that collateral for most accounts is not segregated.\1161\ According to
the ISDA Margin Survey 2012, where independent amounts (initial margin)
is collected, ISDA members reported that most (approximately 72.2%) was
commingled with variation margin and not segregated, and only 4.8% of
the amount received was segregated with a third party custodian.\1162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1161\ See generally ISDA Margin Survey 2012.
\1162\ ISDA Margin Survey 2012. The survey also notes that while
the holding of the independent amounts and variation margin together
continues to be the industry standard both contractually and
operationally, it is interesting to note that the ability to
segregate has been made increasingly available to counterparties
over the past three years on a voluntary basis, and has led to
adoption of 26% of independent amount received and 27.8% of
independent amount delivered being segregated in some respects. Id.
at 10. See also Independent Amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the absence of a segregation requirement, the likelihood that
security-based swap customers would suffer losses upon a dealer default
may substantially increase. The proposed segregation requirements would
limit for security-based swap customers these potential losses if an
SBSD fails.\1163\ The extent to which assets are in fact protected by
proposed Rule 18a-4 would depend on how effective they are in practice
in allowing assets to be readily returned to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1163\ CFTC and Commission, Statement on MF Global about the
deficiencies in customer futures segregated accounts held at the
firm (Oct. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is difficult to measure these benefits against the current
baseline of the OTC derivatives market as it exists today, as discussed
in section V.A.1. of this release. Rule 15c3-3, on which proposed Rule
18a-4 is modeled, however, may generally provide a reasonable template
for crafting the corresponding requirements for nonbank SBSDs.\1164\
Furthermore, the ensuing increased confidence of market participants
when transacting in

[[Page 70326]]

security-based swaps, as compared to the OTC derivatives market as it
exists today, should enhance liquidity and generally benefit market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1164\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3. See SIPC 2011 Annual Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, modeling the provisions of Rule 18a-4 on existing Rule
15c3-3 will generally promote consistent treatment of collateral in
circumstances where a broker-dealer SBSD conducts business in
securities and security-based swaps with the same counterparty, and in
these cases it will facilitate the ability of firms to offer portfolio
margin treatment. In addition, ``omnibus segregation'' requirements of
proposed Rule 18a-4 are intended to reduce costs for SBSDs and their
customers by providing a less expensive segregation alternative to
individual account segregation.\1165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1165\ See section 3E(f)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, because of a lack of trading in cleared security-based
swaps for customers,\1166\ there is no definitive baseline against
which to measure the various costs associated with segregation
requirements for those trades. Further, overall costs of segregating
collateral for cleared security-based swaps will be heavily affected by
the clearing agency rules, which will govern how margin required by,
and held at, a clearing agency with respect to customer positions must
be segregated.\1167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1166\ See Process for Submissions of Security-Based Swaps, 77
FR 41602.
\1167\ See Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and
Governance, 76 FR 14472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated above, proposed new Rule 18a-4 also is intended to
provide SBSDs and their counterparties a less expensive segregation
alternative to individual account segregation. Higher costs for
individual segregation derive from, among other things, higher fees
charged by custodians to monitor individual account assets and to
account for potentially greater legal risks and liabilities of
custodians to account beneficiaries or dealers, as well as higher
operational costs to account for collateral on an individual customer
basis. A commenter to the CFTC raised concerns with the length of time
and the costs to comply with an individual segregation mandate.
Specifically, the commenter raised concerns regarding the number of
collateral arrangements that would be required. The commenter
estimated, based on discussion with its members, that ``a rough
estimate of the time it would take to establish the necessary
collateral arrangements is 1 year and eleven months, with an associated
cost of $141.8 million, per covered swap entity.'' \1168\ To account
for these higher costs, SBSDs likely may increase fees for customers
that choose individual rather than omnibus segregation. If higher fees
make it prohibitively expensive for some counterparties to elect
individual segregation, the proposed omnibus segregation scheme under
Rule 18a-4 could be a more cost-effective solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1168\ SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential Regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 18a-4 will impose on SBSDs operational costs, as well as costs
related to the use of customer funds, compared to the baseline, given
that dealers in general do not presently segregate customer collateral
for security-based swaps, and to the extent collateral is segregated,
it is not done so on the terms that would be required by proposed new
Rule 18a-4. The operational costs include costs to establish qualifying
bank accounts and to perform the calculations required to determine the
amount that is required at any one time to be maintained in the reserve
account.\1169\ In cases where an SBSD is jointly registered as a
broker-dealer, the costs of adapting existing systems to account for
security-based swap transactions may not be material in light of the
similarities between the systems and procedures required by Rule 15c3-3
and those that would be required by proposed new Rule 18a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1169\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4. See section V.C. of this
release for a discussion of implementation costs. See also section
V.B. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A further cost would be imposed on SBSDs to the extent that
collateral they hold that could otherwise be rehypothecated would no
longer be eligible for this purpose.\1170\ An SBSD would incur a cost
of funds equal to the borrowing cost of the dealer if the dealer was
unable to use customer collateral to finance its business activities.
The extent of this cost would depend on how much collateral associated
with security-based swaps and held by dealers today consists of initial
margin that they can rehypothecate, i.e., that is not now segregated as
would be required under Rule 18a-4 (the rule would not require the
segregation of variation margin).\1171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1170\ See SIFMA/ISDA Comment Letter to the Prudential
Regulators (``First, because the collateral cannot be
rehypothecated, and because the collateral amounts will be very
large, CSEs will be limited to investing very large amounts of
eligible collateral in assets that generate low returns.'').
\1171\ See Manmohan Singh, Velocity of Pledged Collateral:
Analysis and Implications; Manmohan Singh and James Aitken, The
(sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition, and Capital Formation
The proposed segregation requirements for SBSDs are designed to
protect and preserve counterparty collateral held at SBSDs. More
specifically, the goal of proposed new Rule 18a-4 is to protect
customer assets by ensuring that cash and securities that SBSDs hold
for security-based swap customers are isolated from the proprietary
assets of the SBSD and identified as property of such customers.\1172\
These protections may provide market participants who enter into
security-based swap transactions with an SBSD the assurance that their
accounts will remain separate from the SBSD in the event of
bankruptcy.\1173\ These proposed protections could reduce the risk of
loss of collateral to individual counterparties and, thereby, promote
participation in the security-based swap markets. This may result in
enhanced competition and more efficient price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1172\ See proposed new Rule 18a-4.
\1173\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, proposed segregation rules that promote, or do not
unduly restrict, competition may be accompanied by regulatory benefits
that minimize the risk of market failure and thus promote efficiency
within the market. Such competitive markets would increase the
efficiency with which market participants could transact in security-
based swaps for speculative, trading, hedging and other purposes.
Conversely, increased costs associated with the proposed segregation
rules could result in high barriers to entry and negatively affect
competition for SBSDs in the security-based swap markets.
Further, modeling the provisions of Rule 18a-4 on existing Rule
15c3-3 will generally promote consistent treatment of collateral in
circumstances where a broker-dealer SBSD conducts business in
securities and security-based swaps with the same counterparty,
increasing efficiencies for counterparties. Finally, the proposed
``omnibus segregation'' requirements of proposed Rule 18a-4 are
intended to provide a less expensive segregation alternative to
individual account segregation.\1174\ This proposed requirement could
also result in increased efficiencies, and, in turn, facilitate capital
formation through the availability of additional capital for
counterparties as a result of decreased costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1174\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f)(1)(B).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70327]]

Request for Comment
The Commission generally requests comment about its analysis of the
costs and benefits of the proposed segregation rules. In addition, the
Commission requests comment in response to the following questions:
1. To what extent do counterparties presently require that their
assets associated with security-based swaps be independently
segregated?
2. What would be the overall market impact of a right by customers
to demand individual segregation? How would costs to end users be
impacted? Would those costs differ depending on the type of end user or
size of its positions with the SBSD?
3. How would the existence of omnibus versus independent accounts
factor into the ability easily to resolve a defaulting SBSD?
4. Would the proposed segregation requirements prove to be
difficult to implement for existing contracts?

C. Implementation Considerations

As discussed above, proposed Rules 18a-1 through 18a-4, as well as
the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3-1, would impose certain costs on
SBSDs and MSBSPs. The Commission expects that the highest economic cost
impact as a result of the proposed new rules and rule amendments would
likely result from the additional capital nonbank SBSDs and nonbank
SBSDs may have to hold as a result of the proposed capital rules, and
the additional margin that SBSDs, MSBSPs, and other market participants
may have to post and/or collect as a result of proposed margin
requirements.
The proposed new rules and rule amendments, however, as discussed
above, would impose certain implementation burdens and related costs on
SBSDs, MSBSPs and other market participants. These costs may include
start-up costs, including personnel and other costs, such as technology
costs, to comply with the proposed new rules and rule amendments. As
discussed in section IV.D. of this release, the Commission has
estimated the burdens and related costs of these implementation
requirements for SBSDs and MDBSPs.\1175\ These costs are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1175\ See section IV.D. of this release (discussing total
initial and annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of the
proposed rules and rule amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A stand-alone SBSD that applies to use internal models would be
required under proposed new Rule 18a-1 to create and compile various
documents to be included with the application, including documents
related to the development of its VaR models, and to provide additional
documentation to, and respond to questions from, Commission staff
throughout the application process.\1176\ These firms also would be
required to review and backtest these models annually. The requirements
are estimated to impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of
approximately $1.97 million \1177\ and $10.6 million,
respectively.\1178\ These firms would also incur technology costs of
$48.0 million in the aggregate.\1179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1176\ See section IV.A.1. of this release.
\1177\ This consists of external costs of $600,000, plus
internal costs of $1.37 million. See section IV.D.1. of this
release.
\1178\ This consists of external costs of $3.7 million, plus
internal costs of $6.9 million. See section IV.D.1. of this release.
\1179\ See section IV.D.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand-alone SBSDs that use internal models and ANC broker-dealers
would be required to develop a liquidity stress test and a written
contingency plan under proposed new Rule 18a-1 and proposed amendments
to Rule 15c3-1, and periodically review them.\1180\ These requirements
would impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of
approximately $1.0 million \1181\ and $2.3 million,\1182\ respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1180\ See section IV.A.1. of this release.
\1181\ See section IV.D.1. of this release.
\1182\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 18a-1 also would require stand-alone SBSDs to establish,
document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls
required under Rule 15c3-4, as well as to review and update these
controls.\1183\ This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs
in the aggregate of $7.5 million \1184\ and $971,000,
respectively.\1185\ These firms also may incur aggregate initial and
ongoing information technology costs of $240,000 and $307,500,
respectively.\1186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1183\ See section IV.A.1. of this release.
\1184\ See section IV.D.1. of this release.
\1185\ Id.
\1186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealers, as applicable, may incur
one-time and ongoing costs related to filing notices and subordination
agreements and documenting industry sector classifications under
proposed new Rule 18a-1, and amendments to Rule 15c3-1.\1187\ These
requirements would impose one-time and annual costs in the aggregate of
$68,040 \1188\ and $38,367, respectively.\1189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1187\ See section IV.A.1. of this release.
\1188\ See section IV.D.1 of this release (one-time cost to
draft subordinated loan agreement template under Appendix D to
proposed new Rule 18a-1).
\1189\ Id. (annual costs of $2,898, $1,449 and $34,020 related
to documenting industry sector classifications for credit default
swap haircuts under Rule 18a-1, equity withdrawal notices under
paragraph (i) under Rule 18a-1, and preparing and filing proposed
subordinated loan agreements with the Commission under Appendix D to
Rule 18a-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 18a-2 also would require nonbank MSBSPs to establish,
document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls
required under Rule 15c3-4, as well as to review and update these
controls.\1190\ This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs
in the aggregate of $2.7 million \1191\ and $324,000 \1192\ for nonbank
MSBSPs, respectively. These nonbank MSBSPs also may incur initial and
ongoing information technology costs of $80,000 and $102,500,
respectively.\1193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1190\ See section IV.A.2. of this release.
\1191\ This consists of external costs of $400,000, plus
internal costs of $2.3 million. See section IV.D.2. of this release.
\1192\ See section IV.D.2. of this release.
\1193\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 18a-3 would require nonbank SBSDs to establish a written risk
analysis methodology, which would need to be reviewed and
updated.\1194\ This requirement would impose one-time and annual costs
in the aggregate of $1.7 million \1195\ and $483,000,
respectively.\1196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1194\ See section IV.A.3. of this release.
\1195\ See section IV.D.3. of this release. This consists of
external costs of $18,000, plus internal costs of $1.7 million.
\1196\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, SBSDs and MSBSPs would incur various one-time and ongoing
costs in the aggregate in order to comply with the segregation and
notification requirements of proposed new Rule 18a-4.\1197\ Each SBSD
would incur one-time and annual costs in establishing special bank
accounts required by the rule. This requirement would impose one-time
and annual costs of $2.9 million \1198\ and $377,000 \1199\ in the
aggregate on SBSDs, respectively. In addition, SBSDs would be required
to perform a reserve computation required by Appendix A to proposed new
Rule 18a-4, which would impose on these firms annual costs in the
aggregate of $9.7 million.\1200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1197\ See section IV.A.4. of this release.
\1198\ See section IV.D.4. of this release.
\1199\ Id.
\1200\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, both SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to prepare and
send to their counterparties segregation-related notices pursuant to
section 3E(f)

[[Page 70328]]

of the Exchange Act.\1201\ This requirement would impose one-time and
annual costs in the aggregate to SBSDs and MSBSPs of $770,000 \1202\
and $110,000, respectively.\1203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1201\ See section IV.A.4. of this release.
\1202\ See section IV.D.4. of this release. This consists of
external costs of $220,000, plus internal costs of $550,020.
\1203\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, proposed new Rule 18a-4 would require each SBSD to draft,
prepare, and enter into subordination agreements with certain
counterparties.\1204\ This requirement would impose on these firms one-
time and annual costs in the aggregate of $99.7 million \1205\ and
$19.1 million,\1206\ respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1204\ See section IV.A.4. of this release.
\1205\ See section IV.D.4. of this release. This consists of
external costs of $400,000, plus internal costs of $3,780,000 and
$95,580,000.
\1206\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. General Request for Comment

The Commission requests data to quantify, and estimates of, the
costs and the value of the benefits of the proposed rules described
above. Commenters should provide estimates of these costs and benefits,
as well as any costs and benefits not already defined, that may result
from the adoption of the proposed rules. Commenters should provide
analysis and empirical data to support their views on the costs and
benefits associated with the proposals. The Commission requests comment
on any effect the proposed new rules and rule amendments may have on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation, including the
competitive or anticompetitive effects the proposals may have on market
participants. In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether
other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act for which Commission rulemaking
is required are likely to have an effect on the costs and benefits of
the proposed rules. Commenters should provide analysis and empirical
data to support their views on the costs and benefits associated with
the proposed rules.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \1207\ requires Federal
agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules
on small entities. Section 603(a) \1208\ of the Administrative
Procedure Act,\1209\ as amended by the RFA, generally requires the
Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all
proposed rules, or proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of
such rulemaking on ``small entities.'' \1210\ Section 605(b) of the RFA
states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or
proposed rule amendment, which, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\1211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1207\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\1208\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\1209\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
\1210\ Although section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term
``small entity,'' the statute permits agencies to formulate their
own definitions. The Commission has adopted definitions for the term
``small entity'' for the purposes of Commission rulemaking in
accordance with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this
proposed rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0-10, 17 CFR 240.0-10.
See Statement of Management on Internal Accounting Control, Exchange
Act Release No. 18451 (Jan. 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (Feb. 4, 1982).
\1211\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a
small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an ``issuer'' or
a ``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had
total assets of $5 million or less,\1212\ or (2) a broker-dealer with
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the
Exchange Act,\1213\ or, if not required to file such statements, a
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter);
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person)
that is not a small business or small organization.\1214\ Under the
standards adopted by the Small Business Administration, small entities
in the finance and insurance industry include the following: (1) For
entities in credit intermediation and related activities,\1215\ firms
with $175 million or less in assets; (2) for non-depository credit
intermediation and certain other activities,\1216\ firms with $7
million or less in annual receipts; (3) for entities in financial
investments and related activities,\1217\ firms with $7 million or less
in annual receipts; (4) for insurance carriers and entities in related
activities,\1218\ firms with $7 million or less in annual receipts; and
(5) for funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles,\1219\ firms with
$7 million or less in annual receipts.\1220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1212\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
\1213\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
\1214\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
\1215\ Including commercial banks, savings institutions, credit
unions, firms involved in other depository credit intermediation,
credit card issuing, sales financing, consumer lending, real estate
credit, and international trade financing.
\1216\ Including firms involved in secondary market financing,
all other non-depository credit intermediation, mortgage and
nonmortgage loan brokers, financial transactions processing, reserve
and clearing house activities, and other activities related to
credit intermediation.
\1217\ Including firms involved in investment banking and
securities dealing, securities brokerage, commodity contracts
dealing, commodity contracts brokerage, securities and commodity
exchanges, miscellaneous intermediation, portfolio management,
providing investment advice, trust, fiduciary and custody
activities, and miscellaneous financial investment activities.
\1218\ Including direct life insurance carriers, direct health
and medical insurance carriers, direct property and casualty
insurance carriers, direct title insurance carriers, other direct
insurance (except life, health and medical) carriers, reinsurance
carriers, insurance agencies and brokerages, claims adjusting, third
party administration of insurance and pension funds, and all other
insurance related activities.
\1219\ Including pension funds, health and welfare funds, other
insurance funds, open-end investment funds, trusts, estates, and
agency accounts, real estate investment trusts, and other financial
vehicles.
\1220\ See 13 CFR 121.201 (Jan. 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on available information about the security-based swap
market,\1221\ the market, while broad in scope, is largely dominated by
entities such as those that would be covered by the SBSD and MSBSP
definitions. Subject to certain exceptions, section 3(a)(71)(A) of the
Exchange Act defines security-based swap dealer to mean any person who:
(1) Holds itself out as a dealer in security-based swaps; (2) makes a
market in security-based swaps; (3) regularly enters into security-
based swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for
its own account; or (4) engages in any activity causing it to be
commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-
based swaps. Section 3(a)(67)(A) of the Exchange Act defines major
security-based swap participant to be any person: (1) Who is not an
SBSD; and (2) who maintains a substantial position in security-based
swaps for any of the major security-based swap categories, as such
categories are determined by the Commission, excluding both positions
held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk and positions maintained
by any employee benefit plan (or any contract held by such a plan) as
defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for the primary
purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk directly associated with the
operation of the plan; whose outstanding security-based swaps create
substantial

[[Page 70329]]

counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the
financial stability of the United States banking system or financial
markets; or that is a financial entity that is highly leveraged
relative to the amount of capital such entity holds and that is not
subject to capital requirements established by an appropriate Federal
banking regulator; and maintains a substantial position in outstanding
security-based swaps in any major security-based swap category, as such
categories are determined by the Commission.\1222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1221\ See CDS Data Analysis.
\1222\ See also Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR 30596
(``The SEC continues to believe that the types of entities that
would engage in more than a de minimis amount of dealing activity
involving security-based swaps--which generally would be major
banks--would not be `small entities' for purposes of the RFA.
Similarly, the SEC continues to believe that the types of entities
that may have security-based swap positions above the level required
to be a `major security-based swap participant' would not be a
`small entity' for purposes of the RFA. Accordingly, the SEC
certifies that the final rules defining `security-based swap dealer'
or `major security-based swap participant' would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for purposes of the RFA.''). Id. at 30743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on feedback from industry participants about the security-
based swap markets, entities that will qualify as SBSDs and MSBSPs,
whether registered broker-dealers or not, will likely exceed the
thresholds defining ``small entities'' set out above. Thus, it is
unlikely that proposed Rules 18a-1 to 18a-4 and the amendments to Rule
15c3-1 would have a significant economic impact on any small entity.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 808 broker-
dealers that were ``small'' for the purposes Rule 0-10. The amendments
to Rule 15c3-1 relating to the standardized haircuts for swaps and
security-based swaps, as well as the proposed CDS maturity grid would
apply to all broker-dealers with such proprietary positions. These
proposed amendments, therefore, would apply to all ``small'' broker-
dealers in that they would be subject to the requirements in the
proposed amendments. It is likely, however, that these proposed
amendments would have no, or little, impact on ``small'' broker-
dealers, since most, if not all, of these firms generally would not
hold these types of positions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission certifies that the
proposed new Rules 18a-1 through 18a-4, amendments to Rule 15c3-1, and
amendments to Rule 15c3-3 would not have a significant economic impact
on any small entity for purposes of the RFA.
The Commission encourages written comments regarding this
certification. The Commission requests that commenters describe the
nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to
illustrate the extent of the impact.

VII. Statutory Basis and Text of the Proposed Amendments

Pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and
particularly, sections 3(b), 3E, 15, 15F, 23(a), and 36 (15 U.S.C.
78c(b), 78c-5, 78o, 78o-10, 78w(a), and 78mm), thereof, the Commission
is proposing to amend Sec. Sec. 240.15c3-1, 240.15c3-1a, 240.15c3-1b,
240.15c3-1d, 240.15c3-1e, and 240.15c3-3, and proposing Sec. Sec.
240.18a-1, 240.18a-1a, 240.18a-1b, 240.18a-1c, 240.18a-1d, 240.18a-2,
240.18a-3, 240.18a-4, and 240.18a-4a under the Exchange Act.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 240

Brokers, Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Amendment

In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

1. The general authority citation for part 240 is revised, the
sectional authorities for Sec. Sec. 240.15c3-1 and 240.15c3-3 are
revised, add sectional authorities for Sec. Sec. 240.15c3-1a,
240.15c3-1e, 240.15c3-3, 240.18a-1, 240.18a-1a, 240.18a-1b, 240.18a-1c,
240.18a-1d, 240-18a-2, 240.18a-3 and 240.18a-4 in numerical order to
read as follows.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-10
78o-4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23,
80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C.
5221(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. 8302, and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
Section 240.15c3-1 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3),
78o-10(d), and 78o-10(e).
Section 240.15c3-3 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78c-5,
78o(c)(2), 78(c)(3), 78q(a), 78w(a); sec. 6(c), 84 Stat. 1652; 15
U.S.C. 78fff.
* * * * *
Sections 240.18a-1, 240.18a-1a, 240.18a-1b, 240.18a-1c, 240.18a-
1d, 240.18a-2, and 240.18a-3 are also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(d) and 78o-10(e).
Section 240.18a-4 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f).
* * * * *
2. Section 240.15c3-1 is amended by:
a. Revising the center heading above paragraph (a)(7);
b. In paragraph (a)(7) removing the phrase ``and using the credit
risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for credit risk on
certain credit exposures arising from transactions in derivatives
instruments, instead of the provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this
section'' and in its place adding the phrase ``and using the credit
risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for credit risk for
security-based swap transactions with commercial end users as defined
in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2), instead of the provisions of paragraphs
(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(xiv)(B)(1) of this section'';
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(i);
d. In paragraph (a)(7)(ii), remove ``$5 billion'' and in its place
add ``$6 billion'';
e. Adding a center heading and paragraph (a)(10);
f. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O);
g. Re-designating paragraph (c)(2)(xii) as paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(A)
and adding new paragraph (c)(2)(xii)(B);
h. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(xiv);
i. Adding paragraph (c)(16); and
j. Adding paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 240.15c3-1 Net capital requirements for brokers or dealers.

* * * * *
(a) * * *

Alternative Net Capital Computation For Broker-Dealers Authorized To
Use Models

(7) * * *
(i) At all times maintain tentative net capital of not less than $5
billion and net capital of not less than the greater of $1 billion or
the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount;
* * * * *

Broker-Dealers Registered as Security-Based Swap Dealers

(10) A broker or dealer registered with the Commission as a
security-based swap dealer, other than a broker or dealer subject to
the provisions of (a)(7) of this section, must:
(i) At all times maintain net capital of not less than the greater
of $20 million or the sum of the ratio requirement under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section and eight percent (8%) of the risk margin
amount; and
(ii) Comply with Sec. 240.15c3-4 as though it were an OTC
derivatives dealer with respect to all of its business

[[Page 70330]]

activities, except that paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii), (c)(5)(xiv), (d)(8),
and (d)(9) of Sec. 240.15c3-4 shall not apply.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi)(O) Security-based swaps. (1) Credit default swaps. (i) Short
positions (selling protection). In the case of a security-based swap
that is a short credit default swap, deducting the percentage of the
notional amount based upon the current basis point spread of the credit
default swap and the maturity of the credit default swap in accordance
with the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis point spread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less
(%) 101-300 301-400 401-500 501-699 700 or more
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months or less....................................... 1.00 2.00 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00
13 months to 24 months.................................. 1.50 3.50 7.50 10.00 12.50 17.50
25 months to 36 months.................................. 2.00 5.00 10.00 12.50 15.00 20.00
37 months to 48 months.................................. 3.00 6.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 22.50
49 months to 60 months.................................. 4.00 7.00 15.00 17.50 20.00 25.00
61 months to 72 months.................................. 5.50 8.50 17.50 20.00 22.50 27.50
73 months to 84 months.................................. 7.00 10.00 20.00 22.50 25.00 30.00
85 months to 120 months................................. 8.50 15.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 40.00
121 months and longer................................... 10.00 20.00 25.00 27.50 30.00 50.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a
security-based swap that is a long credit default swap, deducting 50%
of the deduction that would be required by paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section if the security-based swap was a
short credit default swap.
(iii) Long and short positions. (A) Long and short credit default
swaps. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short
credit default swaps referencing the same entity (in the case of credit
default swap securities-based swaps referencing a corporate entity) or
obligation (in the case of credit default swap securities-based swaps
referencing an asset-backed security), that have the same credit events
which would trigger payment by the seller of protection, that have the
same basket of obligations which would determine the amount of payment
by the seller of protection upon the occurrence of a credit event, that
are in the same or adjacent spread category, and that are in the same
or adjacent maturity category and have a maturity date within three
months of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the
notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) or (ii) on the excess of the long or
short position. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and
short credit default swaps referencing corporate entities in the same
industry sector and the same spread and maturity categories prescribed
in paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section, deducting 50% of the
amount required by paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(i) of this section on the
short position plus the deduction required by paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(O)(1)(ii) of this section on the excess long position, if
any. For the purposes of this section, the broker or dealer must use an
industry sector classification system that is reasonable in terms of
grouping types of companies with similar business activities and risk
characteristics and the broker-dealer must document the industry sector
classification system used pursuant to this section.
(B) Long security and long credit default swap. In the case of a
security-based swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a
debt security and the broker or dealer is long the same debt security,
deducting 50% of the amount specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii)
of this section for the bond, provided that the broker or dealer can
deliver the debt security to satisfy the obligation of the broker or
dealer on the credit default swap.
(C) Short security and short credit default swap. In the case of a
security-based swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a
bond or a corporate entity, and the broker or dealer is short the bond
or a bond issued by the corporate entity, deducting the amount
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii) of this section for the
bond. In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit
default swap referencing an asset-backed security and the broker or
dealer is short the asset-backed security, deducting the amount
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) or (vii) of this section for the
asset-backed security.
(2) Security-based swaps that are not credit default swaps. In the
case of any security-based swap that is not a credit default swap,
deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the notional amount of
the security-based swap and the percentage specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(vi) of this section applicable to the reference security. A
broker or dealer may reduce the deduction under this paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(O)(2) by an amount equal to any reduction recognized for a
comparable long or short position in the reference security under
paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section and, in the case of a security-
based swap referencing an equity security, the method specified in
Sec. 240.15c3-1a.
* * * * *
(xii) * * *
(B) Deducting the amount of cash required in the account of each
security-based swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a
clearing agency, Examining Authority, or the Commission, after
application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required
deposits which are outstanding one business day or less.
* * * * *
(xiv) Deduction from net worth in lieu of collecting margin amounts
for security-based swaps. (A) Cleared security-based swap transactions.
Deducting the amount of the margin difference for each account carried
by the broker or dealer for another person that holds cleared security-
based swap transactions. The margin difference is the amount of the
deductions that the positions in the account would incur pursuant to
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of this section if owned by the broker or
dealer less the margin value of collateral held in the account.
(B) Non-cleared security-based swap transactions. (1) Commercial
end users. Deducting, with respect to a counterparty that is a
commercial end user as that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2),
the margin amount calculated pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B)
for the account of the counterparty at the broker or dealer less any
positive equity in that account as that term is defined in Sec.
240.18a-3(b)(7).
(2) Margin collateral held by third-party custodian. Deducting,
with

[[Page 70331]]

respect to a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as that
term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2) and that elects to have
collateral segregated in an account at an independent third-party
custodian pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)),
the margin amount calculated pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B)
for the account of the counterparty less any positive equity in the
account as that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(7).
(3) Security-based swap legacy accounts. Deducting, with respect to
a security-based swap legacy account as that term is defined in Sec.
240.18a-3(b)(9) of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as
that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2), the margin amount
calculated pursuant Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account less
any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in Sec.
240.18a-3(b)(7).
* * * * *
(16) The term risk margin amount means the sum of:
(i) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the
broker or dealer with respect to security-based swap transactions
cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing agency or the
amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared security-based
swap positions of the security-based swap customers pursuant to
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(O) of this section; and
(ii) The total margin amount calculated by the broker or dealer
with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to Sec.
240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B).
* * * * *
(f) Liquidity requirements. (1) Liquidity stress test. A broker or
dealer whose application, including amendments, has been approved, in
whole or in part, to calculate net capital under Appendix E of this
section must run a liquidity stress test at least monthly, the results
of which must be provided within ten business days to senior management
that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the broker or
dealer. The assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test must be
reviewed at least quarterly by senior management that has
responsibility to oversee risk management at the broker or dealer and
at least annually by senior management of the broker or dealer. The
liquidity stress test must include, at a minimum, the following assumed
conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days:
(i) A stress event that includes a decline in creditworthiness of
the broker or dealer severe enough to trigger contractual credit-
related commitment provisions of counterparty agreements;
(ii) The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of
its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount
of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded
committed lines of credit;
(iii) The potential for a material net loss of secured funding;
(iv) The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement
financing for less liquid assets;
(v) The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at
registered clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted
from net worth or which is not funded by customer assets;
(vi) A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at
registered clearing agencies of which it is a member; and
(vii) The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by
market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to
enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses,
positions, and commitments of the broker or dealer, including those
related to customer businesses of the broker or dealer.
(2) Stress test of consolidated entity. The broker or dealer must
justify and document any differences in the assumptions used in the
liquidity stress test of the broker or dealer from those used in the
liquidity stress test of the consolidated entity of which the broker or
dealer is a part.
(3) Liquidity reserves. The broker or dealer must maintain at all
times liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress
test. The liquidity reserves used to satisfy the liquidity stress test
must be:
(i) Cash, obligations of the United States, or obligations fully
guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and
(ii) Unencumbered and free of any liens at all times. Securities in
the liquidity reserve can be used to meet delivery requirements as long
as cash or other acceptable securities of equal or greater value are
moved into the liquidity pool contemporaneously.
(4) Contingency funding plan. The broker or dealer must have a
written contingency funding plan that addresses the broker's or
dealer's policies and the roles and responsibilities of relevant
personnel for meeting the liquidity needs of the broker or dealer and
communications with the public and other market participants during a
liquidity stress event.
* * * * *
3. Section 240.15c3-1a is amended by:
a. In paragraph (a)(4), revising the first and last sentences; and
b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v)(C)(5).
The addition to read as follows:

Sec. 240.15c3-1a Options (Appendix A to 17 CFR 240.15c3-1).

(a) * * *
(4) The term underlying instrument refers to long and short
positions, as appropriate, covering the same foreign currency, the same
security, security future, or security-based swap, or a security which
is exchangeable for or convertible into the underlying security within
a period of 90 days. * * * The term underlying instrument shall not be
deemed to include securities options, futures contracts, options on
futures contracts, qualified stock baskets, or unlisted instruments
(other than security-based swaps).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) * * *
(5) In the case of portfolio types involving security futures and
equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions in that
underlying instrument, there will be a minimum charge of 25% times the
multiplier for each security-future and equity option.
* * * * *
4. Section 240.15c3-1b is amended by adding a paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

Sec. 240.15c3-1b Adjustments to net worth and aggregate indebtedness
for certain commodities transactions (Appendix B to 17 CFR 240.15c3-1).

* * * * *
(b) Every broker or dealer in computing net capital pursuant to
Sec. 240.15c3-1 must comply with the following:
(1) Swaps. In the case of any swap for which the deductions in
Appendix E of this section do not apply:
(i) Credit default swaps referencing broad-based securities
indices. (A) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a
swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based
securities index, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based
upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the
maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following
table:

[[Page 70332]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis point spread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less 700 or more
(%) 101-300 (%) 301-400 (%) 401-500 (%) 501-699 (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months or less....................................... 0.67 1.33 3.33 5.00 6.67 10.00
13 months to 24 months.................................. 1.00 2.33 5.00 6.67 8.33 11.67
25 months to 36 months.................................. 1.33 3.33 6.67 8.33 10.00 13.33
37 months to 48 months.................................. 2.00 4.00 8.33 10.00 11.67 15.00
49 months to 60 months.................................. 2.67 4.67 10.00 11.67 13.33 16.67
61 months to 72 months.................................. 3.67 5.67 11.67 13.33 15.00 18.33
73 months to 84 months.................................. 4.67 6.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 20.00
85 months to 120 months................................. 5.67 10.00 15.00 16.67 18.33 26.67
121 months and longer................................... 6.67 13.33 16.67 18.33 20.00 33.33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a swap
that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities
index, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B if the swap was a short
credit default swap.
(C) Long and short positions. (1) Long and short credit default
swaps. In the case of swaps that are long and short credit default
swaps referencing the same broad-based security index, have the same
credit events which would trigger payment by the seller of protection,
have the same basket of obligations which would determine the amount of
payment by the seller of protection upon the occurrence of a credit
event, that are in the same or adjacent spread category, and that are
in the same or adjacent maturity category and have a maturity date
within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the
percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity
category under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this Appendix
B on the excess of the long or short position.
(2) Long basket of obligors and long credit default swap. In the
case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-
based securities index and the broker or dealer is long a basket of
debt securities comprising all of the components of the securities
index, deducting 50% of the amount specified in Sec. 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi) for the component securities, provided the broker or dealer
can deliver the component securities to satisfy the obligation of the
broker or dealer on the credit default swap.
(3) Short basket of obligors and short credit default swap. In the
case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-
based securities index and the broker or dealer is short a basket of
debt securities comprising all of the components of the securities
index, deducting the amount specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) for
the component securities.
(2) All other swaps. (i) In the case of any swap that is not a
credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the
notional value of the swap by the percentage specified in:
(A) Section 240.15c3-1 applicable to the reference asset if Sec.
240.15c3-1 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset;
(B) 17 CFR 1.17 applicable to the reference asset if 17 CFR 1.17
specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset and Sec.
240.15c3-1 does not specify a percentage deduction for the type of
asset; or
(C) In the case of an interest rate swap, Sec. 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi)(A) based on the maturity of the swap, provided that the
percentage deduction must be no less than 0.5%.
(ii) A security-based swap dealer may reduce the deduction under
this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by an amount equal to any reduction
recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference
asset or interest rate under Sec. 240.15c3-1 or 17 CFR 1.17.

Sec. 240.15c3-1d [Amended]

5. Section 240.15c3-1d is amended by:
a. Adding to the end of the second sentence of paragraph (b)(7) the
phrase ``, or if, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant
to paragraph (a)(10) of Sec. 240.15c3-1, its net capital would be less
than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under Sec.
240.15c3-1'';
b. In the first sentence of paragraph (b)(8)(i), adding after the
phrase ``if greater, or'' the phrase ``, in the case of a broker or
dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of Sec. 240.15c3-1, its
net capital would be less than either $24 million or 10% of the risk
margin amount under Sec. 240.15c3-1, or'';
c. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(B), adding after the phrase ``if
greater,'' the phrase ``or, in the case of a broker or dealer operating
pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of Sec. 240.15c3-1, its net capital is
less than either $20 million or 8% of the risk margin amount under
Sec. 240.15c3-1,'';
d. In paragraph (c)(2), adding at the end of the sentence the
phrase ``, or, in the case of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to
paragraph (a)(10) of Sec. 240.15c3-1, its net capital would be less
than either $24 million or 10% of the risk margin amount under Sec.
240.15c3-1''; and
e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), adding after the phrase ``if greater,
or less than 120 percent of the minimum dollar amount required by
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,'' the phrase ``, or, in the case
of a broker or dealer operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of Sec.
240.15c3-1, its net capital would be less than either $24 million or
10% of the risk margin amount under Sec. 240.15c3-1,''.

Sec. 240.15c3-1e [Amended]

6. Section 240.15c3-1e is amended by:
a. In the first sentence of paragraph (a) before the first ``:'',
removing the phrase ``transactions in derivatives instruments'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``security-based swap transactions with
commercial end users as defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2)'';
b. In the first sentence of paragraph (c) before the first ``:'',
removing the phrase ``transactions in derivatives instruments'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``security-based swap transactions with
commercial end users as defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2)'';
c. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the phrase ``$5 billion'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``$6 billion''; and
d. In paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ``$5 billion'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``$6 billion''.
7. Section 240.15c3-3 is amended by adding new paragraph (p) to
read as follows:

Sec. 240.15c3-3 Customer protection--reserves and custody of
securities.

* * * * *
(p) Security-based swaps. A broker or dealer that is registered as
a security-based swap dealer pursuant to section 15F of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78o-8) must

[[Page 70333]]

also comply with the provisions of Sec. 240.18a-4.
8. Section 240.18a-1 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-1 Net capital requirements for security-based swap
dealers for which there is not a prudential regulator.

Note to Sec. 240.18a-1: Rule 18a-1 and its appendices do not
apply to a security-based swap dealer that has a prudential
regulator as such a security-based swap dealer is subject to the
capital requirement of the prudential regulator. In addition, Rule
18a-1 and its appendices do not apply to a security-based swap
dealer that also is registered as a broker or dealer pursuant to
section 15(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)) as such a security-based
swap dealer is subject to the net capital requirements in Sec.
240.15c3-1 and its appendices.

(a) Minimum requirements. Every registered security-based swap
dealer must at all times have and maintain net capital no less than the
greater of the highest minimum requirements applicable to its business
under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, and tentative net
capital no less than the minimum requirement under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section.
(1) A security-based swap dealer must at all times maintain net
capital of not less than the greater of $20 million or eight percent
(8%) of the risk margin amount.
(2) In accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the
Commission may approve, in whole or in part, an application or an
amendment to an application by a security-based swap dealer to
calculate net capital using the market risk standards of paragraph (d)
to compute a deduction for market risk on some or all of its positions,
instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (vi), and (vii) of
this section, and using the credit risk standards of paragraph (d) to
compute a deduction for credit risk for security-based swap
transactions with commercial end users as defined in Sec. 240.18a-
3(b)(2), instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and
(c)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of this section, subject to any conditions or
limitations on the security-based swap dealer the Commission may
require as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors. A security-based swap dealer that has been
approved to calculate its net capital under paragraph (d) of this
section must at all times maintain tentative net capital of not less
than $100 million and net capital of not less than the greater of $20
million or eight percent (8%) of the risk margin amount; and
(b) A security-based swap dealer must at all times maintain net
capital in addition to the amounts required under paragraph (a)(1) or
(2) of this section, as applicable, in an amount equal to 10 percent
of:
(1) The excess of the market value of United States Treasury Bills,
Bonds and Notes subject to reverse repurchase agreements with any one
party over 105 percent of the contract prices (including accrued
interest) for reverse repurchase agreements with that party;
(2) The excess of the market value of securities issued or
guaranteed as to principal or interest by an agency of the United
States or mortgage related securities as defined in section 3(a)(41) of
the Act subject to reverse repurchase agreements with any one party
over 110 percent of the contract prices (including accrued interest)
for reverse repurchase agreements with that party; and
(3) The excess of the market value of other securities subject to
reverse repurchase agreements with any one party over 120 percent of
the contract prices (including accrued interest) for reverse repurchase
agreements with that party.
(c) Definitions. For purpose of this section:
(1) The term net capital shall be deemed to mean the net worth of a
security-based swap dealer, adjusted by:
(i) Adjustments to net worth related to unrealized profit or loss
and deferred tax provisions. (A) Adding unrealized profits (or
deducting unrealized losses) in the accounts of the security-based swap
dealer;
(B)(1) In determining net worth, all long and all short positions
in listed options shall be marked to their market value and all long
and all short securities and commodities positions shall be marked to
their market value.
(2) In determining net worth, the value attributed to any unlisted
option shall be the difference between the option's exercise value and
the market value of the underlying security. In the case of an unlisted
call, if the market value of the underlying security is less than the
exercise value of such call it shall be given no value and in the case
of an unlisted put if the market value of the underlying security is
more than the exercise value of the unlisted put it shall be given no
value.
(C) Adding to net worth the lesser of any deferred income tax
liability related to the items in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C)(1), (2), and
(3) of this section, or the sum of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C)(1), (2), and
(3) of this section;
(1) The aggregate amount resulting from applying to the amount of
the deductions computed in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and
(viii) of this section and Appendices A and B, Sec. 240.18a-1a and
Sec. 240.18a-1b, the appropriate Federal and State tax rate(s)
applicable to any unrealized gain on the asset on which the deduction
was computed.
(2) Any deferred tax liability related to income accrued which is
directly related to an asset otherwise deducted pursuant to this
section;
(3) Any deferred tax liability related to unrealized appreciation
in value of any asset(s) which has been otherwise deducted from net
worth in accordance with the provisions of this section; and
(D) Adding, in the case of future income tax benefits arising as a
result of unrealized losses, the amount of such benefits not to exceed
the amount of income tax liabilities accrued on the books and records
of the security-based swap dealer, but only to the extent such benefits
could have been applied to reduce accrued tax liabilities on the date
of the capital computation, had the related unrealized losses been
realized on that date.
(E) Adding to net worth any actual tax liability related to income
accrued which is directly related to an asset otherwise deducted
pursuant to this section.
(ii) Subordinated liabilities. Excluding liabilities of the
security-based swap dealer that are subordinated to the claims of
creditors pursuant to a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement, as
defined in Appendix D (Sec. 240.18a-1d).
(iii) Assets not readily convertible into cash. Deducting fixed
assets and assets which cannot be readily converted into cash,
including, among other things:
(A) Fixed assets and prepaid items. Real estate; furniture and
fixtures; exchange memberships; prepaid rent, insurance and other
expenses; goodwill, organization expenses;
(B) Certain unsecured and partly secured receivables. All unsecured
advances and loans; deficits in customers' and non-customers' unsecured
and partly secured notes; deficits in customers' and non-customers'
unsecured and partly secured accounts after application of calls for
margin, marks to the market or other required deposits that are
outstanding for more than one business day; and the market value of
stock loaned in excess of the value of any collateral received
therefore.
(C) Insurance claims. Insurance claims that, after seven (7)
business days from the date the loss giving rise to the claim is
discovered, are not covered by an opinion of outside counsel that the
claim is valid and is covered by insurance policies presently in
effect; insurance claims that after twenty (20)

[[Page 70334]]

business days from the date the loss giving rise to the claim is
discovered and that are not accompanied by an opinion of outside
counsel described above, have not been acknowledged in writing by the
insurance carrier as due and payable; and insurance claims acknowledged
in writing by the carrier as due and payable outstanding longer than
twenty (20) business days from the date they are so acknowledged by the
carrier; and
(D) Other deductions. All other unsecured receivables; all assets
doubtful of collection less any reserves established therefore; the
amount by which the market value of securities failed to receive
outstanding thirty (30) calendar days exceeds the contract value of
such fails to receive, and the funds on deposit in a ``segregated trust
account'' in accordance with 17 CFR 270.27d-1 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, but only to the extent that the amount on deposit
in such segregated trust account exceeds the amount of liability
reserves established and maintained for refunds of charges required by
sections 27(d) and 27(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940;
Provided, That any amount deposited in the ``special account for the
exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers'' established
pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-4 and clearing deposits shall not be so
deducted.
(E)(1) For purposes of this paragraph:
(i) The term reverse repurchase agreement deficit shall mean the
difference between the contract price for resale of the securities
under a reverse repurchase agreement and the market value of those
securities (if less than the contract price).
(ii) The term repurchase agreement deficit shall mean the
difference between the market value of securities subject to the
repurchase agreement and the contract price for repurchase of the
securities (if less than the market value of the securities).
(iii) As used in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(1) of this section, the
term contract price shall include accrued interest.
(iv) Reverse repurchase agreement deficits and the repurchase
agreement deficits where the counterparty is the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York shall be disregarded.
(2)(i) In the case of a reverse repurchase agreement, the deduction
shall be equal to the reverse repurchase agreement deficit.
(ii) In determining the required deductions under paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section, the security-based swap dealer
may reduce the reverse repurchase agreement deficit by:
(A) Any margin or other deposits held by the security-based swap
dealer on account of the reverse repurchase agreement;
(B) Any excess market value of the securities over the contract
price for resale of those securities under any other reverse repurchase
agreement with the same party;
(C) The difference between the contract price for resale and the
market value of securities subject to repurchase agreements with the
same party (if the market value of those securities is less than the
contract price); and
(D) Calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required
deposits that are outstanding one business day or less.
(3)(i) In the case of repurchase agreements, the deduction shall
be:
(A) The excess of the repurchase agreement deficit over 5 percent
of the contract price for resale of United States Treasury Bills, Notes
and Bonds, 10 percent of the contract price for the resale of
securities issued or guaranteed as to principal or interest by an
agency of the United States or mortgage related securities as defined
in section 3(a)(41) of the Act and 20 percent of the contract price for
the resale of other securities; and
(B) The excess of the aggregate repurchase agreement deficits with
any one party over 25 percent of the security-based swap dealer's net
capital before the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) of
this section (less any deduction taken with respect to repurchase
agreements with that party under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E)(3)(i)(A) of
this section) or, if greater;
(C) The excess of the aggregate repurchase agreement deficits over
300 percent of the security-based swap dealer's net capital before the
application of paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) of this section.
(ii) In determining the required deduction under paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(E)(3)(i) of this section, the security-based swap dealer
may reduce a repurchase agreement by:
(A) Any margin or other deposits held by the security-based swap
dealer on account of a reverse repurchase agreement with the same party
to the extent not otherwise used to reduce a reverse repurchase
agreement deficit;
(B) The difference between the contract price and the market value
of securities subject to other repurchase agreements with the same
party (if the market value of those securities is less than the
contract price) not otherwise used to reduce a reverse repurchase
agreement deficit; and
(C) Calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required
deposits that are outstanding one business day or less to the extent
not otherwise used to reduce a reverse repurchase agreement deficit.
(F) Securities borrowed. One percent of the market value of
securities borrowed collateralized by an irrevocable letter of credit.
(G) Any receivable from an affiliate of the security-based swap
dealer (not otherwise deducted from net worth) and the market value of
any collateral given to an affiliate (not otherwise deducted from net
worth) to secure a liability over the amount of the liability of the
security-based swap dealer unless the books and records of the
affiliate are made available for examination when requested by the
representatives of the Commission in order to demonstrate the validity
of the receivable or payable. The provisions of this subsection shall
not apply where the affiliate is a registered security-based swap
dealer, registered broker or dealer, registered government securities
broker or dealer, bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act,
insurance company as defined in section 3(a)(19) of the Act, investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, federally
insured savings and loan association, or futures commission merchant or
swap dealer registered pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act.
(iv) Non-marketable securities. Deducting 100 percent of the
carrying value in the case of securities or evidence of indebtedness in
the proprietary or other accounts of the security-based swap dealer,
for which there is no ready market, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section, and securities, in the proprietary or other accounts of
the security-based swap dealer, that cannot be publicly offered or sold
because of statutory, regulatory or contractual arrangements or other
restrictions.
(v) Deducting from the contract value of each failed to deliver
contract that is outstanding five business days or longer (21 business
days or longer in the case of municipal securities) the percentages of
the market value of the underlying security that would be required by
application of the deduction required by paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this
section. Such deduction, however, shall be increased by any excess of
the contract price of the failed to deliver contract over the market
value of the underlying security or reduced by any excess of the market
value of the underlying security

[[Page 70335]]

over the contract value of the failed to deliver contract, but not to
exceed the amount of such deduction. The Commission may, upon
application of the security-based swap dealer, extend for a period up
to 5 business days, any period herein specified when it is satisfied
that the extension is warranted. The Commission upon expiration of the
extension may extend for one additional period of up to 5 business
days, any period herein specified when it is satisfied that the
extension is warranted.
(vi) Security-based swaps. Deducting the percentages specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section (or the deductions
prescribed in Sec. 240.18a-1a) of the notional amount of any security-
based swaps in the proprietary account of the security-based swap
dealer.
(A) Credit default swaps. (1) Short positions (selling protection).
In the case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default
swap, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based upon the
current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the maturity
of the credit default swap in accordance with the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis point spread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less 700 or more
(%) 101-300 (%) 301-400 (%) 401-500 (%) 501-699 (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months or less....................................... 1.00 2.00 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00
13 months to 24 months.................................. 1.50 3.50 7.50 10.00 12.50 17.50
25 months to 36 months.................................. 2.00 5.00 10.00 12.50 15.00 20.00
37 months to 48 months.................................. 3.00 6.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 22.50
49 months to 60 months.................................. 4.00 7.00 15.00 17.50 20.00 25.00
61 months to 72 months.................................. 5.50 8.50 17.50 20.00 22.50 27.50
73 months to 84 months.................................. 7.00 10.00 20.00 22.50 25.00 30.00
85 months to 120 months................................. 8.50 15.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 40.00
121 months and longer................................... 10.00 20.00 25.00 27.50 30.00 50.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a
security-based swap that is a long credit default swap, deducting 50%
of the deduction that would be required by paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1)
of this section if the security-based swap was a short credit default
swap.
(3) Long and short positions. (i) Long and short credit default
swaps. In the case of security-based swaps that are long and short
credit default swaps referencing the same obligor or obligation, that
are in the same spread category, and that are in the same maturity
category or are in the next maturity category and have a maturity date
within three months of the other maturity category, deducting the
percentage of the notional amount specified in the higher maturity
category under paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) or (2) on the excess of the
long or short position. In the case of security-based swaps that are
long and short credit default swaps referencing obligors or obligations
of obligors in the same industry sector and the same spread and
maturity categories prescribed in paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of this
section, deducting 50% of the amount required by paragraph
(c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) of this section on the short position plus the
deduction required by paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A)(2) of this section on the
excess long position, if any. For the purposes of this section, the
security-based swap dealer must use an industry sector classification
system that is reasonable in terms of grouping types of companies with
similar business activities and risk characteristics and document the
industry sector classification system used pursuant to this section.
(ii) Long security and long credit default swap. In the case of a
security-based swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a
debt security and the security-based swap dealer is long the same debt
security, deducting 50% of the amount specified in Sec. 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the bond, provided that the security-based
swap dealer can deliver the bond to satisfy the obligation of the
security-based swap dealer on the credit default swap.
(iii) Short security and short credit default swap. In the case of
a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a
bond or a corporate entity and the security-based swap dealer is short
the bond or a bond issued by the corporate entity, deducting the amount
specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the bond. In the
case of a security-based swap that is a short credit default swap
referencing an asset-backed security and the security-based swap dealer
is short the asset-backed security, deducting the amount specified in
Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) or (vii) for the asset-backed security.
(B) All other security-based swaps. In the case of any security-
based swap that is not a credit default swap, deducting the amount
calculated by multiplying the notional amount of the security-based
swap and the percentage specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)
applicable to the reference security. A security-based swap dealer may
reduce the deduction under this paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) by an amount
equal to any reduction recognized for a comparable long or short
position in the reference security under Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)
and, in the case of a security-based swap referencing an equity
security, the method specified in Sec. 240.18a-1a.
(vii) All other securities, money market instruments or options.
Deducting the percentages specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) of
the market value of all securities, money market instruments, and
options in the proprietary accounts of the security-based swap dealer.
(viii) Deduction from net worth in lieu of collecting margin
amounts for security-based swaps. (A) Cleared security-based swap
transactions. Deducting the amount of the margin difference for each
account carried by the security-based swap dealer for another person
that holds cleared security-based swap transactions. The margin
difference is the amount of the deductions that the positions in the
account would incur pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section if
owned by the security-based swap dealer less the margin value of
collateral held in the account.
(B) Non-cleared security-based swap transactions. (1) Commercial
end users. Deducting, with respect to a counterparty that is a
commercial end user as that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2),
the margin amount calculated pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B)
for the account of the counterparty less any positive equity in the
account as that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(7).

[[Page 70336]]

(2) Margin collateral held by third-party custodian. Deducting,
with respect to a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as
that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2) and that elects to have
collateral segregated in an account at an independent third-party
custodian pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)),
the margin amount calculated pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B)
for the account of the counterparty at the security-based swap dealer
less any positive equity in that account as that term is defined in
Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(7).
(3) Security-based swap legacy accounts. Deducting, with respect to
a security-based swap legacy account as that term is defined in Sec.
240.18a-3(b)(9) of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user as
that term is defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2), the margin amount
calculated pursuant Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B) for the account less
any positive equity in the account as that term is defined in Sec.
240.18a-3(b)(7).
(ix) Deduction from net worth for certain undermargined accounts.
Deducting the amount of cash required in the account of each security-
based swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a clearing
agency or the Commission, after application of calls for margin, marks
to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding one
business day or less.
(2) The term exempted securities shall mean those securities deemed
exempted securities by section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the rules thereunder.
(3) Customer. The term customer shall mean any person from whom, or
on whose behalf, a security-based swap dealer has received, acquired or
holds funds or securities for the account of such person, but shall not
include a security-based swap dealer, a broker or dealer, a registered
municipal securities dealer, or a general, special or limited partner
or director or officer of the security-based swap dealer, or any person
to the extent that such person has a claim for property or funds which
by contract, agreement, or understanding, or by operation of law, is
part of the capital of the security-based swap dealer.
(4) Ready market. The term ready market shall include a recognized
established securities market in which there exists independent bona
fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the
last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer
quotations can be determined for a particular security almost
instantaneously and where payment will be received in settlement of a
sale at such price within a relatively short time conforming to trade
custom.
(5) The term tentative net capital means the net capital of the
security-based swap dealer before deductions for market and credit risk
computed pursuant to this section and increased by the balance sheet
value (including counterparty net exposure) resulting from transactions
in derivative instruments which would otherwise be deducted. Tentative
net capital shall include securities for which there is no ready
market, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, if the use of
mathematical models has been approved for purposes of calculating
deductions from net capital for those securities pursuant to paragraph
(d) of this section.
(6) The term risk margin amount means the sum of:
(i) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the
security-based swap dealer with respect to security-based swap
transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing
agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared
security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section; and
(ii) The total margin amount calculated by the security-based swap
dealer with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps pursuant to
Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(i)(B).
(d) Application to use models to compute deductions for market and
credit risk. (1) A security-based swap dealer may apply to the
Commission for authorization to compute deductions for market risk
under this paragraph (d) in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (vi), and (vii) of this section and to compute
deductions for credit risk pursuant to this paragraph (d) on credit
exposures arising from transactions in derivatives instruments (if this
paragraph (d) is used to calculate deductions for market risk on these
instruments) in lieu of computing deductions pursuant to paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) A security-based swap dealer shall submit the following
information to the Commission with its application:
(A) An executive summary of the information provided to the
Commission with its application and an identification of the ultimate
holding company of the security-based swap dealer;
(B) A comprehensive description of the internal risk management
control system of the security-based swap dealer and how that system
satisfies the requirements set forth in Sec. 240.15c3-4;
(C) A list of the categories of positions that the security-based
swap dealer holds in its proprietary accounts and a brief description
of the methods that the security-based swap dealer will use to
calculate deductions for market and credit risk on those categories of
positions;
(D) A description of the mathematical models to be used to price
positions and to compute deductions for market risk, including those
portions of the deductions attributable to specific risk, if
applicable, and deductions for credit risk; a description of the
creation, use, and maintenance of the mathematical models; a
description of the security-based swap dealer's internal risk
management controls over those models, including a description of each
category of persons who may input data into the models; if a
mathematical model incorporates empirical correlations across risk
categories, a description of the process for measuring correlations; a
description of the backtesting procedures the security-based swap
dealer will use to backtest the mathematical models used to calculate
maximum potential exposure; a description of how each mathematical
model satisfies the applicable qualitative and quantitative
requirements set forth in this paragraph (d); and a statement
describing the extent to which each mathematical model used to compute
deductions for market risk and credit risk will be used as part of the
risk analyses and reports presented to senior management;
(E) If the security-based swap dealer is applying to the Commission
for approval to use scenario analysis to calculate deductions for
market risk for certain positions, a list of those types of positions,
a description of how those deductions will be calculated using scenario
analysis, and an explanation of why each scenario analysis is
appropriate to calculate deductions for market risk on those types of
positions;
(F) A description of how the security-based swap dealer will
calculate current exposure;
(G) A description of how the security-based swap dealer will
determine internal credit ratings of counterparties and internal credit
risk weights of counterparties, if applicable;
(H) For each instance in which a mathematical model to be used by
the security-based swap dealer to calculate a deduction for market risk
or to calculate maximum potential exposure for a particular product or
counterparty differs from the mathematical model used by the ultimate
holding company to calculate an allowance for market risk or to
calculate maximum potential

[[Page 70337]]

exposure for that same product or counterparty, a description of the
difference(s) between the mathematical models; and
(I) Sample risk reports that are provided to management at the
security-based swap dealer who are responsible for managing the
security-based swap dealer's risk.
(ii) [Reserved].
(2) The application of the security-based swap dealer shall be
supplemented by other information relating to the internal risk
management control system, mathematical models, and financial position
of the security-based swap dealer that the Commission may request to
complete its review of the application;
(3) The application shall be considered filed when received at the
Commission's principal office in Washington, DC A person who files an
application pursuant to this section for which it seeks confidential
treatment may clearly mark each page or segregable portion of each page
with the words ``Confidential Treatment Requested.'' All information
submitted in connection with the application will be accorded
confidential treatment, to the extent permitted by law;
(4) If any of the information filed with the Commission as part of
the application of the security-based swap dealer is found to be or
becomes inaccurate before the Commission approves the application, the
security-based swap dealer must notify the Commission promptly and
provide the Commission with a description of the circumstances in which
the information was found to be or has become inaccurate along with
updated, accurate information;
(5) The Commission may approve the application or an amendment to
the application, in whole or in part, subject to any conditions or
limitations the Commission may require if the Commission finds the
approval to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for
the protection of investors, after determining, among other things,
whether the security-based swap dealer has met the requirements of this
paragraph (d) and is in compliance with other applicable rules
promulgated under the Act;
(6) A security-based swap dealer shall amend its application to
calculate certain deductions for market and credit risk under this
paragraph (d) and submit the amendment to the Commission for approval
before it may change materially a mathematical model used to calculate
market or credit risk or before it may change materially its internal
risk management control system;
(7) As a condition for the security-based swap dealer to compute
deductions for market and credit risk under this paragraph (d), the
security-based swap dealer agrees that:
(i) It will notify the Commission 45 days before it ceases to
compute deductions for market and credit risk under this paragraph (d);
and
(ii) The Commission may determine by order that the notice will
become effective after a shorter or longer period of time if the
security-based swap dealer consents or if the Commission determines
that a shorter or longer period of time is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest or for the protection of investors; and
(8) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(7) of this section, the
Commission, by order, may revoke a security-based swap dealer's
exemption that allows it to use the market risk standards of this
paragraph (d) to calculate deductions for market risk, and the
exemption to use the credit risk standards of this paragraph (d) to
calculate deductions for credit risk on certain credit exposures
arising from transactions in derivatives instruments if the Commission
finds that such exemption is no longer necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors. In making its
finding, the Commission will consider the compliance history of the
security-based swap dealer related to its use of models, the financial
and operational strength of the security-based swap dealer and its
ultimate holding company, and the security-based swap dealer's
compliance with its internal risk management controls.
(9) VaR models. To be approved, each value-at-risk (``VaR'') model
must meet the following minimum qualitative and quantitative
requirements:
(i) Qualitative requirements. (A) The VaR model used to calculate
market or credit risk for a position must be integrated into the daily
internal risk management system of the security-based swap dealer;
(B) The VaR model must be reviewed both periodically and annually.
The periodic review may be conducted by the security-based swap
dealer's internal audit staff, but the annual review must be conducted
by a registered public accounting firm, as that term is defined in
section 2(a)(12) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et
seq.); and
(C) For purposes of computing market risk, the security-based swap
dealer must determine the appropriate multiplication factor as follows:
(1) Beginning three months after the security-based swap dealer
begins using the VaR model to calculate market risk, the security-based
swap dealer must conduct backtesting of the model by comparing its
actual daily net trading profit or loss with the corresponding VaR
measure generated by the VaR model, using a 99 percent, one-tailed
confidence level with price changes equivalent to a one business-day
movement in rates and prices, for each of the past 250 business days,
or other period as may be appropriate for the first year of its use;
(2) On the last business day of each quarter, the security-based
swap dealer must identify the number of backtesting exceptions of the
VaR model using clean profit and loss, that is, the number of business
days in the past 250 business days, or other period as may be
appropriate for the first year of its use, for which the actual net
trading loss, if any, exceeds the corresponding VaR measure; and
(3) The security-based swap dealer must use the multiplication
factor indicated in Table 1 of this paragraph (d) in determining its
market risk until it obtains the next quarter's backtesting results;

Table 1--Multiplication Factor Based on the Number of Backtesting
Exceptions of the VaR Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplication
Number of exceptions factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 or fewer............................................ 3.00
5..................................................... 3.40
6..................................................... 3.50
7..................................................... 3.65
8..................................................... 3.75
9..................................................... 3.85
10 or more............................................ 4.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) For purposes of incorporating specific risk into a VaR model,
a security-based swap dealer must demonstrate that it has methodologies
in place to capture liquidity, event, and default risk adequately for
each position. Furthermore, the models used to calculate deductions for
specific risk must:
(i) Explain the historical price variation in the portfolio;
(ii) Capture concentration (magnitude and changes in composition);
(iii) Be robust to an adverse environment;
(iv) Capture name-related basis risk;
(v) Capture event risk; and
(vi) Be validated through backtesting.
(5) For purposes of computing the credit equivalent amount of the
security-based swap dealer's exposures

[[Page 70338]]

to a counterparty, the security-based swap dealer must determine the
appropriate multiplication factor as follows:
(i) Beginning three months after it begins using the VaR model to
calculate maximum potential exposure, the security-based swap dealer
must conduct backtesting of the model by comparing, for at least 80
counterparties with widely varying types and sizes of positions with
the firm, the ten business day change in its current exposure to the
counterparty based on its positions held at the beginning of the ten-
business day period with the corresponding ten-business day maximum
potential exposure for the counterparty generated by the VaR model;
(ii) As of the last business day of each quarter, the security-
based swap dealer must identify the number of backtesting exceptions of
the VaR model, that is, the number of ten-business day periods in the
past 250 business days, or other period as may be appropriate for the
first year of its use, for which the change in current exposure to a
counterparty exceeds the corresponding maximum potential exposure; and
(iii) The security-based swap dealer will propose, as part of its
application, a schedule of multiplication factors, which must be
approved by the Commission based on the number of backtesting
exceptions of the VaR model. The security-based swap dealer must use
the multiplication factor indicated in the approved schedule in
determining the credit equivalent amount of its exposures to a
counterparty until it obtains the next quarter's backtesting results,
unless the Commission determines, based on, among other relevant
factors, a review of the security-based swap dealer's internal risk
management control system, including a review of the VaR model, that a
different adjustment or other action is appropriate.
(ii) Quantitative requirements.
(A) For purposes of determining market risk, the VaR model must use
a 99 percent, one-tailed confidence level with price changes equivalent
to a ten business-day movement in rates and prices;
(B) For purposes of determining maximum potential exposure, the VaR
model must use a 99 percent, one-tailed confidence level with price
changes equivalent to a one-year movement in rates and prices; or based
on a review of the security-based swap dealer's procedures for managing
collateral and if the collateral is marked to market daily and the
security-based swap dealer has the ability to call for additional
collateral daily, the Commission may approve a time horizon of not less
than ten business days;
(C) The VaR model must use an effective historical observation
period of at least one year. The security-based swap dealer must
consider the effects of market stress in its construction of the model.
Historical data sets must be updated at least monthly and reassessed
whenever market prices or volatilities change significantly; and
(D) The VaR model must take into account and incorporate all
significant, identifiable market risk factors applicable to positions
in the accounts of the security-based swap dealer, including:
(1) Risks arising from the non-linear price characteristics of
derivatives and the sensitivity of the market value of those positions
to changes in the volatility of the derivatives' underlying rates and
prices;
(2) Empirical correlations with and across risk factors or,
alternatively, risk factors sufficient to cover all the market risk
inherent in the positions in the proprietary or other trading accounts
of the security-based swap dealer, including interest rate risk, equity
price risk, foreign exchange risk, and commodity price risk;
(3) Spread risk, where applicable, and segments of the yield curve
sufficient to capture differences in volatility and imperfect
correlation of rates along the yield curve for securities and
derivatives that are sensitive to different interest rates; and
(4) Specific risk for individual positions.
(iii) Additional conditions. (A) As a condition for the security-
based swap dealer to use this paragraph (d) to calculate certain of its
capital charges, the Commission may impose additional conditions on the
security-based swap dealer, which may include, but are not limited to
restricting the security-based swap dealer's business on a product-
specific, category-specific, or general basis; submitting to the
Commission a plan to increase the security-based swap dealer's net
capital or tentative net capital; filing more frequent reports with the
Commission; modifying the security-based swap dealer's internal risk
management control procedures; or computing the security-based swap
dealer's deductions for market and credit risk in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(1) (iii), (iv), (vii), or (viii) as appropriate. If the
Commission finds it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of investors, the Commission may impose
additional conditions on the security-based swap dealer, if:
(1) The security-based swap dealer is required by Sec. 240.18a-8
to provide notice to the Commission that the security-based swap
dealer's tentative net capital is less than $100 million;
(2) The security-based swap dealer fails to meet the reporting
requirements set forth in Sec. 240.18a-8;
(3) Any event specified in Sec. 240.18a-8 occurs;
(4) There is a material deficiency in the internal risk management
control system or in the mathematical models used to price securities
or to calculate deductions for market and credit risk or allowances for
market and credit risk, as applicable, of the security-based swap
dealer;
(5) The security-based swap dealer fails to comply with this
paragraph (d); or
(6) The Commission finds that imposition of other conditions is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors.
(e) Models to compute deductions for market risk and credit risk.
(1) Market risk. A security-based swap dealer whose application,
including amendments, has been approved under paragraph (d) of this
section, shall compute a deduction for market risk in an amount equal
to the sum of the following:
(i) For positions for which the Commission has approved the
security-based swap dealer's use of VaR models, the VaR of the
positions multiplied by the appropriate multiplication factor
determined according to paragraph (d) of this section, except that the
initial multiplication factor shall be three, unless the Commission
determines, based on a review of the security-based swap dealer's
application or an amendment to the application under paragraph (d) of
this section, including a review of its internal risk management
control system and practices and VaR models, that another
multiplication factor is appropriate;
(ii) For positions for which the VaR model does not incorporate
specific risk, a deduction for specific risk to be determined by the
Commission based on a review of the security-based swap dealer's
application or an amendment to the application under paragraph (d) of
this section and the positions involved;
(iii) For positions for which the Commission has approved the
security-based swap dealer's application to use scenario analysis, the
greatest loss resulting from a range of adverse movements in relevant
risk factors, prices, or spreads designed to represent a negative
movement greater than, or equal to, the worst ten-day movement of

[[Page 70339]]

the four years preceding calculation of the greatest loss, or some
multiple of the greatest loss based on the liquidity of the positions
subject to scenario analysis. If historical data is insufficient, the
deduction shall be the largest loss within a three standard deviation
movement in those risk factors, prices, or spreads over a ten-day
period, multiplied by an appropriate liquidity adjustment factor.
Irrespective of the deduction otherwise indicated under scenario
analysis, the resulting deduction for market risk must be at least $25
per 100 share equivalent contract for equity positions, or one-half of
one percent of the face value of the contract for all other types of
contracts, even if the scenario analysis indicates a lower amount. A
qualifying scenario must include the following:
(A) A set of pricing equations for the positions based on, for
example, arbitrage relations, statistical analysis, historic
relationships, merger evaluations, or fundamental valuation of an
offering of securities;
(B) Auxiliary relationships mapping risk factors to prices; and
(C) Data demonstrating the effectiveness of the scenario in
capturing market risk, including specific risk; and
(iv) For all remaining positions, the deductions specified in Sec.
240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi), Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vii), and applicable
appendices to Sec. 240.15c3-1.
(2) Credit risk. A security-based swap dealer whose application,
including amendments, has been approved under paragraph (d) of this
section with respect to positions in security-based swaps may compute a
deduction for credit risk on security-based swap transactions with
commercial end users as defined in Sec. 240.18a-3(b)(2) in an amount
equal to the sum of the following:
(i) A counterparty exposure charge in an amount equal to the sum of
the following:
(A) The net replacement value in the account of each counterparty
that is insolvent, or in bankruptcy, or that has senior unsecured long-
term debt in default; and
(B) For a counterparty not otherwise described in paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the credit equivalent amount of the
security-based swap dealer's exposure to the counterparty, as defined
in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(A) of this section, multiplied by the credit
risk weight of the counterparty, as determined in accordance with
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(F) of this section, multiplied by 8%;
(ii) A concentration charge by counterparty in an amount equal to
the sum of the following:
(A) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of 20% or less,
5% of the amount of the current exposure to the counterparty in excess
of 5% of the tentative net capital of the security-based swap dealer;
(B) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of greater than
20% but less than 50%, 20% of the amount of the current exposure to the
counterparty in excess of 5% of the tentative net capital of the
security-based swap dealer; and
(C) For each counterparty with a credit risk weight of greater than
50%, 50% of the amount of the current exposure to the counterparty in
excess of 5% of the tentative net capital of the security-based swap
dealer; and
(iii) A portfolio concentration charge of 100% of the amount of the
security-based swap dealer's aggregate current exposure for all
counterparties in excess of 50% of the tentative net capital of the
security-based swap dealer.
(iv) Terms. (A) The credit equivalent amount of the security-based
swap dealer's exposure to a counterparty is the sum of the security-
based swap dealer's maximum potential exposure to the counterparty, as
defined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, multiplied by the
appropriate multiplication factor, and the security-based swap dealer's
current exposure to the counterparty, as defined in paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(C) of this section. The security-based swap dealer must use
the multiplication factor determined according to paragraph
(d)(9)(i)(C)(5) of this section, except that the initial multiplication
factor shall be one, unless the Commission determines, based on a
review of the security-based swap dealer's application or an amendment
to the application approved under paragraph (d) of this section,
including a review of its internal risk management control system and
practices and VaR models, that another multiplication factor is
appropriate;
(B) The maximum potential exposure is the VaR of the counterparty's
positions with the security-based swap dealer, after applying netting
agreements with the counterparty meeting the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(D) of this section, taking into account the value of
collateral from the counterparty held by the security-based swap dealer
in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of this section, and taking
into account the current replacement value of the counterparty's
positions with the security-based swap dealer;
(C) The current exposure of the security-based swap dealer to a
counterparty is the current replacement value of the counterparty's
positions with the security-based swap dealer, after applying netting
agreements with the counterparty meeting the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(D) of this section and taking into account the value of
collateral from the counterparty held by the security-based swap dealer
in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(E) of this section;
(D) Netting agreements. A security-based swap dealer may include
the effect of a netting agreement that allows the security-based swap
dealer to net gross receivables from and gross payables to a
counterparty upon default of the counterparty if:
(1) The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each relevant
jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings;
(2) The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject to
the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any
time; and
(3) For internal risk management purposes, the security-based swap
dealer monitors and controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net
basis.
(E) Collateral. When calculating maximum potential exposure and
current exposure to a counterparty, the fair market value of collateral
pledged and held may be taken into account provided:
(1) The collateral is marked to market each day and is subject to a
daily margin maintenance requirement;
(2) The security-based swap dealer maintains physical possession or
sole control of the collateral;
(3) The collateral is liquid and transferable;
(4) The collateral may be liquidated promptly by the firm without
intervention by any other party;
(5) The collateral agreement is legally enforceable by the
security-based swap dealer against the counterparty and any other
parties to the agreement;
(6) The collateral does not consist of securities issued by the
counterparty or a party related to the security-based swap dealer or to
the counterparty;
(7) The Commission has approved the security-based swap dealer's
use of a VaR model to calculate deductions for market risk for the type
of collateral in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and
(8) The collateral is not used in determining the credit rating of
the counterparty.
(F) Credit risk weights of counterparties. A security-based swap

[[Page 70340]]

dealer that computes its deductions for credit risk pursuant to
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall apply a credit risk weight for
transactions with a counterparty of either 20%, 50%, or 150% based on
an internal credit rating the security-based swap dealer determines for
the counterparty.
(1) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the
security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to apply a
credit risk weight of either 20%, 50%, or 150% based on internal
calculations of credit ratings, including internal estimates of the
maturity adjustment. Based on the strength of the security-based swap
dealer's internal credit risk management system, the Commission may
approve the application. The security-based swap dealer must make and
keep current a record of the basis for the credit risk weight of each
counterparty;
(2) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the
security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to determine
credit risk weights based on internal calculations, including internal
estimates of the maturity adjustment. Based on the strength of the
security-based swap dealer's internal credit risk management system,
the Commission may approve the application. The security-based swap
dealer must make and keep current a record of the basis for the credit
risk weight of each counterparty; and
(3) As part of its initial application or in an amendment, the
security-based swap dealer may request Commission approval to reduce
deductions for credit risk through the use of credit derivatives.
(f) Liquidity requirements. (1) Liquidity stress test. A security-
based swap dealer that computes net capital under paragraph (a)(2) of
this Rule 18a-1 must perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly,
the results of which must be provided within ten business days to
senior management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at
the security-based swap dealer. The assumptions underlying the
liquidity stress test must be reviewed at least quarterly by senior
management that has responsibility to oversee risk management at the
security-based swap dealer and at least annually by senior management
of the security-based swap dealer. The liquidity stress test must
include, at a minimum, the following assumed conditions lasting for 30
consecutive days:
(i) A stress event includes a decline in creditworthiness of the
broker or dealer severe enough to trigger contractual credit-related
commitment provisions of counterparty agreements;
(ii) The loss of all existing unsecured funding at the earlier of
its maturity or put date and an inability to acquire a material amount
of new unsecured funding, including intercompany advances and unfunded
committed lines of credit;
(iii) The potential for a material net loss of secured funding;
(iv) The loss of the ability to procure repurchase agreement
financing for less liquid assets;
(v) The illiquidity of collateral required by and on deposit at
clearing agencies or other entities which is not deducted from net
worth or which is not funded by customer assets;
(vi) A material increase in collateral required to be maintained at
registered clearing agencies of which it is a member; and
(vii) The potential for a material loss of liquidity caused by
market participants exercising contractual rights and/or refusing to
enter into transactions with respect to the various businesses,
positions, and commitments of the security-based swap dealer, including
those related to customer businesses of the security-based swap dealer.
(2) Stress test of consolidated entity. The security-based swap
dealer must justify and document any differences in the assumptions
used in the liquidity stress test of the security-based swap dealer
from those used in the liquidity stress test of the consolidated entity
of which the security-based swap dealer is a part.
(3) Liquidity reserves. The security-based swap dealer must
maintain at all times liquidity reserves based on the results of the
liquidity stress test. The liquidity reserves used to satisfy the
liquidity stress test must be:
(i) Cash, obligations of the United States, or obligations fully
guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States; and
(ii) Unencumbered and free of any liens at all times.
Securities in the liquidity reserve can be used to meet delivery
requirements as long as cash or other acceptable securities of equal or
greater value are moved into the liquidity pool contemporaneously.
(4) Contingency funding plan. The security-based swap dealer must
have a written contingency funding plan that addresses the security-
based swap dealer's policies and the roles and responsibilities of
relevant personnel for meeting the liquidity needs of the security-
based swap dealer and communications with the public and other market
participants during a liquidity stress event.
(g) Internal risk management control systems. A security-based swap
dealer must comply with Sec. 240.15c3-4 as if it were an OTC
derivatives dealer with respect to all of its business activities,
except that paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii) and (xiv) and (d)(8) and (9) of
Sec. 240.15c3-4 shall not apply.
(h) Debt-equity requirements. No security-based swap dealer shall
permit the total of outstanding principal amounts of its satisfactory
subordination agreements (other than such agreements which qualify
under this paragraph (h) as equity capital) to exceed 70 percent of its
debt-equity total, as hereinafter defined, for a period in excess of 90
days or for such longer period which the Commission may, upon
application of the security-based swap dealer, grant in the public
interest or for the protection of investors. In the case of a
corporation, the debt-equity total shall be the sum of its outstanding
principal amounts of satisfactory subordination agreements, par or
stated value of capital stock, paid in capital in excess of par,
retained earnings, unrealized profit and loss or other capital
accounts. In the case of a partnership, the debt-equity total shall be
the sum of its outstanding principal amounts of satisfactory
subordination agreements, capital accounts of partners (exclusive of
such partners' securities accounts) subject to the provisions of
paragraph (i) of this section, and unrealized profit and loss.
Provided, however, that a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement
entered into by a partner or stockholder which has an initial term of
at least three years and has a remaining term of not less than 12
months shall be considered equity for the purposes of this paragraph
(h) if:
(1) It does not have any of the provisions for accelerated maturity
provided for by paragraphs (b)(8)(i), (9)(i), or (9)(ii) of Appendix D
of this section and is maintained as capital subject to the provisions
restricting the withdrawal thereof required by paragraph (i) of this
section; or
(2) The partnership agreement provides that capital contributed
pursuant to a satisfactory subordination agreement as defined in
Appendix D of this section shall in all respects be partnership capital
subject to the provisions restricting the withdrawal thereof required
by paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) Notice provisions relating to limitations on the withdrawal of
equity capital. (1) No equity capital of the security-based swap dealer
or a

[[Page 70341]]

subsidiary or affiliate consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this
section may be withdrawn by action of a stockholder or a partner or by
redemption or repurchase of shares of stock by any of the consolidated
entities or through the payment of dividends or any similar
distribution, nor may any unsecured advance or loan be made to a
stockholder, partner, employee or affiliate without written notice
given in accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(iv) of this section:
(i) Two business days prior to any withdrawals, advances or loans
if those withdrawals, advances or loans on a net basis exceed in the
aggregate in any 30 calendar day period, 30 percent of the security-
based swap dealer's excess net capital. A security-based swap dealer,
in an emergency situation, may make withdrawals, advances or loans that
on a net basis exceed 30 percent of the security-based swap dealer's
excess net capital in any 30 calendar day period without giving the
advance notice required by this paragraph, with the prior approval of
the Commission. Where a security-based swap dealer makes a withdrawal
with the consent of the Commission, it shall in any event comply with
paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section; or
(ii) Two business days after any withdrawals, advances or loans if
those withdrawals, advances or loans on a net basis exceed in the
aggregate in any 30 calendar day period, 20 percent of the security-
based swap dealer's excess net capital.
(iii) This paragraph (i)(1) does not apply to:
(A) Securities or commodities transactions in the ordinary course
of business between a security-based swap dealer and an affiliate where
the security-based swap dealer makes payment to or on behalf of such
affiliate for such transaction and then receives payment from such
affiliate for the securities or commodities transaction within two
business days from the date of the transaction; or
(B) Withdrawals, advances or loans which in the aggregate in any
thirty calendar day period, on a net basis, equal $500,000 or less.
(iv) Each required notice shall be effective when received by the
Commission in Washington, DC, the regional office of the Commission for
the region in which the security-based swap dealer has its principal
place of business, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission if such
security-based swap dealer is registered with that Commission.
(2) Limitations on withdrawal of equity capital. No equity capital
of the security-based swap dealer or a subsidiary or affiliate
consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this section may be withdrawn by
action of a stockholder or a partner or by redemption or repurchase of
shares of stock by any of the consolidated entities or through the
payment of dividends or any similar distribution, nor may any unsecured
advance or loan be made to a stockholder, partner, employee or
affiliate, if after giving effect thereto and to any other such
withdrawals, advances or loans and any Payments of Payments Obligations
(as defined in Appendix D of this section) under satisfactory
subordinated loan agreements which are scheduled to occur within 180
days following such withdrawal, advance or loan if:
(i) The security-based swap dealer's net capital would be less than
120 percent of the minimum dollar amount required by paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(ii) The total outstanding principal amounts of satisfactory
subordinated loan agreements of the security-based swap dealer and any
subsidiaries or affiliates consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of this
section (other than such agreements which qualify as equity under
paragraph (h) of this section) would exceed 70% of the debt-equity
total as defined in paragraph (h) of this section.
(3) Temporary restrictions on withdrawal of net capital. (i) The
Commission may by order restrict, for a period up to twenty business
days, any withdrawal by the security-based swap dealer of equity
capital or unsecured loan or advance to a stockholder, partner, member,
employee or affiliate under such terms and conditions as the Commission
deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or consistent
with the protection of investors if the Commission, based on the
information available, concludes that such withdrawal, advance or loan
may be detrimental to the financial integrity of the security-based
swap dealer, or may unduly jeopardize the security-based swap dealer's
ability to repay its customer claims or other liabilities which may
cause a significant impact on the markets or expose the customers or
creditors of the security-based swap dealer to loss.
(ii) An order temporarily prohibiting the withdrawal of capital
shall be rescinded if the Commission determines that the restriction on
capital withdrawal should not remain in effect. A hearing on an order
temporarily prohibiting withdrawal of capital will be held within two
business days from the date of the request in writing by the security-
based swap dealer.
(4) Miscellaneous provisions. (i) Excess net capital is that amount
in excess of the amount required under paragraph (a) of this section.
For the purposes of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, a
security-based swap dealer may use the amount of excess net capital and
deductions required under paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) and
Appendix A of this section reported in its most recently required filed
Form X-18A-7 for the purposes of calculating the effect of a projected
withdrawal, advance or loan relative to excess net capital or
deductions. The security-based swap dealer must assure itself that the
excess net capital or the deductions reported on the most recently
required filed Form X-18A-7 have not materially changed since the time
such report was filed.
(ii) The term equity capital includes capital contributions by
partners, par or stated value of capital stock, paid-in capital in
excess of par, retained earnings or other capital accounts. The term
equity capital does not include securities in the securities accounts
of partners and balances in limited partners' capital accounts in
excess of their stated capital contributions.
(iii) Paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section shall not preclude
a security-based swap dealer from making required tax payments or
preclude the payment to partners of reasonable compensation, and such
payments shall not be included in the calculation of withdrawals,
advances, or loans for purposes of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(iv) For the purpose of this paragraph (i), any transactions
between a security-based swap dealer and a stockholder, partner,
employee or affiliate that results in a diminution of the security-
based swap dealer's net capital shall be deemed to be an advance or
loan of net capital.
9. Section 240.18a-1a is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-1a Options (Appendix A to 17 CFR 240.18a-1).

(a)(1) Definitions. The term unlisted option means any option not
included in the definition of listed option provided in Sec. 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(x).
(2) The term option series refers to listed option contracts of the
same type (either a call or a put) and exercise style, covering the
same underlying security with the same exercise price, expiration date,
and number of underlying units.
(3) The term related instrument within an option class or product
group refers to futures contracts and options

[[Page 70342]]

on futures contracts covering the same underlying instrument. In
relation to options on foreign currencies, a related instrument within
an option class also shall include forward contracts on the same
underlying currency.
(4) The term underlying instrument refers to long and short
positions, as appropriate, covering the same foreign currency, the same
security, security future, or security-based swap, or a security which
is exchangeable for or convertible into the underlying security within
a period of 90 days. If the exchange or conversion requires the payment
of money or results in a loss upon conversion at the time when the
security is deemed an underlying instrument for purposes of this
Appendix A, the security-based swap dealer will deduct from net worth
the full amount of the conversion loss. The term underlying instrument
shall not be deemed to include securities options, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, qualified stock baskets, or unlisted
instruments (other than security-based swaps).
(5) The term options class refers to all options contracts covering
the same underlying instrument.
(6) The term product group refers to two or more option classes,
related instruments, underlying instruments, and qualified stock
baskets in the same portfolio type (see paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section) for which it has been determined that a percentage of
offsetting profits may be applied to losses at the same valuation
point.
(b) The deduction under this Appendix A must equal the sum of the
deductions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C) of this section.

Theoretical Pricing Charges

(1)(i) Definitions. (A) The terms theoretical gains and losses mean
the gain and loss in the value of individual option series, the value
of underlying instruments, related instruments, and qualified stock
baskets within that option's class, at 10 equidistant intervals
(valuation points) ranging from an assumed movement (both up and down)
in the current market value of the underlying instrument equal to the
percentage corresponding to the deductions otherwise required under
Sec. 240.15c3-1 for the underlying instrument (see paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section). Theoretical gains and losses shall be
calculated using a theoretical options pricing model that satisfies the
criteria set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) The term theoretical options pricing model means any
mathematical model, other than a security-based swap dealer's
proprietary model, the use of which has been approved by the
Commission. Any such model shall calculate theoretical gains and losses
as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this section for all series
and issues of equity, index and foreign currency options and related
instruments, and shall be made available equally and on the same terms
to all security-based swap dealers. Its procedures shall include the
arrangement of the vendor to supply accurate and timely data to each
security-based swap dealer with respect to its services, and the fees
for distribution of the services. The data provided to security-based
swap dealers shall also contain the minimum requirements set forth in
paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(C) of this section and the product group offsets
set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B) of this section. At a minimum,
the model shall consider the following factors in pricing the option:
(1) The current spot price of the underlying asset;
(2) The exercise price of the option;
(3) The remaining time until the option's expiration;
(4) The volatility of the underlying asset;
(5) Any cash flows associated with ownership of the underlying
asset that can reasonably be expected to occur during the remaining
life of the option; and
(6) The current term structure of interest rates.
(C) The term major market foreign currency means the currency of a
sovereign nation for which there is a substantial inter-bank forward
currency market.
(D) The term qualified stock basket means a set or basket of stock
positions which represents no less than 50% of the capitalization for a
high-capitalization or non-high-capitalization diversified market
index, or, in the case of a narrow-based index, no less than 95% of the
capitalization for such narrow-based index.
(ii) With respect to positions involving listed option positions in
its proprietary or other account, the security-based swap dealer shall
group long and short positions into the following portfolio types:
(A) Equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions
in that underlying instrument;
(B) Options on the same major market foreign currency, positions in
that major market foreign currency, and related instruments within
those options' classes;
(C) High-capitalization diversified market index options, related
instruments within the option's class, and qualified stock baskets in
the same index;
(D) Non-high-capitalization diversified index options, related
instruments within the index option's class, and qualified stock
baskets in the same index; and
(E) Narrow-based index options, related instruments within the
index option's class, and qualified stock baskets in the same index.
(iii) Before making the computation, each security-based swap
dealer shall obtain the theoretical gains and losses for each option
series and for the related and underlying instruments within those
options' class in the proprietary or other accounts of that security-
based swap dealer. For each option series, the theoretical options
pricing model shall calculate theoretical prices at 10 equidistant
valuation points within a range consisting of an increase or a decrease
of the following percentages of the daily market price of the
underlying instrument:
(A) +(-)15% for equity securities with a ready market, narrow-based
indexes, and non-high-capitalization diversified indexes;
(B) +(-)6% for major market foreign currencies;
(C) +(-)20% for all other currencies; and
(D) +(-)10% for high-capitalization diversified indexes.
(iv)(A) The security-based swap dealer shall multiply the
corresponding theoretical gains and losses at each of the 10
equidistant valuation points by the number of positions held in a
particular option series, the related instruments and qualified stock
baskets within the option's class, and the positions in the same
underlying instrument.
(B) In determining the aggregate profit or loss for each portfolio
type, the security-based swap dealer will be allowed the following
offsets in the following order, provided, that in the case of qualified
stock baskets, the security-based swap dealer may elect to net
individual stocks between qualified stock baskets and take the
appropriate deduction on the remaining, if any, securities:
(1) First, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following
offsets within an option's class:
(i) Between options on the same underlying instrument, positions
covering the same underlying instrument, and related instruments within
the option's class, 100% of a position's gain shall offset another
position's loss at the same valuation point;

[[Page 70343]]

(ii) Between index options, related instruments within the option's
class, and qualified stock baskets on the same index, 95%, or such
other amount as designated by the Commission, of gains shall offset
losses at the same valuation point;
(2) Second, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following
offsets within an index product group:
(i) Among positions involving different high-capitalization
diversified index option classes within the same product group, 90% of
the gain in a high-capitalization diversified market index option,
related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index
option's class shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in a
different high-capitalization diversified market index option, related
instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index option's
class;
(ii) Among positions involving different non-high-capitalization
diversified index option classes within the same product group, 75% of
the gain in a non-high-capitalization diversified market index option,
related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index
option's class shall offset the loss at the same valuation point in
another non-high-capitalization diversified market index option,
related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index
option's class or product group;
(iii) Among positions involving different narrow-based index option
classes within the same product group, 90% of the gain in a narrow-
based market index option, related instruments, and qualified stock
baskets within that index option's class shall offset the loss at the
same valuation point in another narrow-based market index option,
related instruments, and qualified stock baskets within that index
option's class or product group;
(iv) No qualified stock basket should offset another qualified
stock basket; and
(3) Third, a security-based swap dealer is allowed the following
offsets between product groups: Among positions involving different
diversified index product groups within the same market group, 50% of
the gain in a diversified market index option, a related instrument, or
a qualified stock basket within that index option's product group shall
offset the loss at the same valuation point in another product group;
(C) For each portfolio type, the total deduction shall be the
larger of:
(1) The amount for any of the 10 equidistant valuation points
representing the largest theoretical loss after applying the offsets
provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B) if this section; or
(2) A minimum charge equal to 25% times the multiplier for each
equity and index option contract and each related instrument within the
option's class or product group, or $25 for each option on a major
market foreign currency with the minimum charge for futures contracts
and options on futures contracts adjusted for contract size
differentials, not to exceed market value in the case of long positions
in options and options on futures contracts; plus
(3) In the case of portfolio types involving index options and
related instruments offset by a qualified stock basket, there will be a
minimum charge of 5% of the market value of the qualified stock basket
for high-capitalization diversified and narrow-based indexes; and
(4) In the case of portfolio types involving index options and
related instruments offset by a qualified stock basket, there will be a
minimum charge of 7\1/2\% of the market value of the qualified stock
basket for non-high-capitalization diversified indexes.
(5) In the case of portfolio types involving security futures and
equity options on the same underlying instrument and positions in that
underlying instrument, there will be a minimum charge of 25% times the
multiplier for each security-future and equity option.
10. Section 240.18a-1b is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-1b Adjustments to net worth for certain commodities
transactions (Appendix B to 17 CFR 240.18a-1).

(a) Every registered security-based swap dealer in computing net
capital pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-1 shall comply with the following:
(1) Where a security-based swap dealer has an asset or liability
which is treated or defined in paragraph Sec. 240.18a-1, the inclusion
or exclusion of all or part of such asset or liability for net capital
shall be in accordance with Sec. 240.18a-1, except as specifically
provided otherwise in this Appendix B. Where a commodity related asset
or liability is specifically treated or defined in 17 CFR 1.17 and is
not generally or specifically treated or defined in Sec. 240.18a-1 or
this Appendix B, the inclusion or exclusion of all or part of such
asset or liability for net capital shall be in accordance with 17 CFR
1.17.
(2) In computing net capital as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of
Sec. 240.18a-1, the net worth of a security-based swap dealer shall be
adjusted as follows with respect to commodity-related transactions:
(i) Unrealized profit or loss for certain commodities transactions.
(A) Unrealized profits shall be added and unrealized losses shall be
deducted in the commodities accounts of the security-based swap dealer,
including unrealized profits and losses on fixed price commitments and
forward contracts; and
(B) The value attributed to any commodity option which is not
traded on a contract market shall be the difference between the
option's strike price and the market value for the physical or futures
contract which is the subject of the option. In the case of a long call
commodity option, if the market value for the physical or futures
contract which is the subject of the option is less than the strike
price of the option, it shall be given no value. In the case of a long
put commodity option, if the market value for the physical commodity or
futures contract which is the subject of the option is more than the
striking price of the option, it shall be given no value.
(ii) Deduct any unsecured commodity futures or option account
containing a ledger balance and open trades, the combination of which
liquidates to a deficit or containing a debit ledger balance only:
Provided, however, Deficits or debit ledger balances in unsecured
customers', non-customers' and proprietary accounts, which are the
subject of calls for margin or other required deposits need not be
deducted until the close of business on the business day following the
date on which such deficit or debit ledger balance originated;
(iii) Deduct all unsecured receivables, advances and loans except
for:
(A) Management fees receivable from commodity pools outstanding no
longer than thirty (30) days from the date they are due;
(B) Receivables from foreign clearing organizations;
(C) Receivables from registered futures commission merchants or
brokers, resulting from commodity futures or option transactions,
except those specifically excluded under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
Appendix B.
(iv) Deduct all inventories (including work in process, finished
goods, raw materials and inventories held for resale) except for
readily marketable spot commodities; or spot commodities which
adequately collateralize indebtedness under 17 CFR 1.17(c)(7);
(v) Guarantee deposits with commodities clearing organizations are
not required to be deducted from net worth;

[[Page 70344]]

(vi) Stock in commodities clearing organizations to the extent of
its margin value is not required to be deducted from net worth;
(vii) Deduct from net worth the amount by which any advances paid
by the security-based swap dealer on cash commodity contracts and used
in computing net capital exceeds 95 percent of the market value of the
commodities covered by such contracts.
(viii) Do not include equity in the commodity accounts of partners
in net worth.
(ix) In the case of all inventory, fixed price commitments and
forward contracts, except for inventory and forward contracts in the
inter-bank market in those foreign currencies which are purchased or
sold for further delivery on or subject to the rules of a contract
market and covered by an open futures contract for which there will be
no charge, deduct the applicable percentage of the net position
specified below:
(A) Inventory which is currently registered as deliverable on a
contract market and covered by an open futures contract or by a
commodity option on a physical--No charge.
(B) Inventory which is covered by an open futures contract or
commodity option--5% of the market value.
(C) Inventory which is not covered--20% of the market value.
(D) Fixed price commitments (open purchases and sales) and forward
contracts which are covered by an open futures contract or commodity
option--10% of the market value.
(E) Fixed price commitments (open purchases and sales) and forward
contracts which are not covered by an open futures contract or
commodity option--20% of the market value.
(x) Deduct for undermargined customer commodity futures accounts
the amount of funds required in each such account to meet maintenance
margin requirements of the applicable board of trade or, if there are
no such maintenance margin requirements, clearing organization margin
requirements applicable to such positions, after application of calls
for margin, or other required deposits which are outstanding three
business days or less. If there are no such maintenance margin
requirements or clearing organization margin requirements on such
accounts, then deduct the amount of funds required to provide margin
equal to the amount necessary after application of calls for margin, or
other required deposits outstanding three days or less to restore
original margin when the original margin has been depleted by 50
percent or more. Provided, To the extent a deficit is deducted from net
worth in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Appendix B, such
amount shall not also be deducted under this paragraph (a)(2)(x). In
the event that an owner of a customer account has deposited an asset
other than cash to margin, guarantee or secure his account, the value
attributable to such asset for purposes of this paragraph shall be the
lesser of (A) the value attributable to such asset pursuant to the
margin rules of the applicable board of trade, or (B) the market value
of such asset after application of the percentage deductions specified
in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B or, where appropriate,
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv), (vi), or (vii) of Sec. 240.18a-1 of
this chapter;
(xi) Deduct for undermargined non-customer and omnibus commodity
futures accounts the amount of funds required in each such account to
meet maintenance margin requirements of the applicable board of trade
or, if there are no such maintenance margin requirements, clearing
organization margin requirements applicable to such positions, after
application of calls for margin, or other required deposits which are
outstanding two business days or less. If there are no such maintenance
margin requirements or clearing organization margin requirements, then
deduct the amount of funds required to provide margin equal to the
amount necessary after application of calls for margin, or other
required deposits outstanding two days or less to restore original
margin when the original margin has been depleted by 50 percent or
more. Provided, To the extent a deficit is deducted from net worth in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Appendix B such amount
shall not also be deducted under this paragraph (a)(2)(xi). In the
event that an owner of a non-customer or omnibus account has deposited
an asset other than cash to margin, guarantee or secure his account,
the value attributable to such asset for purposes of this paragraph
shall be the lesser of (A) the value attributable to such asset
pursuant to the margin rules of the applicable board of trade, or (B)
the market value of such asset after application of the percentage
deductions specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B or,
where appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv), (vi), or (vii) of
Sec. 240.18a-1 of this chapter;
(xii) In the case of open futures contracts and granted (sold)
commodity options held in proprietary accounts carried by the security-
based swap dealer which are not covered by a position held by the
security-based swap dealer or which are not the result of a ``changer
trade'' made in accordance with the rules of a contract market, deduct:
(A) For a security-based swap dealer which is a clearing member of
a contract market for the positions on such contract market cleared by
such member, the applicable margin requirement of the applicable
clearing organization; (B) For a security-based swap dealer which is a
member of a self-regulatory organization, 150% of the applicable
maintenance margin requirement of the applicable board of trade or
clearing organization, whichever is greater; or
(C) For all other security-based swap dealers, 200% of the
applicable maintenance margin requirement of the applicable board of
trade or clearing organization, whichever is greater; or
(D) For open contracts or granted (sold) commodity options for
which there are no applicable maintenance margin requirements, 200% of
the applicable initial margin requirement; Provided, the equity in any
such proprietary account shall reduce the deduction required by this
paragraph (a)(2)(xii) if such equity is not otherwise includable in net
capital.
(xiii) In the case of a security-based swap dealer which is a
purchaser of a commodity option which is traded on a contract market,
the deduction shall be the same safety factor as if the security-based
swap dealer were the grantor of such option in accordance with
paragraph (a)(2)(xii), but in no event shall the safety factor be
greater than the market value attributed to such option.
(xiv) In the case of a security-based swap dealer which is a
purchaser of a commodity option not traded on a contract market which
has value and such value is used to increase net capital, the deduction
is ten percent of the market value of the physical or futures contract
which is the subject of such option but in no event more than the value
attributed to such option.
(xv) A loan or advance or any other form of receivable shall not be
considered ``secured'' for the purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this
Appendix B unless the following conditions exist:
(A) The receivable is secured by readily marketable collateral
which is otherwise unencumbered and which can be readily converted into
cash: Provided, however, That the receivable will be considered secured
only to the extent of the market value of such collateral after
application of the percentage deductions specified in

[[Page 70345]]

paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this Appendix B; and
(B)(1) The readily marketable collateral is in the possession or
control of the security-based swap dealer; or
(2) The security-based swap dealer has a legally enforceable,
written security agreement, signed by the debtor, and has a perfected
security interest in the readily marketable collateral within the
meaning of the laws of the State in which the readily marketable
collateral is located.
(xvi) The term cover for purposes of this Appendix B shall mean
cover as defined in 17 CFR 1.17(j).
(xvii) The term customer for purposes of this Appendix B shall mean
customer as defined in 17 CFR 1.17(b)(2). The term non-customer for
purposes of this Appendix B shall mean non-customer as defined in 17
CFR 1.17(b)(4).
(b) Every registered security-based swap dealer in computing net
capital pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-1 shall comply with the following:
(1) Swaps. Where a swap-related asset or liability is specifically
treated or defined in 17 CFR 1.17 and is not generally or specifically
treated or defined in Sec. 240.15c3-1 or this Appendix B, the
inclusion or exclusion of all or part of such asset or liability for
net capital shall be in accordance with 17 CFR 1.17.
(i) Credit default swaps referencing broad-based securities
indices. (A) Short positions (selling protection). In the case of a
swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-based
securities index, deducting the percentage of the notional amount based
upon the current basis point spread of the credit default swap and the
maturity of the credit default swap in accordance with the following
table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis point spread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of time to maturity of CDS contract 100 or less 700 or more
(%) 101-300 (%) 301-400 (%) 401-500 (%) 501-699 (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months or less....................................... 0.67 1.33 3.33 5.00 6.67 10.00
13 months to 24 months.................................. 1.00 2.33 5.00 6.67 8.33 11.67
25 months to 36 months.................................. 1.33 3.33 6.67 8.33 10.00 13.33
37 months to 48 months.................................. 2.00 4.00 8.33 10.00 11.67 15.00
49 months to 60 months.................................. 2.67 4.67 10.00 11.67 13.33 16.67
61 months to 72 months.................................. 3.67 5.67 11.67 13.33 15.00 18.33
73 months to 84 months.................................. 4.67 6.67 13.33 15.00 16.67 20.00
85 months to 120 months................................. 5.67 10.00 15.00 16.67 18.33 26.67
121 months and longer................................... 6.67 13.33 16.67 18.33 20.00 33.33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Long positions (purchasing protection). In the case of a swap
that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-based securities
index, deducting 50% of the deduction that would be required by
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B if the swap was a short
credit default swap.
(C) Long and short positions. (1) Long and short credit default
swaps. In the case of swaps that are long and short credit default
swaps referencing the same obligor or obligation, that are in the same
spread category, and that are in the same maturity category or are in
the next maturity category and have a maturity date within three months
of the other maturity category, deducting the percentage of the
notional amount specified in the higher maturity category under
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this Appendix B on the excess of the long or
short position.
(2) Long basket of obligors and long credit default swap. In the
case of a swap that is a long credit default swap referencing a broad-
based securities index and the security-based swap dealer is long a
basket on the same underlying obligors, deducting 50% of the amount
specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) for the components of the
basket, provided the security-based swap dealer can deliver the
components of the basket to satisfy the obligation of the security-
based swap dealer on the credit default swap.
(3) Short basket of obligors and short credit default swap. In the
case of a swap that is a short credit default swap referencing a broad-
based securities index and the security-based swap dealer is short a
basket on the same underlying obligors, deducting the amount specified
in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi) for the components of the basket.
(2) All other swaps. (i) In the case of any swap that is not a
credit default swap, deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the
notional value of the swap by the percentage specified in:
(A) Sec. 240.15c3-1 applicable to the reference asset if Sec.
240.15c3-1 specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset;
(B) 17 CFR 1.17 applicable to the reference asset if 17 CFR 1.17
specifies a percentage deduction for the type of asset and Sec.
240.15c3-1 does not specify a percentage deduction for the type of
asset; or
(C) In the case of an interest rate swap, Sec. 240.15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi)(A) based on the maturity of the swap, provided that the
percentage deduction must be no less than 1%.
(ii) A security-based swap dealer may reduce the deduction under
this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by an amount equal to any reduction
recognized for a comparable long or short position in the reference
asset or interest rate under 17 CFR 1.17 or Sec. 240.15c3-1.
11. Section 240.18a-1c is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-1c Consolidated Computations of Net Capital for Certain
Subsidiaries and Affiliates of Security-Based Swap Dealers (Appendix C
to 17 CFR 240.18a-1).

Every security-based swap dealer in computing its net capital
pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-1 shall include in its computation all
liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate that the
security-based swap dealer guarantees, endorses, or assumes either
directly or indirectly.
12. Section 240.18a-1d is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-1d Satisfactory Subordinated Loan Agreements (Appendix D
to 17 CFR 240.18a-1).

(a) Introduction. (1) This Appendix sets forth minimum and non-
exclusive requirements for satisfactory subordinated loan agreements.
The Commission may require or the security-based swap dealer may
include such other provisions as deemed necessary or appropriate to the
extent such provisions do not cause the subordinated loan agreement to
fail to meet the minimum requirements of this Appendix D.
(2) Certain definitions. For purposes of Sec. 240.18a-1 and this
Appendix D:
(i) The term ``subordinated loan agreement'' shall mean the
agreement or

[[Page 70346]]

agreements evidencing or governing a subordinated borrowing of cash.
(ii) The term ``Payment Obligation'' shall mean the obligation of a
security-based swap dealer to repay cash loaned to the security-based
swap dealer pursuant to a subordinated loan agreement and ``Payment''
shall mean the performance by a security-based swap dealer of a Payment
Obligation.
(iii) The term ``lender'' shall mean the person who lends cash to a
security-based swap dealer pursuant to a subordinated loan agreement.
(b) Minimum requirements for subordinated loan agreements. (1)
Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, a subordinated loan agreement
shall mean a written agreement between the security-based swap dealer
and the lender, which has a minimum term of one year, and is a valid
and binding obligation enforceable in accordance with its terms
(subject as to enforcement to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws) against the
security-based swap dealer and the lender and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
(2) Specific amount. All subordinated loan agreements shall be for
a specific dollar amount which shall not be reduced for the duration of
the agreement except by installments as specifically provided for
therein and except as otherwise provided in this Appendix D.
(3) Effective subordination. The subordinated loan agreement shall
effectively subordinate any right of the lender to receive any Payment
with respect thereto, together with accrued interest or compensation,
to the prior payment or provision for payment in full of all claims of
all present and future creditors of the security-based swap dealer
arising out of any matter occurring prior to the date on which the
related Payment Obligation matures consistent with the provisions of
Sec. 240.18a-1 and Sec. 240.18a-1d, except for claims which are the
subject of subordinated loan agreements that rank on the same priority
as or junior to the claim of the lender under such subordinated loan
agreements.
(4) Proceeds of subordinated loan agreements. The subordinated loan
agreement shall provide that the cash proceeds thereof shall be used
and dealt with by the security-based swap dealer as part of its capital
and shall be subject to the risks of the business.
(5) Certain rights of the security-based swap dealer. The
subordinated loan agreement shall provide that the security-based swap
dealer shall have the right to deposit any cash proceeds of a
subordinated loan agreement in an account or accounts in its own name
in any bank or trust company;
(6) Permissive prepayments. A security-based swap dealer at its
option but not at the option of the lender may, if the subordinated
loan agreement so provides, make a Payment of all or any portion of the
Payment Obligation thereunder prior to the scheduled maturity date of
such Payment Obligation (hereinafter referred to as a ``Prepayment''),
but in no event may any Prepayment be made before the expiration of one
year from the date such subordinated loan agreement became effective.
No Prepayment shall be made, if, after giving effect thereto (and to
all Payments of Payment Obligations under any other subordinated loan
agreements then outstanding the maturity or accelerated maturities of
which are scheduled to fall due within six months after the date such
Prepayment is to occur pursuant to this provision or on or prior to the
date on which the Payment Obligation in respect of such Prepayment is
scheduled to mature disregarding this provision, whichever date is
earlier) without reference to any projected profit or loss of the
security-based swap dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24
million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount
under Sec. 240.18a-1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is
approved to calculate net capital under Sec. 240.18a-1(d), its
tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million.
Notwithstanding the above, no Prepayment shall occur without the prior
written approval of the Commission.
(7) Suspended repayment. The Payment Obligation of the security-
based swap dealer in respect of any subordinated loan agreement shall
be suspended and shall not mature if, after giving effect to Payment of
such Payment Obligation (and to all Payments of Payment Obligations of
such security-based swap dealer under any other subordinated loan
agreement(s) then outstanding that are scheduled to mature on or before
such Payment Obligation) either its net capital would fall below $24
million, its net capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount
under Sec. 240.18a-1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is
approved to calculate net capital under Sec. 240.18a-1(d), its
tentative net capital would fall to an amount below $120 million. The
subordinated loan agreement may provide that if the Payment Obligation
of the security-based swap dealer thereunder does not mature and is
suspended as a result of the requirement of this paragraph (b)(7) for a
period of not less than six months, the security-based swap dealer
shall thereupon commence the rapid and orderly liquidation of its
business, but the right of the lender to receive Payment, together with
accrued interest or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required
by the provisions of Sec. 240.18a-1 and Sec. 240.18a-1d.
(8) Accelerated maturity--obligation to repay to remain
subordinate. (i) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this
appendix, a subordinated loan agreement may provide that the lender
may, upon prior written notice to the security-based swap dealer and
the Commission given not earlier than six months after the effective
date of such subordinated loan agreement, accelerate the date on which
the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer, together with
accrued interest or compensation, is scheduled to mature to a date not
earlier than six months after the giving of such notice, but the right
of the lender to receive Payment, together with accrued interest or
compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 240.18a-1 and 240.18a-1d.
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this
appendix, the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer with
respect to a subordinated loan agreement, together with accrued
interest and compensation, shall mature in the event of any
receivership, insolvency, liquidation, bankruptcy, assignment for the
benefit of creditors, reorganization whether or not pursuant to the
bankruptcy laws, or any other marshalling of the assets and liabilities
of the security-based swap dealer but the right of the lender to
receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall
remain subordinate as required by the provisions of Sec. 240.18a-1 and
Sec. 240.18a-1d.
(9) Accelerated maturity of subordinated loan agreements on event
of default and event of acceleration--obligation to repay to remain
subordinate. (i) A subordinated loan agreement may provide that the
lender may, upon prior written notice to the security-based swap dealer
and the Commission of the occurrence of any Event of Acceleration (as
hereinafter defined) given no sooner than six months after the
effective date of such subordinated loan agreement, accelerate the date
on which the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap dealer,
together with accrued interest or compensation, is scheduled to mature,

[[Page 70347]]

to the last business day of a calendar month which is not less than six
months after notice of acceleration is received by the security-based
swap dealer and the Commission. Any subordinated loan agreement
containing such Events of Acceleration may also provide, that if upon
such accelerated maturity date the Payment Obligation of the security-
based swap dealer is suspended as required by paragraph (b)(7) of this
Appendix D and liquidation of the security-based swap dealer has not
commenced on or prior to such accelerated maturity date, then
notwithstanding paragraph (b)(7) of this appendix the Payment
Obligation of the security-based swap dealer with respect to such
subordinated loan agreement shall mature on the day immediately
following such accelerated maturity date and in any such event the
Payment Obligations of the security-based swap dealer with respect to
all other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding shall also
mature at the same time but the rights of the respective lenders to
receive Payment, together with accrued interest or compensation, shall
remain subordinate as required by the provisions of this Appendix D.
Events of Acceleration which may be included in a subordinated loan
agreement complying with this paragraph (b)(9) shall be limited to:
(A) Failure to pay interest or any installment of principal on a
subordinated loan agreement as scheduled;
(B) Failure to pay when due other money obligations of a specified
material amount;
(C) Discovery that any material, specified representation or
warranty of the security-based swap dealer which is included in the
subordinated loan agreement and on which the subordinated loan
agreement was based or continued was inaccurate in a material respect
at the time made;
(D) Any specified and clearly measurable event which is included in
the subordinated loan agreement and which the lender and the security-
based swap dealer agree:
(1) Is a significant indication that the financial position of the
security-based swap dealer has changed materially and adversely from
agreed upon specified norms; or
(2) Could materially and adversely affect the ability of the
security-based swap dealer to conduct its business as conducted on the
date the subordinated loan agreement was made; or
(3) Is a significant change in the senior management of the
security-based swap dealer or in the general business conducted by the
security-based swap dealer from that which obtained on the date the
subordinated loan agreement became effective;
(E) Any continued failure to perform agreed covenants included in
the subordinated loan agreement relating to the conduct of the business
of the security-based swap dealer or relating to the maintenance and
reporting of its financial position; and
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(7) of this
appendix, a subordinated loan agreement may provide that, if
liquidation of the business of the security-based swap dealer has not
already commenced, the Payment Obligation of the security-based swap
dealer shall mature, together with accrued interest or compensation,
upon the occurrence of an Event of Default (as hereinafter defined).
Such agreement may also provide that, if liquidation of the business of
the security-based swap dealer has not already commenced, the rapid and
orderly liquidation of the business of the security-based swap dealer
shall then commence upon the happening of an Event of Default. Any
subordinated loan agreement which so provides for maturity of the
Payment Obligation upon the occurrence of an Event of Default shall
also provide that the date on which such Event of Default occurs shall,
if liquidation of the security-based swap dealer has not already
commenced, be the date on which the Payment Obligations of the
security-based swap dealer with respect to all other subordinated loan
agreements then outstanding shall mature but the rights of the
respective lenders to receive Payment, together with accrued interest
or compensation, shall remain subordinate as required by the provisions
of this Appendix (D). Events of Default which may be included in a
subordinated loan agreement shall be limited to:
(A) The net capital of the security-based swap dealer falling to an
amount below either of $20 million or 8% of the risk margin amount
under Sec. 240.18a-1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is
approved to calculate net capital under Sec. 240.18a-1(d), its
tentative net capital falling below $100 million, throughout a period
of 15 consecutive business days, commencing on the day the security-
based swap dealer first determines and notifies the Commission, or the
Commission first determines and notifies the security-based swap dealer
of such fact;
(B) The Commission revoking the registration of the security-based
swap dealer;
(C) The Commission suspending (and not reinstating within 10 days)
the registration of the security-based swap dealer;
(D) Any receivership, insolvency, liquidation, bankruptcy,
assignment for the benefit of creditors, reorganization whether or not
pursuant to bankruptcy laws, or any other marshalling of the assets and
liabilities of the security-based swap dealer. A subordinated loan
agreement that contains any of the provisions permitted by this
paragraph (b)(9) shall not contain the provision otherwise permitted by
paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this section.
(c) Miscellaneous provisions. (1) Prohibited cancellation. The
subordinated loan agreement shall not be subject to cancellation by
either party; no Payment shall be made with respect thereto and the
agreement shall not be terminated, rescinded or modified by mutual
consent or otherwise if the effect thereof would be inconsistent with
the requirements of Sec. Sec. 240.18a-1 and 240.18a-1d.
(2) Every security-based swap dealer shall immediately notify the
Commission if, after giving effect to all Payments of Payment
Obligations under subordinated loan agreements then outstanding that
are then due or mature within the following six months without
reference to any projected profit or loss of the security-based swap
dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net
capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under Sec.
240.18a-1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to
calculate net capital under Sec. 240.18a-1(d), its tentative net
capital would fall to an amount below $120 million.
(3) Certain legends. If all the provisions of a satisfactory
subordinated loan agreement do not appear in a single instrument, then
the debenture or other evidence of indebtedness shall bear on its face
an appropriate legend stating that it is issued subject to the
provisions of a satisfactory subordinated loan agreement which shall be
adequately referred to and incorporated by reference.
(4) Revolving subordinated loan agreements. A security-based swap
dealer shall be permitted to enter into a revolving subordinated loan
agreement that provides for prepayment within less than one year of all
or any portion of the Payment Obligation thereunder at the option of
the security-based swap dealer upon the prior written approval of the
Commission. The Commission, however, shall not approve any prepayment
if:
(i) After giving effect thereto (and to all Payments of Payment
Obligations

[[Page 70348]]

under any other subordinated loan agreements then outstanding, the
maturity or accelerated maturities of which are scheduled to fall due
within six months after the date such prepayment is to occur pursuant
to this provision or on or prior to the date on which the Payment
Obligation in respect of such prepayment is scheduled to mature
disregarding this provision, whichever date is earlier) without
reference to any projected profit or loss of the security-based swap
dealer, either its net capital would fall below $24 million, its net
capital would fall below 10% of the risk margin amount under Sec.
240.18a-1, or, if the security-based swap dealer is approved to
calculate net capital under Sec. 240.18a-1(d), its tentative net
capital would fall to an amount below $120 million; or
(ii) Pre-tax losses during the latest three-month period equaled
more than 15% of current excess net capital.
Any subordinated loan agreement entered into pursuant to this
paragraph (c)(4) shall be subject to all the other provisions of this
Appendix D. Any such subordinated loan agreement shall not be
considered equity for purposes of paragraph (h) of Sec. 240.18a-1,
despite the length of the initial term of the loan.
(5) Filing. Two copies of any proposed subordinated loan agreement
(including nonconforming subordinated loan agreements) shall be filed
at least 30 days prior to the proposed execution date of the agreement
with the Commission. The security-based swap dealer shall also file
with the Commission a statement setting forth the name and address of
the lender, the business relationship of the lender to the security-
based swap dealer, and whether the security-based swap dealer carried
an account for the lender for effecting transactions in security-based
swaps at or about the time the proposed agreement was so filed. All
agreements shall be examined by the Commission prior to their becoming
effective. No proposed agreement shall be a satisfactory subordinated
loan agreement for the purposes of this section unless and until the
Commission has found the agreement acceptable and such agreement has
become effective in the form found acceptable.
13. Section 240.18a-2 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-2 Capital requirements for major security-based swap
participants for which there is not a prudential regulator.

(a) Every major security-based swap participant for which there is
not a prudential regulator must at all times have and maintain positive
tangible net worth.
(b) The term tangible net worth means the net worth of the major
security-based swap participant as determined in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States,
excluding goodwill and other intangible assets. In determining net
worth, all long and short positions in security-based swaps, swaps, and
related positions must be marked to their market value. A major
security-based swap participant must include in its computation of
tangible net worth all liabilities or obligations of a subsidiary or
affiliate that the participant guarantees, endorses, or assumes either
directly or indirectly.
(c) Every major security-based swap participant must comply with
Sec. 240.15c3-4 as though it were an OTC derivatives dealer with
respect to its security-based swap and swap activities, except that
paragraphs (c)(5)(xiii) and (xiv) and (d)(8) and (9) of Sec. 240.15c3-
4 shall not apply.
14. Section 240.18a-3 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-3 Non-cleared security-based swap margin requirements
for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap
participants for which there is not a prudential regulator.

(a) Every security-based swap dealer and major security-based swap
participant for which there is not a prudential regulator must comply
with this section.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term account means an account carried by a security-based
swap dealer or major security-based swap participant for a counterparty
that holds non-cleared security-based swaps.
(2) The term commercial end user means any person (other than a
natural person) that:
(i) Engages primarily in commercial activities that are not
financial in nature and that is not a financial entity as that term is
defined in 3C(g)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3)); and
(ii) Is using non-cleared security-based swaps to hedge or mitigate
risk relating to the commercial activities.
(3) The term counterparty means a person with whom the security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant has entered
into a non-cleared security-based swap transaction.
(4) The term equity means the total current fair market value of
securities positions in an account of a counterparty (excluding the
time value of an over-the-counter option), plus any credit balance and
less any debit balance in the account after applying a qualifying
netting agreement with respect to gross derivatives payables and
receivables.
(5) The term margin means the amount of positive equity in an
account of a counterparty.
(6) The term negative equity means equity of less than $0.
(7) The term positive equity means equity of greater than $0.
(8) The term non-cleared security-based swap means a security-based
swap that is not, directly or indirectly, cleared by a clearing agency
registered pursuant to section 17A of the Act.
(9) The term security-based swap legacy account means an account
that holds no security-based swaps entered into after the effective
date of this section and that only is used to hold security-based swaps
entered into prior to the effective date of this section and collateral
for those security-based swaps.
(c) Margin requirements. (1) Security-based swap dealers. (i)
Calculation required. A security-based swap dealer must calculate with
respect to each account of a counterparty as of the close of each
business day:
(A) The amount of equity in the account of the counterparty; and
(B) The margin amount for the account of the counterparty
calculated pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) Account equity requirements. Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) of this section, a security-based swap dealer must collect
from a counterparty by noon of each business day cash, securities, and/
or money market instruments in an amount at least equal to, as
applicable:
(A) The negative equity in the account calculated as of the
previous business day; and
(B) The margin amount calculated under paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of
this section as of the previous business day to the extent that amount
is greater than the amount of positive equity in the account on the
previous business day.
(iii) Exceptions. (A) Commercial end users. The requirements of
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section do not apply to an account of a
counterparty that is a commercial end user.

Alternative A to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(iii)(B)

(B) Security-based swap dealers. The requirements of paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to an account of a
counterparty that is a security-based swap dealer.

Alternative B to Sec. 240.18a-3(c)(1)(iii)(B)

(B) Security-based swap dealers. Cash, securities and money market

[[Page 70349]]

instruments posted by a counterparty that is a security-based swap
dealer to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section must be carried by an independent third-party custodian
pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Act.
(C) Counterparties that require third-party custodians. The
requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to
an account of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user and that
requires the cash, securities, and money market instruments delivered
to meet the margin amount to be carried by an independent third-party
custodian pursuant to the requirements of section 3E(f) of the Act,
provided cash, securities, and money market instruments necessary to
meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section are
delivered to the independent third-party custodian.
(D) Security-based swap legacy accounts. The requirements of
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply to a legacy
security-based swap account of a counterparty that is not a commercial
end user.
(2) Major security-based swap participants. (i) Calculation
required. A major security-based swap participant must calculate as of
the close of each business day the amount of equity in the account of
each counterparty.
(ii) Account equity requirements. Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, a major security-based swap participant
must by noon of each business day:
(A) Collect from a counterparty cash, securities and/or money
market instruments in an amount equal to the negative equity in the
account calculated on the previous business day pursuant to paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section; and
(B) Deliver to a counterparty cash, securities and/or money market
instruments in an amount equal to the positive equity in the account
calculated on the previous business day pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)
of this section.
(iii) Exceptions. (A) Transactions with commercial end users. The
requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section do not apply to
a counterparty that is a commercial end user.
(B) Transactions with security-based swap dealers. The requirements
of paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section do not apply to a
counterparty that is a security-based swap dealer.

Note to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B): A security-based swap dealer
must collect from a counterparty that is a major security-based swap
participant cash, securities, and/or money market instruments as
required by paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.

(C) Security-based swap legacy accounts. The requirements of
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section do not apply to a legacy security-
based swap account of a counterparty that is not a commercial end user.
(3) Deductions for securities held as collateral. The fair market
value of securities and money market instruments held in the account of
a counterparty must be reduced by the amount of the deductions the
security-based swap dealer would apply to the securities and money
market instruments pursuant to Sec. 240.15c3-1 or Sec. 240.18a-1, as
applicable, for the purpose of determining whether the level of equity
in the account meets the requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(4) Collateral requirements. A security-based swap dealer and a
major security-based swap participant when calculating the amount of
equity in the account of a counterparty may take into account cash and
the fair market value of securities and money market instruments
pledged and held as collateral in the account provided:
(i) The collateral is subject to the physical possession or control
of the security-based swap dealer or the major security-based swap
participant;
(ii) The collateral is liquid and transferable;
(iii) The collateral may be liquidated promptly by the security-
based swap dealer or the major security-based swap participant without
intervention by any other party;
(iv) The collateral agreement between the security-based swap
dealer or the major security-based swap participant and the
counterparty is legally enforceable by the security-based swap dealer
or the major security-based swap participant against the counterparty
and any other parties to the agreement;
(v) The collateral does not consist of securities issued by the
counterparty or a party related to the security-based swap dealer, the
major security-based swap participant, or to the counterparty; and
(vi) If the Commission has approved the security-based swap
dealer's use of a VaR model to compute net capital, the approval allows
the security-based swap dealer to calculate deductions for market risk
for the type of collateral.
(5) Qualified netting agreements. A security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant may include the effect of a
netting agreement that allows the security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant to net gross receivables from and gross
payables to a counterparty upon the default of the counterparty, for
the purposes of the calculations required pursuant to paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(i) of this section, if:
(i) The netting agreement is legally enforceable in each relevant
jurisdiction, including in insolvency proceedings;
(ii) The gross receivables and gross payables that are subject to
the netting agreement with a counterparty can be determined at any
time; and
(iii) For internal risk management purposes, the security-based
swap dealer or major security-based swap participant monitors and
controls its exposure to the counterparty on a net basis.
(6) Minimum transfer amount. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this rule, a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant is not required to collect or deliver cash, securities or
money market instruments pursuant to this section with respect to a
particular counterparty unless and until the total amount of cash,
securities or money market instruments that is required to be collected
or delivered, and has not yet been collected or delivered, with respect
to the counterparty is greater than $100,000.
(7) Frequency of calculations increased. The calculations required
pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) of this section must be
made more frequently than the close of each business day during periods
of extreme volatility and for accounts with concentrated positions.
(8) Liquidation. A security-based swap dealer and major security-
based swap participant must take prompt steps to liquidate securities
and money market instruments in an account that does not meet the
account equity requirements of this section to the extent necessary to
eliminate the account equity deficiency.
(d) Calculating margin amount. A security-based swap dealer must
calculate the margin amount required by paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of this
section for non-cleared security-based swaps as follows:
(1) Standardized approach. (i) Credit default swaps. For credit
default swaps, the security-based swap dealer must use the method
specified in Sec. 240.18a-1(c)(1)(vi)(A) or, if the security-based
swap dealer is registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer,
the method specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(O)(1).

[[Page 70350]]

(ii) All other security-based swaps. For security-based swaps other
than credit default swaps, the security-based swap dealer must use the
method specified in Sec. 240.18a-1(c)(1)(vi)(B) or, if the security-
based swap dealer is registered with the Commission as a broker or
dealer, the method specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)(O)(2).
(2) Model approach. For security-based swaps other than equity
security-based swaps, a security-based swap dealer authorized by the
Commission to compute net capital pursuant to Sec. 240.18a-1(d) or
Sec. 240.15c3-1e may use its internal market risk model subject to the
requirements in Sec. 240.18a-1(d) or Sec. 240.15c3-1e in lieu of
using the methods required in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(e) Risk monitoring and procedures. A security-based swap dealer
must monitor the risk of each account and establish, maintain, and
document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts
as part of the risk management control system required by Sec.
240.15c3-4. The security-based swap dealer must review, in accordance
with written procedures, at reasonable periodic intervals, its non-
cleared security-based swap activities for consistency with the risk
monitoring procedures and guidelines required by this section. The
security-based swap dealer also must determine whether information and
data necessary to apply the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines
required by this section are accessible on a timely basis and whether
information systems are available to adequately capture, monitor,
analyze, and report relevant data and information. The risk monitoring
procedures and guidelines must include, at a minimum, procedures and
guidelines for:
(1) Obtaining and reviewing account documentation and financial
information necessary for assessing the amount of current and potential
future exposure to a given counterparty permitted by the security-based
swap dealer;
(2) Determining, approving, and periodically reviewing credit
limits for each counterparty, and across all counterparties;
(3) Monitoring credit risk exposure to the security-based swap
dealer from non-cleared security-based swaps, including the type,
scope, and frequency of reporting to senior management;
(4) Using stress tests to monitor potential future exposure to a
single counterparty and across all counterparties over a specified
range of possible market movements over a specified time period;
(5) Managing the impact of credit exposure related to non-cleared
security-based swaps on the security-based swap dealer's overall risk
exposure;
(6) Determining the need to collect collateral from a particular
counterparty, including whether that determination was based upon the
creditworthiness of the counterparty and/or the risk of the specific
non-cleared security-based swap contracts with the counterparty;
(7) Monitoring the credit exposure resulting from concentrated
positions with a single counterparty and across all counterparties, and
during periods of extreme volatility; and
(8) Maintaining sufficient equity in the account of each
counterparty to protect against the largest individual potential future
exposure of a non-cleared security-based swap carried in the account of
the counterparty as measured by computing the largest maximum possible
loss that could result from the exposure.
15. Section 240.18a-4 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 240.18a-4 Segregation requirements for security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants.

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term cleared security-based swap means any security-based
swap that is, directly or indirectly, submitted to and cleared by a
clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A
of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1);
(2) The term excess securities collateral means securities and
money market instruments carried for the account of a security-based
swap customer that have a market value in excess of the current
exposure of the security-based swap dealer to the customer, excluding:
(i) Securities and money market instruments held in a qualified
clearing agency account but only to the extent the securities and money
market instruments are being used to meet a margin requirement of the
clearing agency resulting from a security-based swap transaction of the
customer; and
(ii) Securities and money market instruments held in a qualified
registered security-based swap dealer account but only to the extent
the securities and money market instruments are being used to meet a
margin requirement of the other security-based swap dealer resulting
from the security-based swap dealer entering into a non-cleared
security-based swap transaction with the other security-based swap
dealer to offset the risk of a non-cleared security-based swap
transaction between the security-based swap dealer and the customer.
(3) The term qualified clearing agency account means an account of
a security-based swap dealer at a clearing agency established to hold
funds and other property in order to purchase, margin, guarantee,
secure, adjust, or settle cleared security-based swap transactions for
the security-based swap customers of the security-based swap dealer
that meets the following conditions:
(i) The account is designated ``Special Clearing Account for the
Exclusive Benefit of the Cleared Security-Based Swap Customers of [name
of security-based swap dealer]'';
(ii) The clearing agency has acknowledged in a written notice
provided to and retained by the security-based swap dealer that the
funds and other property in the account are being held by the clearing
agency for the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers
of the security-based swap dealer in accordance with the regulations of
the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts
maintained by the security-based swap dealer with the clearing agency;
and
(iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the
security-based swap dealer and the clearing agency which provides that
the funds and other property in the account shall be subject to no
right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor
of the clearing agency or any person claiming through the clearing
agency, except a right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim
resulting from a cleared security-based swap transaction effected in
the account.
(4) The term qualified registered security-based swap dealer
account means an account at another security-based swap dealer
registered with the Commission pursuant to section 15F of the Act that
is not an affiliate of the security-based swap dealer and that meets
the following conditions:
(i) The account is designated ``Special Account for the Exclusive
Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of security-based
swap dealer]'';
(ii) The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the
other security-based dealer provided to and retained by the security-
based swap dealer that the funds and other property held in the account
are being held by the other security-based swap dealer for the
exclusive benefit of the security-based

[[Page 70351]]

swap customers of the security-based swap dealer in accordance with the
regulations of the Commission and are being kept separate from any
other accounts maintained by the security-based swap dealer with the
other security-based swap dealer;
(iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the
security-based swap dealer and the other security-based swap dealer
which provides that the funds and other property in the account shall
be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of
any kind in favor of the other security-based swap dealer or any person
claiming through the other security-based swap dealer, except a right,
charge, security interest, lien, or claim resulting from a non-cleared
security-based swap transaction effected in the account; and
(iv) The account and the assets in the account are not subject to
any type of subordination agreement between the security-based swap
dealer and the other security-based swap dealer.
(5) The term qualified security means:
(i) Obligations of the United States;
(ii) Obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by
the United States; and
(iii) General obligations of any State or subdivision of a State
that:
(A) Are not traded flat and are not in default;
(B) Were part of an initial offering of $500 million or greater;
and
(C) Were issued by an issuer that has published audited financial
statements within 120 days of its most recent fiscal year-end.
(6) The term security-based swap customer means any person from
whom or on whose behalf the security-based swap dealer has received or
acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person
with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap
transaction. The term does not include a person to the extent that
person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract,
agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the
capital of the security-based swap dealer or is subordinated to all
claims of security-based swap customers of the security-based swap
dealer.
(7) The term special account for the exclusive benefit of security-
based swap customers means an account at a bank that is not the
security-based swap dealer or an affiliate of the security-based swap
dealer and that meets the following conditions:
(i) The account is designated ``Special Account for the Exclusive
Benefit of the Security-Based Swap Customers of [name of security-based
swap dealer]'';
(ii) The account is subject to a written acknowledgement by the
bank provided to and retained by the security-based swap dealer that
the funds and other property held in the account are being held by the
bank for the exclusive benefit of the security-based swap customers of
the security-based swap dealer in accordance with the regulations of
the Commission and are being kept separate from any other accounts
maintained by the security-based swap dealer with the bank; and
(iii) The account is subject to a written contract between the
security-based swap dealer and the bank which provides that the funds
and other property in the account shall at no time be used directly or
indirectly as security for a loan or other extension of credit to the
security-based swap dealer by the bank and, shall be subject to no
right, charge, security interest, lien, or claim of any kind in favor
of the bank or any person claiming through the bank.
(b) Physical possession or control of excess securities collateral.
(1) A security-based swap dealer must promptly obtain and thereafter
maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities
collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers.
(2) A security-based swap dealer has control of excess securities
collateral only if the securities and money market instruments:
(i) Are represented by one or more certificates in the custody or
control of a clearing corporation or other subsidiary organization of
either national securities exchanges, or of a custodian bank in
accordance with a system for the central handling of securities
complying with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 240.8c-1(g) and 240.15c2-
1(g) the delivery of which certificates to the security-based swap
dealer does not require the payment of money or value, and if the books
or records of the security-based swap dealer identify the security-
based swap customers entitled to receive specified quantities or units
of the securities so held for such security-based swap customers
collectively;
(ii) Are the subject of bona fide items of transfer; provided that
securities and money market instruments shall be deemed not to be the
subject of bona fide items of transfer if, within 40 calendar days
after they have been transmitted for transfer by the security-based
swap dealer to the issuer or its transfer agent, new certificates
conforming to the instructions of the security-based swap dealer have
not been received by the security-based swap dealer, the security-based
swap dealer has not received a written statement by the issuer or its
transfer agent acknowledging the transfer instructions and the
possession of the securities or money market instruments, or the
security-based swap dealer has not obtained a revalidation of a window
ticket from a transfer agent with respect to the certificate delivered
for transfer;
(iii) Are in the custody or control of a bank as defined in section
3(a)(6) of the Act, the delivery of which securities or money market
instruments to the security-based swap dealer does not require the
payment of money or value and the bank having acknowledged in writing
that the securities and money market instruments in its custody or
control are not subject to any right, charge, security interest, lien
or claim of any kind in favor of a bank or any person claiming through
the bank;
(iv)(A) Are held in or are in transit between offices of the
security-based swap dealer; or
(B) Are held by a corporate subsidiary if the security-based swap
dealer owns and exercises a majority of the voting rights of all of the
voting securities of such subsidiary, assumes or guarantees all of the
subsidiary's obligations and liabilities, operates the subsidiary as a
branch office of the security-based swap dealer, and assumes full
responsibility for compliance by the subsidiary and all of its
associated persons with the provisions of the Federal securities laws
as well as for all of the other acts of the subsidiary and such
associated persons; or
(v) Are held in such other locations as the Commission shall upon
application from a security-based swap dealer find and designate to be
adequate for the protection of customer securities.
(3) Each business day the security-based swap dealer must determine
from its books and records the quantity of excess securities collateral
in its possession and control as of the close of the previous business
day and the quantity of excess securities collateral not in its
possession and control as of the previous business day. If the
security-based swap dealer did not obtain possession or control of all
excess securities collateral on the previous business day as required
by this section and there are securities or money market instruments of
the same issue and class in any of the following non-control locations:
(i) Securities or money market instruments subject to a lien
securing an obligation of the security-based swap dealer, then the
security-based swap dealer, not later than the next business

[[Page 70352]]

day on which the determination is made, must issue instructions for the
release of the securities or money market instruments from the lien and
must obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money
market instruments within two business days following the date of the
instructions;
(ii) Securities or money market instruments held in a qualified
clearing agency account, then the security-based swap dealer, not later
than the next business day on which the determination is made, must
issue instructions for the release of the securities or money market
instruments by the clearing agency and must obtain physical possession
or control of the securities or money market instruments within two
business days following the date of the instructions;
(iii) Securities or money market instruments held in a qualified
registered security-based swap dealer account maintained by another
security-based swap dealer, then the security-based swap dealer, not
later than the next business day on which the determination is made,
must issue instructions for the release of the securities or money
market instruments by the other security-based swap dealer and must
obtain physical possession or control of the securities or money market
instruments within two business days following the date of the
instructions;
(iv) Securities or money market instruments loaned by the security-
based swap dealer, then the security-based swap dealer, not later than
the next business day on which the determination is made, must issue
instructions for the return of the loaned securities or money market
instruments and must obtain physical possession or control of the
securities or money market instruments within five business days
following the date of the instructions;
(v) Securities or money market instruments failed to receive more
than 30 calendar days, then the security-based swap dealer, not later
than the next business day on which the determination is made, must
take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control of the
securities or money market instruments through a buy-in procedure or
otherwise;
(vi) Securities or money market instruments receivable by the
security-based swap dealer as a security dividend, stock split or
similar distribution for more than 45 calendar days, then the security-
based swap dealer, not later than the next business day on which the
determination is made, must take prompt steps to obtain physical
possession or control of the securities or money market instruments
through a buy-in procedure or otherwise; or
(vii) Securities or money market instruments included on the books
or records of the security-based swap dealer as a proprietary short
position or as a short position for another person more than 10
business days (or more than 30 calendar days if the security-based swap
dealer is a market maker in the securities), then the security-based
swap dealer must, not later than the business day following the day on
which the determination is made, take prompt steps to obtain physical
possession or control of such securities or money market instruments.
(c) Deposit requirement for special account for the exclusive
benefit of security-based swap customers. (1) A security-based swap
dealer must maintain a special account for the exclusive benefit of
security-based swap customers that is separate from any other bank
account of the security-based swap dealer. The security-based swap
dealer must at all times maintain in the special account for the
exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers, through deposits
into the account, cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed
in accordance with the formula set forth in Sec. 240.18a-4a. In
determining the amount maintained in a special account for the
exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers, the security-based
swap dealer must deduct:
(i) The percentage of the value of a general obligation of a State
or subdivision of a State specified in Sec. 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi);
(ii) The aggregate value of general obligations of a State or
subdivision of a State to the extent the amount of the obligations of a
single issuer exceeds 2% of the amount required to be maintained in the
special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap
customers;
(iii) The aggregate value of all general obligations of a State or
subdivision of a State to the extent the amount of the obligations
exceeds 10% of the amount required to be maintained in the special
account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap customers; and
(iv) The amount of funds held at a single bank to the extent the
amount exceeds 10% of the equity capital of the bank as reported by the
bank in its most recent Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income.
(2) It is unlawful for a security-based swap dealer to accept or
use credits identified in the items of the formula set forth in Sec.
240.18a-4a except to establish debits for the specified purposes in the
items of the formula.
(3) The computations necessary to determine the amount required to
be maintained in the special account for the exclusive benefit of
security-based swap customers must be made daily as of the close of the
previous business day and any deposit required to be made into the
account must be made on the next business day following the computation
no later than 1 hour after the opening of the bank that maintains the
account. The security-based swap dealer may make a withdrawal from the
special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap
customers only if the amount remaining in the account after the
withdrawal is equal to or exceeds the amount required to be maintained
in the account pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(4) A security-based swap dealer must promptly deposit into a
special account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap
customers funds or qualified securities of the security-based swap
dealer if the amount of funds and/or qualified securities in one or
more special accounts for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap
customers falls below the amount required to be maintained pursuant to
this section.
(d) Requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps. (1) Notice.
A security-based dealer and a major security-based swap participant
must provide the notice required pursuant to section 3E(f)(1)(A) of the
Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)) to a counterparty in writing prior to the
execution of the first non-cleared security-based swap transaction with
the counterparty occurring after the effective date of this section.
(2) Subordination. (i) Counterparty that elects to have individual
segregation at an independent third-party custodian. A security-based
swap dealer must obtain an agreement from a counterparty that chooses
to require segregation of funds or other property pursuant to section
3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f)) in which the counterparty agrees
to subordinate all of its claims against the security-based swap dealer
to the claims of security-based swap customers of the security-based
swap dealer but only to the extent that funds or other property
provided by the counterparty to the independent third-party custodian
are not treated as customer property as that term is defined in 11
U.S.C. 741 in a liquidation of the security-based swap dealer.
(ii) Counterparty that elects to have no segregation. A security-
based swap dealer must obtain an agreement from a

[[Page 70353]]

counterparty that does not choose to require segregation of funds or
other property pursuant to section 3E(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-
5(f)) or paragraph (c)(3) of this section in which the counterparty
agrees to subordinate all of its claims against the security-based swap
dealer to the claims of security-based swap customers of the security-
based swap dealer.
16. Section 240.18a-4a is added to read as follows:

Rule 18a-4a--Formula for Determining the Amount To Be Maintained in the
Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap
Customers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits Debits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Free credit balances and other $--------......... .................
credit balances in the accounts
carried for security-based swap
customers.
2. Monies borrowed collateralized $--------......... .................
by securities in accounts
carried for security-based swap
customers.
3. Monies payable against $--------......... .................
security-based swap customers'
securities loaned.
4. Security-based swap customers' $--------......... .................
securities failed to receive.
5. Credit balances in firm $--------......... .................
accounts which are attributable
to principal sales to security-
based swap customers.
6. Market value of stock $--------......... .................
dividends, stock splits and
similar distributions receivable
outstanding over 30 calendar
days.
7. Market value of short security $--------......... .................
count differences over 30
calendar days old.
8. Market value of short $--------......... .................
securities and credits (not to
be offset by longs or by debits)
in all suspense accounts over 30
calendar days.
9. Market value of securities $--------......... .................
which are in transfer in excess
of 40 calendar days and have not
been confirmed to be in transfer
by the transfer agent or the
issuer during the 40 days.
10. Debit balances in accounts .................. $--------
carried for security-based swap
customers, excluding unsecured
accounts and accounts doubtful
of collection.
11. Securities borrowed to .................. $--------
effectuate short sales by
security-based swap customers
and securities borrowed to make
delivery on security-based swap
customers' securities failed to
deliver.
12. Failed to deliver of security- .................. $--------
based swap customers' securities
not older than 30 calendar days.
13. Margin required and on .................. $--------
deposit with the Options
Clearing Corporation for all
option contracts written or
purchased in accounts carried
for security-based swap
customers.
14. Margin related to security .................. $--------
future products written,
purchased or sold in accounts
carried for security-based swap
customers required and on
deposit in a qualified clearing
agency account at a clearing
agency registered with the
Commission under section 17A of
the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) or a
derivatives clearing
organization registered with the
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission under section 5b of
the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 7a-1).
15. Margin related to cleared .................. $--------
security-based swap transactions
in accounts carried for security-
based swap customers required
and on deposit in a qualified
clearing agency account at a
clearing agency registered with
the Commission pursuant to
section 17A of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78q-1).
16. Margin related to non-cleared .................. $--------
security-based swap transactions
in accounts carried for security-
based swap customers required
and held in a qualified
registered security-based swap
dealer account at another
security-based swap dealer.
Total Credits................ $--------......... .................
Total Debits................. .................. $--------
Excess of Credits over Debits $--------......... .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note A. Item 1 shall include all outstanding drafts payable to
security-based swap customers which have been applied against free
credit balances or other credit balances and shall also include
checks drawn in excess of bank balances per the records of the
security-based swap dealer.
Note B. Item 2 shall include the amount of options-related or
security futures product-related Letters of Credit obtained by a
member of a registered clearing agency or a derivatives clearing
organization which are collateralized by security-based swap
customers' securities, to the extent of the member's margin
requirement at the registered clearing agency or derivatives
clearing organization.
Note C. Item 3 shall include in addition to monies payable
against security-based swap customer's securities loaned the amount
by which the market value of securities loaned exceeds the
collateral value received from the lending of such securities.
Note D. Item 4 shall include in addition to security-based swap
customers' securities failed to receive the amount by which the
market value of securities failed to receive and outstanding more
than thirty (30) calendar days exceeds their contract value.
Note E. (1) Debit balances in accounts shall be reduced by the
amount by which a specific security (other than an exempted
security) which is collateral for margin requirements exceeds in
aggregate value 15 percent of the aggregate value of all securities
which collateralize all accounts receivable; provided, however, the
required reduction shall not be in excess of the amount of the debit
balance required to be excluded because of this concentration rule.
A specified security is deemed to be collateral for an account only
to the extent it is not an excess margin security.
(2) Debit balances in special omnibus accounts, maintained in
compliance with the requirements of section 4(b) of Regulation T
under the Act (12 CFR 220.4(b)) or similar accounts carried on
behalf of another security-based swap dealer, shall be reduced by
any deficits in such accounts (or if a credit, such credit shall be
increased) less any calls for margin, marks to the market, or other
required deposits which are outstanding 5 business days or less.
(3) Debit balances in security-based swap customers' accounts
included in the formula under item 10 shall be reduced by an amount
equal to 1 percent of their aggregate value.
(4) Debit balances in accounts of household members and other
persons related to principals of a security-based swap dealer and
debit balances in cash and margin accounts of affiliated persons of
a security-based swap dealer shall be excluded from the Reserve
Formula, unless the security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that
such debit balances are directly related to credit items in the
formula.
(5) Debit balances in accounts (other than omnibus accounts)
shall be reduced by the amount by which any single security-based
swap customer's debit balance exceeds 25% (to the extent such amount
is greater than $50,000) of the broker-dealer's tentative net
capital (i.e., net capital prior to securities haircuts) unless the
security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is
directly related to credit items in the Reserve Formula. Related
accounts (e.g., the separate accounts of an individual, accounts
under common control or subject to cross guarantees) shall be deemed
to be a single security-based swap customer's accounts for purposes
of this provision.
If the Commission is satisfied, after taking into account the
circumstances of the concentrated account including the quality,
diversity, and marketability of the collateral securing the debit
balances in accounts subject to this provision, that the
concentration of debit balances is appropriate, then the Commission
may, by order, grant a partial or plenary exception from this
provision.
The debit balance may be included in the reserve formula
computation for five

[[Page 70354]]

business days from the day the request is made.
(6) Debit balances of joint accounts, custodian accounts,
participations in hedge funds or limited partnerships or similar
type accounts or arrangements of a person who would be excluded from
the definition of security-based swap customer (``non-security-based
swap customer'') which persons includible in the definition of
security-based swap customer shall be included in the Reserve
Formula in the following manner: if the percentage ownership of the
non-security-based swap customer is less than 5 percent then the
entire debit balance shall be included in the formula; if such
percentage ownership is between 5 percent and 50 percent then the
portion of the debit balance attributable to the non-security-based
swap customer shall be excluded from the formula unless the
security-based swap dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is
directly related to credit items in the formula; if such percentage
ownership is greater than 50 percent, then the entire debit balance
shall be excluded from the formula unless the security-based swap
dealer can demonstrate that the debit balance is directly related to
credit items in the formula.
Note F. Item 13 shall include the amount of margin required and
on deposit with Options Clearing Corporation to the extent such
margin is represented by cash, proprietary qualified securities, and
letters of credit collateralized by security-based swap customers'
securities.
Note G. (a) Item 14 shall include the amount of margin required
and on deposit with a clearing agency registered with the Commission
under section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) or a derivatives
clearing organization registered with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission under section 5b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
7a-1) for security-based swap customer accounts to the extent that
the margin is represented by cash, proprietary qualified securities,
and letters of credit collateralized by security-based swap
customers' securities.
(b) Item 14 shall apply only if the security-based swap dealer
has the margin related to security futures products on deposit with:
(1) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization that:
(i) Maintains security deposits from clearing members in
connection with regulated options or futures transactions and
assessment power over member firms that equal a combined total of at
least $2 billion, at least $500 million of which must be in the form
of security deposits. For purposes of this Note G, the term
``security deposits'' refers to a general fund, other than margin
deposits or their equivalent, that consists of cash or securities
held by a registered clearing agency or derivative clearing
organization;
(ii) Maintains at least $3 billion in margin deposits; or
(iii) Does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(ii) of this Note G, if the Commission has determined,
upon a written request for exemption by or for the benefit of the
security-based swap dealer, that the security-based swap dealer may
utilize such a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization. The Commission may, in its sole discretion, grant such
an exemption subject to such conditions as are appropriate under the
circumstances, if the Commission determines that such conditional or
unconditional exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors; and
(2) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization that, if it holds funds or securities deposited as
margin for security futures products in a bank, as defined in
section 3(a)(6) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(6)), obtains and
preserves written notification from the bank at which it holds such
funds and securities or at which such funds and securities are held
on its behalf. The written notification shall state that all funds
and/or securities deposited with the bank as margin (including
security-based swap customer security futures products margin), or
held by the bank and pledged to such registered clearing agency or
derivatives clearing agency as margin, are being held by the bank
for the exclusive benefit of clearing members of the registered
clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization (subject to the
interest of such registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization therein), and are being kept separate from any other
accounts maintained by the registered clearing agency or derivatives
clearing organization with the bank. The written notification also
shall provide that such funds and/or securities shall at no time be
used directly or indirectly as security for a loan to the registered
clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization by the bank,
and shall be subject to no right, charge, security interest, lien,
or claim of any kind in favor of the bank or any person claiming
through the bank. This provision, however, shall not prohibit a
registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization from
pledging security-based swap customer funds or securities as
collateral to a bank for any purpose that the rules of the
Commission or the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization otherwise permit; and
(3) A registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization that establishes, documents, and maintains:
(i) Safeguards in the handling, transfer, and delivery of cash
and securities;
(ii) Fidelity bond coverage for its employees and agents who
handle security-based swap customer funds or securities. In the case
of agents of a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing
organization, the agent may provide the fidelity bond coverage; and
(iii) Provisions for periodic examination by independent public
accountants; and
(4) A derivatives clearing organization that, if it is not
otherwise registered with the Commission, has provided the
Commission with a written undertaking, in a form acceptable to the
Commission, executed by a duly authorized person at the derivatives
clearing organization, to the effect that, with respect to the
clearance and settlement of the security-based swap customer
security futures products of the broker-dealer, the derivatives
clearing organization will permit the Commission to examine the
books and records of the derivatives clearing organization for
compliance with the requirements set forth in Sec. 240.15c3-3a,
Note G. (b)(1) through (3).
(c) Item 14 shall apply only if a security-based swap dealer
determines, at least annually, that the registered clearing agency
or derivatives clearing organization with which the security-based
swap dealer has on deposit margin related to security futures
products meets the conditions of this Note G.

By the Commission.

Dated: October 18, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26164 Filed 11-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.