Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Remove Certain Fees From the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules and Electronic Pool Notification Rules, 64415-64417 [2018-27079]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / Notices
reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for
notice and comment in the Federal
Register on June 21, 2018.8 December
18, 2018 is 180 days from that date, and
February 16, 2019 is 240 days from that
date. The Commission finds it
appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order
approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change.9
Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,10 designates February 16, 2019 as
the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change (File No. SR–
NYSE–2018–28).
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.11
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–27076 Filed 12–13–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–84769; File No. SR–FICC–
2018–012]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
a Proposed Rule Change To Remove
Certain Fees From the MortgageBacked Securities Division Clearing
Rules and Electronic Pool Notification
Rules
December 10, 2018.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on November
26, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been prepared
by the clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule
19b–4(f)(2) thereunder.4 The
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
8 See
supra note 3.
9 The Commission notes that on November 30,
2018, the Exchange has filed a separate proposed
rule change to extend the pilot period, which is
currently set to expire on December 31, 2018, until
June 30, 2019. See SR–NYSE–2018–59.
10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Dec 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Terms of Substance of the Proposed
Rule Change
The proposed rule change consists of
modifications to the FICC’s MortgageBacked Securities Division (‘‘MBSD’’)
Clearing Rules (‘‘Clearing Rules’’) and
the MBSD electronic pool notification
(‘‘EPN’’) Rules (‘‘EPN Rules,’’ and
together with the Clearing Rules,
‘‘Rules’’) to remove certain fees, as
described below.5
II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
clearing agency included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for
the proposed rule change and discussed
any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. The
clearing agency has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
FICC recently completed a strategic
review of its revenue and pricing
strategy. The goal of the review was to
enhance pricing for the Clearing
Members and EPN Users (collectively
referred to herein as ‘‘participants’’) of
MBSD and participants of FICC’s
Government Securities Division
(‘‘GSD’’).6 This effort was intended to
align fees for services with the cost of
providing those services, reduce the
complexity of fee structures, and
increase the overall transparency of the
fees charged for services.
As a result of this review, FICC is
proposing to revise the Rules to remove
the following fees: (1) MBSD’s
Surcharge for Submission Method
(‘‘Surcharge’’), which is a percent
surcharge on post discount trade
recording fees as recorded on a Clearing
Member’s monthly bill that is charged to
Clearing Members that submit trade data
either on a single batch or multi-batch
method; (2) MBSD’s account
maintenance fee ($50 per month for
each trade assignment account); and (3)
fees for late payments of EPN bills.
As described further below, FICC has
determined that the Surcharge and the
fees for late payment of EPN bills are no
longer necessary to encourage
alternatives to batch processing or
prompt payment of bills, respectively.
As also described below, FICC is
proposing to remove MBSD’s account
maintenance fee for trade assignment
accounts does not offer trade assignment
accounts.
Each of these proposed changes is
described below.
(i) Surcharge for Submission Method
FICC is proposing to remove the
Surcharge from the Clearing Rules’
Schedule of Charges for the Broker
Account Group (‘‘Broker Schedule’’)
and the Schedule of Charges for the
Dealer Account Group (‘‘Dealer
Schedule’’).7
In 2006, FICC implemented the
Surcharge to be imposed on Clearing
Members that are either single batch
submitters or multi-batch submitters of
transaction data.8 The surcharge is (1)
fifty percent (with a minimum of $500)
on the post discount trade recording
fees, as recorded on the monthly bill of
single batch submitters, and (2) twenty
percent (with a minimum of $500) on
the post discount trade recording fees,
as recorded on the monthly bill of
multi-batch submitters.9 The Surcharge
was introduced to encourage Clearing
Members to submit trades using the
interactive messaging submission
method through FICC’s Real-Time Trade
Matching (‘‘RTTM’’) Web service,
encourage submission of transaction
data on a timely basis, and cover the
costs of batch processing.10 The
rationale for encouraging the use of
interactive messaging through RTTM
Web included mitigating (1) the risk
associated with the longer time to
complete trade comparison and
confirmation in batch processing; and
7 Supra
note 5.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53061
(January 5, 2006), 71 FR 2078 (January 12, 2006)
(SR–FICC–2005–20).
9 See Broker Schedule and Dealer Schedule,
supra note 5.
10 Where Clearing Members previously submitted
trades to FICC either once or multiple times during
the day in batches (referred to as ‘‘batch
submission’’), interactive messaging through RTTM
Web involves the submission of trades to FICC on
a real-time basis and allows Clearing Members to,
for example, receive trade status messages and
cancel or modify trades.
8 See
5 Available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/rulesand-procedures. Capitalized terms used herein and
not otherwise defined shall have the meaning
assigned to such terms in the Rules.
6 Earlier this year, FICC implemented changes to
the fee structure of GSD in connection with this
initiative. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
83401 (June 8, 2018), 83 FR 27812 (June 14, 2018)
(SR–FICC–2018–003). FICC’s affiliates, The
Depository Trust Company and National Securities
Clearing Corporation, are also proposing changes to
their respective fees.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64415
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
64416
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
(2) the operational risk introduced when
the parties to a trade submit trade data
through different submission
methods.11
Since the introduction of the
Surcharge, the use of the interactive
trade submission method through
RTTM Web has expanded. As of May
2005, thirty-five percent of Clearing
Members used interactive messaging
through RTTM Web, representing
approximately eighty percent of total
par and seventy-four percent of total
sides of transactions processed.12 As of
June 2018, all Clearing Members were
using interactive messaging through
RTTM Web for transaction data
submission and, while some Clearing
Members submit certain files by batch
method from time to time,
approximately ninety-seven percent of
MBSD’s total par and total sides of
transactions processed were submitted
using interactive messaging through
RTTM Web. Given that all Clearing
Members have now adopted the
technology necessary to submit
transaction data using the interactive
messaging submission method through
RTTM Web, FICC does not anticipate
that Clearing Members will revert to
using solely a batch submission method.
Therefore, FICC believes the
Surcharge is no longer necessary and is
proposing to remove it from the Clearing
Rules. In order to implement this
proposed change, FICC would remove
the Surcharge from (1) MBSD Clearing
Rules, Brokers Schedule, ‘‘I. Fees,’’ and
(2) MBSD Clearing Rules, Dealers
Schedule, ‘‘I. Fees.’’
(ii) Account Maintenance Fee for Trade
Assignment Accounts 13
FICC is proposing to remove the
account maintenance fee for ‘‘Trade
Assignment Accounts’’ from the Dealer
Schedule.
While the Dealer Schedule includes
an account maintenance fee for trade
assignment accounts, FICC does not
offer trade assignment accounts, and has
not been able to identify any records
relating to the establishment,
maintenance, or termination of this
service. Therefore, the proposed change
to remove the related account
maintenance fee would merely update
the Dealer Schedule to reflect current
services available to Clearing Members.
In order to implement this proposed
change, FICC would remove the ‘‘Trade
11 See
supra note 8.
at FN 3.
13 Per email instruction from FICC’s legal staff on
December 7, 2018, Commission staff revised this
subsection to correct a typographical error,
changing the number of this subsection from ‘‘(i)’’
to ‘‘(ii).’’
12 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Dec 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Assignment Account’’ fee from MBSD
Clearing Rules, Dealer Schedule, ‘‘I.
Fees, Account Maintenance.’’
(iii) Fees for Late Payment of EPN
Bills 14
FICC is proposing to remove the
‘‘Additional Fees for Late Payment of
EPN Bills’’ from the EPN Schedule of
Fees in the EPN Rules.
In 1998, FICC implemented a
schedule of fees for late payment of
financial obligations to FICC in order to
motivate participants to pay their
obligations to FICC before the applicable
deadlines and compensate MBSD for the
costs associated with monitoring such
late payments.15 When these fees were
implemented, they were added to the
Broker Schedule and Dealer Schedule in
the Clearing Rules, and to the EPN
Schedule of Charges in the EPN Rules.
Within the EPN Rules, these fees range
from $50 to $500, and are scaled based
on whether the late payment is a first,
second, third, or fourth occurrence.
In 2004, FICC revised the Broker
Schedule and the Dealer Schedule of the
Clearing Rules to characterize these fees
as fines.16 While late payment of
financial obligations under the Clearing
Rules could represent late payment of
margin charges, which create risk to
FICC, late payments of EPN bills do not
present FICC with the same risk.
Therefore, similar changes were not
made to the EPN Rules in 2004 and
these fees remained unchanged. In
connection with its recent review of
fees, FICC has determined that late
payment of EPN bills are rarely
applied.17 In general, EPN users
promptly pay their EPN bills. FICC has
determined that it is no longer necessary
to retain this fee because, as stated
above, such late payments do not
present FICC with the same risk as late
payment of bills under the Clearing
Rules. Therefore, FICC is proposing to
remove this fee from the EPN Rules.
In order to implement this proposed
change, FICC would remove the
‘‘ADDITIONAL FEES FOR LATE
PAYMENT OF EPN BILLS’’ from the
EPN Rules, EPN Schedule of Charges.
14 Per email instruction from FICC’s legal staff on
December 7, 2018, Commission staff revised this
subsection to correct a typographical error,
changing the number of this subsection from ‘‘(ii)’’
to ‘‘(iii).’’
15 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39849
(April 10, 1998), 63 FR 19546 (April 20, 1998) (SR–
MBSCC–97–09).
16 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50965
(January 5, 2005), 70 FR 2201 (January 12, 2005)
(SR–FICC–2004–06).
17 FICC has not charged these fees to any EPN
Users for at least four years as of the date of this
filing.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Member Outreach
Beginning in June 2018, FICC has
conducted ongoing outreach to
participants in order to provide them
with notice of the proposed changes. As
of the date of this filing, no written
comments relating to the proposed
changes have been received in response
to this outreach. The Commission will
be notified of any written comments
received.
Implementation Timeframe
FICC would implement this proposal
on January 1, 2019. As proposed, a
legend would be added to the Broker
Schedule and the Dealer Schedule in
the Clearing Rules and to the EPN
Schedule of Charges in the EPN Rules,
as appropriate, stating there are changes
that became effective upon filing with
the Commission but have not yet been
implemented. The proposed legend also
would include the date on which such
changes would be implemented and the
file number of this proposal, and would
state that, once this proposal is
implemented, the legend would
automatically be removed from each of
the Broker Schedule, the Dealer
Schedule, and the EPN Schedule of
Charges.
2. Statutory Basis
FICC believes the proposed changes
are consistent with the Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, which requires,
in part, that the Rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among
participants.18 The proposed change to
remove the Surcharge from the Broker
Schedule and the Dealer Schedule
would provide for the equitable
allocation of fees among participants
because the proposal would apply to all
participants, such that no Clearing
Members would be subject to this fee
following the implementation of the
proposed change. The proposed change
to remove the fee for late EPN bills from
the EPN Schedule of Fees would also
provide for the equitable allocation of
fees among participants because this
proposal would apply to all
participants, such that no EPN Users
would be subject to this fee following
the implementation of the proposed
change. Further, FICC believes these
two proposed changes are reasonable
because they would eliminate two fees
that are no longer necessary, for the
reasons described above. Therefore,
these proposed changes are consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(D).19
18 15
U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(D).
19 Id.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
The proposed change to remove the
account maintenance fee for trade
assignment accounts from the Dealer
Schedule would provide for the
equitable allocation of fees among
participants because removing this fee,
which does not relate to a service
provided by FICC, would improve the
accuracy of the Dealer Schedule for all
Clearing Members. FICC believes this
proposed change is reasonable because,
following implementation of the
proposed change, the Dealer Schedule
would only include fees that relate to
existing services provided by FICC.
Therefore, this proposed change is also
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D).20
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(21) under the Act
requires, in part, that FICC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to be efficient and
effective in meeting the requirements of
its participants and the markets it
serves.21 The proposed change to
eliminate the Surcharge would
eliminate a fee that is no longer
necessary to discourage batch
submission of trades, for the reasons
described above. The proposed change
to eliminate the late payment for EPN
bills would also eliminate a fee that is
no longer necessary to discourage late
payment of such bills, for the reasons
described above. Finally, the proposed
change to remove the account
maintenance fee for trade assignment
accounts from the Dealer Schedule
would remove a fee from the Dealer
Schedule that does not relate to a
service offered by FICC. Each of these
proposed changes would simplify and
update the Rules, thereby improving the
clarity of the Rules and enhancing their
transparency to participants. By
removing fees that are no longer
necessary or do not relate to FICC’s
services, and improving the clarity of
the Rules, the proposed changes would
allow FICC to more efficiently and
effectively meet the requirements of its
participants. Therefore, FICC believes
this proposed rule change is also
consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(21).22
(B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on
Burden on Competition
FICC does not believe that the
proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on
competition. The proposed changes
would eliminate fees that are no longer
necessary, for the reasons described
above, and would remove a fee from the
Clearing Rules that does not relate to a
service provided by FICC. Each of the
proposed changes would apply equally
to all participants such that no
participants would be subject to the
eliminated fees following the
implementation of the proposed
changes, and the Clearing Rules would
no longer identify a fee that does not
relate to an FICC service. Therefore,
FICC does not believe these proposed
changes would not have any impact on
competition.
(C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on
Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change Received From Members,
Participants, or Others
FICC has not solicited or received any
written comments relating to this
proposal. FICC will notify the
Commission of any written comments
that it receives.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act 23 and paragraph (f) of Rule
19b–4 thereunder.24 At any time within
60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
FICC–2018–012 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–FICC–2018–012. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
20 Id.
21 17
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
internet website (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of FICC and on DTCC’s website
(https://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rulefilings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–FICC–
2018–012 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.25
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–27079 Filed 12–13–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–84765; File No. SR–Phlx–
2018–79]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq
PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Update the Trading
Floor Qualification Examination
December 10, 2018.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1, and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on November
30, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or
25 17
CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(21).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
24 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f).
22 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Dec 13, 2018
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
23 15
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
1 15
Sfmt 4703
64417
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64415-64417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-84769; File No. SR-FICC-2018-012]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Remove Certain Fees From the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division
Clearing Rules and Electronic Pool Notification Rules
December 10, 2018.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 26, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the FICC's
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules
(``Clearing Rules'') and the MBSD electronic pool notification
(``EPN'') Rules (``EPN Rules,'' and together with the Clearing Rules,
``Rules'') to remove certain fees, as described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have
the meaning assigned to such terms in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
FICC recently completed a strategic review of its revenue and
pricing strategy. The goal of the review was to enhance pricing for the
Clearing Members and EPN Users (collectively referred to herein as
``participants'') of MBSD and participants of FICC's Government
Securities Division (``GSD'').\6\ This effort was intended to align
fees for services with the cost of providing those services, reduce the
complexity of fee structures, and increase the overall transparency of
the fees charged for services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Earlier this year, FICC implemented changes to the fee
structure of GSD in connection with this initiative. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 83401 (June 8, 2018), 83 FR 27812 (June 14,
2018) (SR-FICC-2018-003). FICC's affiliates, The Depository Trust
Company and National Securities Clearing Corporation, are also
proposing changes to their respective fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of this review, FICC is proposing to revise the Rules
to remove the following fees: (1) MBSD's Surcharge for Submission
Method (``Surcharge''), which is a percent surcharge on post discount
trade recording fees as recorded on a Clearing Member's monthly bill
that is charged to Clearing Members that submit trade data either on a
single batch or multi-batch method; (2) MBSD's account maintenance fee
($50 per month for each trade assignment account); and (3) fees for
late payments of EPN bills.
As described further below, FICC has determined that the Surcharge
and the fees for late payment of EPN bills are no longer necessary to
encourage alternatives to batch processing or prompt payment of bills,
respectively. As also described below, FICC is proposing to remove
MBSD's account maintenance fee for trade assignment accounts does not
offer trade assignment accounts.
Each of these proposed changes is described below.
(i) Surcharge for Submission Method
FICC is proposing to remove the Surcharge from the Clearing Rules'
Schedule of Charges for the Broker Account Group (``Broker Schedule'')
and the Schedule of Charges for the Dealer Account Group (``Dealer
Schedule'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, FICC implemented the Surcharge to be imposed on Clearing
Members that are either single batch submitters or multi-batch
submitters of transaction data.\8\ The surcharge is (1) fifty percent
(with a minimum of $500) on the post discount trade recording fees, as
recorded on the monthly bill of single batch submitters, and (2) twenty
percent (with a minimum of $500) on the post discount trade recording
fees, as recorded on the monthly bill of multi-batch submitters.\9\ The
Surcharge was introduced to encourage Clearing Members to submit trades
using the interactive messaging submission method through FICC's Real-
Time Trade Matching (``RTTM'') Web service, encourage submission of
transaction data on a timely basis, and cover the costs of batch
processing.\10\ The rationale for encouraging the use of interactive
messaging through RTTM Web included mitigating (1) the risk associated
with the longer time to complete trade comparison and confirmation in
batch processing; and
[[Page 64416]]
(2) the operational risk introduced when the parties to a trade submit
trade data through different submission methods.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53061 (January 5,
2006), 71 FR 2078 (January 12, 2006) (SR-FICC-2005-20).
\9\ See Broker Schedule and Dealer Schedule, supra note 5.
\10\ Where Clearing Members previously submitted trades to FICC
either once or multiple times during the day in batches (referred to
as ``batch submission''), interactive messaging through RTTM Web
involves the submission of trades to FICC on a real-time basis and
allows Clearing Members to, for example, receive trade status
messages and cancel or modify trades.
\11\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the introduction of the Surcharge, the use of the interactive
trade submission method through RTTM Web has expanded. As of May 2005,
thirty-five percent of Clearing Members used interactive messaging
through RTTM Web, representing approximately eighty percent of total
par and seventy-four percent of total sides of transactions
processed.\12\ As of June 2018, all Clearing Members were using
interactive messaging through RTTM Web for transaction data submission
and, while some Clearing Members submit certain files by batch method
from time to time, approximately ninety-seven percent of MBSD's total
par and total sides of transactions processed were submitted using
interactive messaging through RTTM Web. Given that all Clearing Members
have now adopted the technology necessary to submit transaction data
using the interactive messaging submission method through RTTM Web,
FICC does not anticipate that Clearing Members will revert to using
solely a batch submission method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at FN 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, FICC believes the Surcharge is no longer necessary and
is proposing to remove it from the Clearing Rules. In order to
implement this proposed change, FICC would remove the Surcharge from
(1) MBSD Clearing Rules, Brokers Schedule, ``I. Fees,'' and (2) MBSD
Clearing Rules, Dealers Schedule, ``I. Fees.''
(ii) Account Maintenance Fee for Trade Assignment Accounts \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Per email instruction from FICC's legal staff on December
7, 2018, Commission staff revised this subsection to correct a
typographical error, changing the number of this subsection from
``(i)'' to ``(ii).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FICC is proposing to remove the account maintenance fee for ``Trade
Assignment Accounts'' from the Dealer Schedule.
While the Dealer Schedule includes an account maintenance fee for
trade assignment accounts, FICC does not offer trade assignment
accounts, and has not been able to identify any records relating to the
establishment, maintenance, or termination of this service. Therefore,
the proposed change to remove the related account maintenance fee would
merely update the Dealer Schedule to reflect current services available
to Clearing Members.
In order to implement this proposed change, FICC would remove the
``Trade Assignment Account'' fee from MBSD Clearing Rules, Dealer
Schedule, ``I. Fees, Account Maintenance.''
(iii) Fees for Late Payment of EPN Bills \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Per email instruction from FICC's legal staff on December
7, 2018, Commission staff revised this subsection to correct a
typographical error, changing the number of this subsection from
``(ii)'' to ``(iii).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FICC is proposing to remove the ``Additional Fees for Late Payment
of EPN Bills'' from the EPN Schedule of Fees in the EPN Rules.
In 1998, FICC implemented a schedule of fees for late payment of
financial obligations to FICC in order to motivate participants to pay
their obligations to FICC before the applicable deadlines and
compensate MBSD for the costs associated with monitoring such late
payments.\15\ When these fees were implemented, they were added to the
Broker Schedule and Dealer Schedule in the Clearing Rules, and to the
EPN Schedule of Charges in the EPN Rules. Within the EPN Rules, these
fees range from $50 to $500, and are scaled based on whether the late
payment is a first, second, third, or fourth occurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39849 (April 10,
1998), 63 FR 19546 (April 20, 1998) (SR-MBSCC-97-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, FICC revised the Broker Schedule and the Dealer Schedule
of the Clearing Rules to characterize these fees as fines.\16\ While
late payment of financial obligations under the Clearing Rules could
represent late payment of margin charges, which create risk to FICC,
late payments of EPN bills do not present FICC with the same risk.
Therefore, similar changes were not made to the EPN Rules in 2004 and
these fees remained unchanged. In connection with its recent review of
fees, FICC has determined that late payment of EPN bills are rarely
applied.\17\ In general, EPN users promptly pay their EPN bills. FICC
has determined that it is no longer necessary to retain this fee
because, as stated above, such late payments do not present FICC with
the same risk as late payment of bills under the Clearing Rules.
Therefore, FICC is proposing to remove this fee from the EPN Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50965 (January 5,
2005), 70 FR 2201 (January 12, 2005) (SR-FICC-2004-06).
\17\ FICC has not charged these fees to any EPN Users for at
least four years as of the date of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to implement this proposed change, FICC would remove the
``ADDITIONAL FEES FOR LATE PAYMENT OF EPN BILLS'' from the EPN Rules,
EPN Schedule of Charges.
Member Outreach
Beginning in June 2018, FICC has conducted ongoing outreach to
participants in order to provide them with notice of the proposed
changes. As of the date of this filing, no written comments relating to
the proposed changes have been received in response to this outreach.
The Commission will be notified of any written comments received.
Implementation Timeframe
FICC would implement this proposal on January 1, 2019. As proposed,
a legend would be added to the Broker Schedule and the Dealer Schedule
in the Clearing Rules and to the EPN Schedule of Charges in the EPN
Rules, as appropriate, stating there are changes that became effective
upon filing with the Commission but have not yet been implemented. The
proposed legend also would include the date on which such changes would
be implemented and the file number of this proposal, and would state
that, once this proposal is implemented, the legend would automatically
be removed from each of the Broker Schedule, the Dealer Schedule, and
the EPN Schedule of Charges.
2. Statutory Basis
FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with the Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the Rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among participants.\18\ The proposed change to remove the
Surcharge from the Broker Schedule and the Dealer Schedule would
provide for the equitable allocation of fees among participants because
the proposal would apply to all participants, such that no Clearing
Members would be subject to this fee following the implementation of
the proposed change. The proposed change to remove the fee for late EPN
bills from the EPN Schedule of Fees would also provide for the
equitable allocation of fees among participants because this proposal
would apply to all participants, such that no EPN Users would be
subject to this fee following the implementation of the proposed
change. Further, FICC believes these two proposed changes are
reasonable because they would eliminate two fees that are no longer
necessary, for the reasons described above. Therefore, these proposed
changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64417]]
The proposed change to remove the account maintenance fee for trade
assignment accounts from the Dealer Schedule would provide for the
equitable allocation of fees among participants because removing this
fee, which does not relate to a service provided by FICC, would improve
the accuracy of the Dealer Schedule for all Clearing Members. FICC
believes this proposed change is reasonable because, following
implementation of the proposed change, the Dealer Schedule would only
include fees that relate to existing services provided by FICC.
Therefore, this proposed change is also consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires, in part, that FICC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting
the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.\21\ The
proposed change to eliminate the Surcharge would eliminate a fee that
is no longer necessary to discourage batch submission of trades, for
the reasons described above. The proposed change to eliminate the late
payment for EPN bills would also eliminate a fee that is no longer
necessary to discourage late payment of such bills, for the reasons
described above. Finally, the proposed change to remove the account
maintenance fee for trade assignment accounts from the Dealer Schedule
would remove a fee from the Dealer Schedule that does not relate to a
service offered by FICC. Each of these proposed changes would simplify
and update the Rules, thereby improving the clarity of the Rules and
enhancing their transparency to participants. By removing fees that are
no longer necessary or do not relate to FICC's services, and improving
the clarity of the Rules, the proposed changes would allow FICC to more
efficiently and effectively meet the requirements of its participants.
Therefore, FICC believes this proposed rule change is also consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(21).
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes
would eliminate fees that are no longer necessary, for the reasons
described above, and would remove a fee from the Clearing Rules that
does not relate to a service provided by FICC. Each of the proposed
changes would apply equally to all participants such that no
participants would be subject to the eliminated fees following the
implementation of the proposed changes, and the Clearing Rules would no
longer identify a fee that does not relate to an FICC service.
Therefore, FICC does not believe these proposed changes would not have
any impact on competition.
(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others
FICC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to
this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
that it receives.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\24\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2018-012 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2018-012. 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 website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(https://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2018-012 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27079 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P