Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in Connection With Certain Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements Applicable to Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to Regulation by the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority, 58535-58572 [2024-15094]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Comparability Determinations, including
their work to thoroughly and thoughtfully
analyze and address comments.
Importantly, while the Final Comparability
Determinations permit foreign nonbank SDs
in the relevant jurisdictions to comply with
home country regulations in lieu of
compliance with Commission regulations,
there are numerous protections in place to
ensure the Commission’s ability to supervise
on an ongoing basis the adequacy of the
foreign nonbank SDs’ compliance. The Final
Comparability Determinations all include key
conditions with which the foreign nonbank
SDs must comply. For example, each of the
Final Comparability Determinations requires
that the foreign nonbank SDs provide
monthly and annual financial reports to the
Commission—and the Commission can
request additional information as required to
facilitate ongoing supervision. Each Final
Comparability Determination also requires
the foreign nonbank SDs to notify the
Commission if adverse events occur, such as
a significant decrease in excess regulatory
capital, a significant failure of a counterparty
to post required margin, or non-compliance
with certain capital or financial reporting
requirements. Finally, in recognition of the
fact that a country’s capital standards and
financial reporting requirements may change
over time, the Final Comparability
Determinations require the foreign nonbank
SDs to provide notice of material changes to
the home country capital or financial
reporting frameworks.
Moreover, the foreign nonbank SDs subject
to these determinations are registered with
the Commission and are members of the
National Futures Association (NFA).
Therefore, these entities are subject to the
CEA, Commission regulations, and NFA
membership rules, and each entity remains
subject to Commission supervisory,
examination and enforcement authority. As
noted in the Final Comparability
Determinations, if a foreign SD fails to
comply with its home country’s capital and
financial reporting requirements, the
Commission may initiate an action for a
violation of the Commission’s Capital and
Financial Reporting Rules.
As I have previously noted,7 it is important
to recognize foreign market participants’
compliance with the laws and regulations of
their regulators when the requirements lead
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7 Kristin
N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC,
Combatting Systemic Risk and Fostering Integrity of
the Global Financial System Through Rigorous
Standards and International Comity (Jan. 24, 2024),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement012424;
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement
in Support of Notice and Order on EU Capital
Comparability Determination (June 7, 2023), https://
www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/
johnsonstatement060723c; Kristin N. Johnson,
Commissioner, CFTC, Statement in Support of
Proposed Order and Request for Comment on
Mexican Capital Comparability Determination (Nov.
10, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement111022c;
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement
in Support of Proposed Order on Japanese Capital
Comparability Determination (July 27, 2022),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement072722c.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
to an outcome that is comparable to the
outcome of complying with the CFTC’s
corresponding requirements. Respect for
partner regulators in foreign jurisdictions
advances the Commission as a global
standard setter for sound derivatives
regulation and enhances market stability.
I thank the staff in the Market Participants
Division for their hard work on these matters,
particularly Amanda Olear, Tom Smith, and
Lily Bozhanova.
Appendix 4—Statement of
Commissioner Caroline D. Pham
I am pleased to support the order granting
conditional substituted compliance in
connection with certain capital and financial
reporting requirements applicable to
nonbank swap dealers subject to regulation
by the Mexico Comision Nacional Bancaria y
de Valores (CNBV) and Banco de Mexico
(Mexico Final Order). The Mexico Final
Order, on balance, reflects an appropriate
approach by the CFTC to collaboration with
non-U.S. regulators that is consistent with
IOSCO’s 2020 report on Good Practices on
Processes for Deference.1
I would like to thank Amanda Olear,
Thomas Smith, Rafael Martinez, Warren
Gorlick, Lilya Bozhanova, and Justin McPhee
from the CFTC’s Market Participants Division
for their truly hard work on the Mexico Final
Order and for addressing my concerns
regarding the conditions for notice
requirements.2 I also thank the CNBV and
Banco de Mexico for their assistance and
support.
The CFTC’s capital comparability
determinations are the result of tireless
efforts spanning over a decade since the
global financial crisis. I commend the staff
for working together with our regulatory
counterparts around the world to promote
regulatory cohesion and financial stability,
and mitigate market fragmentation and
systemic risk.
[FR Doc. 2024–15093 Filed 7–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Chapter I
Order Granting Conditional
Substituted Compliance in Connection
With Certain Capital and Financial
Reporting Requirements Applicable to
Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to
Regulation by the United Kingdom
Prudential Regulation Authority
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
AGENCY:
1 IOSCO Report, ‘‘Good Practices on Processes for
Deference’’ (June 2020), https://www.iosco.org/
library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD659.pdf.
2 Concurring Statement of Commissioner Caroline
D. Pham Regarding Proposed Order and Request for
Comment on an Application for a Capital
Comparability Determination (Nov. 10, 2022),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement111022.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
58535
Order.
On February 5, 2024, the
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission issued a notice and request
for comment on an application
submitted by the Institute of
International Bankers, International
Swaps and Derivatives Association, and
Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association requesting that the
Commission determine that registered
nonbank swap dealers organized and
domiciled in the United Kingdom may
comply with certain capital and
financial reporting requirements under
the Commodity Exchange Act and
Commission regulations by being
subject to, and complying with,
corresponding capital and financial
reporting requirements of the United
Kingdom Prudential Regulation
Authority. The Commission also
solicited public comment on a proposed
comparability determination and related
order providing for the conditional
availability of substituted compliance in
connection with the application.
The Commission is adopting the
proposed order with certain
modifications and clarifications to
address comments. The final order
provides that a nonbank swap dealer
organized and domiciled in the United
Kingdom may satisfy the capital
requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act and Commission
applicable Commission regulations and
the financial reporting rules under the
Commodity Exchange Act and
applicable Commission regulations by
complying with certain specified United
Kingdom laws and regulations and
conditions set forth in the order.
DATES: This determination was made by
the Commission on June 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda L. Olear, Director, 202–418–
5283, aolear@cftc.gov; Thomas Smith,
Deputy Director, 202–418–5495,
tsmith@cftc.gov; Rafael Martinez,
Associate Director, 202–418–5462,
rmartinez@cftc.gov; Liliya Bozhanova,
Special Counsel, 202–418–6232,
lbozhanova@cftc.gov; Joo Hong, Risk
Analyst, 202–418–6221, jhong@cftc.gov;
Justin McPhee, Risk Analyst, 202–418–
6223; jmchpee@cftc.gov, Market
Participants Division; Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) is issuing an order providing
that registered nonbank swap dealers
(‘‘SDs’’) organized and domiciled in the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58536
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
United Kingdom (‘‘UK’’) may satisfy
certain capital and financial reporting
requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 1 and
Commission regulations 2 by being
subject to, and complying with,
comparable capital and financial
reporting requirements under relevant
UK laws and regulations, subject to
certain conditions set forth in the order
below. The order is based on the
proposed comparability determination
and related proposed order published
by the Commission on February 5,
2024,3 as modified in certain aspects to
address comments and to clarify its
terms.
I. Introduction
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
A. Regulatory Background—CFTC
Capital, Margin, and Financial
Reporting Requirements for Swap
Dealers and Major Swap Participants
Section 4s(e) of the CEA 4 directs the
Commission and ‘‘prudential
regulators’’ 5 to impose capital
requirements on SDs and major swap
participants (‘‘MSPs’’) registered with
the Commission.6 Section 4s(e) also
directs the Commission and prudential
1 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The CEA may be accessed
through the Commission’s website, www.cftc.gov.
2 17 CFR Chapter I. Commission regulations may
be accessed through the Commission’s website,
www.cftc.gov.
3 Notice of Proposed Order and Request for
Comment on an Application for Capital
Comparability Determination Submitted on Behalf
of Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to Capital and
Financial Reporting Requirements of the United
Kingdom and Regulated by the United Kingdom
Prudential Regulation Authority, 89 FR 8026 (Feb.
5, 2024) (‘‘2024 Proposal’’).
4 7 U.S.C. 6s(e).
5 The term ‘‘prudential regulators’’ is defined in
the CEA to mean the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (‘‘Federal Reserve Board’’);
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Farm
Credit Administration; and the Federal Housing
Finance Agency. 7 U.S.C. 1a(39).
6 Subject to certain exceptions, the term ‘‘swap
dealer’’ is generally defined as any person that: (i)
holds itself out as a dealer in swaps; (ii) makes a
market in swaps; (iii) regularly enters into swaps
with counterparties as an ordinary course of
business for its own account; or (iv) engages in any
activity causing the person to be commonly known
in the trade as a dealer or market maker in swaps.
7 U.S.C. 1a(49).
The term ‘‘major swap participant’’ is generally
defined as any person who is not an SD, and: (i)
subject to certain exclusions, maintains a
substantial position in swaps for any of the major
swap categories as determined by the Commission;
(ii) whose outstanding swaps create substantial
counterparty exposure that could have serious
adverse effects on the financial stability of the U.S.
banking system or financial markets; or (iii) is a
financial entity that: (a) is highly leveraged relative
to the amount of capital it holds and that is not
subject to capital requirements established by an
appropriate Federal banking agency; and (b)
maintains a substantial position in outstanding
swaps in any major swap category as determined by
the Commission. 7 U.S.C. 1a(33).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
regulators to adopt regulations imposing
initial and variation margin
requirements on swaps entered into by
SDs and MSPs that are not cleared by a
registered derivatives clearing
organization (‘‘uncleared swaps’’).
Section 4s(e) applies a bifurcated
approach with respect to the above
Congressional directives, requiring each
SD and MSP that is subject to the
regulation of a prudential regulator
(‘‘bank SD’’ and ‘‘bank MSP,’’
respectively) to meet the minimum
capital requirements and uncleared
swaps margin requirements adopted by
the applicable prudential regulator, and
requiring each SD and MSP that is not
subject to the regulation of a prudential
regulator (‘‘nonbank SD’’ and ‘‘nonbank
MSP,’’ respectively) to meet the
minimum capital requirements and
uncleared swaps margin requirements
adopted by the Commission.7 Therefore,
the Commission’s authority to impose
capital requirements and margin
requirements for uncleared swap
transactions extends to nonbank SDs
and nonbank MSPs, including
nonbanking subsidiaries of bank
holding companies regulated by the
Federal Reserve Board.8
The prudential regulators
implemented section 4s(e) in 2015 by
amending existing capital requirements
applicable to bank SDs and bank MSPs
to incorporate swap transactions into
their respective bank capital
frameworks, and by adopting rules
imposing initial and variation margin
requirements on bank SDs and bank
MSPs that engage in uncleared swap
transactions.9 The Commission adopted
final rules imposing initial and variation
margin obligations on nonbank SDs and
nonbank MSPs for uncleared swap
transactions on January 6, 2016.10 The
Commission also approved final capital
requirements for nonbank SDs and
nonbank MSPs on July 24, 2020, which
were published in the Federal Register
on September 15, 2020 with a
compliance date of October 6, 2021
(‘‘CFTC Capital Rules’’).11
U.S.C. 6s(e)(2).
U.S.C. 6s(e)(1) and (2).
9 Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered
Swap Entities, 80 FR 74840 (Nov. 30, 2015).
10 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for
Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 81 FR
636 (Jan. 6, 2016).
11 Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and
Major Swap Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15,
2020). On April 30, 2024, the Commission amended
the capital and financial reporting requirements to
revise certain financial reporting obligations, among
other changes. See Capital and Financial Reporting
Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 89 FR 45569 (May 23, 2024). The
amendments have limited impact on nonbank SDs
covered by this order.
PO 00000
77
87
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 4s(f) of the CEA addresses SD
and MSP financial reporting
requirements.12 Section 4s(f) authorizes
the Commission to adopt rules imposing
financial condition reporting obligations
on all SDs and MSPs (i.e., nonbank SDs,
nonbank MSPs, bank SDs, and bank
MSPs). Specifically, section 4s(f)(1)(A)
provides, in relevant part, that each
registered SD and MSP must make
financial condition reports as required
by regulations adopted by the
Commission.13 The Commission’s
financial reporting obligations were
adopted with the Commission’s
nonbank SD and nonbank MSP capital
requirements, and also had a
compliance date of October 6, 2021
(‘‘CFTC Financial Reporting Rules’’).14
B. Commission Capital Comparability
Determinations for Non-U.S. Nonbank
Swap Dealers and Non-U.S. Nonbank
Major Swap Participants
Commission Regulation 23.106
establishes a substituted compliance
framework whereby the Commission
may determine that compliance by a
non-U.S. domiciled nonbank SD or nonU.S. domiciled nonbank MSP with its
home country’s capital and financial
reporting requirements will satisfy all or
parts of the CFTC Capital Rules and all
or parts of the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules (such a determination referred to
as a ‘‘Comparability Determination’’).15
The Commission’s capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements are
designed to address and manage risks
12 7
U.S.C. 6s(f).
U.S.C. 6s(f)(1)(A).
14 85 FR 57462.
15 17 CFR 23.106. Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(1) provides that a request for a
Comparability Determination may be submitted by
a non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-US nonbank MSP,
a trade association or other similar group on behalf
of its SD or MSP members, or a foreign regulatory
authority that has direct supervisory authority over
one or more non-US nonbank SDs or non-U.S.
nonbank MSPs. However, Commission regulations
also provide that any non-U.S. nonbank SD or nonU.S. nonbank MSP that is dually-registered with the
Commission as a futures commission merchant
(‘‘FCM’’) is subject to the capital requirements of
Commission Regulation 1.17 (17 CFR 1.17) and may
not petition the Commission for a Comparability
Determination. 17 CFR 23.101(a)(5) and (b)(4),
respectively. Furthermore, substituted compliance
is not available to non-U.S. bank SDs and non-U.S.
bank MSPs with respect to their respective financial
reporting requirements under Commission
Regulation 23.105(p). Commission Regulation
23.105(p), however, permits non-U.S. bank SDs and
non-U.S. bank MSPs that do not submit financial
reports to a U.S. prudential regulator to file with the
Commission a statement of financial condition,
certain regulatory capital information, and
Schedule 1 of Appendix C to Subpart E of Part 23
of the Commission’s regulations prepared and
presented in accordance with the accounting
standards permitted by the non-U.S. bank SD’s or
non-U.S. bank MSP’s home country regulatory
authorities. 17 CFR 23.105(p)(2).
13 7
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
that arise from a firm’s operation as an
SD or MSP. Given their functions, both
sets of requirements and rules must be
applied on an entity-level basis
(meaning that the rules apply on a firmwide basis, irrespective of the type of
transactions involved) to effectively
address risk to the firm as a whole. The
availability of such substituted
compliance is conditioned upon the
Commission issuing a Comparability
Determination finding that the relevant
foreign jurisdiction’s capital adequacy
and financial reporting requirements for
non-U.S. nonbank SDs and/or non-U.S.
nonbank MSPs are comparable to the
corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. The
Commission would issue a
Comparability Determination in the
form of an order (‘‘Comparability
Order’’).16
The Commission’s approach for
conducting a Comparability
Determination with respect to the CFTC
Capital Rules and the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules is a principles-based,
holistic approach that focuses on
assessing whether the applicable foreign
jurisdiction’s capital and financial
reporting requirements have comparable
objectives with, and achieve comparable
outcomes to, corresponding CFTC
requirements.17 The Commission’s
assessment is not a line-by-line
evaluation or comparison of a foreign
jurisdiction’s regulatory requirements
with the Commission’s requirements.18
In performing the analysis, the
Commission recognizes that
jurisdictions may adopt differing
approaches to achieving regulatory
objectives and outcomes, and the
Commission will focus on whether the
foreign jurisdiction’s capital and
financial reporting requirements are
based on regulatory objectives, and
produce regulatory outcomes, that are
comparable to the Commission’s in
purpose and effect, and not whether
they are comparable in every aspect or
contain identical elements.
A person requesting a Comparability
Determination is required to submit an
application to the Commission
containing: (i) a description of the
objectives of the relevant foreign
jurisdiction’s capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements
applicable to entities that are subject to
the CFTC Capital Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules; (ii) a
description (including specific legal and
regulatory provisions) of how the
16 17
CFR 23.106(a)(3).
17 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3)(ii). See also 85 FR 57462
at 57521.
18 85 FR 57462 at 57521.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
relevant foreign jurisdiction’s capital
adequacy and financial reporting
requirements address the elements of
the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules, including, at
a minimum, the methodologies for
establishing and calculating capital
adequacy requirements and whether
such methodologies comport with
international standards; and (iii) a
description of the ability of the relevant
foreign regulatory authority to supervise
and enforce compliance with the
relevant foreign jurisdiction’s capital
adequacy and financial reporting
requirements. The applicant must also
submit, upon request, such other
information and documentation as the
Commission deems necessary to
evaluate the comparability of the capital
adequacy and financial reporting
requirements of the foreign
jurisdiction.19
The Commission will consider an
application for a Comparability
Determination to be a representation by
the applicant that the laws and
regulations of the foreign jurisdiction
that are submitted in support of the
application are finalized and in force,
that the description of such laws and
regulations is accurate and complete,
and that, unless otherwise noted, the
scope of such laws and regulations
encompasses the relevant non-U.S.
nonbank SDs and/or non-U.S. nonbank
MSPs domiciled in the foreign
jurisdiction.20 Each non-U.S. nonbank
SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP that seeks
to rely on a Comparability Order is
responsible for determining whether it
is subject to the foreign laws and
regulations found comparable in the
Comparability Order. A non-U.S.
nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP
that is not legally required to comply
with a foreign jurisdiction’s laws and/or
regulations determined to be
comparable in a Comparability Order
may not voluntarily comply with such
laws and/or regulations in lieu of
compliance with the CFTC Capital
Rules or the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules.
The Commission may consider all
relevant factors in making a
Comparability Determination,
CFR 23.106(a)(2).
Commission provides the applicant with
an opportunity to review for accuracy and
completeness the Commission’s description of
relevant home country laws and regulations on
which a proposed Comparability Determination and
a proposed Comparability Order are based. The
Commission relies on this review, and any
corrections or feedback received, as part of the
comparability assessment. A Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order based on
an inaccurate description of foreign laws and
regulations may not be valid.
PO 00000
19 17
20 The
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58537
including: (i) the scope and objectives of
the relevant foreign jurisdiction’s capital
and financial reporting requirements;
(ii) whether the relevant foreign
jurisdiction’s capital and financial
reporting requirements achieve
comparable outcomes to the
Commission’s corresponding capital
requirements and financial reporting
requirements; (iii) the ability of the
relevant foreign regulatory authority or
authorities to supervise and enforce
compliance with the relevant foreign
jurisdiction’s capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements; and
(iv) any other facts or circumstances the
Commission deems relevant, including
whether the Commission and foreign
regulatory authority or authorities have
a memorandum of understanding
(‘‘MOU’’) or similar arrangement that
would facilitate supervisory
cooperation.21
In performing the comparability
assessment for foreign nonbank SDs, the
Commission’s review will include the
extent to which the foreign
jurisdiction’s requirements address: (i)
the process of establishing minimum
capital requirements for nonbank SDs
and how such process addresses risk,
including market risk and credit risk of
the nonbank SD’s on-balance sheet and
off-balance sheet exposures; (ii) the
types of equity and debt instruments
that qualify as regulatory capital in
meeting minimum requirements; (iii)
the financial reports and other financial
information submitted by a nonbank SD
to its relevant regulatory authority and
whether such information provides the
regulatory authority with the means
necessary to effectively monitor the
financial condition of the nonbank SD;
and (iv) the regulatory notices and other
communications between a nonbank SD
and its foreign regulatory authority that
address potential adverse financial or
operational issues that may impact the
firm. With respect to the ability of the
relevant foreign regulatory authority to
supervise and enforce compliance with
the foreign jurisdiction’s capital
adequacy and financial reporting
requirements, the Commission’s review
will include an assessment of the
foreign jurisdiction’s surveillance
program for monitoring nonbank SDs’
compliance with such capital adequacy
and financial reporting requirements,
and the disciplinary process imposed on
firms that fail to comply with such
requirements.22
21 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3) and 85 FR 57462 at 57520–
57522.
22 The Commission would conduct a similar
analysis, adjusted as appropriate to account for
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
Continued
18JYR2
58538
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Commission Regulation 23.106
further provides that the Commission
may impose any terms or conditions
that it deems appropriate in issuing a
Comparability Determination.23 Any
specific terms or conditions with
respect to capital adequacy or financial
reporting requirements will be set forth
in the Commission’s Comparability
Order. As a general condition to all
Comparability Orders, the Commission
will require notification from the
applicants of any material changes to
information submitted by the applicants
in support of a comparability finding,
including, but not limited to, changes in
the foreign jurisdiction’s relevant laws
and regulations, as well as changes to
the relevant supervisory or regulatory
regime.
To rely on a Comparability Order, a
nonbank SD or nonbank MSP domiciled
in the foreign jurisdiction and subject to
supervision by the relevant regulatory
authority (or authorities) in the foreign
jurisdiction must file a notice with the
Commission of its intent to comply with
the applicable capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements of the
foreign jurisdiction set forth in the
Comparability Order in lieu of all or
parts of the CFTC Capital Rules and/or
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules.24
Notices must be filed electronically with
the Commission’s Market Participants
Division (‘‘MPD’’).25 The filing of a
notice by a non-U.S. nonbank SD or
non-U.S. nonbank MSP provides MPD
staff with the opportunity to engage
with the firm and to obtain
representations that it is subject to, and
complies with, the laws and regulations
cited in the Comparability Order and
that it will comply with any listed
conditions. MPD will issue a letter
under delegated authority from the
Commission confirming that the nonU.S. nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank
MSP may comply with the foreign laws
and regulations cited in the
Comparability Order in lieu of
complying with the CFTC Capital Rules
and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules
upon MPD’s confirmation through
discussions with the non-U.S. nonbank
SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP that the
firm is subject to, and complies with,
such foreign laws and regulations, is
regulatory distinctions, in performing a
comparability assessment for foreign nonbank
MSPs. Commission Regulation 23.101(b) requires a
nonbank MSP to maintain positive tangible net
worth. There are no MSPs currently registered with
the Commission. 17 CFR 23.101(b).
23 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5).
24 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(i).
25 Notices must be filed in electronic form to the
following email address:
MPDFinancialRequirements@cftc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
subject to the jurisdiction of the
applicable foreign regulatory authority
(or authorities), and can meet the
conditions in the Comparability
Order.26
Each non-U.S. nonbank SD and each
non-U.S. nonbank MSP that receives
confirmation from the Commission that
it may comply with a foreign
jurisdiction’s capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements will be
deemed by the Commission to be in
compliance with the corresponding
CFTC Capital Rules and/or CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules.27 A non-U.S.
nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP
that receives confirmation of substituted
compliance remains subject, however,
to the Commission’s examination and
enforcement authority.28 Accordingly, if
a nonbank SD or nonbank MSP fails to
comply with the foreign jurisdiction’s
capital adequacy and/or financial
reporting requirements, the Commission
may initiate an action for a violation of
the corresponding CFTC Capital Rules
and/or CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules.29 In addition, a finding of a
violation by a foreign jurisdiction’s
regulatory authority is not a prerequisite
for the exercise of such examination and
enforcement authority by the
Commission.
C. Application for a Comparability
Determination for Nonbank Swap
Dealers Domiciled in the United
Kingdom and Subject to Regulation by
the Prudential Regulation Authority
On May 4, 2021, the Institute of
International Bankers (‘‘IIB’’),
International Swaps and Derivatives
Association (‘‘ISDA’’), and Securities
Industry and Financial Markets
Association (‘‘SIFMA’’) (together, the
‘‘Applicants’’) submitted an application
(the ‘‘UK Application’’) requesting that
the Commission conduct a
Comparability Determination and issue
a Comparability Order finding that
compliance with certain designated
capital and financial reporting
requirements of the United Kingdom
satisfy certain Commission capital rules
and financial reporting rules for
nonbank SDs.30 Specifically, the
26 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii) and 17 CFR
140.91(a)(11).
27 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii). Confirmation will be
issued by MPD under authority delegated by the
Commission. Commission Regulation 140.91(a)(11).
17 CFR 140.91(a)(11).
28 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii).
29 Id.
30 Letter dated May 4, 2021 from Stephanie
Webster, General Counsel, IIB, Steven Kennedy,
Global Head of Public Policy, ISDA, and Kyle
Brandon, Managing Director, Head of Derivatives
Policy, SIFMA. The UK Application is available on
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Applicants requested that the
Commission determine that registered
nonbank SDs 31 organized and
domiciled within the UK, licensed as
investment firms, and designated for
prudential supervision by the UK
Prudential Regulation Authority (‘‘PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs’’), may
satisfy corresponding CFTC Capital
Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules applicable to a nonbank SD under
sections 4s(e) and (f) of the CEA and
Commission Regulations 23.101 and
23.105.32
To be designated for prudential
supervision by the UK Prudential
Regulation Authority (‘‘PRA’’), a UKdomiciled investment firm must be
authorized, or have requested
authorization, to deal in investments as
principal.33 For an investment firm that
is authorized, or has requested
authorization, to deal in investments as
principal, the PRA may designate the
firm for prudential supervision if the
PRA determines that the dealing
activities of the firm should be a PRAregulated activity. The PRA considers
the following in determining whether an
investment firm should be subject to
PRA supervision: (i) the assets of the
investment firm; and (ii) where the
investment firm is a member of a group,
(a) the assets of other firms within the
group that are authorized, or have
sought authorization, to deal in
investments as principal, (b) whether
any other member of the group is
subject to prudential supervision by the
PRA, and (c) whether the investment
firm’s activities have, or might have, a
material impact on the ability of the
PRA to advance any of its objectives in
relation to a PRA-authorized person in
its group.34 The PRA also must consult
the Commission’s website at: https://www.cftc.gov/
LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/CDSCP/index.htm.
31 As discussed in Section I.A. immediately
below, the Commission has the authority to impose
capital requirements on registered SDs that are not
subject to regulation by a U.S. prudential regulator
(i.e., nonbank SDs).
32 The Applicants also requested that the
Commission determine that nonbank SDs licensed
as investment firms and prudentially regulated by
the UK Financial Conduct Authority (‘‘FCA’’)
(‘‘FCA-regulated UK nonbank SDs’’) may satisfy
certain capital and financial reporting requirements
under the CEA by being subject to, and complying
with, comparable capital and financial reporting
requirements under UK laws and regulations. Due
to the differences between the capital and financial
reporting regimes applicable to PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD and FCA-regulated UK nonbank SDs,
the Commission anticipates assessing the
comparability of the rules applicable to FCAregulated UK nonbank SDs through a separate
comparability determination.
33 Article 3(1) and (2) of The Financial Services
and Markets Act 2000 (PRA-regulated Activities)
Order 2013.
34 Id., Article 3(4).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
with the FCA before designating a
person for prudential supervision.35
The PRA also has issued a Statement
of Policy providing further detail
regarding the factors that are considered
in assessing an investment firm for
prudential supervision.36 The factors
include: (i) whether the firm’s balance
sheet exceeds an average of GBP 15
billion total gross assets over four
quarters; (ii) where the investment firm
is part of a group, whether the sum of
the balance sheets of all firms within the
group that are authorized, or have
requested authorization, to deal in
investments as principals exceeds an
average of GBP 15 billion over four
quarters; and/or (iii) where the firm is
part of a group subject to PRA
supervision, whether the investment
firm’s revenues, balance sheet and risk
taking is significant relative to the
group’s revenues, balance sheet, and
risk-taking.37 There are currently six
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
registered with the Commission:
Citigroup Global Markets Limited,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill
Lynch International, Morgan Stanley &
Co. International Plc, MUFG Securities
EMEA Plc, and Nomura International
Plc.
The Applicants represented that the
capital and financial reporting
framework applicable to PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs is
primarily based on the framework
established by the European Union’s
(‘‘EU’’) Capital Requirements
Regulation 38 and Capital Requirements
Directive,39 which set forth capital and
financial reporting requirements
applicable to ‘‘credit institutions’’ 40 and
35 Id.,
Article 3(6).
Statement of Policy, Designation of
Investment Firms for Prudential Supervision by the
Prudential Regulation Authority, December 2021,
available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/
media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/statement-ofpolicy/2021/designation-of-investment-firms-forprudential-supervision-by-the-pra-december-2021.
pdf?la=en&hash=007EB17EDF2FA84714D372095
F9E03627355776F.
37 Id., at p. 5.
38 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on
prudential requirements for credit institutions and
amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (‘‘Capital
Requirements Regulation’’ or ‘‘CRR’’).
39 Directive 2013/36/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on
access to the activity of credit institutions and the
prudential supervision of credit institutions,
amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing
Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (‘‘Capital
Requirements Directive’’ or ‘‘CRD’’).
40 The term ‘‘credit institution’’ is defined as an
entity whose business consists of taking deposits
and other repayable funds from the public and
granting credits. CRR, Article 4(1), as applicable in
the UK. For a reference to CRR provisions
applicable in the UK, see infra note 50.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
36 PRA,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
‘‘investment firms.’’ 41 CRR, as a
regulation, is directly applicable in all
member states of the EU (‘‘EU Member
States’’) and was, therefore, binding law
in the UK during the UK’s membership
in the EU.42 CRD, as a directive, was
required to be transposed into EU
Member States’ national law, including
UK law.43 With regard to PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, the UK
implemented CRD primarily through a
series of regulations, including the
Capital Requirements Regulations
2013 44 and the Capital Requirements
(Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential
Measures) Regulations 2014,45 and the
rules of the PRA.46
Following the UK’s withdrawal from
EU membership (‘‘Brexit’’), EU laws that
were in effect and applicable as of
December 31, 2020, were retained in UK
law subject to certain non-substantive
amendments seeking to reflect the UK’s
new position outside of the EU.47 As
such, directly applicable EU law, such
as CRR, was converted into domestic
UK law and UK legislation
implementing EU directives, such as
41 The term ‘‘investment firm’’ is defined as an
entity authorized under Directive 2014/65/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May
2014 on markets in financial instruments and
amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/
61/EU (‘‘Markets in Financial Instruments
Directive’’ or ‘‘MiFID’’), and whose regular business
is the provision of one or more investment services
to third parties and/or the performance of one or
more investment-related activities on a professional
basis, which includes dealing in derivatives for its
own account. CRR, Article 4(1)(2) cross-referencing
Article 4(1)(1) of MiFID.
42 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, OJ (C 326) 171,
Oct. 26, 2012 (‘‘TFEU’’), Article 288.
43 Id., Article 288 (stating that a directive is
binding as to the result to be achieved upon each
EU Member State to which the directive is
addressed, and further provides, however, that each
EU Member State elects the form and method of
implementing the directive). In this connection, EU
Member States were required to implement and
start applying amendments to CRD, introduced by
Directive (EU) 2019/878 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending
Directive 2013/36/EU as regards exempted entities,
financial holding companies, mixed financial
holding companies, remuneration, supervisory
measures and powers and capital conservation
measures (‘‘CRD V’’) by December 29, 2020. Some
CRD V provisions were subject to delayed
implementation deadlines of June 28, 2021 and
January 1, 2022. CRD V, Article 2.
44 Capital Requirements Regulations 2013,
Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 3115 (‘‘Capital
Requirements Regulations 2013’’).
45 Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and
Macro-prudential Measures) Regulations 2014,
Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 894 (‘‘Capital
Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macroprudential Measures) Regulations 2014’’).
46 The PRA’s rules (‘‘PRA Rulebook’’) are
available here: https://www.prarulebook.co.uk/.
47 See, An Act to Repeal the European
Communities Act 1972 and make other provisions
in connection with the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the EU (2018 c.16) (‘‘European
Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58539
CRD, was preserved. The UK
subsequently adopted additional
changes, generally consistent with
amendments introduced by the EU to
CRR, CRD and other relevant EU
provisions,48 and incorporated certain
CRR provisions in the PRA Rulebook.49
The CRR provisions as applicable in the
UK are referred hereafter as ‘‘UK
CRR.’’ 50 The UK capital and financial
reporting framework also comprises UKspecific requirements in respect of
certain matters. Requirements
applicable to PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are included in the PRA
Rulebook. In addition, Commission
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61,51
which supplements UK CRR with regard
to liquidity coverage requirement for
credit institutions, applies to PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs and
imposes separate liquidity requirements
to these firms.52
The Applicants also represented that
in addition to UK CRR and the PRA
Rulebook, the Banking Act 2009 and its
related secondary legislation, through
which the UK transposed the Bank
Recovery and Resolution Directive
(‘‘BRRD’’), include relevant UK capital
requirements.53 Specifically, pursuant
to the Banking Act 2009 and its
secondary legislation, the Bank of
48 PRA, Policy Statement 21/21—The UK
Leverage Framework, October 2021, available here:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudentialregulation/publication/2021/june/changes-to-theuk-leverage-ratio-framework, and Policy Statement
22/21—Implementation of Basel standards: Final
rules, October 2021, available here: https://
www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/
publication/2021/october/implementation-of-baselstandards.
49 Pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2023 (‘‘FSMA 2023’’), the UK revoked CRR and
replaced it with: (i) PRA rules adopted under
Section 144 of the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 (‘‘FSMA’’) and (ii) UK regulations,
adopted under Section 4 of FSMA 2023, restating
CRR provisions.
50 The UK CRR is available here: https://
www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2013/575/contents. The
provisions that were incorporated in the PRA
Rulebook are no longer part of UK CRR and appear
instead in the PRA Rulebook.
51 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/
61 of 10 October 2014 to supplement Regulation
(EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and
the Council with regard to liquidity coverage
requirement for Credit Institutions (‘‘Liquidity
Coverage Delegated Regulation’’).
52 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity Coverage
Requirement—UK Designated Investment Firms
Part.
53 Directive 2014/59/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014
establishing a framework for the recovery and
resolution of credit institutions and investment
firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC,
and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/
EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/
EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No
1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European
Parliament and of the Council. UK Application, p.
7.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58540
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
England, in its role as resolution
authority, requires certain investment
firms, including PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, to satisfy a firm-specific
minimum requirement for own funds
and eligible liabilities (‘‘MREL’’).54
UK CRR, Capital Requirements
Regulations 2013, Capital Requirements
(Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential
Measures) Regulations 2014, Liquidity
Coverage Delegated Regulation, relevant
provisions of Banking Act 2009 and its
secondary legislation, and relevant parts
of the PRA Rulebook are referred to
hereafter as the ‘‘UK PRA Capital
Rules.’’
The Applicants further represented
that with respect to supervisory
financial reporting, the framework
applicable to PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs is also based on the EU
requirements. In addition, the
framework comprises PRA-specific rules
for matters not addressed by the EUbased requirements. Specifically,
Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 680/2014,55 which was initially
retained in UK law following Brexit,
supplemented CRR with implementing
technical standards (‘‘CRR Reporting
ITS’’) specifying, among other things,
uniform formats and frequencies for the
financial and capital requirements
reporting required under CRR.56 CRR
Reporting ITS included templates for
the common reporting (‘‘COREP’’) and
the financial reporting (‘‘FINREP’’) that
specify the contents of the EU-based
supervisory reporting requirements. As
part of the regulatory reforms that
followed Brexit and sought to
implement Basel standards, the PRA
incorporated the entire body of the UK
version of COREP and FINREP
requirements into the PRA Rulebook to
create a single source for reporting
requirements for firms.57 For PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that are not
subject to the EU-based FINREP
requirements, the PRA Rulebook
includes PRA-specific requirements.58
The Applicants also represented that
the Companies Act 2006 contains
provisions related to financial reporting,
54 Banking Act 2009, Section 3A (4) and (4B);
Bank Recovery and Resolution (No 2) Order 2014,
Statutory Instrument No. 3348 (‘‘Bank Recovery and
Resolution (No 2) Order 2014’’), Part 9.
55 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
680/2014 of 16 April 2014 laying down
implementing technical standards with regard to
supervisory reporting of institutions according to
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council.
56 UK Application, p. 24 and Responses to Staff
Questions dated October 5, 2023.
57 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part.
58 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
including a mandate that entities of a
certain size be required to prepare
annual audited financial statements and
a strategic report.59 UK CRR, relevant
provisions of the PRA Rulebook, and
relevant provisions of the Companies
Act 2006, are collectively referred to
hereafter as the ‘‘UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules.’’
The Applicants also noted that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’) has issued orders
permitting an SEC-registered nonbank
security-based swap dealer domiciled in
the UK (‘‘UK nonbank SBSD’’) 60 to
satisfy SEC capital 61 and financial
reporting requirements via substituted
compliance with applicable UK capital
and financial reporting.62 The UK Order
conditioned substituted compliance for
capital requirements on a UK nonbank
SBSD complying with specified laws
and regulations, including relevant parts
of UK CRR and the PRA Rulebook, and
also maintaining total liquid assets in an
amount that exceeds the UK nonbank
SBSD’s total liabilities by at least $100
million and by at least $20 million after
applying certain deductions to the value
of the liquid assets to reflect market,
credit, and other potential risks to the
value of the assets.63
59 UK Application, p.7. Companies Act 2006, Part
15 and 16. The Companies Act 2006 is available
here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/
46/contents.
60 All six of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
currently registered with the Commission are also
UK nonbank SBSDs.
61 Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78o–10) directs the SEC to adopt capital
rules for security-based swap dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’)
that do not have a prudential regulator.
62 Order Granting Conditional Substituted
Compliance in Connection with Certain
Requirements Applicable to Non-U.S. SecurityBased Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants Subject to Regulation in the
United Kingdom, 86 FR 43318 (July 30, 2021)
(‘‘Final UK Order’’); Amended and Restated Order
Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in
Connection with Certain Requirements Applicable
to Non-U.S. Security-Based Swap Dealers and
Major Security-Based Swap Participants Subject to
Regulation in the Federal Republic of Germany;
Amended Orders Addressing Non-U.S. SecurityBased Swap Entities Subject to Regulation in the
French Republic or the United Kingdom; and Order
Extending the Time to Meet Certain Conditions
Relating to Capital and Margin, 86 FR 59797 (Oct.
28, 2021) (‘‘Amended UK Order,’’ together with the
Final UK Order, ‘‘UK Order’’); and Order Specifying
the Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited
Financial and Operational Information by SecurityBased Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants that are not U.S. Persons and are
Relying on Substituted Compliance with Respect to
Rule 18a–7, 86 FR 59208 (Oct. 26, 2021) (‘‘SEC
Order on Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited
Financial and Operational Information’’).
63 The conditioning of the UK substituted
compliance order on UK nonbank SBSDs
maintaining liquid assets in an amount that exceeds
the UK nonbank SBSD’s total liabilities by at least
$100 million and by at least $20 million after
applying certain deductions to the value of the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
D. Proposed Comparability
Determination and Proposed
Comparability Order for PRADesignated UK Nonbank Swap Dealers
On February 5, 2024, the Commission
published the 2024 Proposal, seeking
comment on the Application and the
Commission’s proposed Comparability
Determination and related
Comparability Order.64 The 2024
Proposal set forth the Commission’s
preliminary Comparability
Determination and proposed
Comparability Order providing that,
based on its review of the UK
Application and applicable UK laws
and/or rules, the Commission
preliminarily found that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, subject to the
conditions set forth in the proposed
Comparability Order, achieve
comparable outcomes and are
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules.65 The Commission,
however, noted that there were certain
differences between the UK PRA Capital
Rules and CFTC Capital Rules and
certain differences between the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. As such, the
Commission proposed certain
conditions to the Comparability
Order.66 The proposed conditions were
designed to promote consistency in
regulatory outcomes, to reflect the scope
of substituted compliance that would be
available notwithstanding the
differences, and to ensure that the
Commission and National Futures
Association (‘‘NFA’’) receive
information to monitor PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs for ongoing
compliance with the Comparability
liquid assets reflects that the SEC’s capital rule for
nonbank SBSDs is a liquidity-based requirement
and that the SEC capital requirements are not based
on the Basel standards. 17 CFR 240.18a–1(a)(1)
(requiring a SBSD to maintain, in relevant part, net
capital of $20 million or, if approved to use capital
models, $100 million of tentative net capital and
$20 million of net capital).
64 2024 Proposal, 89 FR 8026 (Feb. 5, 2024).
65 Id. Consistent with the process specified in
Section I.B. above for conducting Comparability
Determinations, the Commission provided the
Applicants with an opportunity to review for
factual accuracy and completeness the
Commission’s description of relevant UK laws and
regulations on which the proposed Comparability
Determination and proposed Comparability Order
were based. The Commission has relied on the
Applicants’ review, and has incorporated feedback
and corrections received from the Applicants. As
previously noted, a Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order based on an inaccurate
description of foreign laws and regulations may not
be valid.
66 See 2024 Proposal at 8058–8061.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Order.67 The Commission further stated
that, in its preliminary view, the
identified differences would not be
inconsistent with providing a
substituted compliance framework for
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
subject to the conditions specified in the
proposed Comparability Order.68
The proposed Comparability Order
was limited to the comparison of the UK
PRA Capital Rules to the CFTC Capital
Rules’ Bank-Based Capital Approach
(‘‘Bank-Based Approach’’) for
computing regulatory capital for
nonbank SDs, which is based on certain
capital requirements imposed by the
Federal Reserve Board for bank holding
companies.69 As noted by the
Commission in the 2024 Proposal, the
Applicants have not requested, nor has
the Commission performed, a
comparison of the UK PRA Capital
Rules to the Commission’s TNW
Approach or NLA Approach.70
67 NFA is a registered futures association (‘‘RFA’’)
under Section 17 of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 21). Each SD
registered with the Commission is required to be an
NFA member. 17 CFR 170.16. NFA, as an RFA, is
also required by the CEA to adopt rules imposing
minimum capital, segregation, and other financial
requirements, as applicable, to its members,
including SDs, that are at least as stringent as the
Commission’s minimum capital, segregation, and
other financial requirements for such registrants,
and to implement a program to audit and enforce
such requirements. 7 U.S.C. 21(p). Therefore, the
Commission’s proposed Comparability Order
required PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file
certain financial reports and notices with NFA so
that it may perform oversight of such firms as
required under Section 17 of the CEA. The
Commission will refer to NFA in this Comparability
Determination when referring to the requirements
or obligations of an RFA.
68 Id.
69 Id. As described in the 2024 Proposal, the
CFTC Capital Rules provide nonbank SDs with
three alternative capital approaches: (i) the Tangible
Net Worth Capital Approach (‘‘TNW Approach’’);
(ii) the Net Liquid Assets Capital Approach (‘‘NLA
Approach’’); and (iii) the Bank-Based Approach.
See 2024 Proposal at 8031–8033, and 17 CFR
23.101. The Bank-Based Approach is consistent
with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s
(‘‘BCBS’’) international framework for bank capital
requirements (‘‘BCBS framework’’ or ‘‘Basel
standards’’). The BCBS is the primary global
standard-setter for the prudential regulation of
banks and provides a forum for cooperation on
banking supervisory matters. Institutions
represented on the BCBS include the Federal
Reserve Board, the European Central Bank,
Deutsche Bundesbank, Bank of England, Bank of
France, Bank of Japan, Banco de Mexico, and Bank
of Canada. The BCBS framework is available at
https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/index.htm.
70 See 2024 Proposal at 8035–8036.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
E. General Comments on the UK
Application and the Commission’s
Proposed Finding of Comparability
Between the CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules and the
UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules
The public comment period on the
UK Application, the proposed
Comparability Determination, and the
proposed Comparability Order ended on
March 24, 2024. The Commission
received comments from the following
four interested parties: Michael
Ravnitzky (‘‘Ravnitzky’’); William J.
Harrington (‘‘Harrington’’); Better
Markets, Inc. (‘‘Better Markets’’); and the
Applicants.71
The Applicants filed a comment letter
generally expressing support for the
proposed Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order, agreeing with
the Commission’s overall analysis and
determination of comparability of the
CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules and the UK PRA
Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules.72 The Applicants also
included several technical comments,
further discussed in section II. below,
on the proposed conditions requiring
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file
a notice with the Commission and NFA
upon the occurrence of certain events.
Finally, the Applicants recommended
that the Commission refine the
condition defining the scope of the UK
PRA Capital Rules to specify that only
the MREL-related provisions of the
Banking Act 2009 would be considered
part of UK PRA Capital Rules.73 In
support of their request, the Applicants
stated that the reference to the Banking
Act 2009 is included only because it
imposes MREL on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs.74 The Commission notes
that in the process leading to this
Comparability Determination, the
Commission has considered the Banking
Act 2009 more broadly, including as it
relates to the powers conferred to the
PRA in its role as resolution authority.
71 Letters from: Michael Ravnitzky (‘‘Ravnitzky
Letter’’); Dennis M. Kelleher, Co-founder, President
and CEO, and Cantrell Dumas, Director of
Derivatives Policy, Better Markets (March 24, 2024)
(‘‘Better Markets Letter’’); and Stephanie Webster,
General Counsel, IIB, Steven Kennedy, Global Head
of Public Policy, ISDA, and Kyle L. Brandon,
Managing Director, Head of Derivatives Policy,
SIFMA (March 24, 2024) (‘‘Applicants’ Letter’’);
Letter from William J. Harrington dated March 24,
2024 (‘‘Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter’’) and
supporting material. The comment letters and
related documents for the 2024 Proposal are
available at: https://comments.cftc.gov/
PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=7478.
72 Applicants’ Letter at p. 2.
73 Id. at p. 4.
74 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58541
With respect to the definition of the UK
PRA Capital Rules with which a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD must
comply, however, the Commission
believes that referring to the Banking
Act 2009 only to the extent it imposes
MREL on PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs is appropriate. Accordingly, the
Commission has adjusted the language
in final Condition 4 consistent with the
Applicants’ recommendation.
Conversely, two commenters
disagreed with the CFTC’s proposed
Comparability Determination and
proposed Comparability Order.75 Better
Markets asserted that the principlesbased, holistic approach applied by the
Commission, which assesses whether
the applicable foreign jurisdiction’s
capital and financial requirements
achieve comparable outcomes to the
corresponding Commission
requirements, ‘‘is insufficiently
rigorous, leaving far too much room for
inaccurate and unwarranted
comparability determinations.’’ 76 Better
Markets further asserted that in an
attempt to restore London to its status
of a global financial center in the postBrexit environment, both major political
parties in the UK are promising ‘‘light
touch’’ regulation and incentivizing
regulatory arbitrage.77
The Commission does not believe that
the principles-based, holistic
assessment that it conducted on the
comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules with the CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules was
‘‘insufficiently rigorous,’’ nor does the
Commission believe that it left ‘‘room
for inaccurate and unwarranted
comparability determinations.’’ The
principles-based, holistic approach
employed in the Comparability
Determination was performed in
accordance with the substituted
compliance assessment framework
adopted by the Commission for capital
and financial reporting requirements for
foreign nonbank SDs and set out in
Commission Regulation 23.106.
Consistent with this assessment
framework, the Commission focused on
whether the UK PRA Capital Rules and
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules are
designed with the objective of ensuring
overall safety and soundness of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs in a
75 Better Markets Letter at p. 3–5; Harrington 03/
24/2024 Letter at p. 4 (asserting, as further
discussed below, that the Commission should
condition the Comparability Determination on a
prohibition against PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs’ entering into swap contracts with certain
specified features).
76 Better Markets Letter at p. 5.
77 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
58542
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
manner that is comparable with the
Commission’s overall objective of
ensuring the safety and soundness of
nonbank SDs.
As stated in the 2024 Proposal, due to
the detailed and complex nature of the
capital frameworks, differences in how
jurisdictions approach and implement
the requirements are expected, even
among jurisdictions that base their
requirements on the principles and
standards set forth in the BCBS
framework.78 Furthermore, as discussed
in section I.B. above, when adopting
Commission Regulation 23.106, the
Commission stated that ‘‘its approach to
substituted compliance is a principlesbased, holistic approach that focuses on
whether the foreign regulations are
designed with the objectives of ensuring
the overall safety and soundness of the
[non-US nonbank SD] in a manner that
is comparable with the Commission’s
overall capital and financial reporting
requirements, and is not based on a lineby-line assessment or comparison of a
foreign jurisdiction’s regulatory
requirements with the Commission’s
requirements.’’ 79
The approach and standards set forth
in Commission Regulation 23.106, with
the focus on ‘‘comparable outcomes,’’
are also consistent with the
Commission’s precedents of
undertaking a principles-based, holistic
assessment of the comparability of
foreign regulatory regimes for purposes
of substituted compliance for crossborder swap transactions. The
Commission first outlined its approach
to substituted compliance with respect
to swaps requirements in 2013, when it
issued an Interpretive Guidance and
Policy Statement Regarding Compliance
with Certain Swap Regulations.80 In the
Guidance, the Commission stated that
‘‘[i]n evaluating whether a particular
category of foreign regulatory
requirement(s) is comparable and
comprehensive to the applicable
requirement(s) under the CEA and
Commission regulations, the
Commission will take into consideration
all relevant factors, including but not
limited to, the comprehensiveness of
those requirement(s), the scope and
objectives of the relevant regulatory
requirement(s), the comprehensiveness
of the foreign regulator’s supervisory
compliance program, as well as the
home jurisdiction’s authority to support
and enforce its oversight of the
78 See
2024 Proposal at 8036.
FR 57462 at 57521.
80 Interpretative Guidance and Policy Statement
Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap
Regulations, 78 FR 45292 (July 26, 2013)
(‘‘Guidance’’).
79 85
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
registrant.’’ 81 The Commission
emphasized that in this context,
‘‘comparable does not necessarily mean
identical.’’ 82 Rather, the Commission
stated that it would evaluate whether
the home jurisdiction’s regulatory
requirement is comparable to, and as
comprehensive as, the corresponding
U.S. regulatory requirement(s).83 In
conducting comparability
determinations based on the policy set
forth in the Guidance, the Commission
noted that the ‘‘outcome-based’’
approach recognizes that ‘‘foreign
regulatory systems differ and their
approaches vary and may differ from
how the Commission chose to address
an issue, but that the foreign
jurisdiction’s regulatory requirements
nonetheless achieve the regulatory
outcome sought to be achieved by a
certain provision of the CEA or
Commission regulation.’’ 84
The Commission further elaborated
on the required elements of
comparability in 2016, when it issued
final rules to address the cross-border
application of the Commission’s margin
requirements for uncleared swap
transactions. Specifically, the
Commission stated that its substituted
compliance approach reflects an
outcome-based assessment of the
comparability of a foreign jurisdiction’s
margin requirements with the
Commission’s corresponding
requirements.85 The Commission
further stated that it would evaluate the
objectives and outcomes of the foreign
margin requirements in light of foreign
regulator(s)’ supervisory and
enforcement authority.86 Consistent
with its previously stated position, the
Commission recognized that
jurisdictions may adopt different
approaches to achieving the same
outcome and, therefore, the assessment
would focus on whether the foreign
jurisdiction’s margin requirements are
comparable to the Commission’s in
purpose and effect, not whether they are
comparable in every aspect or contain
identical elements.87 The Commission’s
policy thus reflects an understanding
that a line-by-line evaluation of a
foreign jurisdiction’s regulatory regime
is not the optimum approach to
81 Guidance
at 45343.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 See e.g., Comparability Determination for the
European Union: Certain Entity-Level
Requirements, 78 FR 78923 (December 27, 2013) at
78926.
85 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for
Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—CrossBorder Application of the Margin Requirements, 81
FR 34817, 34836–34837 (May 31, 2016).
86 Id.
87 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assessing the comparability of complex
structures whose individual
components may differ based on
jurisdiction-specific considerations, but
which achieve the objective and
outcomes set forth in the Commission’s
framework.
With respect to the UK Application,
the process leading to the Commission’s
Comparability Determination involved
Commission staff reviewing relevant UK
laws, rules, and regulations cited in the
UK Application. Staff verified the
assertions and citations contained in the
UK Application regarding the specific
UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules to the
relevant UK laws, rules, and
regulations.88
Commission staff also evaluated the
comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules with the CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules with
respect to the following areas: (i) the
process of establishing minimum capital
requirements for PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs and how such process
addresses risk, including market risk
and credit risk of the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD’s on-balance sheet and
off-balance sheet exposures; (ii) the
types of equity and debt instruments
that qualify as regulatory capital in
meeting a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD’s minimum capital requirements;
(iii) the financial reports and other
financial information submitted by a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to the
PRA, and whether such information
provides the PRA with the means
necessary to effectively monitor the
financial condition of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD; and (iv) the
regulatory notices and other
communications between a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD and the PRA
that address potential adverse financial
or operational issues that may impact
the firm.89 With respect to the ability of
the PRA to supervise and enforce
compliance with the UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules, the Commission’s assessment
included a review of the PRA’s
surveillance program for monitoring
compliance by PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs with the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, and the disciplinary
process imposed on firms that fail to
comply with such requirements.90 In
conducting its assessment of the PRA’s
88 Staff also reviewed various documents relevant
to the proposed Comparability Determination and
proposed Comparability Order published by the
PRA.
89 2024 Proposal at 8036–8058.
90 Id. at 8057–8058.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
regulatory and supervisory framework,
the Commission did not identify
elements supporting Better Markets’
assertion that the framework is
characterized by ‘‘light touch’’
regulation.91
Contrary to the position articulated by
Better Markets regarding the nature of
the comparability assessment, the
Commission believes that the
principles-based, holistic assessment of
the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules against the
CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules, as outlined above and
discussed in detail in section II below,
was sufficiently rigorous for purposes of
determining if the UK PRA regulations
are comparable in purpose and effect to
the CEA and Commission regulations.
Better Markets further asserted that even
under a principles-based, holistic
approach, the UK PRA capital and
financial reporting requirements for
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs do not
satisfy the test for an order granting
substituted compliance as the PRA’s
regulatory framework governing capital
and financial reporting is not
comparable to the corresponding CFTC
requirements.92 Better Markets cited the
Commission’s inclusion of conditions in
the proposed Comparability Order as
demonstrating the Commission’s need
‘‘to compensate for the acknowledged
gaps in the UK PRA framework’’ and as
a ‘‘de facto admission that the
regulations are not comparable and that
the [UK Application] should be
denied.’’ 93 Better Markets claimed that
the Commission proposed 12 filing
requirements that must be met as a
condition for the comparability
determination, and stated that the
Commission was not issuing a
comparability finding, but was engaging
in a ‘‘de facto rewriting’’ of the PRA’s
91 For a further discussion of the Commission’s
assessment of the PRA’s supervision and
enforcement powers, see Section II.F. below. In
addition, in its policy statement discussing the
forthcoming implementation of Basel 3.1 standards,
the PRA noted that despite some adjustments to the
international standards, the PRA considers that its
policy and rules proposals align with the
international framework. In this regard, the PRA
expressed the view that alignment with
international standards in turn supports the UK’s
competitiveness, including relative standing of the
UK as a global financial center, by ‘‘strengthening
key stakeholders’ confidence in the UK banking
system’’ and ‘‘assuring regulators in other
jurisdictions of UK’s authorities’ commitment to
robust standards.’’ See PRA, PS17/23—
Implementation of the Basel 3.1 Standards NearFinal Part 1, December 12, 2023, available here:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2023/
december/pra-publishes-first-of-two-policystatements-for-basel-3-1-standards-implementation.
92 Better Markets Letter at p. 5.
93 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
laws and rules in the form of
conditions.94
Conversely, another commenter,
Ravnitzky, noted that the ‘‘CFTC need
not be limited to finding a binary yes or
no answer to the comparability
determination’’ and ‘‘has the flexibility
to grant conditional substituted
compliance.’’ 95 In this regard,
Ravnitzky recommended that the
Commission exercise its authority ‘‘to
make a flexible and nuanced decision,
and strive to impose only the necessary
conditions for approving the UK PRA
rules as substitutes, to minimize the
regulatory burden while achieving the
necessary risk reduction.’’ 96
The Commission disagrees that the
inclusion of conditions in the
Comparability Order precludes a finding
of comparability with respect to the UK
PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules. The
Commission’s comparability assessment
process, consistent with the holistic
approach, contemplates the potential
need for a Comparability Order to
contain conditions. Specifically,
Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(5)
states that the Commission may impose
any terms and conditions it deems
appropriate in issuing a Comparability
Order, including conditions with
respect to capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements of nonU.S. nonbank SDs.97
The process employed in this
Comparability Determination is
consistent with the Commission’s
established approach to conducting
comparability assessments. Upon a
finding of comparability, the
Commission’s policy generally is that
eligible entities may comply with a
substituted compliance regime subject
to the conditions the Commission places
on its finding, and subject to the
Commission’s retention of its
examination authority and its
enforcement authority.98 In this regard,
94 Id.
at p. 4.
95 Ravnitzky
Letter at p. 6.
96 Id.
97 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5), which provides that in
issuing a Capital Comparability Determination, the
Commission may impose any terms and conditions
it deems appropriate, including certain capital
adequacy and financial reporting requirements on
swap dealers . . . (Emphasis added). Commission
Regulation 23.106(a)(3) establishes the
Commission’s standard of review for performing a
Comparability Determination and provides that the
Commission may consider all relevant factors,
including whether the relevant foreign
jurisdiction’s capital adequacy and financial
reporting requirements achieve comparable
outcomes to the Commission’s corresponding
capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements for SDs. 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3)(ii).
98 85 FR 57462 at 57520. See also Guidance at
45342–45344 and Comparability Determination for
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58543
the Commission has stated that certain
conditions included in a Comparability
Order may be designed to ensure the
Commission’s direct access to books and
records required to be maintained by an
SD registered with the Commission.99
Other conditions may address areas
where the foreign jurisdiction lacks
analogous requirements.100 The
inclusion of conditions in a
Comparability Order was contemplated
as an integral part of the Commission’s
holistic, principles-based approach to
conducting comparability assessments
and is not inconsistent with a grant of
substituted compliance.
In particular, Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(5) states the Commission’s
authority to impose conditions in
issuing a Comparability Determination
in connection with the CFTC Capital
Rules and the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules. As further discussed below, the
conditions proposed in the 2024
Proposal are clearly of the nature
contemplated by Commission
Regulation 23.106(a)(5).
The Commission also does not believe
that the inclusion of the conditions in
the Comparability Order reflects a
‘‘rewriting’’ of the UK laws and
regulations as asserted by Better
Markets. Consistent with the
Commission’s policy described above, a
majority of the conditions contained in
the Comparability Order are designed to
ensure that: (i) the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD is eligible for substituted
compliance based on the UK laws and
regulations that were reviewed by the
Commission in performing the
comparability assessment, and (ii) the
Commission and NFA receive timely
financial information and notices to
effectively monitor a PRA-designated
nonbank SD’s compliance with relevant
UK capital and financial reporting rules
and to assess the ongoing safety and
soundness of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD. Specifically, there are 25
conditions in the final Comparability
Order. Six conditions set forth criteria
that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
must meet to be eligible for substituted
compliance pursuant to the
Comparability Order.101 The six
the European Union: Certain Transaction Level
Requirements, 78 FR 78878 (December 27, 2013) at
78880.
99 Comparability Determination for the European
Union: Certain Transaction Level Requirements, 78
FR 78878 (December 27, 2013) at 78880.
100 Guidance at 45343.
101 The six criteria provide that the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD: (i) is not subject to
capital rules of a U.S. prudential regulator
(Condition 1); (ii) is organized and domiciled in the
UK (Condition 2); (iii) is licensed as an investment
firm and designated for prudential supervision by
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
Continued
18JYR2
58544
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
conditions ensure that only PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that are
within the scope of, and comply with,
the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules that were part
of the Commission’s comparability
assessment may apply for substituted
compliance. Ten additional conditions
require PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs within the scope of the
Comparability Order to provide notice
to the Commission and NFA of certain
defined events,102 and a further two
conditions require PRA-designated
nonbank SDs to file with the
Commission and NFA copies of certain
unaudited and audited financial reports
that the firms provide to the PRA.103 In
addition, two additional conditions
reflect administrative matters necessary
to implement the substituted
compliance framework.104 Lastly, five
the PRA (Condition 3); (iv) is subject to the UK
CRR, CRD provisions as implemented in the UK,
the Liquidity Coverage Delegated Regulation, the
provisions of the Banking Act 2009 and its
secondary legislation related to the MREL, and the
rules of the PRA as reflected in the PRA Rulebook
(Condition 4); (v) satisfies at all times applicable UK
CRR and PRA Rulebook capital ratios, leverage
ratios, and capital conservation buffer ratios, and
maintains a liquidity risk management program as
required under the PRA Rulebook (Condition 5);
and (vi) is subject to and complies with the UK
financial reporting requirements that are part of the
Commission’s comparability assessment (Condition
6).
102 The ten conditions require a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD to provide notice to the
Commission in the event that the firm: (i) is
informed by the PRA that the firm has failed to
comply with any component of the UK PRA Capital
Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
(Condition 15); (ii) fails to maintain common equity
tier 1 capital denominated in GBP in an equivalent
amount of at least $20 million (Condition 16); (iii)
breaches its combined capital buffer requirement
and is required to file a capital conservation plan
with the PRA (Condition 17); (iv) is required by the
PRA to maintain additional capital or additional
liquidity (Condition 18); (v) fails to meet the
required MREL (Condition 19); (vi) experiences a 30
percent or more decrease in its excess regulatory
capital (Condition 20); (vii) fails to make or keep
current financial books and records (Condition 21);
(viii) fails to post or collect margin for uncleared
swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps with
one or more counterparties in amounts that exceed
defined limits (Condition 22); (ix) changes its fiscal
year-end date (Condition 23); and (x) is subject to
material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules, UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules, or the supervisory
authority of the PRA (Condition 24).
103 The two conditions provide that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD must file with the
Commission and NFA: (i) a copy of SEC Form X–
17A–5 (‘‘FOCUS Report’’) that the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD files with the SEC or copies of
certain financial reporting templates that the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is required to submit to
the PRA pursuant to PRA Rulebook rules, as
applicable (Condition 10), and (ii) copies of its
annual audited accounts and strategic report that
are required to be prepared and published pursuant
to Parts 15 and 16 of Companies Act 2006
(Condition 11).
104 One of the administrative conditions provides
that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
conditions impose obligations on PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that align
with certain of the Commission’s
requirements for nonbank SDs. The five
conditions require a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to: (i) maintain common
equity tier 1 capital denominated in
GBP equal to or in excess of the
equivalent of $20 million (Condition 7);
(ii) prepare and keep current financial
books and records (Condition 9); (iii)
file a monthly schedule of the firm’s
financial positions on Schedule 1 of
appendix B to Subpart E of part 23 of
the Commission’s regulations
(Condition 12); (iv) file a monthly report
listing the custodians holding margin
posted by, and collected by, the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD, the amount
of margin held by each custodian, and
the aggregate amount of margin required
to be posted and collected by the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD (Condition
14); and (v) submit, with each filing of
financial information, a statement by an
authorized representative that, to the
best knowledge and belief of the person
making the representation, the
information is true and correct
(Condition 13).
As the substance of these conditions
demonstrates, the primary objective of a
majority of the conditions is not to
compensate for regulatory gaps in the
UK PRA capital and financial reporting
framework, but rather to ensure that the
Commission and NFA receive
information to conduct ongoing
monitoring of PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs for compliance with
relevant capital and financial reporting
requirements and to assess the firm’s
overall safety and soundness. As
discussed above, in issuing the
Comparability Order, the Commission is
not ceding its supervisory and
enforcement authorities. The
Comparability Order permits PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to satisfy
the Commission’s capital and financial
reporting requirements by complying
with certain UK laws and/or regulations
that have been found comparable to the
Commission’s laws and/or regulations
in purpose and effect. The Commission
provide a notice to the Commission of its intent to
comply with the Comparability Order and the UK
PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules in lieu of the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. The notice must include
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
representation that the firm is organized and
domiciled in the UK, is a licensed investment firm
designated for prudential supervision by the PRA,
and is subject to and complies with the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules (Condition 8). The second administrative
condition provides that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD must file any documents with the
Commission and NFA via electronic transmission
(Condition 25).
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and NFA, however, have a continuing
obligation to conduct ongoing oversight,
including potential examination, of
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that
operate under a Comparability Order to
ensure compliance with the
Comparability Order, including its
conditions.105 To that effect, the notice
and financial reporting conditions set
forth in the Comparability Order
provide the Commission and NFA with
information necessary to monitor for
such compliance and to evaluate the
operational condition and ongoing
financial condition of PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs. The Commission may
also initiate an enforcement action
against a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD that fails to comply with the
conditions of the Comparability Order.
Furthermore, to the extent that a
condition imposes a new regulatory
obligation on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, the imposition of such
condition is also consistent with
Commission Regulation 23.106 and the
Commission’s established policy with
regard to comparability determinations.
As discussed above, the Commission
contemplated that even in
circumstances where the Commission
finds two regulatory regimes
comparable, the Commission may
impose requirements on entities relying
on substituted compliance where the
Commission determines that the home
jurisdiction’s regime lacks comparable
and comprehensive regulation on a
specific issue.106 The Commission’s
authority to impose such conditions is
set out in Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(5), which states that the
Commission may impose ‘‘any terms
and conditions it deems appropriate,
including certain capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements [on
SDs].’’ 107
Better Markets further stated that, if
the Commission grants substituted
compliance with regard to materially
105 As the Commission stated in the 2024
Proposal, a non-U.S. nonbank SD that operates
under a Comparability Order issued by the
Commission remains subject to the Commission’s
examination and enforcement authority.
Specifically, the Commission may initiate an
enforcement action against a non-U.S. nonbank SD
that fails to comply with its home-country capital
adequacy and/or financial reporting requirements
cited in a Comparability Order. See 2024 Proposal
at 8029. See also 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii), which
provides that the Commission may examine all
nonbank SDs, regardless of whether the nonbank
SDs rely on substituted compliance, and that the
Commission may initiate an enforcement action
under the Commission’s capital and financial
reporting regulations against a non-U.S. nonbank
SD that fails to comply with a foreign jurisdiction’s
capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements.
106 Guidance at 45343.
107 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
different regulatory requirements, it
must make a well-supported, evidencebased determination that those different
requirements nevertheless will, in fact,
lead to comparable regulatory
outcomes.108 In this connection, Better
Markets stated that if the Commission
grants the Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order, it must, at a
minimum, clearly and specifically set
forth the desired regulatory outcome
and provide a detailed, evidence-based
explanation as to how the jurisdiction’s
different legal requirements nonetheless
lead to that regulatory outcome.109
Better Markets further asserted that ‘‘[a]
determination that a foreign
jurisdiction’s nonbank SDs rules would
produce comparable regulatory
outcomes is the beginning, not the end,
of the CFTC’s obligation to ensure that
the activities of the foreign nonbank SD
entities do not pose risks to the U.S.
financial system. As time goes on,
regulatory requirements that, in theory,
are expected to produce one regulatory
outcome may, in practice, produce a
different one. And, of course, the
regulatory requirements may themselves
be changed in a variety of ways. Finally,
the effectiveness of an authority’s
supervision and enforcement program
can become weakened for any number
of reasons—the CFTC cannot assume
that an enforcement program that it
believes is presently effective will
continue to be effective.’’ 110 Better
Markets further asserted that to fulfill its
obligation to protect the U.S. financial
system, the CFTC must ensure, on an
ongoing basis, that each grant of
substituted compliance remains
appropriate over time by requiring, at a
minimum, each order of substituted
compliance, and each MOU with a
foreign regulatory authority, to impose
an obligation on the applicant, as
appropriate, to: (i) periodically apprise
the Commission of the activities and
results of its supervision and
enforcement programs, to ensure that
they remain sufficiently robust to deter
and address violations of the law; and
(ii) immediately apprise the
Commission of any material changes to
the regulatory regime, including
changes to rules or interpretations of
rules.111
Although the Commission disagrees
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, as a
whole, are materially different or do not
achieve comparable regulatory
outcomes, the Commission concurs that
108 Better
Markets at p. 10.
109 Id.
110 Id.
111 Id.
at p. 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
granting substituted compliance should
be the result of a well-supported
comparability assessment. Consistent
with that view, the Commission believes
that this final Comparability
Determination clearly states the desired
regulatory outcomes, articulates the
Commission’s analysis in sufficient
detail, and provides an appropriate
explanation of how the foreign
jurisdiction’s requirements are
comparable in purpose and effect with
the Commission’s requirements, and
lead to comparable regulatory outcomes
with the Commission’s requirements.
Specifically, section III of the 2024
Proposal and section II of the final
Comparability Determination reflect,
among other observations, the
Commission’s detailed analysis with
respect to each of the elements for
consideration listed in Commission
Regulation 23.106(a)(3).
The Commission also concurs that the
availability of substituted compliance is
conditioned upon a non-US nonbank
SD’s ongoing compliance with the terms
and conditions of the final
Comparability Order, and the
Commission’s ongoing assessment that
the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules remain
comparable in purpose and effect with
the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. As noted
above, and discussed in more detail in
sections II.D. and E. below, PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs are subject
to notice and financial reporting
requirements under the final
Comparability Order that provide
Commission and NFA staff with the
ability to monitor the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs’ ongoing compliance
with the conditions set forth in the final
Comparability Order. In addition, the
final Comparability Order requires a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, or an
entity acting on its behalf, to inform the
Commission of changes to the relevant
UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules so that the
Commission may assess the continued
effectiveness of the Comparability Order
in ensuring that the relevant UK laws
and regulations have the comparable
regulatory objectives of the CEA and
Commission regulations of ensuring the
safety and soundness of nonbank
SDs.112 Commission staff will also
112 Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order
requires a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, or an
entity acting on its behalf, to notify the Commission
of any material changes to the information
submitted in its application, including, but not
limited to, proposed and final material changes to
the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules and proposed and final material
changes to the PRA’s supervisory authority or
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58545
monitor the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs directly as part of its
supervisory program and will discuss
with the firms any proposed or pending
revisions to specific rules cited in the
final Comparability Order. Lastly, in
addition to assessing the effectiveness of
the Comparability Order as a result of
revisions or proposed revisions to the
UK laws, regulations, or supervisory
regime administered by the PRA, the
Commission further notes that future
material changes to the CFTC Capital
Rules or CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules, or the Commission’s or NFA’s
supervisory programs, may necessitate
an amendment to the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order
to reflect those changes.113
Another commenter, Harrington,
stated that the Commission must
condition the Comparability Order on
an ‘‘outright prohibition against
regulated entities providing [swap
contracts that include a ‘‘flip
clause’’].’’ 114 Harrington has elsewhere
referred to a description of a ‘‘flip
clause’’ as a provision in swap contracts
with structured debt issuers that
reverses or ‘‘flips’’ the priority of
payment obligations owed to the swap
counterparty on the one hand and the
noteholders on the other, following a
specified event of default.115 Based on
Harrington’s description, flip clauses
present a risk to the SD in synthetic
transactions where payments under a
swap contract are secured with the same
collateral that would serve to cover
payments under the notes issued by a
structured debt issuer. In such
circumstances, an ‘‘event of default’’ by
the SD would cause the SD’s priority of
supervisory regime over PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs. The Commission notes that it made
certain non-substantive, clarifying changes to the
language of final Condition 24 as compared to
proposed Condition 24.
113 2024 Proposal at 8036 (n. 128).
114 Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 4.
Harrington also referenced the following two
separate submissions to the Commission and noted
that these submissions support the Harrington 03/
24/2024 Letter: a letter dated October 20, 2022
(‘‘Harrington 10/20/2022 Letter’’), submitted in
connection with the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Order and Request for Comment on an
Application for a Capital Comparability
Determination From the Financial Services Agency
of Japan, 87 FR 48092, (August 8, 2022) and a letter
dated August 28, 2023 (‘‘Harrington 08/28/2023
Letter’’), submitted in connection with the
Commission’s Notice of Proposed Order and
Request for Comment on an Application for a
Capital Comparability Determination Submitted on
Behalf of Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled in the
French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany
and Subject to Capital and Financial Reporting
Requirements of the European Union, 88 FR 41774
(June 27, 2023). Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p.7.
115 William J. Harrington, Submission to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Re: File No.
S7–08–12 (Nov. 19, 2018) at p.8.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58546
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
payment from the collateral under a
swap to ‘‘flip’’ to a more junior priority
position, including for mark-to-market
gains on ‘‘in the money’’ swaps.116
Harrington argued that swap contracts
with a flip clause incentivize SDs to
‘‘self-sabotage by under-sourcing
themselves.’’ 117 Harrington recognized,
however, that the CFTC margin
requirements for uncleared swap
transactions address his concerns
associated with the inclusion of a flip
clause.118 Nonetheless, according to
Harrington, risks arise in circumstances
when non-U.S. margin rules exempt SDs
from margin obligations in connection
with swaps with a structured debt
issuer.119
The Commission recognizes that
given some definitional differences and
differences in the activity thresholds
with respect to the scope of application
of the CFTC margin requirements and
non-U.S. margin requirements, some
transactions that are subject to the CFTC
margin requirements for uncleared
swaps may not be subject to margin
requirements in another jurisdiction. In
connection with this Comparability
Determination, however, the
Commission notes that both under the
CFTC Capital Rules and the UK PRA
Capital Rules, uncollateralized
exposures from uncleared swap
transactions would generate a higher
counterparty credit risk amount than the
exposures resulting from transactions
under which the counterparties have
posted collateral.120 Accordingly, the
Commission does not believe that the
respective sets of rules adopt a
conflicting approach or lead to a
116 For additional information on the legal
mechanics of a flip clause, see Lehman Brothers
Special Financing Inc v. Bank of America N.A., No.
18–1079 (2nd Cir. 2020).
117 Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 8.
118 Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 21 (noting
that ‘‘[the CFTC margin requirements] render the
flip-clause-contract commercially impracticable in
the U.S.’’ and that ‘‘U.S. swap margin rules,
including the CFTC swap margin rule, have greatly
benefited U.S. persons by subduing financial sector
credit exposures that might otherwise draw bailouts
or other U.S. government support’’).
119 Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 25 (arguing
that ‘‘U.K. and other non-U.S. swap margin and
capital rules perpetuate the flip-clause-swapcontract by allowing [asset-backed securities]
issuers, other structured debt issuers, banks, and
swap dealers to under-resource their [respective]
contract exposures via both exemptions from
margin posting and see-no-evil capital rules that
treat the contract as ‘plain vanilla’.’’)
120 12 CFR 217.34 and 12 CFR 217.132 (indicating
that nonbank SDs may recognize the risk-mitigating
effects of financial collateral for collateralized
derivatives contracts) and PRA Rulebook, CRR
Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk Part, Article 276
and UK CRR, Article 285 (setting forth rules for the
recognition and treatment of collateral in
calculating the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
counterparty credit risk exposure).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
disparate outcome with respect to the
capital treatment of uncollateralized
uncleared swap exposures that would
warrant a finding of non-comparability
of the CFTC Capital Rules and the UK
PRA Capital Rules.
Finally, one commenter, Ravnitzky,
noted that due to differences in how the
respective jurisdictions define the
regulatory categories of registrants
involved in swap dealing activity (i.e.,
differences between the term ‘‘swap
dealer’’ as defined under the
Commission’s regulations and the term
‘‘investment firm’’ as defined under the
PRA’s framework), it may be ‘‘unclear or
inconsistent which entities can use
substituted compliance under the
[proposed Comparability Order].’’ 121
The Commission notes, as discussed
above, that the Comparability Order will
apply with respect to UK-domiciled,
PRA-designated investment firms that
are registered with the Commission as
SDs and not subject to regulation by a
U.S. prudential regulator. In this regard,
the Commission believes that proposed
Conditions 1 through 4, which the
Commission adopts without material
changes, clearly define the scope of
entities that may request to rely on the
Comparability Order.
II. Final Capital and Financial
Reporting Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order
The following section provides the
Commission’s comparative analysis of
the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules with the
corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules, as
described in the 2024 Proposal, further
modified to address comments received.
As emphasized in the 2024 Proposal,
the capital and financial reporting
regimes are complex structures
comprised of a number of interrelated
regulatory components.122 Differences
in how jurisdictions approach and
implement these regimes are expected,
even among jurisdictions that base their
requirements on the principles and
standards set forth in the BCBS
framework.
The Commission performed the
analysis by assessing the comparability
of the UK PRA Capital Rules for PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs as set forth
in the UK Application and in certain
applicable UK laws and regulations
with the Commission’s Bank-Based
Approach for nonbank SDs. The
Commission understands that all PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs addressed
by the UK Application, as of the date of
PO 00000
121 Ravnitzky
122 See
Letter at p. 4.
2024 Proposal at 8036.
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the final Comparability Determination,
are subject to a bank-based capital
approach under the UK PRA Capital
Rules. Accordingly, when the
Commission makes its final
determination herein about the
comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules with the CFTC Capital Rules, the
determination pertains to the
comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules with the Bank-Based Approach
under the CFTC Capital Rules. The
Commission notes that any material
changes to the information submitted in
the UK Application, including, but not
limited to, proposed and final material
changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules or
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, as
well as any proposed and final material
changes to the PRA’s supervisory
authority or supervisory regime over
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, will
require notification to the Commission
and NFA pursuant to Condition 24 of
the final Comparability Order.123
Therefore, if there are subsequent
material changes to the UK PRA Capital
Rules, UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules, or PRA’s supervisory authority or
regime, the Commission will review and
assess the impact of such changes on the
final Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order as they are then in
effect, and may amend or supplement
the Comparability Order as
appropriate.124
123 Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order.
The Commission notes that it made certain nonsubstantive, clarifying changes to the language of
final Condition 24 as compared to proposed
Condition 24.
124 See 2024 Proposal at 8036. As stated in the
2024 Proposal, the Commission may also amend or
supplement the final Comparability Order to
address any material changes to the CFTC Capital
Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules,
including rule amendments to capital rules of the
Federal Reserve Board that are incorporated into the
CFTC Capital Rules’ Bank-Based Approach under
Commission Regulation 23.101(a)(1)(i), that are
adopted after the final Comparability Order is
issued. See id., (n. 128). As noted in the 2024
Proposal, the Commission is aware that the PRA is
considering changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules
to implement Basel 3.1 standards. See PRA, PS17/
23—Implementation of the Basel 3.1 Standards
Near-Final Part 1, December 12, 2023, available
here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2023/
december/pra-publishes-first-of-two-policystatements-for-basel-3-1-standards-implementation.
If the PRA proceeds with the implementation of the
Basel 3.1 standards as proposed, the regulatory
changes would be applicable after July 1, 2025 with
a 4.5-year transitional period ending on January 1,
2030. The Commission will monitor progress on the
PRA’s proposed regulatory changes and may amend
or supplement the Comparability Order. As noted,
the Commission requires notification of any
material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules,
including any Basel 3.1 implementing provisions.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
A. Regulatory Objectives of CFTC
Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules and UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules
1. Preliminary Determination
As reflected in the 2024 Proposal and
discussed above, the Commission
preliminarily determined that the
overall objectives of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules are
comparable in that both sets of rules are
intended to ensure the safety and
soundness of nonbank SDs by
establishing regulatory regimes that
require nonbank SDs to maintain a
sufficient amount of qualifying
regulatory capital to absorb losses,
including losses from swaps and other
trading activities, and to absorb
decreases in the value of firm assets and
increases in the value of firm liabilities
without the nonbank SDs becoming
insolvent.125 The Commission further
noted that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and CFTC Capital Rules are based on,
and consistent with, the BCBS
framework, which was designed to
ensure that banking entities hold
sufficient levels of capital to absorb
losses and decreases in the value of firm
assets and increases in the value of firm
liabilities without the banks becoming
insolvent.126
The Commission also preliminarily
found that the UK PRA Capital Rules are
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CFTC Capital Rules given that both
regulatory approaches compute the
minimum capital requirements based on
the level of a nonbank SD’s on-balance
sheet and off-balance sheet exposures,
with the objective and purpose of
ensuring that the nonbank SD’s capital
is adequate to absorb losses or decreases
in the value of firm assets or increases
in the value of firm liabilities resulting
from such exposures. The Commission
observed that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and CFTC Capital Rules provide for a
comparable approach to the calculation
of market risk and credit risk exposures
using standardized or internal modelbased approaches.127 In addition, as
discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the UK
PRA Capital Rules’ and CFTC Capital
Rules’ requirements for identifying and
measuring on-balance sheet and offbalance sheet exposures under
standardized or internal model-based
125 See
2024 Proposal at 8037.
BCBS’s mandate is to strengthen the
regulation, supervision, and practices of banks with
the purpose of enhancing financial stability. See
Basel Committee Charter available on the Bank for
International Settlement website: www.bis.org/bcbs/
charter.htm. See 2024 Proposal at 8037.
127 2024 Proposal at 8039–8047.
approaches are also consistent with the
requirements set forth under the BCBS
framework for identifying and
measuring on-balance sheet and offbalance sheet exposures.128
Finally, the Commission preliminarily
noted that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and CFTC Capital Rules further achieve
comparable outcomes and are
comparable in purpose and effect in that
both sets of rules limit the types of
capital instruments that qualify as
regulatory capital to cover the onbalance sheet and off-balance sheet risk
exposures to high quality equity capital
and qualifying subordinated debt
instruments that meet conditions
designed to ensure that the holders of
the debt have effectively subordinated
their claims to other creditors of the
nonbank SD.129 As discussed in the
2024 Proposal and in section II.B.
below, both the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules define high
quality capital by the degree to which
the capital represents permanent capital
that is contributed, or readily available
to a nonbank SD, on an unrestricted
basis to absorb unexpected losses,
including losses from swaps trading and
other activities, without the nonbank SD
becoming insolvent.130
The Commission further stated that it
preliminarily found the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules to be
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules as both
the PRA and CFTC require nonbank SDs
to file periodic financial reports,
including unaudited financial reports
and an annual audited financial report,
detailing their financial operations and
demonstrating their compliance with
minimum capital requirements.131 As
discussed in the 2024 Proposal, in
addition to providing the CFTC and the
PRA with information necessary to
comprehensively assess the financial
condition of a nonbank SD on an
ongoing basis, the financial reports
further provide the CFTC and the PRA
with information regarding potential
changes in a nonbank SD’s risk profile
by disclosing changes in account
balances reported over a period of
time.132 Such changes in account
balances may indicate, among other
things, that the nonbank SD has entered
into new lines of business, has
increased its activity in an existing line
of business relative to other activities, or
126 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
has terminated a previous line of
business.133
In assessing the comparability
between the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, the Commission noted
that the prompt and effective
monitoring of the financial condition of
nonbank SDs through the receipt and
review of periodic financial reports
supports the Commission and the PRA
in meeting their respective objectives of
ensuring the safety and soundness of
nonbank SDs. In this regard, the
Commission stated that the early
identification of potential financial
issues provides the Commission and the
PRA with an opportunity to address
such issues with the nonbank SD before
they develop to a state where the
financial condition of the firm is
impaired such that it may no longer
hold a sufficient amount of qualifying
regulatory capital to absorb decreases in
the value of firm assets, absorb increases
in the value of firm liabilities, or cover
losses from its business activities,
including the firm’s swap dealing
activities and obligations to swap
counterparties.134
2. Comment Analysis and Final
Determination
In response to the Commission’s
request for comment, Better Markets
identified certain differences between
the CFTC Capital Rules and Financial
Reporting Rules and the UK PRA
Capital Rules and Financial Reporting
Rules and stated that the differences
mandated denial of the request for a
comparability determination.135 Better
Markets further stated that the nature
and number of conditions that the
Commission deemed necessary to
impose are inconsistent with a finding
of comparability.136 In this connection,
Better Markets also noted that the
imposition of conditions will exacerbate
complexity as the Commission will have
to monitor compliance with the
conditions, including reviewing the
financial reports of the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs and tracking
developments in the UK PRA regulatory
regime more generally.137 Finally, Better
Markets asserted that the proposed
Comparability Order failed to provide
sufficient analysis as to exactly how and
why the Commission concluded that the
UK and U.S. frameworks would produce
‘‘comparable outcomes.’’ 138
133 Id.
128 Id.
134 Id.
129 2024
Proposal at 8039.
130 Id.
131 Id.
135 Better
Markets Letter at p. 15.
at p. 11.
137 Id. at p. 16.
138 Id. at p. 11.
136 Id.
at 8037.
132 Id.
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58547
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
58548
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
As described herein and in the 2024
Proposal, Commission staff has engaged
in a detailed, comprehensive study and
evaluation of the UK PRA capital and
financial reporting framework and has
confirmed that its understanding of the
elements and application of the
framework is accurate. The Commission
has also concluded, based on its
evaluation, that the PRA has a
comprehensive oversight program for
monitoring PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs’ compliance with relevant
UK PRA Capital Rules.
Furthermore, as discussed in section
I.E. above, the conditions set forth in the
Comparability Order are generally
intended to ensure that: (i) only PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that are
subject to the laws and regulations
assessed under the Comparability
Determination are eligible for
substituted compliance; (ii) the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs are subject
to supervision by the PRA; and (iii) the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
provide information to the Commission
and NFA that is relevant to the ongoing
supervision of their operations and
financial condition. Considering this
thorough analysis, and the ongoing
requirement for PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to provide information to
the Commission and NFA
demonstrating compliance with the
Comparability Order, the Commission is
confident that it is capable of effectively
conducting, together with NFA,
oversight of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs consistent with the
conduct of oversight of U.S.-domiciled
nonbank SDs. In light of the
Commission’s ultimate conclusion that
the UK PRA capital and financial
reporting requirements are comparable
based on the standards articulated in
Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(3), the
Commission believes that a failure to
issue a Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order would in fact
‘‘exacerbate complexity’’ as it would
impose duplicative requirements that
would result in increased costs for
registrants and market participants
without a commensurate benefit from an
oversight perspective.
As discussed in sections I.B. and E.
above, and detailed herein, the
Commission finds that the CFTC Capital
Rules and Financial Reporting Rules
and the UK PRA Capital Rules and
Financial Reporting Rules are
comparable in purpose and effect, and
have overall comparable objectives,
notwithstanding the identified
differences. In this regard, the
Commission notes that, as described
above, instead of conducting a line-byline assessment or comparison of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
UK PRA Capital and Financial
Reporting Rules and the CFTC Capital
and Financial Reporting Rules, it has
applied in the assessment set forth in
the determination and order, a
principles-based, holistic approach in
assessing the comparability of both
regimes, consistent with the standard of
review it adopted in Commission
Regulation 23.106(a)(3). Based on that
principles-based, holistic assessment,
the individual elements of which are
described in more detail in sections II.B.
through II.F. below, the Commission has
determined that both sets of rules are
designed to ensure the safety and
soundness of nonbank SDs and achieve
comparable outcomes. As such, the
Commission adopts the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order
as proposed with respect to the analysis
of the regulatory objectives of the CFTC
Capital Rules and Financial Reporting
Rules and the UK PRA Capital and
Financial Reporting Rules.
B. Nonbank Swap Dealer Qualifying
Capital
1. Preliminary Determination
As discussed in the 2024 Proposal,
the Commission preliminarily
determined that the UK PRA Capital
Rules are comparable in purpose and
effect to the CFTC Capital Rules with
regard to the types and characteristics of
a nonbank SD’s equity that qualifies as
regulatory capital in meeting its
minimum requirements.139 The
Commission explained that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital
Rules for nonbank SDs both require a
nonbank SD to maintain a quantity of
high-quality and permanent capital that,
based on the firm’s activities and onbalance sheet and off-balance sheet
exposures, is sufficient to absorb losses
and decreases in the value of firm assets
and increases in the value of firm
liabilities without resulting in the firm
becoming insolvent.140 The Commission
observed that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules permit
nonbank SDs to recognize comparable
forms of equity capital and qualifying
subordinated debt instruments toward
meeting minimum capital requirements,
with both the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the CFTC Capital Rules emphasizing
high quality capital instruments.141
In support of its preliminary
Comparability Determination, the
Commission noted that the CFTC
Capital Rules require a nonbank SD
electing the Bank-Based Approach to
PO 00000
139 See
2024 Proposal at 8039.
140 Id.
141 Id.
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maintain regulatory capital in the form
of common equity tier 1 capital,
additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2
capital in amounts that meet certain
stated minimum requirements set forth
in Commission Regulation 23.101.142
Common equity tier 1 capital is
generally composed of an entity’s
common stock instruments, and any
related surpluses, retained earnings, and
accumulated other comprehensive
income, and is a more conservative or
permanent form of capital that is last in
line to receive distributions in the event
of the entity’s insolvency.143 Additional
tier 1 capital is generally composed of
equity instruments such as preferred
stock and certain hybrid securities that
may be converted to common stock if
triggering events occur and may have a
preference in distributions over
common equity tier 1 capital in the
event of an insolvency.144 Total tier 1
capital is composed of common equity
tier 1 capital and further includes
additional tier 1 capital. Tier 2 capital
includes certain types of instruments
that include both debt and equity
characteristics such as qualifying
subordinated debt.145 Subordinated debt
must meet certain conditions to qualify
as tier 2 capital under the CFTC Capital
Rules.146
The preliminary Comparability
Determination also noted that the UK
PRA Capital Rules require a PRAdesignated nonbank SD to maintain an
amount of regulatory capital (i.e., equity
capital and qualifying subordinated
debt) equal to or greater than 8 percent
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
total risk exposure, which is calculated
as the sum of the firm’s: (i) capital
charges for market risk; (ii) riskweighted exposure amounts for credit
risk; (iii) capital charges for settlement
risk; (iv) credit valuation adjustment
(‘‘CVA’’) risk of over-the-counter
(‘‘OTC’’) derivatives instruments; and
(v) capital charges for operational risk.
The UK PRA Capital Rules limit the
composition of regulatory capital to
142 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i) and 2024 Proposal at
8037–8038. The terms ‘‘common equity tier 1
capital,’’ ‘‘additional tier 1 capital,’’ and ‘‘tier 2
capital’’ are defined in the bank holding company
regulations of the Federal Reserve Board. 12 CFR
217.20.
143 12 CFR 217.20(b).
144 12 CFR 217.20(c).
145 12 CFR 217.20(d).
146 Subordinated debt must meet requirements set
forth in SEC Rule 18a–1d. Specifically,
subordinated debt instruments must have a term of
at least one year (with the exception of approved
revolving subordinated debt agreements which may
have a maturity term that is less than one year), and
contain terms that effectively subordinate the rights
of lenders to receive any payments, including
accrued interest, to other creditors of the firm. 17
CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B) and 17 CFR 240.18a–1d.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
common equity tier 1 capital, additional
tier 1 capital, and tier 2 capital in a
manner consistent with the BCBS
framework. Specifically, the UK PRA
Capital Rules provide that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s regulatory
capital may be composed of: (i) common
equity tier 1 capital instruments, which
generally include the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD’s common equity
(stock), retained earnings, and
accumulated other comprehensive
income; (ii) additional tier 1 capital
instruments, which includes other
forms of capital instruments and certain
long-term convertible debt instruments;
and (iii) tier 2 capital instruments,
which include other reserves, hybrid
capital instruments, and certain
qualifying subordinated term debt.147
Capital instruments that qualify as
common equity tier 1 capital under the
UK PRA Capital Rules include
instruments that: (i) are issued directly
by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD;
(ii) are paid in full and not funded
directly or indirectly by the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD; and (iii) are
perpetual.148 In addition, the principal
amount of the common equity tier 1
capital instruments may not be reduced
or repaid, except in the liquidation of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD.149
Furthermore, to qualify as additional
tier 1 capital, the capital instruments
must meet certain conditions including:
(i) the instruments are issued directly by
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
and paid in full; (ii) the instruments are
not owned by the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD or its subsidiaries; (iii) the
purchase of the instruments is not
funded directly or indirectly by the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; (iv)
the instruments rank below tier 2
instruments in the event of the
insolvency of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD; (v) the instruments are not
secured or guaranteed by the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD or an
affiliate; (vi) the instruments are
perpetual and do not include an
incentive for the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to redeem them; and (vii)
distributions under the instruments are
pursuant to defined terms and may be
cancelled under the full discretion of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD.150
Lastly, subordinated debt instruments
must meet certain conditions to qualify
as tier 2 regulatory capital under the UK
PRA Capital Rules, including that the:
(i) loans are not granted by the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD or its
subsidiaries; (ii) claims on the principal
amount of the subordinated loans under
the provisions governing the
subordinated loan agreement rank
below any claim from eligible liabilities
instruments (i.e., certain non-capital
instruments), meaning that they are
effectively subordinated to claims of all
non-subordinated creditors of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD; (iii)
subordinated loans are not secured, or
subject to a guarantee that enhances the
seniority of the claim, by the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD, its
subsidiaries, or affiliates; (iv) loans have
an original maturity of at least five
years; and (v) provisions governing the
loans do not include any incentive for
the principal amount to be repaid by the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD prior
to the loans’ maturity.151
Based on its comparative assessment,
the Commission preliminarily found
that the types and characteristics of the
equity instruments that qualify as
common equity tier 1 capital and
additional tier 1 capital under the UK
PRA Capital Rules are comparable to the
types and characteristics of equity
instruments comprising common equity
tier 1 capital and additional tier 1
capital under the CFTC Capital Rules.152
Specifically, the Commission noted that
the UK PRA Capital Rules’ common
equity tier 1 capital and additional tier
1 capital and the CFTC Capital Rules’
common equity tier 1 capital and
additional tier 1 capital are comparable
in that these forms of equity capital
have similar characteristics (e.g., the
equity must be in the form of highquality, committed, and permanent
capital) and represent contributed
equity capital that generally has no
priority to the distribution of firm assets
or income with respect to other
shareholders or creditors of the firm,
which allows a nonbank SD to use this
equity to absorb decreases in the value
of firm assets, absorb increases in the
value of firm liabilities, and cover losses
from business activities, including the
firm’s swap dealing activities.153
The Commission also found
subordinated debt under the UK PRA
Capital Rules comparable to tier 2
capital under the CFTC Capital Rules.154
Specifically, the Commission noted that
the qualifying conditions imposed on
subordinated debt instruments are
comparable under the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules in
that they are designed to ensure that the
debt has qualities supporting its
147 2024
151 Id.
148 Id.
Proposal at 8038.
and UK CRR, Articles 26 and 28.
152 See
149 Id.
150 Id.
and UK CRR, Articles 51–52.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
and UK CRR, Article 63.
2024 Proposal at 8039.
recognition by a nonbank SD as equity
for capital purposes, including by
effectively subordinating the debt
lenders’ claims for repayment on the
debt to other creditors of the nonbank
SD and by limiting or restricting
repayment of the subordinated loans if
such repayments result in the nonbank
SD’s equity falling below certain
defined thresholds.155 The Commission
preliminarily concluded that these
terms and conditions provided
assurances that the subordinated debt is
appropriate to be recognized as
regulatory capital available to a nonbank
SD to meet its obligations and to absorb
business losses and decreases in the
value of firm assets and increases in the
value of firm liabilities.156
2. Comment Analysis and Final
Determination
The Commission did not receive
comments regarding its preliminary
determination that the UK PRA Capital
Rules are comparable in purpose and
effect to the CFTC Capital Rules with
regard to the types and characteristics of
a nonbank SD’s equity and subordinated
debt that qualifies as regulatory capital
in meeting its minimum requirements.
In conclusion, the Commission finds
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in
purpose and effect, and achieve
comparable regulatory outcomes, with
respect to the types of capital
instruments that qualify as regulatory
capital. Both the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules limit
regulatory capital to permanent and
conservative forms of capital, including
common equity, capital surpluses,
retained earnings, and subordinate debt
where debt holders effectively
subordinate their claims to repayment to
all other creditors of the nonbank SD in
the event of the firm’s insolvency.
Limiting regulatory capital to the above
categories of equity and debt
instruments promotes the safety and
soundness of the nonbank SD by
helping to ensure that the regulatory
capital is not withdrawn or converted to
other equity instruments that may have
rights or priority with respect to
payments, such as dividends or
distributions in insolvency, over other
creditors, including swap
counterparties. The Commission,
therefore, is adopting the Comparability
Order as proposed with respect to the
types and characteristics of equity and
subordinated debt that qualifies as
regulatory capital to meet minimum
153 Id.
155 Id.
154 Id.
156 Id.
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58549
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58550
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
capital requirements under the UK PRA
Capital Rules.
C. Nonbank Swap Dealer Minimum
Capital Requirement
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Introduction to Nonbank Swap Dealer
Minimum Capital Requirements
As reflected in the 2024 Proposal, the
CFTC Capital Rules require a nonbank
SD electing the Bank-Based Approach to
maintain regulatory capital that satisfies
each of the following criteria: (i) an
amount of common equity tier 1 capital
of at least $20 million; (ii) an aggregate
amount of common equity tier 1 capital,
additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2
capital equal to or greater than 8 percent
of the nonbank SD’s total risk-weighted
assets, provided that common equity
tier 1 capital comprises at least 6.5
percent of the 8 percent; (iii) an
aggregate of common equity tier 1
capital, additional tier 1 capital, and tier
2 capital in an amount equal to or in
excess of 8 percent of the nonbank SD’s
uncleared swap margin amount; 157 and
(iv) the amount of capital required by
NFA.158
In comparison, the UK PRA Capital
Rules, consistent with the BCBS
framework, require each PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD to maintain
sufficient levels of capital to satisfy the
following, expressed as a percentage of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
‘‘total risk exposure amount’’ (i.e., the
sum of the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD’s risk-weighted assets and
exposures): (i) a common equity tier 1
capital ratio of 4.5 percent; (ii) a tier 1
capital ratio of 6 percent; and (iii) a total
capital ratio of 8 percent. Furthermore,
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs must
157 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i). See also 2024 Proposal
at 8039. The term ‘‘uncleared swap margin’’ is
defined in Commission Regulation 23.100 to
generally mean the amount of initial margin that a
nonbank SD would be required to collect from each
counterparty for each outstanding swap position of
the nonbank SD. 17 CFR 23.100. A nonbank SD
must include all swap positions in the calculation
of the uncleared swap margin amount, including
swaps that are exempt or excluded from the scope
of the Commission’s uncleared swap margin
regulations. A nonbank SD must compute the
uncleared swap margin amount in accordance with
the Commission’s margin rules for uncleared swaps.
17 CFR 23.154.
158 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(D). See also 2024
Proposal at 8039. Commission Regulation
23.101(a)(1)(i)(D) sets forth one of the minimum
thresholds that a nonbank SD must meet as the ‘‘the
amount of capital required by a registered futures
association.’’ As previously noted, NFA is currently
the only entity that is registered with the
Commission as a futures association. NFA has
adopted the Commission’s capital requirements as
its own requirements, and has not adopted any
additional or stricter minimum capital
requirements. See NFA rulebook, Financial
Requirements Section 18 Swap Dealer and Major
Swap Participant Financial Requirements, available
at nfa.futures.org.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
maintain a capital conservation buffer
composed of common equity tier 1
capital in an amount equal to 2.5
percent of the firm’s total risk exposure.
The common equity tier 1 capital used
to meet the capital conservation buffer
must be separate and in addition to the
4.5 percent of common equity tier 1
capital required to meet its core 8
percent capital requirement.159 As
explained in the 2024 Proposal, the
‘‘total risk exposure amount’’ is
calculated as the sum of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s: (i) capital
requirements for market risk; (ii) riskweighted exposure amounts for credit
risk; (iii) capital requirements for CVA
risk of OTC derivatives; and (iv) capital
requirements for operational risk.160
Capital charges for market risk and
credit risk are computed based on a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s onbalance sheet and off-balance sheet
exposures, weighted according to
risk.161
2. Preliminary Determination and
Comment Analysis
While noting certain differences in
the minimum capital requirements and
calculation of regulatory capital
between the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the CFTC Capital Rules, the
Commission preliminarily found that
the UK PRA Capital Rules and CFTC
Capital Rules achieve, subject to the
conditions in the proposed
Comparability Determination and
proposed Comparability Order,
comparable outcomes by requiring a
nonbank SD to maintain a minimum
level of qualifying regulatory capital and
subordinated debt to absorb losses from
the firm’s business activities, including
its swap dealing activities, and
decreases in the value of the firm’s
assets and increases in the firm’s
liabilities without the nonbank SD
becoming insolvent.162 As further
discussed below, the Commission’s
preliminary finding of comparability
was based on a principles-based,
holistic comparative analysis of the
three minimum capital requirement
thresholds of the CFTC Capital Rules’
Bank-Based Approach referenced above
and the respective elements of the UK
PRA Capital Rules’ requirements.
a. Fixed Amount Minimum Capital
Requirement
As noted above, prong (i) of the CFTC
Capital Rules requires each nonbank SD
electing the Bank-Based Approach to
PO 00000
159 See
160 Id.
2024 Proposal at 8041–8042.
at 8042.
161 Id.
162 Id.
at 8045.
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maintain a minimum of $20 million of
common equity tier 1 capital. The
CFTC’s $20 million fixed-dollar
minimum capital requirement is
intended to ensure that each nonbank
SD maintains a level of regulatory
capital, without regard to the level of
the firm’s dealing and other activities,
sufficient to meet its obligations to swap
market participants given the firm’s
status as a CFTC-registered nonbank SD
and to help ensure the safety and
soundness of the nonbank SD.163 In
comparison, the UK PRA Capital Rules
also contain a requirement that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD maintain a
fixed amount of minimum initial capital
of GBP 750,000.164
The Commission, in the 2024
Proposal, recognized that the $20
million fixed-dollar minimum capital
required under the CFTC Capital Rules
is substantially higher than the GBP
750,000 minimum base capital required
under the UK PRA Capital Rules.
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily proposed a condition that
each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
would be required to maintain, at all
times, a minimum amount of common
equity tier 1 capital, as defined in
Article 26 of UK CRR, denominated in
GBP equal to or in excess of the
equivalent of $20 million.165
One commenter, Better Markets,
argued that the establishment in the UK
PRA Capital Rules of a base level
requirement that is substantially lower
than the CFTC Capital Rules’ fixed
amount minimum requirement
‘‘demonstrates a fatal lack of
comparability.’’ 166 Better Markets
further stated that to compensate for this
gap, the Commission proposed a
condition requiring PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to maintain a minimum
amount of common equity tier 1 capital
denominated in GBP equal to or in
excess of the equivalent of $20
million.167
As noted above, the Commission
recognized the material difference in the
requirement under the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules with
respect to the $20 million minimum
dollar amount of regulatory capital a
nonbank SD is required to maintain.
The Commission’s proposed condition,
however, effectively addresses this
difference by providing that a PRA163 85
FR 57462 at 57492.
Proposal at 8045.
165 Id. The Commission also noted that the six
current PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs maintain
common equity tier 1 capital in amounts in excess
of the equivalent of $20 million based on financial
filings made with the Commission. Id. (note 255).
166 Better Markets Letter at p. 13.
167 Id.
164 2024
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
designated UK nonbank SD may not
avail itself of substituted compliance
unless it maintains a minimum amount
of common equity tier 1 capital
denominated in GBP equal to or excess
of the equivalent of $20 million.
Furthermore, the imposition of
conditions in a Comparability Order, as
discussed in section I.E. above, is
authorized by Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(5), which provides that the
Commission may issue terms and
conditions as it deems appropriate. In
addition, as further noted in section I.E.
above, the Guidance also provides that
the Commission may impose conditions
as part of the substituted compliance
process to address a lack of comparable
and comprehensive regulation in a
home jurisdiction.168 In this connection,
the Commission concludes that
requiring PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs to maintain an amount of regulatory
capital in the form of common equity
tier 1 items, as defined in Article 26 of
UK CRR, equal to or in excess of the
equivalent of $20 million will impose
an equally stringent standard to the
analogue requirement under the CFTC
Capital Rules and will appropriately
address the substantially lower
minimum fixed amount capital
requirement under the UK PRA Capital
Rules.
In conclusion, the Commission finds
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
CFTC Capital Rules, with the imposition
of the condition for PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to maintain a minimum
level of common equity tier 1 capital in
an amount equivalent to at least $20
million, are comparable in purpose and
effect and achieve comparable outcomes
with respect to capital requirements
based on a minimum dollar amount.
The requirement for a nonbank SD with
limited swap dealing or other business
activities to maintain a minimum level
of regulatory capital equivalent to $20
million helps to ensure the firm’s safety
and soundness by allowing it to absorb
decreases in firm assets, absorb
increases in firm liabilities, and meet
obligations to swap counterparties,
other creditors, and market participants,
without the firm becoming insolvent.
b. Minimum Capital Requirement Based
on Risk-Weighted Assets
Prong (ii) of the CFTC Capital Rules’
minimum capital requirements
described above requires each nonbank
SD electing the Bank-Based Approach to
maintain an aggregate of common equity
tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital,
and tier 2 capital in an amount equal to
or greater than 8 percent of the nonbank
SD’s total risk-weighted assets, with
common equity tier 1 capital comprising
at least 6.5 percent of the 8 percent.169
Risk-weighted assets are a nonbank SD’s
on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet
market risk and credit risk exposures,
including exposures associated with
proprietary swap, security-based swap,
equity, and futures positions, weighted
according to risk. The requirements and
capital ratios set forth in prong (ii) are
based on the Federal Reserve Board’s
capital requirements for bank holding
companies and are consistent with the
BCBS framework. The requirement for
each nonbank SD to maintain regulatory
capital in an amount that equals or
exceeds 8 percent of the firm’s total riskweighted assets is intended to help
ensure that the nonbank SD’s level of
capital is sufficient to absorb decreases
in the value of the firm’s assets and
increases in the value of the firm’s
liabilities, and to cover unexpected
losses resulting from the firm’s business
activities, including losses resulting
from uncollateralized defaults from
swap counterparties, without the
nonbank SD becoming insolvent.170
The UK PRA Capital Rules contain
capital requirements for PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs that the Commission
preliminarily found comparable to the
requirements in prong (ii) of the CFTC
Capital Requirements.171 Specifically,
the UK PRA Capital Rules require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
maintain: (i) common equity tier 1
capital equal to at least 4.5 percent of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
total risk exposure amount; (ii) total tier
1 capital (i.e., common equity tier 1
capital plus additional tier 1 capital)
equal to at least 6 percent of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s total risk
exposure amount; and (iii) total capital
(i.e., an aggregate amount of common
equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1
capital, and tier 2 capital) equal to at
least 8 percent of the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD’s total risk exposure
amount. The UK PRA Capital Rules
further require each PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to maintain an additional
capital conservation buffer equal to 2.5
percent of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s total risk exposure
amount, which must be met with
common equity tier 1 capital. Thus, a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is
effectively required to maintain total
qualifying regulatory capital in an
amount equal to or in excess of 10.5
percent of the market risk, credit risk,
CVA risk, settlement risk, and
169 17
CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B).
generally 85 FR 57462 at 57530.
171 See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
170 See
168 Guidance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
at 45343.
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58551
operational risk of the firm (i.e., total
capital requirement of 8 percent of riskweighted assets and an additional 2.5
percent of risk-weighted assets as a
capital conservation buffer), which is a
higher capital ratio than the 8 percent
required of nonbank SDs under prong
(ii) of the CFTC Capital Rules.172
The Commission also preliminarily
found that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules are
comparable with respect to the
approaches used in the calculation of
risk-weighted asset amounts for market
risk and credit risk in determining the
nonbank SD’s risk-weighted assets.173 In
that regard, the Commission noted that
both regimes require a nonbank SD to
use standardized approaches to
compute market risk and credit risk
amounts, unless the firm is approved to
use internal models.174
As the Commission observed, the
standardized approaches to calculating
risk-weighted asset amounts for market
risk and credit risk under both sets of
rules follow the same structure that is
now the common global standard: (i)
allocating assets to categories according
to risk and assigning each a risk weight;
(ii) allocating counterparties according
to risk assessments and assigning each
a risk factor; (iii) calculating gross
exposures based on valuation of assets;
(iv) calculating a net exposure allowing
offsets following well defined
procedures and subject to clear
limitations; (v) adjusting the net
exposure by the market risk weights;
and finally, (vi) for credit risk
exposures, multiplying the sum of net
exposures to each counterparty by their
corresponding risk factor.175
More specifically, with respect to the
calculation of standardized riskweighted asset amounts for market risk,
the Commission explained that the
CFTC Capital Rules incorporate by
reference the standardized market risk
charges set forth in Commission
Regulation 1.17 for FCMs and SEC Rule
18a–1 for nonbank security-based swap
dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’).176 The standardized
market risk charges under Commission
Regulation 1.17 and SEC Rule 18a–1 are
calculated as a standardized or tablebased percentage of the market value or
notional value of the nonbank SD’s
marketable securities and derivatives
positions, with the percentages applied
172 Id. and UK CRR Articles 26, 28, 50–52, 61–63
and 92, and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital
Buffers Part, Chapter 2 Capital Conservation Buffer.
173 See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
174 Id.
175 Id.
176 Id. at 8040 and paragraph (3) of the definition
of the term BHC equivalent risk-weighted assets in
17 CFR 23.100.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58552
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
to the market value or notional value
increasing as the expected or
anticipated risk of the positions
increases.177 For example, CFTC Capital
Rules require nonbank SDs to calculate
standardized market risk-weighted asset
amounts for uncleared swaps based on
notional values of the swap positions
multiplied by percentages set forth in
the applicable rules.178 In addition,
market risk-weighted asset amounts for
readily marketable equity securities are
calculated by multiplying the fair
market value of the securities by 15
percent.179
Under the CFTC Capital Rules, the
resulting total market risk-weighted
asset amount is multiplied by a factor of
12.5 to cancel the effect of the 8 percent
multiplication factor applied to all of
the nonbank SD’s risk-weighted assets
under prong (ii) of the rules’ minimum
capital requirements described above.
As a result, a nonbank SD is effectively
required to hold qualifying regulatory
capital equal to or greater than 100
percent of the amount of its market risk
exposure amount.180
Comparable to the CFTC Capital
Rules, the UK PRA Capital Rules require
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
calculate its standardized risk-weighted
asset amounts for market risk by
multiplying the notional or carrying
amount of net positions by riskweighting factors, which are based on
the underlying market risk of each asset
or exposure and increase as the
expected risk of the positions
increases.181 The Commission further
explained that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD is required to calculate
177 See 2024 Proposal at 8040, 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5),
and 17 CFR 240.18a–1(c)(1).
178 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(iii).
179 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(v), referencing SEC Rule
15c3–1(c)(2)(vi) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(vi)).
180 17 CFR 23.100 (definition of BHC equivalent
risk-weighted assets). As noted, a nonbank SD is
required to maintain qualifying capital (i.e., an
aggregate of common equity tier 1 capital,
additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2 capital) in an
amount that equals or exceeds 8 percent of its riskweighted assets. The regulations, however, require
the nonbank SD to effectively maintain qualifying
capital equal to or in excess of 100 percent of its
market risk-weighted assets by requiring the
nonbank SD to multiply its market-risk weighted
assets by a factor of 12.5. For example, the market
risk exposure amount for marketable equity
securities with a current fair market value of
$250,000 is $37,500 (market value of $250,000 × .15
standardized market risk factor). The nonbank SD
is required to maintain regulatory capital equal to
or in excess of full market risk exposure amount of
$37,500 (risk exposure amount of $37,500 × 8
percent regulatory capital requirement equals
$3,000; the regulatory capital requirement is then
multiplied by a factor of 12.5, which effectively
requires the nonbank SD to hold regulatory capital
in an amount equal to at least 100 percent of the
market risk exposure amount ($3,000 × 12.5 factor
equals $37,500)).
181 See 2024 Proposal at 8042.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
market risk requirements for debt
instruments and equity instruments
separately, by computing each category
as the sum of specific risk and general
risk of the positions.182 As further
discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the UK
PRA Capital Rules also require PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to include
in their risk-weighted assets market risk
exposures to certain foreign currency
and gold positions. Specifically, a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD with net
positions in foreign exchange and gold
that exceed 2 percent of the firm’s total
capital must calculate capital
requirements for foreign exchange
risk.183 The capital requirement for
foreign exchange risk under the
standardized approach is 8 percent of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
net positions in foreign exchange and
gold.184 The UK PRA Capital Rules
further require PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to include exposures to
commodity positions in calculating the
firm’s risk-weighted assets. The
standardized calculation of commodity
risk exposures may follow one of three
approaches depending on type of
position or exposure. The first is the
sum of a flat percentage rate for net
positions, with netting allowed among
tightly defined sets, plus another flat
percentage rate for the gross position.185
The other two standardized approaches
are based on maturity-ladders, where
unmatched portions of each maturity
band (i.e., portions that do not net out
to zero) are charged at a step-up rate in
comparison to the base charges for
matched portions.186
With respect to standardized riskweighted asset amounts for credit risk,
the Commission explained that under
the CFTC Capital Rules, a nonbank SD
must compute its on-balance sheet and
off-balance sheet exposures in
accordance with the standardized riskweighting requirements adopted by the
Federal Reserve Board and set forth in
Subpart D of 12 CFR 217 as if the SD
itself were a bank holding company
subject to Subpart D.187 Standardized
risk-weighted asset amounts for credit
risk are computed by multiplying the
amount of the exposure by defined
182 Id. and UK CRR, Article 326. As indicated in
Article 326 of UK CRR, securitizations are treated
as debt instruments for market risk requirements.
183 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article
351.
184 Id.
185 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article
360.
186 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article
359–361.
187 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B) and paragraph (1) of the
definition of the term BHC equivalent risk-weighted
assets in 17 CFR 23.100. See also 2024 Proposal at
8040.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
counterparty credit risk factors that
range from 0 percent to 150 percent.188
A nonbank SD with off-balance sheet
exposures is required to calculate a riskweighted amount for credit risk by
multiplying each exposure by a credit
conversion factor that ranges from 0
percent to 100 percent, depending on
the type of exposure.189
In comparison, the Commission noted
that the UK PRA Capital Rules require
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
calculate its standardized risk-weighted
asset amounts for credit risk in a
manner aligned with the Commission’s
Bank-Based Approach and the BCBS
framework by taking the carrying value
or notional value of each of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s on-balance
sheet and off-balance sheet exposures,
making certain additional credit risk
adjustments, and then applying specific
risk weights based on the type of
counterparty and the asset’s credit
quality.190 For instance, exposures to
the ECB, the UK government, and the
Bank of England, carry a zero percent
risk weight; exposures to other central
governments and central banks may
carry risk weights between 0 and 150,
depending on the credit rating available
for the central government or central
bank; and exposures to banks, PRAdesignated investment firms, or other
businesses may carry risk weights
between 20 percent and 150 percent
depending on the credit ratings
available for the entity or, for exposures
to banks and investment firms, for the
central government of the jurisdiction in
which the entity is incorporated.191 If
no credit rating is available, the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD must
generally apply a 100 percent risk
weight, meaning the total accounting
value of the exposure is used.192
With respect to counterparty credit
risk for derivatives positions, the
Commission explained that under the
CFTC Capital Rules, a nonbank SD may
compute standardized credit risk
188 12 CFR 217.32. Lower credit risk factors are
assigned to entities with lower credit risk and
higher credit risk factors are assigned to entities
with higher credit risk. For example, a credit risk
factor of 0 percent is applied to exposures to the
U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, and
U.S. government agencies (12 CFR 217.32(a)(1)),
and a credit risk factor of 100 percent is assigned
to an exposure to foreign sovereigns that are not
members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (12 CFR 217.32(a)(2)).
See also discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8040.
189 12 CFR 217.33. See also discussion in 2024
Proposal at 8040.
190 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles
111 and 113(1).
191 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles
114–122.
192 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles
121(2) and 122(2).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
exposures, using either the current
exposure method (‘‘CEM’’) or the
standardized approach for measuring
counterparty credit risk (‘‘SA–CCR’’).193
Both CEM and SA–CCR are non-model,
rules-based approaches to calculating
counterparty credit risk exposures for
derivatives positions. Credit risk
exposure under CEM is the sum of: (i)
the current exposure (i.e., the positive
mark-to-market) of the derivatives
contract; and (ii) the potential future
exposure, which is calculated as the
product of the notional principal
amount of the derivatives contract
multiplied by a standard credit risk
conversion factor set forth in the rules
of the Federal Reserve Board.194 Credit
risk exposure under SA–CCR is defined
as the exposure at default amount of a
derivatives contract, which is computed
by multiplying a factor of 1.4 by the sum
of: (i) the replacement costs of the
contract (i.e., the positive mark-to
market); and (ii) the potential future
exposure of the contract.195 In
comparison, the UK PRA Capital Rules
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD that is not approved to use credit
risk models to calculate its exposure
using the SA–CCR.196 The exposure
amount under the SA–CCR is computed,
under both the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the Commission’s Bank-Based
Approach, as the sum of the
replacement cost of the contract and the
potential future exposure of the
contract, multiplied by a factor of 1.4.197
193 17 CFR 217.34 and 17 CFR 23.100 (defining
the term BHC risk-weighted assets and providing
that a nonbank SD that does not have model
approval may use either CEM or SA–CCR to
compute its exposures for OTC derivative contracts
without regard to the status of its affiliate with
respect to the use of a calculation approach under
the Federal Reserve Board’s capital rules). See also
discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8040.
194 12 CFR 217.34.
195 12 CFR 217.132(c).
196 2024 Proposal at 8043, UK CRR, Articles
92(3)(f), and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3
Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two,
Chapter Six CRR). As noted in the 2024 Proposal,
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs with smallersized derivatives business may also use a
‘‘simplified standardized approach to counterparty
credit risk’’ or an ‘‘original exposure method’’ as
simpler methods for calculating exposure values.
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit
Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3 Counterparty Credit Risk
(Part Three, Title Two, Chapter Six CRR), Articles
281–282. To use either of these alternative methods,
an entity’s on-and off-balance sheet derivatives
business must be equal to or less than 10 percent
of the entity’s total assets and GBP 260 million or
5 percent of the entity’s total assets and GBP 88
million, respectively. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3
Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two,
Chapter Six CRR), Article 273a.
197 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty
Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3 Counterparty
Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two, Chapter Six
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
UK PRA Capital Rules also require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
include its exposures to settlement risk
in its calculation of its risk-weighted
assets.198 Consistent with the BCBS
framework, the risk-weighted asset
amount for settlement risk for
transactions settled on a deliveryversus-payment basis is computed by
multiplying the price difference to
which a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD is exposed as a result of an unsettled
transaction by a percentage factor that
varies from 8 percent to 100 percent
based on the number of working days
after the settlement due date during
which the transaction remains
unsettled.199 The CFTC’s Bank-Based
Approach provides for a similar
calculation methodology for riskweighted asset amounts for unsettled
transactions involving securities, foreign
exchange instruments, and
commodities.200
Consistent with the BCBS framework,
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is
also required to calculate a CVA riskweighted asset amount for OTC
derivative instruments to reflect the
current market value of the credit risk
of the counterparty to the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD.201 Riskweighted asset amounts for CVA risk
can be calculated following similar
methodologies as those described in
Subpart E of the Federal Reserve Board’s
part 217 regulations.202
As discussed in the 2024 Proposal,
both the CFTC Capital Rules and the UK
PRA Capital Rules also provide that, if
approved by NFA or the PRA,
respectively, nonbank SDs may also use
CRR), Article 274 and 12 CFR 217.132(c). See also
discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8043.
198 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Article
378 (indicating that if transactions in which debt
instruments, equities, foreign currencies and
commodities excluding repurchase transactions and
securities or commodities lending and securities or
commodities borrowing are unsettled after their
delivery due dates, a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD must calculate the price difference to which it
is exposed).
199 Id. The price difference to which a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is exposed is the
difference between the agreed settlement price for
an instrument (i.e., a debt instrument, equity,
foreign currency or commodity) and the
instrument’s current market value, where the
difference could involve a loss for the firm. UK
CRR, Article 378.
200 17 CFR 23.100 (definition of BHC equivalent
risk-weighted assets), 12 CFR 217.38 and 12 CFR
217.136.
201 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles
381 and 382(1).
202 UK CRR, Articles 383–384 and 12 CFR
217.132(e)(5) and (6). Under the CFTC’s Bank-Based
Approach, nonbank SDs calculating their credit
risk-weighted assets using the regulations in
Subpart D of the Federal Reserve Board’s Part 217
regulations do not calculate CVA of OTC
derivatives instruments.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58553
internal models to calculate market and/
or credit risk exposures.203 The
Commission noted that the internal
market and credit risk models under the
UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC
Capital Rules are based on the BCBS
framework and preliminarily found that
such models must meet comparable
quantitative and qualitative
requirements covering the same risks,
though with slightly different
categorization, and including
comparable model risk management
requirements.204 In this regard, the
Commission observed that both rule sets
address the same types of risk, with
similar allowed methodologies and
under similar controls.205 The
Commission also preliminarily
determined that the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules are
comparable with respect to the
requirement that nonbank SDs account
for operational risk in computing their
minimum capital requirements.206 In
this connection, the Commission noted
that the UK PRA Capital Rules require
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
calculate an operational risk exposure as
a component of the firm’s total risk
exposure amount.207 PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs may use either a
standardized approach or, if the PRAdesignated UK nonbank has obtained
regulatory permission, an internal
approach based on the firm’s own
measurement systems, to calculate their
risk-weighted asset amounts for
203 See 2024 Proposal at 8040–8041 and 8043,
respectively, for discussions of NFA and PRA
model approvals. In discussing approval
requirements for credit risk models as part of the
general overview of the UK PRA Capital Rules, the
Commission referred generally to counterparty
credit risk exposures for ‘‘OTC derivatives
transactions.’’ See 2024 Proposal at 8034–8035 (n.
115). For clarity, the Commission notes that the
Internal Model Methodology for counterparty credit
risk set out in UK CRR, Articles 283–294, can be
used for the derivatives listed in Annex II of UK
CRR, securities financing transactions, and long
settlement transactions. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Article 273.
204 See 2024 Proposal at 8046. For a discussion
of the qualitative and quantitative requirements that
models must meet under the CFTC Capital Rules
and the UK PRA Capital Rules, see 2024 Proposal
at 8040–8041 and 8043–8044, respectively. In
discussing model approval conditions, the
Commission noted that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs were not permitted to use internal
models to calculate counterparty credit risk
amounts for large exposures. See 2024 Proposal at
8043 and 8044 (n. 217 and n. 237). The Commission
notes that this statement is not correct with regard
to securities financing transactions. PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs are allowed to use internal models
to calculate exposure values for securities financing
transactions. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Large
Exposures (CRR) Part, Chapter 4 Large Exposures
(Part Four CRR), Article 390.
205 See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
206 Id.
207 Id. and UK CRR, Article 92(3).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58554
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
operational risk. The CFTC Capital
Rules address operational risk both as a
stand-alone, separate minimum capital
requirement that a nonbank SD is
required to meet under prong (iii) of the
Bank-Based Approach and as a
component of the calculation of riskweighted assets for nonbank SDs that
use Subpart E of the Federal Reserve
Board’s part 217 regulations to calculate
their credit risk-weighted assets via
internal models.208
Only one commenter specifically
addressed the Commission’s
comparative analysis of the minimum
capital requirement based on riskweighted assets. The commenter,
Ravnitzky, stated that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital
Rules differ in several areas, including
in their approaches to calculating riskweighted amounts for market risk and
credit risk.209 Ravnitzky asserted that
unlike the UK PRA Capital Rules, which
use a standardized approach, the CFTC
Capital Rules use a model-based
approach to calculating risk-weighted
amounts.210 The Commission notes that
this description of the respective rule
sets is not accurate. As discussed above,
the currently applicable UK PRA Capital
Rules and CFTC Capital Rules both
incorporate standardized and modelbased approaches to calculating market
risk and credit risk amounts.211
In conclusion, the Commission finds
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in
purpose and effect with respect to the
computation of minimum capital
requirements based on a nonbank SD’s
risk-weighted assets. In this regard, the
Commission finds that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital
rules have a comparable approach to the
computation of market risk exposure
amounts and credit risk exposure
amounts for on-balance sheet and offbalance sheet exposures, which are
intended to ensure that a nonbank SD
maintains a sufficient level of regulatory
capital to absorb decreases in firm
assets, absorb increases in firm
liabilities, and meet obligations to
208 Id. and 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i) and 17 CFR
23.100 (definition of BHC equivalent risk-weighted
assets).
209 Ravnitzky Letter at pp. 3–4.
210 Id.
211 As noted in the 2024 Proposal, the
Commission is aware that the PRA is considering
changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules to implement
Basel 3.1 standards. If the PRA proceeds with the
implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards as
proposed, the regulatory changes would be
applicable after July 1, 2025 with a 4.5-year
transitional period ending on January 1, 2030. The
Commission will monitor progress on the PRA’s
proposed regulatory changes and may amend or
supplement the Comparability Order, as
appropriate. 2024 Proposal at 8036 (n. 128).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
counterparties and creditors, without
the firm becoming insolvent.
c. Minimum Capital Requirement Based
on the Uncleared Swap Margin Amount
As noted above, prong (iii) of the
CFTC Capital Rules’ Bank-Based
Approach requires a nonbank SD to
maintain regulatory capital in an
amount equal to or greater than 8
percent of the firm’s total uncleared
swap margin amount associated with its
uncleared swap transactions to address
potential operational, legal, and
liquidity risks.212
The UK PRA Capital Rules differ from
the CFTC Capital Rules in that they do
not impose a capital requirement on
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs based
on a percentage of the margin for
uncleared swap transactions.213 In the
2024 Proposal, the Commission
described, however, how certain UK
PRA capital and liquidity requirements
may compensate for the lack of direct
analogue to the 8 percent uncleared
swap margin amount requirement.214
Specifically, the Commission noted that
under the UK PRA Capital Rules the
total risk exposure amount is computed
as the sum of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s risk-weighted asset
amounts for market risk, credit risk,
settlement risk, CVA risk of OTC
derivatives instruments, and operational
risk.215 Notably, the UK PRA Capital
Rules require that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, including firms that do
not use internal models, calculate
capital charges for operational risk as a
separate component of the total risk
exposure amount. The UK PRA Capital
Rules also impose separate liquidity
requirements designed to ensure that
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
can meet both short- and long-term
obligations, in addition to the general
requirement to maintain processes and
systems for the identification of
liquidity risk.216 In comparison, the
212 More specifically, in establishing the
requirement that a nonbank SD must maintain a
level of regulatory capital in excess of 8 percent of
the uncleared swap margin amount associated with
the firm’s swap transactions, the Commission stated
that the intent of the uncleared swap margin
amount was to establish a method of developing a
minimum amount of capital for a nonbank SD to
meet all of its obligations as an SD to market
participants, and to cover potential operational risk,
legal risk and liquidity risk, and not just the risks
of its trading portfolio. 85 FR 57462 at 57485.
213 See 2024 Proposal at 8046–8047.
214 Id.
215 Id. at 8047 and UK CRR, Article 92(3).
216 Id. More specifically, the UK PRA Capital
Rules impose separate liquidity buffers and ‘‘stable
funding’’ requirements designed to ensure that
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs can cover both
long-term obligations and short-term payment
obligations under stressed conditions for 30 days.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commission requires nonbank SDs to
maintain a risk management program
covering liquidity risk, among other risk
categories, but does not have a distinct
liquidity requirement.217
Addressing the Commission’s request
for comment on the comparability
between the CFTC’s capital requirement
based on a percentage of the margin for
uncleared swap transactions and the UK
PRA Capital Rules’ requirements with
respect to operational risk and liquidity
risk, one commenter, Better Markets,
asserted that the requirement for PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to hold
qualifying regulatory capital to cover
operational risk is not comparable to the
CFTC’s requirement for nonbank SDs to
hold qualifying capital in an amount
equal to at least 8 percent of the
nonbank SD’s uncleared swap margin
amount.218 Better Markets further
asserted that the proposed
Comparability Determination fell short
in furnishing an adequate analysis
substantiating that the incorporation of
an operational risk charge and the
existence of separate liquidity
requirements would genuinely yield an
equivalent result.219 Furthermore, Better
Markets argued that the Commission
should have undertaken ‘‘an
examination to ascertain whether the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
operational risk charge and liquidity
requirements would adequately cover
[its] cumulative amounts of uncleared
swaps margin.’’ 220
The Applicants offered a contrasting
view in their comment letter, stating
that, although the UK PRA Capital Rules
do not ‘‘have a direct analogue to the 8
percent uncleared swap margin
requirement’’ under the CFTC Capital
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity (CRR) Part,
Chapter 4 Liquidity (Part Six CRR), Article 412–413.
In addition, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
required to maintain robust strategies, policies,
processes, and systems for the identification of
liquidity risk over an appropriate set of time
horizons, including intra-day. PRA Rulebook, CRR
Firms, Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment
Part.
217 See 2024 Proposal at 8047. Specifically,
Commission Regulation 23.600(b) requires each SD
to establish, document, maintain, and enforce a
system of risk management policies and procedures
designed to monitor and manage the risks related
to swaps, and any products used to hedge swaps,
including futures, options, swaps, security-based
swaps, debt or equity securities, foreign currency,
physical commodities, and other derivatives. The
elements of the SD’s risk management program are
required to include the identification of risks and
risk tolerance limits with respect to applicable
risks, including operational, liquidity, and legal
risk, together with a description of the risk
tolerance limits set by the SD and the underlying
methodology in written policies and procedures. 17
CFR 23.600.
218 Better Markets Letter at p. 13.
219 Id.
220 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Rules, they have ‘‘various other
measures that achieve the same
regulatory objective of ensuring that an
SD maintains an amount of capital that
is sufficient to cover the full range of
risks a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
may face.’’ 221 In support of the
statement, the Applicants discussed,
among other measures, the various
categories of risk charges that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is required
to include in its total risk exposure
amount, as well as the capital
conservation buffer, leverage ratio floor,
and liquidity requirements that the UK
PRA Capital Rules impose on PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs.222
The Commission finds that the
additional categories of risk-weighted
asset amounts that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to include in
the total risk-weighted assets amount, as
well as the various regulatory measures
seeking to ensure that PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs hold sufficient capital
to cover the full range of risks that they
may face, support the comparability of
the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC
Capital Rules even in the absence of a
separate capital requirement in the UK
PRA Capital Rules requiring PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to have
qualified capital equal to or greater than
8 percent of the amount of uncleared
swap margin. The Commission notes
that the minimum capital requirement
based on a percentage of the nonbank
SD’s uncleared swap margin amount
was conceived as a proxy, not an exact
measure, for inherent risk in the SD’s
positions and operations, including
operational risk, legal risk, and liquidity
risk.223 As the Commission noted in
adopting the CFTC Capital Rules,
although the amount of capital required
of a nonbank SD under the uncleared
swap margin calculation is directly
related to the volume, size, complexity,
and risk of the covered SD’s positions,
the minimum capital requirement is
intended to cover a multitude of
221 Applicants’
Letter at p. 3.
at pp. 2–3. As discussed in the 2024
Proposal, the UK PRA Capital Rules impose a 3.35
percent leverage ratio floor on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that hold significant amounts of nonUK assets, as an additional element of the capital
requirements. Specifically, a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD that has non-UK assets equal to or
greater than GBP 10 billion is required to maintain
tier 1 capital (i.e., an aggregate of common equity
tier 1 capital and additional tier 1 capital) equal to
or in excess of 3.35 percent of the firm’s on-balance
sheet and off-balance sheet exposures, including
exposures on uncleared swaps but excluding
certain exposures to central banks, without regard
to any risk-weighting. See 2024 Proposal at 8034
and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Leverage Ratio
(CRR) Part, Chapter 3 Leverage Ratio (Part Seven
CRR), Article 429 et seq.
223 85 FR 57462 at 57497.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
222 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
potential risks faced by the SD.224 The
Commission understands that other
jurisdictions may adopt alternative
measures to cover the same risks. As
such, a strict comparison between the
amounts that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD holds to account for
operational risk and liquidity risk
pursuant to the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the amount of uncleared swap
margin that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD would have been required
to hold pursuant to the CFTC Capital
Rules is not warranted. As discussed in
section I.E. above, the Commission’s
analysis in ascertaining the
comparability of a foreign jurisdiction’s
capital rules to the CFTC Capital Rules
is focused on determining whether the
foreign jurisdiction’s rules have
comparable regulatory objectives and
achieve comparable outcomes.
Following this standard of review, the
Commission finds that the various
measures that the UK PRA Capital Rules
have established to help ensure that
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs hold
sufficient capital to cover the full range
of risks that they face have comparable
objectives and achieve comparable
outcomes.
In conclusion, the Commission finds
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in
purpose and effect with respect to the
requirement that a nonbank SD’s
minimum level of regulatory capital
reflects potential operational risk
exposures in addition to market risk and
credit risk exposures. The Commission
emphasizes that the intent of the
minimum capital requirement based on
a percentage of the nonbank SD’s
uncleared swap margin is to establish a
minimum capital requirement that
would help ensure that the nonbank SD
meets its obligations as an SD to market
participants, and to cover potential
operational risk, legal risk, and liquidity
risk in addition to the risks associated
with its trading portfolio.225 The UK
PRA Capital Rules address comparable
risks albeit not through a requirement
based on a UK nonbank SD’s uncleared
swap margin amount. In this regard, UK
nonbank SDs are required to maintain a
minimum level of regulatory capital
based on an aggregate of the firm’s total
risk-weighted asset amounts for market
risk, credit risk, and operational risk.
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, notwithstanding the
differences in approaches, the UK PRA
Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules
are comparable in purpose and effect in
224 85
FR 57462 at 57485 and 57497.
2024 Proposal at 8040 (referencing 85 FR
225 See
57462).
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58555
requiring nonbank SDs to maintain a
minimum level of regulatory capital that
addresses potential market risk, credit
risk, and operational risk to help ensure
the safety and soundness of the firm,
and to ensure that the firm has sufficient
capital to absorb decreases in firm
assets, absorb increases in firm
liabilities, and meet obligations to
counterparties and creditors, without
the firm becoming insolvent.
3. Final Determination
Based on its analysis of comments
and its holistic assessment of the
respective requirements discussed in
sections II.C.2.a., b., and c. above, the
Commission adopts the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order
as proposed with respect to the
minimum capital requirements and
calculation of regulatory capital, subject
to the condition that PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs must maintain a
minimum level of regulatory capital in
the form of common equity tier 1 capital
that equals or exceeds the equivalent of
$20 million U.S. dollars.
D. Nonbank Swap Dealer Financial
Reporting Requirements
1. Proposed Determination
The Commission detailed the
requirements of the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules in the 2024 Proposal.226
Specifically, the 2024 Proposal noted
that the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules
require nonbank SDs to file with the
Commission and NFA periodic
unaudited and annual audited financial
reports.227 The unaudited financial
reports must include: (i) a statement of
financial condition; (ii) a statement of
income/loss; (iii) a statement
demonstrating compliance with, and
calculation of, the applicable regulatory
minimum capital requirement; (iv) a
statement of changes in ownership
equity; (v) a statement of changes in
liabilities subordinated to claims of
general creditors; and (vi) such further
material information necessary to make
the required statements not
misleading.228 The annual audited
financial reports must include the same
financial statements that are required to
be included in the unaudited financial
reports, and must further include: (i) a
statement of cash flows; (ii) appropriate
footnote disclosures; and (iii) a
reconciliation of any material
differences between the financial
statements contained in the annual
audited financial reports and the
financial statements contained in the
226 2024
Proposal at 8047–8048.
and 17 CFR 23.105(d) and (e).
228 Id. and 17 CFR 23.105(d)(2).
227 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58556
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
unaudited financial reports prepared as
of the nonbank SD’s year-end date.229 In
addition, a nonbank SD must attach to
each unaudited and audited financial
report an oath or affirmation that to the
best knowledge and belief of the
individual making the affirmation the
information contained in the financial
report is true and correct.230 The
individual making the oath or
affirmation must be a duly authorized
officer if the nonbank SD is a
corporation, or one of the persons
specified in the regulation for business
organizations that are not
corporations.231
The CFTC Financial Reporting Rules
also require a nonbank SD to file the
following financial information with the
Commission and NFA on a monthly
basis: (i) a schedule listing the nonbank
SD’s financial positions reported at fair
market value; 232 (ii) schedules showing
the nonbank SD’s counterparty credit
concentration for the 15 largest
exposures in derivatives, a summary of
its derivatives exposures by internal
credit ratings, and the geographic
distribution of derivatives exposures for
the 10 largest countries; 233 and (iii) for
nonbank SDs approved to use internal
capital models, certain model metrics,
such as aggregate value-at-risk (‘‘VaR’’),
a graph reflecting the daily intra-month
VaR for each business line, and
counterparty credit risk information.234
The CFTC Financial Reporting Rules
further require a nonbank SD to provide
the Commission and NFA with
information regarding the custodianship
of margin for uncleared swap
transactions (‘‘Margin Report’’).235 The
Margin Report must contain: (i) the
name and address of each custodian
holding initial margin or variation
margin on behalf of the nonbank SD or
its swap counterparties; (ii) the amount
of initial and variation margin required
by the uncleared margin rules held by
each custodian on behalf of the nonbank
SD and on behalf its swap
counterparties; and (iii) the aggregate
amount of initial margin that the
nonbank SD is required to collect from,
or post with, swap counterparties for
uncleared swap transactions subject to
the uncleared margin rules.236
A nonbank SD electing the BankBased Capital Approach is required to
file the unaudited financial report,
Schedule 1, schedules of counterparty
credit exposures, and the Margin Report
with the Commission and NFA no later
than 17 business days after the
applicable month-end reporting date.237
A nonbank SD must file its annual
report with the Commission and NFA
no later than 60 calendar days after the
end of its fiscal year.238
The 2024 Proposal also detailed
relevant financial reporting
requirements of the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules.239 The UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
report information to the PRA
concerning its capital and financial
condition sufficient to provide a
comprehensive view of the firm’s risk
profile, including information on the
firm’s capital requirements, leverage
ratio, large exposures, and liquidity
requirements.240 PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs must follow the templates
and instructions provided in the PRA
Rulebook for purposes of the prudential
requirements reporting referred to
COREP.241 Under the COREP
requirements, PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to provide, on
a quarterly basis,242 calculations in
relation to the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s capital and capital
requirements,243 capital ratios and
capital levels,244 and market risk,245
among other items.
In addition to the prudential
requirements reporting, Article 430(3) of
the Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA
Rulebook imposes financial information
236 Id.
237 Id.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
and 17 CFR 23.105(e)(4).
230 Id. at 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(f).
231 Id.
232 2024 Proposal at 8048, Regulation 23.105(l),
and Schedule 1 of Appendix B to Subpart E of Part
23 (‘‘Schedule 1’’). 17 CFR 23.105(l) and 17 CFR
Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23. Schedule 1
includes a nonbank SD’s holding of U.S Treasury
securities, U.S. government agency debt securities,
foreign debt and equity securities, money market
instruments, corporate obligations, spot
commodities, and cleared and uncleared swaps,
security-based swaps, and mixed swaps in addition
to other position information.
233 2024 Proposal 8048 and schedules 2, 3 and 4,
respectively, of Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23.
234 2024 Proposal 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(k) and
(l), and schedules 2, 3 and 4 of Appendix B to
Subpart E of Part 23.
235 2024 Proposal 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(m).
238 Id.
229 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Proposal at 8048–8050.
Proposal at 8048–8049 and PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part,
Chapter 4 Reporting (Part Seven A CRR), Rule 1.
241 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions.
242 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, 5 Reporting Requirements, Chapter 3 Format
and Frequency of Reporting on Own Funds, Own
Funds Requirements.
243 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions, Annex
I, Templates C 01.00 and C 02.00.
244 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions, Annex
I, Template C 03.00.
245 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions, Annex
I, Template C 02.00.
PO 00000
239 2024
240 2024
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that are subject to section
403(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (i.e.,
entities that are parent companies 246
and report on a consolidated basis using
UK-adopted International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) and that
issue securities admitted to trading on a
UK-regulated market).247 The relevant
reporting templates and instructions,
referred to as FINREP, are included in
Chapter 6 of the Reporting (CRR) Part of
the PRA Rulebook. Under the FINREP
requirements, PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs subject to the
requirements of Article 430(3) of the
Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA
Rulebook are required to provide the
following documents to the PRA, among
other items: (i) on a quarterly basis, a
balance sheet statement (or statement of
financial position) that reflects the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s financial
condition; 248 (ii) on a quarterly basis, a
statement of profit or loss; 249 (iii) on a
quarterly basis, a breakdown of financial
liabilities by product and by
counterparty sector; 250 (iv) on a
quarterly basis, a listing of subordinated
financial liabilities; 251 and (v) on an
annual basis, a statement of changes in
equity.252
Under the FINREP requirements, a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD subject
to the requirements of Article 430(3) of
the Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA
Rulebook is also required to provide the
PRA with additional financial
information, including a breakdown of
246 A parent company (i.e., ‘‘parent undertaking’’)
is defined in Companies Act 2006, Section 1162.
247 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 4 Reporting (Part Seven A CRR),
Article 430, Rule 3. The International Accounting
Standards Board is an independent, private-sector
body that develops and approves IFRS.
248 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Templates 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3 at Annex III (for
reporting according to IFRS) and Templates 1.1.,
1.2., and 1.3 at Annex IV (for reporting according
to national accounting frameworks).
249 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 2 at Annex III (for reporting according to
IFRS) and Template 2 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
250 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 8.1 at Annex III (for reporting according
to IFRS) and Template 8.1 at Annex IV (for
reporting according to national accounting
frameworks).
251 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 8.2 at Annex III (for reporting according
to IFRS) and Template 8.2. at Template 8.2 at
Annex IV (for reporting according to national
accounting frameworks).
252 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 46 at Annex III (for reporting according
to IFRS) and Template 46 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
its loans and advances by product and
type of counterparty,253 as well as
detailed information regarding its
derivatives trading activities,254
collateral, and guarantees.255
For PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
that are not subject to financial
information reporting under Article
430(3) of the Reporting (CRR) Part of the
PRA Rulebook, the Regulatory Reporting
Part of the PRA Rulebook dictates the
applicable reporting requirements.256
Specifically, as firms that fall into
Regulated Activity Group 3 (‘‘RAG 3’’),
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
required to provide the following
documents to the PRA, among other
items: (i) on a quarterly basis, a balance
sheet statement (or statement of
financial position) that reflects the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s financial
condition; 257 (ii) on a quarterly basis, a
statement of profit or loss; 258 and (iii)
on an annual basis, an annual report
and accounts.259 The Applicants
represented that the six UK PRAdesignated nonbank SDs currently
registered with the Commission are
designated as RAG 3 firms and are
required to provide the aforementioned
documents.260
253 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Templates 5.1 and 6.1 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Templates 5.1 and 6.1 at
Annex IV (for reporting according to national
accounting frameworks).
254 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 10 at Annex III (for reporting according
to IFRS) and Template 10 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
255 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR)
Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions,
Template 13 at Annex III (for reporting according
to IFRS) and Template 13 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
256 As indicated by the Applicants, the Regulatory
Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook applies to all
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs. See Responses to
Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
257 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group
3, Rule 9.2 (referencing Templates 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3
at Annex III and Templates 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3 at
Annex IV of Chapter 6 of the Reporting (CRR) Part)
and Rule 9.3.
258 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group
3, Rule 9.2 (referencing Template 2 at Annex III and
Template 2 at Annex IV of Chapter 6 of the
Reporting (CRR) Part) and Rule 9.3.
259 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group
3, Rule 9.2 and Rule 9.3.
260 See Response to Staff Questions dated October
5, 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, as represented
by the Applicants, the six PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs currently registered with the
Commission are subject to the RAG 3 requirements
in the Regulatory Reporting Part of the PRA
Rulebook but are not subject the FINREP
requirements set forth in Article 430(3) of the
Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA Rulebook. As such,
the six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently
registered with the Commission are required to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Furthermore, all PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to prepare
annual audited accounts and a strategic
report (together, ‘‘annual audited
financial report’’) pursuant to Parts 15
and 16 of the Companies Act 2006.261
The audit of the accounts and report is
required to be performed by one or more
independent statutory auditors, which
have the required skill, resources, and
experience to perform their duties based
on the complexity of the firm’s business
and the regulatory requirements to
which the firm is subject.262 PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs must
submit the annual audited financial
report to the PRA within 80 business
days from the firm’s accounting
reference date.263 In addition, under
generally applicable company law
requirements, PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to submit the
annual audited financial report to the
UK Registrar of Companies.264 The
registrar makes the report available to
the public on its website, free of
charge.265
The annual audited accounts must
comprise, at a minimum, a balance
sheet, a profit and loss statement, and
notes about the accounts.266 The
auditor’s audit report must include: (i)
a description of the annual accounts
subject to the audit and the financial
reporting framework that was applied in
their preparation; (ii) a description of
the scope of the audit, which must
specify the auditing standards used to
conduct the audit; (iii) an audit opinion
submit to the PRA only Templates 1 through 3 of
FINREP.
261 Companies Act 2006, Sections 393 to 414D
and 475. Section 475 provides for an exemption
from the audit requirement for certain entities (i.e.,
‘‘small companies’’, qualifying ‘‘subsidiary
companies’’ and ‘‘dormant companies’’.) None of
the six PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, however,
falls into the exempt categories. See Responses to
Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
262 Companies Act 2006, Section 485 et seq.; see
also PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Auditors Part, Rule
3 Auditors’ Qualifications, and Rule 4 Auditors’
Independence.
263 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulatory Activity Group
3, Rules 9.1. and 9.4. The ‘‘accounting reference
date’’ is determined in accordance with Section 391
of the Companies Act 2006 and depending on the
firm’s date of incorporation.
264 Companies Act 2006, Section 441. The
deadline for filing the annual audited financial
report with the UK Registrar of Companies is nine
months from the firm’s accounting reference date
for private companies and six months from the
firm’s accounting reference date for public
companies. Id., Articles 442 (setting forth the filing
deadlines by category of firm) and 391 (defining the
terms ‘‘accounting reference period’’ and
‘‘accounting reference date’’).
265 Companies Act 2006, Sections 1080 and 1085.
Information filed with the UK Registrar of
Companies is available at: https://www.gov.uk/
government/organisations/companies-house.
266 Companies Act 2006, Section 396.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58557
stating whether the annual accounts
give a true and fair view of the state of
affairs and/or the profit and loss of the
firm, as applicable, and whether the
annual accounts have been prepared in
accordance with the relevant financial
reporting framework; and (iv) a
reference to any matters emphasized by
the auditor that did not qualify the audit
opinion.267
The strategic report is required to
include a review of the development
and performance of the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD’s during the financial
year and a description of the principal
risks and uncertainties that the firm
faces.268 The auditors are required to
express an opinion on whether the
strategic report is consistent with the
accounts for the same financial year,
and whether the strategic report has
been prepared in accordance with
applicable legal requirements.269 The
opinion also must state whether the
auditor has identified material
misstatements in the strategic report
and, if so, describe the misstatement.270
In addition, as noted in the 2024
Proposal, the SEC’s UK Order granting
substituted compliance for financial
reporting to UK nonbank SBSDs, as
supplemented by the SEC Order on
Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited
Financial and Operational Information,
require a UK nonbank SBSD to file an
unaudited FOCUS Report with the SEC
on a monthly basis.271 The FOCUS
Report is required to include, among
other statements and schedules: (i) a
statement of financial condition; (ii) a
statement of the UK nonbank SBSD’s
capital computation in accordance with
home country Basel-based requirements;
(iii) a statement of income/loss; and (iv)
a statement of capital withdrawals.272 A
UK nonbank SBSD is required to file its
FOCUS Report with the SEC within 35
calendar days of the month end.273
Based on its review of the UK
Application and the relevant UK laws
and regulations, the Commission
preliminarily determined that, subject to
the conditions specified in the 2024
Proposal, the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules are comparable to CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules in purpose
and effect. The Commission noted that
both sets of rules provide the PRA,
267 Id.,
Section 495.
Section 414C.
269 Id., Section 496.
270 Id.
271 See 2024 Proposal at 8050 and UK Order. See
also SEC Order on Manner and Format of Filing
Unaudited Financial and Operational Information.
272 See, SEC Order on Manner and Format of
Filing Unaudited Financial and Operational
Information.
273 Id.
268 Id.,
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
58558
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Commission, and NFA with financial
information to monitor a nonbank SD’s
compliance with capital requirements,
and to assess a nonbank SD’s overall
safety and soundness.274 Specifically,
the Commission preliminarily found
that the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules impose reporting requirements
that are comparable with respect to
overall form and content to the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules.275 In this
regard, both the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules and the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules require a
nonbank SD to file statements of
financial condition, statements of profit
and loss, and statements of regulatory
capital that, collectively, provide
information for the PRA, Commission,
and NFA to assess a nonbank SD’s
overall ability to absorb decreases in the
value of firm assets, absorb increases in
the value of firm liabilities, and cover
losses from business activities,
including swap dealing activities,
without the firm becoming insolvent.276
The proposed conditions would
ensure that the Commission and NFA
receive appropriate and timely financial
information from PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to monitor the firms’
compliance with UK PRA capital
requirements and to assess the firms’
overall safety and soundness. The
proposed conditions would require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
provide the Commission and NFA with
copies of the relevant templates of the
FINREP reports and COREP reports that
correspond to the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s statement of financial
condition, statement of income/loss,
and statement of regulatory capital, total
risk exposure, and capital ratios. These
templates consist of FINREP templates
1.1 (Balance Sheet Statement: assets),
1.2 (Balance Sheet Statement:
liabilities), 1.3 (Balance Sheet
Statement: equity), and 2 (Statement of
profit or loss), and COREP templates 1
(Own Funds), 2 (Own Funds
Requirements) and 3 (Capital Ratios). In
addition, the Commission proposed to
require PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs to submit to the Commission and
NFA copies of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s annual audited financial
report.277
The proposed conditions would also
require that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD provide the reports and
statements with balances converted to
274 2024
Proposal at 8050.
275 Id.
276 Id.
277 Id.
at 8051.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
U.S. dollars.278 The Commission further
recognized that the requirement to
convert accounts denominated in
British pound to U.S. dollars on the
annual audited financial report may
have an unintended impact on the
opinion expressed by the independent
auditor. The Commission, therefore,
proposed to accept the annual audited
financial report denominated in British
pound.279
The proposed conditions also would
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD to file with the Commission and
NFA its: (i) FINREP reports and COREP
reports within 35 calendar days of the
end of each month; and (ii) annual
audited financial report on the on the
earlier of the date the report is filed with
the PRA or the date the report is
required to be filed with the PRA.280
The Commission also proposed a
condition to require PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to file with the
Commission and NFA, on a monthly
basis, Schedule 1 showing the aggregate
securities, commodities, and swap
positions of the firm at fair market value
as of the reporting date.281 The
Commission explained that Schedule 1
provides the Commission and NFA with
detailed information regarding the
financial positions that a nonbank SD
holds as of the end of each month,
278 Id. In the 2024 Proposal, the Commission
proposed that the conversion of account balances
from British pound to U.S. dollars would not be
required to be subject to the audit of the
independent auditor. A PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD would be required report the exchange
rate that it used to convert balances from British
pound to U.S. dollars to the Commission and NFA
as part of the financial reporting.
279 Id.
280 Id. The Commission noted that the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules require PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs to submit the unaudited FINREP
and COREP templates to PRA on a quarterly basis,
whereas the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules
contain a more frequent reporting requirement by
requiring nonbank SDs that elect the Bank-Based
Approach to file unaudited financial information
with the Commission and NFA on a monthly basis.
In emphasizing the importance of financial
statement reporting requirements for the
Commission’s and NFA’s oversight and the
Commission’s experience in monitoring the
financial conditions of registrants through the
receipt of monthly financial statements, the
Commission proposed to condition the
Comparability Order on a more frequent reporting
submission. See 2024 Proposal at 8050–8051. The
Commission also noted that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to submit the annual
audited financial report to the PRA within 80
business days of the firm’s accounting reference
date. See PRA Rulebook, Regulatory Reporting Part,
Rule 9.1.
281 2024 Proposal at 8052. Schedule 1 includes a
nonbank SD’s holding of U.S Treasury securities,
U.S. government agency debt securities, foreign
debt and equity securities, money market
instruments, corporate obligations, spot
commodities, and cleared and uncleared swaps,
security-based swaps, and mixed swaps in addition
to other position information.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including the firm’s swaps positions,
which allows the Commission and NFA
to monitor the types of investments and
other activities that the firm engages in
and would assist the Commission and
NFA in monitoring the safety and
soundness of the firm.282 The
Commission proposed to require that
Schedule 1 be filed by a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD along with the firm’s
monthly submission of selected FINREP
and COREP templates.283 The
Commission also proposed to require
that Schedule 1 be prepared with
balances reported in U.S. dollars.
The Commission further proposed
that, in lieu of filing FINREP and
COREP reports, PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that are registered with the
SEC as UK nonbank SBSDs could satisfy
this condition by filing with the CFTC
and NFA, on a monthly basis, copies of
the unaudited FOCUS Reports that the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
required to file with the SEC pursuant
to the SEC UK Order, as supplemented
by the SEC Order on Manner and
Format of Filing Unaudited Financial
and Operational Information. The filing
of a FOCUS Report was proposed as an
elective option for the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD, as an alternative to the
filing of unaudited FINREP templates,
COREP templates, and Schedule 1 that
such firms would otherwise be required
to file with the Commission and NFA
pursuant to the proposed Comparability
Order. In this connection, the
Commission noted that all six of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
currently registered with the SEC as UK
nonbank SBSDs and would be eligible
to file copies of their monthly FOCUS
Report with the Commission and NFA
in lieu of the FINREP and COREP
templates and Schedule 1. A PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD electing to
file copies of its monthly FOCUS Report
would be required to submit the reports
to the Commission and NFA within 35
calendar days of the end of each month.
Proposing that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that are registered with the
SEC as UK nonbank SBSDs file the
FOCUS Report in lieu of the FINREP
and COREP templates and Schedule 1 as
an elective option was consistent with
Commission Regulation 23.105(d)(3),
which at the time the 2024 Proposal was
issued, provided that a nonbank SD or
nonbank MSP that is also registered
with the SEC as a broker or dealer, an
SBSD, or a major security-based swap
participant might elect to file a FOCUS
Report in lieu of the financial reports
required by the Commission. On April
282 2024
Proposal at 8052.
283 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
30, 2024, the Commission amended
Commission Regulation 23.105(d)(3) to
mandate the filing of a FOCUS Report
by such dually-registered entities,
including dually-registered non-U.S.
nonbank SDs, in lieu of the
Commission’s financial reports.284 As
such, the Commission is also adopting
as final a revised Condition 10 to
require that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs registered as UK nonbank
SBSDs comply with the requirement to
file periodic financial statements by
filing a copy of the FOCUS Report that
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
are required to file with the SEC.
The Commission also proposed a
condition to require a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD to submit with each set
of selected FINREP and COREP
templates, annual audited financial
report, and the applicable Schedule 1, a
statement by an authorized
representative or representatives of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that to
the best knowledge and belief of the
person(s) the information contained in
the respective reports and statements is
true and correct, including the
conversion of balances in the statements
to U.S. dollars, as applicable.285 The
statement by the authorized
representative or representatives of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD was
intended to be a substitute of the oath
or affirmation required of nonbank SDs
under Commission Regulation
23.105(f),286 to ensure that reports and
statements filed with the Commission
and NFA are prepared and submitted by
firm personnel with knowledge of the
financial reporting of the firm who can
attest to the accuracy of the reporting
and conversion.287
The Commission noted that a Margin
Report would assist the Commission
and NFA in their assessment of the
safety and soundness of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs by
providing information regarding the
firm’s swap book and the extent to
which it has uncollateralized exposures
to counterparties or has not met its
financial obligations to counterparties.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
284 See
Capital and Financial Reporting
Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 89 FR 45569 (May 23, 2024).
285 2024 Proposal at 8052.
286 17 CFR 23.105(f). Commission Regulation
23.105(f) requires a nonbank SD to attach to each
unaudited and audited financial report an oath or
affirmation that to the best knowledge and belief of
the individual making the affirmation the
information contained in the financial report is true
and correct. The individual making the oath or
affirmation must be a duly authorized officer if the
nonbank SD is a corporation, or one of the persons
specified in the regulation for business
organizations that are not corporations.
287 2024 Proposal at 8052.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
The Commission explained that this
information, along with the list of
custodians holding both the firms’ and
counterparties’ collateral for swap
transactions, would assist with
identifying potential financial impacts
to the nonbank SD resulting from
defaults on its swap transactions. The
Commission further proposed to require
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
file the Margin Report with the
Commission and NFA within 35
calendar days of the end of each month,
which corresponds with the proposed
timeframe for the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to file the selected FINREP
and COREP templates or FOCUS Report,
as applicable. The Commission also
proposed to require the Margin Report
to be provided with balances reported in
U.S. dollars.
The Commission’s preliminary
determination did not require a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD to file the
model metrics and counterparty credit
exposure information required by
Commission Regulations 23.105(k) and
(l) 288 in recognition that NFA’s current
SD risk monitoring program requires all
SDs, including PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, to file with NFA on a
monthly basis certain risk metrics that
are comparable with the risk metrics
contained in Commission Regulation
23.105(k) and (l) and address the market
risk and credit risk of the SD’s
positions.289 Specifically, the
Commission noted that NFA’s monthly
risk metric information includes: (i) VaR
for interest rates, credit, foreign
exchange, equities, commodities, and
total VaR; (ii) total stressed VaR; (iii)
interest rate, credit spread, foreign
exchange market, and commodity
sensitivities; (iv) total swaps current
exposure both before and after offsetting
288 Commission Regulation 23.105(k) requires a
nonbank SD that has obtained approval from the
Commission or NFA to use internal capital models
to submit to the Commission and NFA each month
information regarding its risk exposures, including
VaR, and requires certain credit risk exposure
information from model and non-model approved
firms. 17 CFR 23.105(k). Commission Regulation
23.105(l) requires each nonbank SD to provide
information to the Commission and NFA regarding
its counterparty credit concentration for the 15
largest exposures in derivatives, a summary of its
derivatives exposures by internal credit ratings, and
the geographic distribution of derivatives exposures
for the 10 largest countries in Schedules 2, 3, and
4, respectively. 17 CFR 23.105(l).
289 2024 Proposal at 8052–8053. As previously
noted, however, the current six PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs will be required to include credit risk
information set forth in Schedules 2–4 of Appendix
B to Subpart E in the monthly FOCUS Report that
the firms will be required to file with the
Commission under Condition 10 of the final
Comparability Order. In addition, as previously
noted, each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD will be
required to file Schedule 1 under Condition 12 of
the final Comparability Determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58559
against collateral held by the firm; and
(v) a list of the 15 largest swaps
counterparty current exposures before
collateral and net of collateral.290
Furthermore, the Commission
recognized that although the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules do not
contain an analogue to the CFTC’s
requirements for nonbank SDs to file
monthly model metric information and
counterparty exposures information, the
PRA has access to comparable
information. More specifically, the
Commission noted that, under the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules, the PRA
has broad powers to request any
information necessary for the exercise of
its functions.291 As such, the PRA has
access to information allowing it to
assess the ongoing performance of risk
models and to monitor the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s credit
exposures, which may be comprised of
credit exposures to primarily other UK
and EU counterparties. In addition, the
COREP reports, which PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs are required to file
with the PRA on a quarterly basis,
include information regarding the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s risk
exposure amounts, including riskweighted exposure amounts for credit
risk.292
2. Comment Analysis and Final
Determination
The Commission received comments
regarding the comparability of financial
reporting and specific comments
addressing several of the financial
reporting issues on which the
Commission solicited feedback. Better
Markets expressed a general
disagreement with the Commission’s
preliminary finding of comparability,
arguing that the number and variety of
conditions regarding financial reporting
are the most compelling evidence that
the requirements are not comparable.293
More generally, Better Markets asserted
that the 2024 Proposal did not provide
a sufficient analysis supporting the
Commission’s preliminary conclusion
that the UK PRA and the U.S. financial
290 See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and NFA Financial
Requirements, Section 17—Swap Dealer and Major
Swap Participant Reporting Requirements (‘‘NFA
Section 17 Rule’’), available here: https://
www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/
rules.aspx?RuleID=SECTION%2017&Section=7,
and Notice to Members—Monthly Risk Data
Reporting for Swap Dealers (May 30, 2017) (‘‘NFA
Notice I–17–10’’), available here: https://www.nfa.
futures.org/news/newsNotice.asp?ArticleID=4817.
291 See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and FSMA, Part XI
(indicating that the PRA has broad information
gathering powers).
292 See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Annex I.
293 Better Markets Letter at p. 14.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
58560
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
reporting frameworks would produce
comparable outcomes.294
Better Markets also disagreed with the
2024 Proposal to the extent that the
Commission proposed not to require
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that
have been approved by the PRA to use
capital models to file the monthly
model metric information required by
Commission Regulation 23.105(k) with
the Commission or NFA.295 Commission
Regulation 23.105(k) requires nonbank
SDs that have been approved by the
Commission or NFA to use models to
compute market risk or credit risk for
computing capital requirements to file
certain information with the
Commission and NFA on a monthly
basis.296 As noted above, the
information required to be filed
includes: (i) for nonbank SDs approved
to use market risk models, a listing of
any products that the nonbank SD
excludes from the approved market risk
model and the amount of the
standardized market risk charge taken
on such products; (ii) a graph reflecting,
for each business line of the nonbank
SD, the daily intra-month VaR; (iii) the
aggregate VaR for the nonbank SD; (iv)
certain credit risk information for
swaps, mixed swaps and security-based
swaps, including: (a) overall current
exposure, (b) current exposure listed by
counterparty for the 15 largest
exposures, (c) the 10 largest
commitments listed by counterparty, (d)
maximum potential exposure listed by
counterparty for the 15 largest
exposures, (e) aggregate maximum
potential exposure, (f) a summary report
reflecting the SD’s current and
maximum potential exposures by credit
rating category, and (g) a summary
report reflecting current exposure for
each of the top ten countries to which
the nonbank SD is exposed.297 Better
Markets stated that by not requiring the
information contained in Commission
Regulation 23.105(k), the Commission
was proposing to take a back seat to the
UK and blindly accept the assessments
resulting from the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs’ use of internal models to
calculate risk.298
With respect to Better Markets’
statement that the number and variety of
conditions regarding financial reporting
are the most compelling evidence that
the requirements are not comparable,
the Commission disagrees that the
inclusion of conditions in the
Comparability Order demonstrates that
294 Id.
at p. 11.
at pp. 14–15.
296 17 CFR 23.105(k).
297 17 CFR 23.105(k)(1).
298 Better Markets Letter at p.15.
295 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Requirement are not comparable to
CFTC Financial Reporting Requirements
in achieving the overall objective of
ensuring the safety and soundness of
nonbank SDs. As discussed in section
I.E. above, the conditions impose
obligations on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to provide information to
the Commission and NFA necessary for
the effective oversight of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs on an
ongoing basis. As also discussed in
section I.E. above, Commission staff
engaged in a thorough analysis of the
UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules, which
supports the Commission’s conclusion
that the respective regulatory
frameworks would produce comparable
outcomes.
The Commission also does not agree
that its approach is effectively deferring
model oversight to the PRA or that it is
otherwise ‘‘blindly’’ accepting the
internal model-based assessments of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs. As
noted above, pursuant to NFA rules, all
registered SDs, including PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, are
required to submit to NFA, on a
monthly basis, a list of specified risk
metrics related to the SD’s market risk
and credit risk exposures.299
Specifically, the risk metrics include: (i)
VaR for interest rates, credit, foreign
exchange, equities, commodities, and
total VaR; (ii) total stressed VaR; (iii)
interest rate, credit spread, foreign
exchange market, and commodity
sensitivities; (iv) total swaps current
exposure both before and after offsetting
against collateral held by the firm; and
(v) a list of the 15 largest swaps
counterparty current exposures.300 As
part of its regulatory oversight program,
NFA uses the risk metrics information
to identify firms that may pose
heightened risk and to allocate
appropriate oversight resources. NFA
also may request additional information
from a nonbank SD to the extent it
determines that information in the risk
metrics or other financial filings
warrants a need for additional followup. Furthermore, Commission staff has
access to the collected risks metrics
information and participates in NFA’s
risk monitoring function by regularly
299 NFA Section 17 Rule, available here: https://
www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/rules.aspx?
RuleID=SECTION%2017&Section=7, and NFA
Notice I–17–10, available here: https://
www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsNotice.
asp?ArticleID=4817.
300 See 2024 Proposal at 8053, NFA Section 17
Rule, and NFA Notice I–17–10.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exchanging information and discussing
potential risks with NFA staff.
As the list of specified risk metrics
discussed above indicates, although the
information collected by NFA is not
identical to the information required
under Commission Regulation
23.105(k), there is a significant overlap
in the data items. The Commission also
notes that NFA, in its role of primary
supervisor of nonbank SDs’ risk
management practices, has identified
the risk data items listed in NFA Notice
I–17–10 as the most relevant risk
metrics to be collected for oversight
purposes. As such, the Commission
finds that the information required
pursuant to NFA Notice I–17–10 would
provide the Commission and NFA with
key data allowing them to monitor
nonbank SDs’ risk exposures. In
addition, the Commission has the ability
to request additional information from
its registrants, including PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, at any
time. Finally, the Commission notes that
the PRA, which will be conducting the
initial approval and ongoing assessment
of the performance of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs’ internal
models, under a regulatory framework
that the Commission finds comparable
to the CFTC Capital Rules, will have
access to additional information that the
PRA deems relevant in the conduct of
such approval and assessment. The
Commission, therefore, concludes that it
is not necessary to require PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs relying on
the final Comparability Order to submit
the model metric information and credit
risk information mandated by
Commission Regulations 23.105(k) and
(l).
Finally, the Applicants addressed the
Commission’s request for comment on
the compliance dates for the reporting
conditions that the proposed
Comparability Order would impose on
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs.301
The Applicants requested that the
Commission set the compliance date at
least six months following the issue date
of the final Comparability Order to
allow PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
to adequately prepare for compliance
with the reporting conditions imposed
by the Comparability Order.302
The Commission believes that
granting an additional period of time to
allow PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
to develop and implement the necessary
systems and processes for compliance
with the Comparability Order is
appropriate with respect to the new
reporting obligations imposed on PRA301 Applicants’
302 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Letter at p. 8.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
designated UK nonbank SDs under the
final Order. For other reporting
obligations, for which a process already
exists, such as the reports that PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs currently
submit to the Commission and NFA
pursuant to CFTC Staff Letter 22–10,303
prepare pursuant to the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules, and/or
submit to the SEC (i.e., FOCUS Reports),
additional time for compliance does not
appear necessary. Accordingly, the
Commission is setting a compliance
date of 180 calendar days from the date
of publication of the final Comparability
Order in the Federal Register, to comply
with final Condition 14, which requires
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file
monthly Margin Reports with the
Commission and NFA.
For purposes of clarity, the
Commission also notes that PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs may
present the financial information
required to be provided to the
Commission and NFA under the final
Comparability Order in accordance with
generally accepted accounting
principles that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD uses to prepare general
purpose financial statements in the UK.
This clarification is consistent with
proposed Condition 9, which the
Commission adopts without
modification in the final Comparability
Order, requiring that the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD prepares
and keeps current ledgers and other
similar records ‘‘in accordance with [the
PRA Rulebook] and conforming with the
applicable accounting principles.’’ 304 In
taking the position that PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs may provide financial
reporting prepared in accordance with
the accounting standards applicable in
their home jurisdiction, the Commission
considered the nature of the financial
reporting information required from
nonbank SDs for purposes of monitoring
their overall financial condition and
compliance with capital requirements.
303 CFTC Staff Letter No. 22–10, Extension of
Time-Limited No-Action Position for Foreign Based
Nonbank Swap Dealers domiciled in Japan, Mexico,
the United Kingdom, and the European Union,
issued by MPD on August 17, 2022. CFTC Staff
Letter No. 22–10, which extended the expiration of
CFTC Letter 21–20, provides that MPD would not
recommend an enforcement action to the
Commission if a non-U.S. nonbank SD covered by
the letter, subject to certain conditions, complied
with their respective home-country capital and
financial reporting requirements in lieu of the
Commission’s capital and financial reporting
requirements set forth in Commission Regulations
23.100 through 23.106, pending the Commission’s
determination of whether the capital and financial
reporting requirements of certain foreign
jurisdictions are comparable to the Commission’s
corresponding requirements.
304 2024 Proposal at 8059.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Specifically, the Commission notes that
the requirements for how nonbank SDs
calculate their risk-weighted assets and
capital ratio, in both the UK and the
U.S., follow a rules-based approach
consistent with the Basel standards,
and, consequently, the Commission
does not anticipate that a variation in
the applicable accounting standards
would materially impact this
calculation.305 In this regard, the
Commission notes that PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs currently submit
financial reports, including a statement
of financial condition and a statement of
regulatory capital, pursuant to CFTC
Staff Letter 22–10.306 The reports
provide the Commission with
appropriate information to assess the
financial and operational condition of
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, as
well as the firms’ compliance with the
capital ratios imposed on PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs under the
UK PRA Capital Rules.
In summary, the Commission adopts
the final Comparability Order and
conditions substantially as proposed
with respect to the comparability of the
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Requirements,
subject to the amendment in Condition
10 to mandate the filing by EU nonbank
SDs registered as EU nonbank SBSDs of
a copy of the FOCUS Report that such
305 Furthermore, the Commission’s approach to
permitting PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
maintain financial books and records, and to file
financial reports and other financial information,
prepared in accordance with local accounting
standards is consistent with the SEC’s final
comparability determinations for non-U.S. SBSDs.
German Order at 59812 and SEC Order on Manner
and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and
Operational Information at 59219. Specifically, the
SEC stated that the use of local reporting
requirements will avoid non-U.S. SBSDs ‘‘having to
perform and present two Basel capital calculations
(one pursuant to local requirements and one
pursuant to U.S. requirements).’’ SEC Order on
Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial
and Operational Information at 59219. The SEC
noted, in this regard, that the Basel standards are
international standards that have been adopted in
the U.S. and in jurisdictions where substituted
compliance is available for capital under the SEC
comparability determinations and that, therefore,
requirements for how firms calculate capital
pursuant to the Basel standards generally should be
similar. Id. The Commission’s approach to
permitting PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
maintain financial books and records, and file
financial information, prepared in accordance with
local accounting standards will also facilitate
financial reporting by dually-registered PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs—UK nonbank SBSDs.
In such case, dually-registered entities would not
have to perform multiple calculations under
different accounting standards or submit two
different FOCUS Reports.
306 CFTC Staff Letter No. 22–10, Extension of
Time-Limited No-Action Position for Foreign Based
Nonbank Swap Dealers domiciled in Japan, Mexico,
the United Kingdom, and the European Union,
August 17, 2022.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58561
dually-registered PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to file with
the SEC. The Commission also specifies,
in final Conditions 10, 12, and 14, that
the conversion of balances to U.S.
dollars must be done using a
commercially reasonable and observable
British pound/U.S. dollar spot rate as of
the date of the respective report. Finally,
the Commission also grants an
additional compliance period for the
new reporting obligations imposed on
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs under
the final Order set forth below.
E. Notice Requirements
1. Proposed Determination
The Commission noted in the 2024
Proposal that the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules require nonbank SDs to
provide the Commission and NFA with
written notice of certain defined
events.307 Commission Regulation
23.105(c) requires a nonbank SD to file
written notice with the Commission and
NFA of the following events: (i) the
nonbank SD’s regulatory capital is less
than the minimum amount required; (ii)
the nonbank SD’s regulatory capital is
less than 120 percent of the minimum
amount required; (iii) the nonbank SD
fails to make or to keep current required
financial books and records; (iv) the
nonbank SD experiences a reduction in
the level of its excess regulatory capital
of 30 percent or more from the amount
last reported in a financial report filed
with the Commission; (v) the nonbank
SD plans to distribute capital to equity
holders in an amount in excess of 30
percent of the firm’s excess regulatory
capital; (vi) the nonbank SD fails to post
to, or collect from, a counterparty (or
group of counterparties under common
ownership or control) required initial
and variation margin, and the aggregate
amount of such margin equals or
exceeds 25 percent of the nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; (vii) the
nonbank SD fails to post to, or collect
from, swap counterparties required
initial and variation margin, and the
aggregate amount of such margin equals
or exceeds 50 percent of the nonbank
SD’s minimum capital requirement; and
(viii) the nonbank SD is registered with
the SEC as an SBSD and files a notice
with the SEC under applicable SEC
Rules.308
The notices are part of the
Commission’s overall program of
helping to ensure the safety and
soundness of nonbank SDs and the
307 2024 Proposal at 8053–8054 and 17 CFR
23.105(c).
308 17 CFR 23.105(c).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58562
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
swaps markets in general.309 Notices
provide the Commission and NFA with
an opportunity to assess whether there
is an actual or potential financial and/
or operational issue at a nonbank SD. In
situations where there is an underlying
issue, Commission and NFA staff engage
with the nonbank SD in an effort to
minimize potential adverse impacts on
the firm, swap counterparties, and the
larger swaps market.310
The UK capital and resolution
framework, in turn, require PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to provide
certain notices to the PRA concerning
the firm’s compliance with relevant
laws and regulations.311 The
Commission noted that the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
provide notice to the PRA within five
business days if the firm fails to meet its
combined buffer requirement, which at
a minimum consists of a capital
conservation buffer of 2.5 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s total
risk exposure amount.312 To meet its
capital buffer requirements, a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD must hold
common equity tier 1 capital in addition
to the minimum common equity tier 1
ratio requirement of 4.5 percent of the
firm’s core capital requirement of 8
percent of the firm’s total risk exposure
amount.313 The notice to the PRA must
be accompanied by a capital
conservation plan that sets out how the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD will
restore its capital levels.314 The capital
conservation plan is required to include:
(i) the ‘‘maximum distributable amount’’
calculated in accordance with the PRA
rules; (ii) estimates of income and
expenditures and a forecast balance
sheet; (iii) measures to increase the
capital ratios of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD; and (iv) a plan and
timeframe for the increase in the capital
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
with the objective of meeting fully the
combined buffer requirement.315 The
PRA is required to assess the capital
309 Id.
310 See
2024 Proposal at 8053.
at 8054.
312 See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital
Conservation Measures, Rule 4.4. The combined
capital buffer requirement is the total common
equity tier 1 capital required to meet the sum of the
capital conservation buffer and the institutionspecific countercyclical capital buffer. PRA
Rulebook, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 1
Application and Definitions, Rule 1.2.
313 Id.
314 See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital
Conservation Measures, Rules 4.4 and 4.5.
315 See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital
Conservation Measures, Rule 4.5.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
311 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
conservation plan and may approve the
plan only if it considers that the plan
would be reasonably likely to conserve
or raise sufficient capital to enable the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to meet
its combined capital buffer requirement
within a timeframe that the PRA
considers to be appropriate.316 A PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is required
to notify the PRA as early as possible
where it has identified a material risk to
its ability to meet the combined buffer
according to the capital conservation
plan and timeframe approved by the
PRA.317
In addition, a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD must notify the PRA if the
firm’s management considers that the
firm is failing or will in the near future
fail to satisfy one or more of the
‘‘threshold conditions,’’ which are the
minimum requirements that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD must meet
to be permitted to carry the regulated
activities in which it engages.318 In
broad terms, the PRA’s threshold
conditions include, among other things,
requirements that the firm has
appropriate financial resources and
capacity to measure, monitor and
manage risks.319
Emphasizing that the requirement for
a nonbank SD to file notice with the
Commission and NFA if the firm
becomes undercapitalized or if the firm
experiences a decrease of excess
regulatory capital below defined levels
is a central component of the
Commission’s and NFA’s oversight
program for nonbank SDs, the
Commission proposed a condition to
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD to file with the Commission and
NFA copies of notices filed under the
Capital Buffers Part of the PRA
Rulebook by PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs alerting the PRA of a
breach of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s combined capital
buffer.320 The Commission proposed to
require that the notice be filed by the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD within
24 hours of the filing of the notice with
the PRA.
The Commission, however,
preliminarily determined that the
requirement for a PRA-designated UK
316 See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and Supervisory
Statement SS6/14 Implementing Capital Buffers,
Prudential Regulation Authority, January 2021
(‘‘SS6/14’’), available here: https://
www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/
publication/2014/implementing-crdiv-capitalbuffers-ss.
317 Id.
318 See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Notifications Part, Chapter 8 Specific
Notifications, Rule 8.3.
319 FSMA, Part 4A and Schedule 6.
320 See 2024 Proposal at 8055.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
nonbank SD to provide notice of a
breach of its capital buffer requirements
to the PRA is not sufficiently
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CFTC notice provisions contained in
Commission Regulation 23.105(c)(1) and
(2),321 which require a nonbank SD to
provide notice to the Commission and
to NFA if the firm fails to meet its
minimum capital requirement or if the
firm’s regulatory capital falls below 120
percent of its minimum capital
requirement (‘‘Early Warning Level’’).
The Commission noted that, in its
preliminary view, the requirement for a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
provide notice of a breach of its capital
buffer requirements does not achieve a
comparable outcome to the CFTC’s
Early Warning Level requirement due to
the difference in the thresholds
triggering a notice requirement in the
respective rule sets. Therefore, the
Commission proposed a condition to
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD to file a notice with the Commission
and NFA if the firm’s capital ratio does
not equal or exceed 12.6 percent.322 The
proposed condition would further
require the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD to file the notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours
of when the firm knows or should have
known that its regulatory capital was
below 120 percent of its minimum
capital requirement.323
The Commission also noted that the
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules also
do not contain an explicit requirement
for a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
notify the PRA if the firm fails to
maintain current books and records,
experiences a decrease in regulatory
capital over levels previously reported,
or fails to collect or post initial margin
with uncleared swap counterparties that
exceed certain threshold levels.324 The
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules also
do not require a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to provide the PRA with
advance notice of equity withdrawals
initiated by equity holders that exceed
defined amounts or percentages of the
firm’s excess regulatory capital.325
To ensure that the Commission and
NFA receive prompt information
concerning potential operational or
financial issues that may adversely
321 17
CFR 23.105(c)(1) and (2).
Proposal at 8055.
322 2024
323 Id.
324 Id.
at 8056.
325 Commission
Regulation 23.105(c)(5) requires a
nonbank SD to provide written notice to the
Commission and NFA two business days prior to
the withdrawal of capital by action of the equity
holders if the amount of the withdrawal exceeds 30
percent of the nonbank SD’s excess regulatory
capital. 17 CFR 23.105(c)(5).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
impact the safety and soundness of a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, the
Commission proposed to condition the
Comparability Order to require PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to file
certain notices mandated by
Commission Regulation 23.105(c) with
the Commission and NFA as discussed
below. Pursuant to the proposed
conditions, a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD would be required to file a
notice the Commission and NFA if the
firm fails to maintain current books and
records with respect to its financial
condition and financial reporting
requirements.326 The Commission stated
that, in this context, books and records
would include current ledgers or other
similar records which show or
summarize, with appropriate references
to supporting documents, each
transaction affecting the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD’s asset, liability,
income, expense, and capital accounts
in accordance with the accounting
principles accepted by the relevant
authorities.327 The Commission further
stated that it preliminarily believed that
the maintenance of current books and
records is a fundamental and essential
component of operating as a registered
nonbank SD and that the failure to
comply with such a requirement may
indicate an inability of the firm to
promptly and accurately record
transactions and to ensure compliance
with regulatory requirements, including
regulatory capital requirements. As
such, the Commission proposed to
condition the proposed Order on a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD providing
the Commission and NFA with a written
notice within 24 hours if the firm fails
to maintain books and records on a
current basis.328
The Commission further proposed to
condition the Comparability Order on a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD filing a
notice with the Commission and NFA if:
(i) a single counterparty, or group of
counterparties under common
ownership or control, fails to post
required initial margin or pay required
variation margin on uncleared swap and
security-based swap positions that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; (ii)
counterparties fail to post required
initial margin or pay required variation
margin to the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD for uncleared swap and
326 2024
Proposal at 8056.
comparison, see Commission Regulation
23.105(b), which similarly defines the term ‘‘current
books and records’’ as used in the context of the
Commission’s requirements. 17 CFR 23.105(b).
328 2024 Proposal at 8056.
327 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
security-based swap positions that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; (iii) a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD fails to
post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin for uncleared
swap and security-based swap positions
to a single counterparty or group of
counterparties under common
ownership and control that, in the
aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; and (iv)
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD fails
to post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin to
counterparties for uncleared swap and
security-based swap positions that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement. The
Commission proposed to require this
notice so that, in the event that such a
notice is filed, the Commission and
NFA may commence communication
with the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD and the PRA to obtain an
understanding of the facts that have led
to the failure to exchange material
amounts of initial margin and variation
margin in accordance with the
applicable margin rules, and to assess
whether there is a concern regarding the
financial condition of the firm that may
impair its ability to meet its financial
obligations to customers, counterparties,
creditors, and general market
participants, or otherwise adversely
impact the firm’s safety and
soundness.329
The Commission did not propose to
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD to file notices with the Commission
and NFA concerning withdrawals of
capital or changes in capital levels as
such information would be reflected in
the financial statement reporting filed
with the Commission and NFA as
conditions of the order, and because the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
capital levels are monitored by the PRA.
As such, the Commission preliminarily
considered that the separate reporting of
the information to the Commission
would be superfluous.330
The Commission proposed to require
that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
file any notices required under the
Order with the Commission and NFA
reflecting any balances, where
applicable, in U.S. dollars. The
Commission stated that each notice
required by the proposed Comparability
Order had to be filed in accordance with
PO 00000
instructions issued by the Commission
or NFA.331
Based on its review of the UK
Application and the relevant UK laws
and regulations, and subject to the
proposed conditions discussed above
and specified in the proposed
Comparability Order, the Commission
preliminarily determined that the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules related
to notice provisions are comparable in
purpose and effect to the notice
provisions of the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules.332
2. Comments and Final Determination
With respect to the proposed
requirements in Condition 20 that a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD file a
notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours of when the firm knew
or should have known that its regulatory
capital fell below 120 percent of its
minimum capital requirement, the
Applicants asserted that the wording of
the proposed condition raises practical
challenges as it would require
notification prior to the discovery of the
relevant event.333 The Applicants
recommended that the Commission
amend the proposed condition to
require notice within 24 hours of when
the firm ‘‘knew’’ that its regulatory
capital fell below 120 percent of the
minimum capital requirement.334
Similarly, with respect to proposed
Condition 21, which would require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to file
a notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours if the firm fails to make
or keep current the financial books and
records, the Applicants recommended
that the Commission amend the
condition to require that a PRAdesignated UK file a notice within 24
hours ‘‘of when it knows it has failed to
make or keep current the financial
books and records.’’ 335 In addition, with
respect to proposed Condition 20, the
Applicants asserted that, pursuant to the
condition, a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD would calculate the Early
Warning Level by applying a buffer of
20 percent in excess capital, in the form
of common equity tier 1 capital, on top
of the firm’s capital conservation buffer,
which, at a minimum, equals 2.5
percent of the firm’s total risk exposure
amount and must be met in the form of
common equity tier 1 capital. In the
Applicants’ view, an aggregate
notification trigger of 12.6 percent of
total risk exposure amount would be too
331 Id.
332 Id.
at 8054–8057.
Letter at p. 5.
333 Applicants’
329 Id.
334 Id.
330 Id.
335 Id.
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58563
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58564
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
high. The Applicants recommended that
the Commission set the notification
trigger at 120 percent of the minimum
total capital requirement.336
The Early Warning Level notice
requirement is a central component of
the Commission’s and NFA’s oversight
programs. The Commission, however,
recognizes that by requiring a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD to provide
notice if its capital ratio falls below 120
percent of the firm’s minimum capital
requirement, as defined to comprise the
applicable capital buffers, the
Commission would be imposing a
higher threshold level for the notice
trigger than is currently applicable to
nonbank SDs under the CFTC Capital
Rules. To achieve the condition’s goal of
providing the Commission and NFA
with information on decreases in capital
that may indicate financial or
operational challenges at the firm, the
Commission is revising proposed
Condition 20 to require instead that a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
provide notice to the Commission if it
experiences a 30 percent or more
decrease in its excess regulatory capital
as compared to the last reported.337 The
condition is consistent with the
requirement applicable to nonbank SDs
under Commission Regulation
23.105(c)(4).338 The Commission
believes that this condition, combined
with the condition requiring a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD to file with
the Commission and NFA copies of
notices filed with the PRA of a breach
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
combined capital buffer, will provide a
timely opportunity to the Commission
and NFA to initiate conversations and
fact finding with a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD that may be experiencing
operational or financial issues that may
adversely impact the firm’s ability to
meet its obligations to market
participants, including customers or
swap counterparties.
In connection with the Applicants’
general request that the Commission set
the compliance date of the
Comparability Order at least six months
following the issuance of the final
Order, the Commission believes, as
stated above, that granting an additional
period of time to allow PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs to establish and
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
336 Applicants’
Letter at p. 6.
clarity, by ‘‘excess regulatory capital,’’ the
Commission refers to the capital ratio by which the
firm’s capital exceeds the core capital ratio
requirement of 8 percent of the firm’s risk-weighted
assets. For instance, if a firm maintains a capital
ratio of 20 percent, its excess regulatory capital
would be 12 percent. In this example, 30 percent
of the excess regulatory capital would equal 3.6
percent.
338 17 CFR 23.105(c)(4).
337 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
implement the necessary systems and
processes to comply with the notice
reporting obligations imposed by the
Comparability Order is appropriate with
respect to certain notice obligations.
Specifically, the Commission
understands that establishing a system
and process for monitoring material
decreases in excess regulatory capital as
required by final Condition 20 or for
monitoring failures to collect or post
initial margin or variation margin for
uncleared swap transactions that exceed
specified thresholds for purposes of
complying with final Condition 22 may
take time.339 Conversely, the
Commission does not believe that
additional time is necessary for
implementing a system and process of
providing a notice to the Commission
and NFA in connection with the
occurrence of events that PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs currently
monitor and/or report to the PRA. The
Commission is also of the view that,
given the nature of the notice obligation,
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
should be in a position to comply with
all other notice obligations, including
those requiring PRA-designated UK
nonbanks SDs to provide notice to the
Commission and NFA if they fail to
make or keep current financial books
and records or if they fail to maintain
regulatory capital in the form of
common equity tier 1 equal or in excess
of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $20
million, immediately upon effectiveness
of the Comparability Order. Specifically,
with respect to the requirement in
Condition 21 that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD notify the Commission and
NFA if the firm fails to make or keep
current the financial books and records,
the Commission notes that maintaining
current books and records of all
financial transactions is a fundamental
recordkeeping requirement for a
registered nonbank SD, and is essential
to provide management with the
information necessary to ensure that
transactions are timely and accurately
reported and that the firm complies
339 With regard to Condition 22, the Commission
also notes, for clarity, that in proposing a notice
condition based on thresholds of ‘‘required’’
margin, the Commission’s intent was to set the
notice trigger by reference to margin amounts that
are legally required to be exchanged under the
applicable margin requirements. To determine the
applicable margin requirements, the Commission
will consider the framework set forth in
Commission Regulation 23.160. To the extent PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs intending to rely on
the Comparability Order have inquiries regarding
the scope of uncleared swap margin transactions to
be monitored for purposes of complying with final
Condition 22, MPD will discuss such inquiries with
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD during the
confirmation process referenced in final Condition
8 of the Comparability Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with capital and other regulatory
requirements. The Commission finds
that it is necessary for a nonbank SD to
maintain internal controls and
procedures to affirmatively monitor that
financial books and records are being
maintained on a current basis. The
Commission also notes that the language
of Condition 21 is consistent with the
timing standard of Commission
Regulation 23.105(c)(3).340 As such, the
Commission is adopting Condition 21 as
proposed. The Commission, however, is
setting a compliance date of 180
calendar days after the publication of
the final Comparability Order in the
Federal Register with respect to the
notice reporting obligations under final
Conditions 20 and 22 of the
Comparability Order.
With respect to the notice
requirement in final Condition 22, the
Applicants also recommended that the
Commission clarify the term ‘‘minimum
capital requirement,’’ used in
connection with the thresholds
triggering a notice requirement.341 In
response, the Commission will amend
the condition to indicate that, in the
context of final Condition 22, the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s
‘‘minimum capital requirement’’ is the
core capital requirement under the UK
PRA Capital Rules, excluding capital
buffers.
Finally, the Applicants recommended
that the Commission amend proposed
Condition 24 to require that a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, or an
entity acting on its behalf, notify the
Commission and NFA of ‘‘material
changes’’ to the UK PRA Capital Rules
or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
instead of ‘‘proposed or final material
changes’’ to the UK PRA Capital Rules
or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules.342 Separately, the Applicants
noted that the language of proposed
Condition 24 is confusing in that it
differentiates between rules that are
‘‘imposed on’’ and those that ‘‘apply to’’
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs.343
The Commission did not intend to
distinguish between rules that are
‘‘imposed on’’ and rules that ‘‘apply to’’
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs and
will use instead the defined terms ‘‘UK
PRA Capital Rules’’ and ‘‘UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules’’ to address
the potential for confusion. The
340 17
CFR 23.105(c)(3).
Letter at p. 7. The Applicants
indicated that in the context of proposed Condition
22, they understand the term ‘‘minimum capital
requirement’’ to mean an amount equal to 8 percent
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s total risk
exposure amount.
342 Applicants’ Letter at p. 8.
343 Applicants’ Letter at p. 8.
341 Applicants’
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Commission, however, believes that it is
necessary that the Commission and NFA
receive an advance notice of potential
material changes to the foreign
jurisdiction’s rules to allow the
Commission a sufficient time to assess
the potential impact of the proposed
amendments and to address potential
changes to the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order.
As such, the Commission is adopting
Condition 24 as proposed with regard to
the required notice of ‘‘proposed and
final material changes’’ to the UK PRA
Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules.
The Commission did not receive any
comments with respect to the following
proposed notice conditions: (i) the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD files notice
with the Commission and NFA within
24 hours of being informed by the PRA
that the firm is not in compliance with
any component of the UK PRA Capital
Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules (proposed Condition 15); (ii) the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files
notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours if the firm fails to
maintain regulatory capital in the form
of common equity tier 1 capital, as
defined in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal
to or in excess of the U.S. dollar
equivalent of $20 million (proposed
Condition 16); (iii) the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD provides the
Commission and NFA with notice
within 24 hours of filing a capital
conservation plan (proposed Condition
17); (iv) the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD files notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours
of being required by the PRA to
maintain additional capital or
additional liquidity requirements, or to
restrict its business operations, or to
comply with certain other additional
requirements that the PRA may impose
pursuant to the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules (proposed Condition 18); (v) the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a
notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours if it fails to maintain its
MREL (proposed Condition 19); or (vi)
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
files notice of PRA approving a change
in the firm’s fiscal year-end date, which
must be filed with the Commission and
NFA at least 15 business days prior to
the effective date of the change
(proposed Condition 23).
With regard to the proposed condition
requiring that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD file a notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours
of filing a capital conservation plan, the
Commission will revise the condition to
require that the notice be filed within 24
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
hours of when the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD breaches its combined
capital buffer requirement and is
required to file a capital conservation
plan. Thus, the Commission will help
ensure that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD provides a timely notice
within 24 hours of breaching its
combined capital buffer requirement
instead of 24 hours of filing the capital
conservation plan, which may occur up
to five business days after the breach of
the combined buffer requirement.
In conclusion, the Commission finds
that the regulatory notice provisions of
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
and the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules, after consideration of the
conditions imposed in the final
Comparability Order, are comparable in
purpose and effect, and achieve
comparable outcomes, by providing
timely notice to the PRA, and to the
Commission and NFA, of specified
events at a nonbank SD that may
potentially indicate an ongoing issue
with the safety and soundness of the
firm and/or its ability to meet its
obligations to swap counterparties,
creditors, or other market participants
without the firm becoming insolvent. As
such, the Commission adopts the final
Comparability Order and conditions as
proposed with respect to the
Commission’s analysis of comparability
of the PRA and Commission’s nonbank
SD notice reporting requirements,
subject to the revisions in final
Conditions 17 and 20, and the clarifying
changes to final Condition 24 discussed
above. The Commission is also adopting
a compliance date for certain notice
reporting requirements as discussed
above in the final Comparability Order.
F. Supervision and Enforcement
1. Preliminary Determination
In the 2024 Proposal, the Commission
discussed the oversight of nonbank SDs,
noting that the Commission and NFA
conduct ongoing supervision of
nonbank SDs to assess their compliance
with the CEA, Commission regulations,
and NFA rules by reviewing financial
reports, notices, risk exposure reports,
and other filings that nonbank SDs are
required to file with the Commission
and NFA.344 The 2024 Proposal also
noted that the Commission and NFA
also conduct periodic examinations as
part of the supervision of nonbank SDs,
including routine onsite examinations
of nonbank SDs’ books, records, and
operations to ensure compliance with
CFTC and NFA requirements.345 In this
PO 00000
344 2024
Proposal at 8057.
345 Id.
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58565
regard, as noted in section I.E. above,
section 17(p) of the CEA requires NFA,
as a registered futures association, to
establish minimum capital and financial
requirements for nonbank SDs and to
implement a program to audit and
enforce compliance with such
requirements.346
The Commission also discussed the
financial reports and notices required
under the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules, noting that the reports and
notices provide the Commission and
NFA with information necessary to:
ensure the nonbank SD’s compliance
with minimum capital requirements;
assess the firm’s overall safety and
soundness by being able to meet its
financial obligations to customers,
counterparties, creditors, and general
market participants; and identify
potential issues at a nonbank SD that
may impact the firm’s ability to
maintain compliance with the CEA and
Commission regulations.347 As
discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the
Commission and NFA also have the
authority to require a nonbank SD to
provide any additional financial and/or
operational information as the
Commission or NFA may specify to
monitor the safety and soundness of the
firm.348 The Commission further noted
that it has authority to take disciplinary
actions against a nonbank SD for failing
to comply with the CEA and
Commission regulations. In this regard,
section 4b–1(a) of the CEA provides the
Commission with exclusive authority to
enforce the capital requirements
imposed on nonbank SDs adopted
under section 4s(e) of the CEA.349
With respect to PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, the Commission noted in
the 2024 Proposal that the PRA
conducts oversight of the firm’s
compliance with the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules. In this regard, the
Commission noted that the PRA has
supervision, audit, and investigation
powers with respect to PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs, which include the
powers to obtain specified information
reasonably required in connection with
the exercise of the PRA’s functions, the
power to conduct or order
investigations, and the power to impose
sanctions on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that breach their
regulatory obligations, including those
deriving from the UK PRA Capital Rules
346 7
U.S.C. 21(p).
Proposal at 8057.
348 Commission Regulation 23.105(h) (17 CFR
23.105(h)). See also 2024 Proposal at 8057.
349 7 U.S.C. 6s(e).
347 2024
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58566
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
and the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules.350
The PRA also monitors the capital
adequacy of PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs through supervisory
measures on an ongoing basis. The
monitoring includes assessing the
notices and the capital conservation
plan discussed in section II.E.1. above.
In addition, the PRA is empowered with
a variety of measures to address a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s financial
deterioration.351 Under its general
supervisory powers, the PRA may
impose new requirements to a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD if the firm
is failing, or likely to fail, to satisfy the
threshold conditions for which the PRA
is responsible.352 More specifically, a
breach in a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s capital buffers
automatically triggers restrictions on the
firm’s ability to make certain
distributions (e.g., pay certain dividends
or employee bonuses).353 In addition,
the PRA may impose administrative
penalties or other administrative
measures, including prudential charges,
if a PRA-designated nonbank SD’s
liquidity position falls below the
liquidity and stable funding
requirements.354
In case of non-compliance with the
capital and liquidity thresholds, the
PRA may also order PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to comply with additional
requirements, including: (i) maintaining
additional capital in excess of the
minimum requirements, if certain
conditions are met; (ii) requiring that
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
submit a plan to restore compliance
with applicable capital or liquidity
thresholds; (iii) imposing restrictions on
the business or operations of the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD; (iv)
imposing restrictions or prohibitions on
distributions or interest payments to
350 2024 Proposal at 8057 and FSMA, Parts 4A,
XI, and XIV.
351 See 2024 Proposal at 8057 and PRA, The
Prudential Regulation Authority’s approach to
banking supervision, July 2023, available at: https://
www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/
publication/pras-approach-to-supervision-of-thebanking-and-insurance-sectors.
352 2024 Proposal at 8057 and FSMA, Part 4A,
Section 55M.
353 PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital Buffers
Part, Chapter 4 Capital Conservation Measures, Rule
4.3.
354 Capital Requirements Regulations 2013,
Regulation 35B and FSMA, Part XIV Disciplinary
Measures (setting forth the PRA’s disciplinary
power with respect to all rules adopted under
FSMA). The Applicants represented that ‘‘CRR
rules’’ (i.e., general PRA rules applying to CRR
firms, including PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs)
are adopted pursuant to FSMA, Part 9D, and as
such the PRA has power to impose disciplinary
measures in connection with these rules. See
Response to Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
shareholders or holders of additional
tier 1 capital instruments; (v) requiring
additional or more frequent reporting
requirements; and (vi) imposing
additional specific liquidity
requirements.355 The PRA may also
sanction the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD if the firm’s capital or
liquidity fall below the applicable
thresholds or the PRA has evidence that
the firm will breach such thresholds in
the next 12 months.356 The PRA may
also withdraw a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s authorization if the firm
no longer meets its minimum capital
requirements.357
In addition, if the capital and
liquidity requirements are breached, the
PRA may take early measures to
intervene, such as requiring
management to take certain actions,
order members of management to be
removed or replaced, or require changes
to the firm’s business strategy or legal or
operational structure, among other
measures.358
Although the PRA generally has broad
discretion as to what powers it may
exercise, the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
specifically mandate that the PRA
require PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs to hold increased capital when: (i)
risks or elements of risks are not
covered by the capital requirements
imposed by the UK PRA Capital Rules;
(ii) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
lacks robust governance arrangements,
appropriate resolution and recovery
plans, processes to manage large
exposures or effective processes to
maintain on an ongoing basis the
amounts, types, and distribution of
capital needed to cover the nature and
level of risks to which it might be
exposed; or (iii) the sole application of
other administrative measures would be
unlikely to timely and sufficiently
improve the firm’s arrangements and
processes.359
355 FSMA, Parts 4A, Sections 55M and 55P, and
Capital Requirements Regulation 2013, Regulation
35B.
356 FSMA, Parts 4A and XIV.
357 FSMA, Part 4A, Sections 55J–55K.
358 Bank Recovery and Resolution (No. 2) Order
2014, Article 2 (defining ‘‘conditions for early
intervention’’ in case of breach of UK CRR
requirements or requirements derived from CRD)
and Part 8 (laying down the procedure to be
followed by the PRA to determine whether early
intervention measures should be taken under
FSMA). If additional requirements are met, it is also
possible that the Bank of England, as the resolution
authority, may assess the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD as ‘‘failing or likely to fail,’’ triggering
a resolution action, which could occur even before
the firm actually breached its minimum capital
requirements. Banking Act 2009, Sections 4 to 83.
359 Capital Requirements Regulation 2013,
Section 34.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Based on its review of the Application
and its analysis of the relevant laws and
regulations, the Commission
preliminarily found that the PRA has
the necessary powers to supervise,
investigate, and discipline PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs for
compliance with the applicable capital
and financial reporting requirements,
and to detect and deter violations of,
and ensure compliance with, the
applicable UK capital and financial
reporting requirements.360 Furthermore,
the Commission noted that it retains
supervision, examination, and
enforcement authority over PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that are
covered by the Comparability Order.361
Specifically, the Commission noted that
a non-U.S. nonbank SD that operates
under substituted compliance remains
subject to the Commission’s
examination authority and may be
subject to a Commission enforcement
action if the firm fails to comply with
a foreign jurisdiction’s capital adequacy
or financial reporting requirements.362
The ability of the Commission to
exercise its enforcement authority over
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is not
conditioned upon a finding by the PRA
of a violation of the UK PRA Capital
Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules. In addition, as each PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is a member
of NFA, the firm is subject to NFA
membership rules, examination
authority, and disciplinary process.363
2. Comment Analysis and Final
Determination
The Commission did not receive
comments directly related to its analysis
set forth in the proposed Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order,
or on its preliminary determination that
the PRA has the necessary powers to
supervise, investigate, and discipline
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs for
non-compliance with the applicable UK
capital and financial reporting
requirements. The Commission has
reviewed its preliminary Comparability
Determination and finds that the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs are subject
to a supervisory and enforcement
framework that is comparable to the
Commission’s supervisory and
enforcement framework for nonbank
SDs.
360 2024
Proposal at 8058.
Proposal at 8029.
362 Id. See also 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii), which
provides that all nonbank SDs, regardless of
whether they rely on a Comparability Order or
Comparability Determination, remain subject to the
Commission’s examination and enforcement
authority.
363 7 U.S.C. 21(p).
361 2024
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
As detailed in section II.F.1. above,
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
subject to direct supervision by the PRA
in its capacity of prudential regulator.
The PRA has supervision, audit, and
investigation powers with respect to the
six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
currently registered with the
Commission.
The Commission’s assessment of the
PRA’s supervisory programs included
an evaluation of the PRA’s authority to
supervise PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs based on applicable UK laws and
regulations, as discussed in section
II.F.1. above. This evaluation included
an assessment of the financial reporting
that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
are required to provide to the PRA, the
PRA’s ability to conduct examinations,
including onsite inspections of PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, and the
PRA’s ability to impose sanctions or
take other action to address
noncompliance with applicable laws
and regulations. Based upon its
evaluation, the Commission
preliminarily determined that the
relevant UK laws and regulations are
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CEA and Commission regulations, and
that the PRA has appropriate power to
supervise PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs for compliance with the UK PRA
Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules. The Commission
further determined, based on applicable
UK laws and regulations, that the PRA
has the ability to sanction PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs for failing
to comply with regulatory requirements.
Specifically, as discussed in section
II.F.1. above, the PRA has the power to
impose sanctions on the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD if the firm’s
capital or liquidity fall below the
applicable thresholds,364 and may
impose various requirements on PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs, including
a requirement to hold additional capital
if certain conditions are met.365 The
PRA may also withdraw a PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s
authorization to operate if the firm no
longer meets its minimum capital
requirements.366
Furthermore, as discussed in this
Comparability Determination, by issuing
a Comparability Order, the Commission
is not ceding its supervisory and
enforcement authorities. PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs that are
subject to a Comparability Order are
364 FSMA,
Parts 4A and XIV.
Parts 4A, Sections 55M and 55P, and
Capital Requirements Regulation 2013, Regulation
35B.
366 FSMA, Part 4A, Sections 55J–55K.
365 FSMA,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
registered with the Commission as SDs
and are members of NFA, and, as such,
are subject to the CEA, Commission
regulations, and NFA membership rules
and requirements. In this regard, PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs covered by
a Comparability Order are required to
directly provide the Commission with
additional information upon the
Commission’s request to facilitate the
ongoing supervision of such firms.367
Further, section 17 of NFA’s SD
Financial Requirements rule provides
that each SD member of NFA must file
the financial, operational, risk
management and other information
required by NFA in the form and
manner prescribed by NFA.368 The
ability to obtain information directly
from PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
ensures that the Commission and NFA
have access to the information necessary
to monitor the financial condition of
such firms and to assess the firms’
compliance with applicable capital and
financial reporting requirements. PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs covered by
a Comparability Order remain subject to
the Commission’s examination and
enforcement authority with respect to
all elements of the CEA and
Commission regulations, including
capital and financial reporting.369
In addition, as detailed in section I.E.
above, the conditions set forth in the
Comparability Order reflect the fact that
the Commission and NFA have a
continuing obligation to conduct
ongoing oversight, including potential
examination, of PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs to ensure compliance with
the Comparability Order and with
relevant CEA requirements and
Commission regulations. Specifically,
the conditions require PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs to file directly with
the Commission and NFA financial
reports and notices that are comparable
to the financial reports and notices filed
by nonbank SDs domiciled in the U.S.
In addition to requiring PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs to maintain current
books and records reflecting all
transactions,370 the conditions further
require each PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD covered by the
Comparability Order to file directly with
the Commission and NFA: (i) monthly
and annual financial reports; 371 (ii)
notice that the firm was informed by the
PRA that it is not in compliance with
CFR 23.105(h).
Section 17 Rule available at NFA’s
website: https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/
index.aspx.
369 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii).
370 Condition 9 of the final Comparability Order.
371 Conditions 10 and 11 of the final
Comparability Order.
PO 00000
367 17
368 NFA
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58567
the UK PRA Capital Rules and/or UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules; 372 (iii)
notice that the firm has experienced a
decrease of 30 percent or more in its
excess regulatory capital as compared to
the last excess regulatory capital
reported in filings with the Commission
and NFA; 373 (iv) notice that the firm has
breached its combined capital buffer
requirement and is required to file a
capital conservation plan with the
PRA; 374 (v) notice that the firm has
failed to maintain regulatory capital in
the form of common equity tier 1 capital
equal to or in excess of the U.S. dollar
equivalent of $20 million; 375 and (vi)
notice that the firm has failed to
maintain current financial books and
records.376 The Comparability Order
further requires the Applicants to
provide notice to the Commission of any
material changes to the information
submitted in the application, including,
but not limited to, proposed and final
material changes to the UK PRA Capital
Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules and proposed and final material
changes to the PRA’s supervisory
authority or supervisory regime over
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs.377
The financial information and notices
required to be filed directly with the
Commission and NFA under the
Comparability Order, and through the
Commission’s and NFA’s direct
authority to obtain additional
information from PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, will allow the
Commission and NFA to conduct
ongoing oversight of such firms to assess
their overall safety and soundness.
Although Commission Regulation
23.106 does not condition the issuance
of a Comparability Order on the
Commission and the authority or
authorities in the relevant foreign
jurisdiction having entered into a formal
MOU or similar arrangement, the
Commission recognizes the benefit that
such an arrangement may provide.
Specifically, although Commission staff
may engage directly with PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs to obtain
information regarding their financial
and operational condition, it may not be
able to exchange and discuss such firmspecific information 378 with the PRA or
372 Condition
15 of the final Comparability Order.
20 of the final Comparability Order.
374 Condition 17 of the final Comparability Order.
375 Condition 16 of the final Comparability Order.
376 Condition 21 of the final Comparability Order.
377 Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order.
378 The sharing of non-public information by
CFTC staff would require assurances related to the
use and treatment of such information in a manner
consistent with Section 8(e) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C.
12(e).
373 Condition
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58568
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
reach shared expectations on
procedures for conducting on-site
examinations in the UK.379 Therefore,
Commission staff will continue its
engagement with PRA staff to negotiate
and finalize an MOU or similar
arrangement to facilitate the joint
supervision of PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs.
III. Final Capital Comparability
Determination and Comparability
Order
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
A. Commission’s Final Comparability
Determination
Based on the UK Application and the
Commission’s review of applicable UK
laws and regulations, as well as the
review of comments submitted in
response to the Commission’s request
for comment on the UK Application and
the proposed Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order,
the Commission finds that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, subject to the
conditions set forth in the
Comparability Order below, achieve
comparable outcomes and are
comparable in purpose and effect to the
CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules. In reaching this
conclusion, the Commission recognizes
that there are certain differences
between the UK PRA Capital Rules and
CFTC Capital Rules and certain
differences between the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. The
Comparability Order is subject to
conditions that are necessary to promote
consistency in regulatory outcomes, or
to reflect the scope of substituted
compliance that would be available
notwithstanding certain differences. In
the Commission’s view, the differences
between the two rules sets are not
inconsistent with providing a
substituted compliance framework for
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
subject to the conditions specified in the
Order below.
Furthermore, the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order
are limited to the comparison of the UK
PRA Capital Rules to the Bank-Based
Approach contained within the CFTC
Capital Rules. As noted previously, the
Applicants have not requested, and the
Commission has not performed, a
comparison of the UK PRA Capital
379 For UK nonbank SDs regulated by the FCA,
the Commission and the FCA are signatories to a
supervisory MOU that covers information sharing
and examinations. Memorandum of Understanding
Concerning Cooperation and the Exchange of
Information in the Context of Supervising Covered
Firms (June 20, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Rules to the Commission’s NLA
Approach or TNW Approach.
B. Order Providing Conditional Capital
Comparability Determination for
Certain PRA-Designated UK Nonbank
Swap Dealers
It is hereby determined and ordered,
pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) Regulation 23.106 (17
CFR 23.106) under the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) (7 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.) that a swap dealer (‘‘SD’’) subject
to the Commission’s capital and
financial reporting requirements under
sections 4s(e) and (f) of the CEA (7
U.S.C. 6s(e) and (f)), that is organized
and domiciled in the United Kingdom
(‘‘UK’’) and designated for prudential
supervision by the UK Prudential
Regulation Authority (‘‘PRA’’), may
satisfy the capital requirements under
section 4s(e) of the CEA and
Commission Regulation 23.101(a)(1)(i)
(17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)) (‘‘CFTC Capital
Rules’’), and the financial reporting
rules under section 4s(f) of the CEA and
Commission Regulation 23.105 (17 CFR
23.105) (‘‘CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules’’), by complying with certain
specified requirements of the UK laws
and regulations cited below and
otherwise complying with the following
conditions, as amended or superseded
from time to time:
(1) The SD is not subject to regulation
by a prudential regulator defined in
section 1a(39) of the CEA (7 U.S.C.
1a(39));
(2) The SD is organized under the
laws of the UK and is domiciled in the
UK;
(3) The SD is licensed as an
investment firm in the UK and is
designated for prudential supervision by
the PRA (‘‘PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD’’);
(4) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD is subject to and complies with:
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the
European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 June 2013 on prudential
requirements for credit institutions and
amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012
as restated and applicable in the UK
(‘‘UK CRR’’), the provisions
implementing the Directive 2013/36/EU
of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the
activity of credit institutions and the
prudential supervision of credit
institutions, amending Directive 2002/
87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/
EC and 2006/49/EC (‘‘CRD’’), including
Capital Requirements Regulations 2013
and Capital Requirements (Capital
Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures)
Regulations 2014, Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 of 10
October 2014 to supplement Regulation
(EU) No 575/2013 of the European
Parliament and the Council with regard
to liquidity coverage requirement for
Credit Institutions (‘‘Liquidity Coverage
Delegated Regulation’’), the provisions
of the Banking Act 2009 and its
secondary legislation related to the
minimum requirement for own funds
and eligible liabilities (‘‘MREL’’), and
the rules of the PRA as reflected in the
PRA Rulebook (collectively the ‘‘UK
PRA Capital Rules’’);
(5) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD satisfies at all times applicable
capital ratio and leverage ratio
requirements set forth in Article 92 of
UK CRR and the rules in PRA Rulebook,
CRR Firms, Leverage Ratio—Capital
Requirements and Buffers Part, Chapter
3 Minimum Leverage Ratio, the capital
conservation buffer requirements set
forth in PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Capital Buffers Part, and applicable
liquidity requirements set forth in PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity
Coverage Requirement—UK Designated
Investment Firms Part and PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity (CRR)
Part, and otherwise complies with the
requirements to maintain a liquidity risk
management program as required under
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Internal
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Part;
(6) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD is subject to and complies with:
Reporting (CRR) and Regulatory
Reporting parts of the PRA Rulebook
and the Companies Act 2006, Parts 15
and 16 (collectively and together with
UK CRR, the ‘‘UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules’’);
(7) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD maintains at all times an amount of
regulatory capital in the form of
common equity tier 1 capital as defined
in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal to or in
excess of the equivalent of $20 million
in United States dollars (‘‘U.S. dollars’’).
The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
shall use a commercially reasonable and
observable British pound/U.S. dollar
exchange rate to convert the value of the
pound-denominated common equity tier
1 capital to U.S. dollars;
(8) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD has filed with the Commission a
notice stating its intention to comply
with the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules in
lieu of the CFTC Capital Rules and the
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. The
notice of intent must include the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD’s
representation that the firm is organized
and domiciled in the UK, is a licensed
investment firm designated for
prudential supervision by the PRA, and
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
is subject to, and complies with, the UK
PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules. A PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD may not rely
on this Comparability Order until it
receives confirmation from Commission
staff, acting pursuant to authority
delegated by the Commission under
Commission Regulation 140.91(a)(11)
(17 CFR 140.91(a)(11)), that the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD may comply
with the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules in lieu
of the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Reporting Rules. Each notice filed
pursuant to this condition must be
submitted to the Commission via email
to the following address:
MPDFinancialRequirements@cftc.gov;
(9) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD prepares and keeps current ledgers
and other similar records in accordance
with the PRA Rulebook, General
Organisational Requirements Part, Rule
2.2 and Record Keeping Part, Rule 2.1
and 2.2, and conforming with the
applicable accounting principles;
(10) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files with the Commission and with
the National Futures Association
(‘‘NFA’’) a copy of templates 1.1
(Balance Sheet Statement: assets), 1.2
(Balance Sheet Statement: liabilities),
1.3 (Balance Sheet Statement: equity),
and 2 (Statement of profit or loss) of the
financial reports (‘‘FINREP’’) that PRAdesignated UK nonbank SDs are
required to submit pursuant to PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory
Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulatory
Activity Group 3, Rule 9.2, and
templates 1 (Own Funds), 2 (Own
Funds Requirements) and 3 (Capital
Ratios) of the common reports
(‘‘COREP’’) that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs are required to submit
pursuant to PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 4
Reporting (Part Seven A CRR), Article
430 Reporting on Prudential
Requirements and Financial
Information, Rule 1. The FINREP and
COREP templates must be provided
with balances converted to U.S. dollars,
using a commercially reasonable and
observable British pound/U.S. dollar
spot rate as of the date of the reports,
and must be filed with the Commission
and NFA within 35 calendar days of the
end of each month. PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that are registered as
security-based swap dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’)
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’) must comply with
this condition by filing with the
Commission and NFA a copy of Form
X–17A–5 (‘‘FOCUS Report’’) that the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is
required to file with the SEC or its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
designee pursuant to an order granting
conditional substituted compliance with
respect to Securities Exchange Act of
1934 Rule 18a–7. The copy of the
FOCUS Report must be filed with the
Commission and NFA within 35
calendar days after the end of each
month in the manner, format and
conditions specified by the SEC in
Order Specifying the Manner and
Format of Filing Unaudited Financial
and Operational Information by
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants that
are not U.S. Persons and are Relying on
Substituted Compliance with Respect to
Rule 18a–7, 86 FR 59208 (Oct. 26, 2021);
(11) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files with the Commission and with
NFA a copy of its annual audited
accounts and strategic report (together,
‘‘annual audited financial report’’) that
are required to be prepared and
published pursuant to Parts 15 and 16
of Companies Act 2006. The annual
audited financial report may be reported
in British pound. The annual audited
financial report must be filed with the
Commission and NFA on the earlier of
the date the report is filed with the PRA
or the date the report is required to be
filed with the PRA pursuant to the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules;
(12) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files Schedule 1 of appendix B to
Subpart E of part 23 of the
Commission’s regulations (17 CFR 23
Subpart E—appendix B) with the
Commission and NFA on a monthly
basis. Schedule 1 must be prepared with
balances reported in U.S. dollars, using
a commercially reasonable and
observable British pound/U.S. dollar
spot rate as of the date of the report, and
must be filed with the Commission and
NFA within 35 calendar days of the end
of each month. PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs that are registered as
SBSDs must comply with this condition
by filing with the Commission and NFA
a copy of the FOCUS Report that they
file with the SEC or its designee as set
forth in Condition 10;
(13) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD submits with each set of FINREP and
COREP templates, annual audited
financial report, and Schedule 1 of
appendix B to Subpart E of part 23 of
the Commission’s regulations, a
statement by an authorized
representative or representatives of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that to
the best knowledge and belief of the
representative or representatives, the
information contained in the reports,
including the conversion of balances in
the reports to U.S. dollars, is true and
correct;
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58569
(14) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a margin report containing the
information specified in Commission
Regulation 23.105(m) (17 CFR
23.105(m)) (‘‘Margin Report’’) with the
Commission and with NFA within 35
calendar days of the end of each month.
The Margin Report’s balances must be
reported in U.S. dollars, using a
commercially reasonable and observable
British pound/U.S. dollar spot rate as of
the date of the report;
(15) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA within 24 hours of being
informed by the PRA that the firm is not
in compliance with any component of
the UK PRA Capital Rules or the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules;
(16) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice within 24 hours with
the Commission and NFA if it fails to
maintain regulatory capital in the form
of common equity tier 1 capital as
defined in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal
to or in excess of the U.S. dollar
equivalent of $20 million using a
commercially reasonable and observable
British pound/U.S. dollar exchange rate;
(17) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD provides the Commission and NFA
with notice within 24 hours of
breaching its combined capital buffer
requirement and being required to file a
capital conservation plan with the PRA
pursuant to PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital
Conservation Measures, Rule 4.4;
(18) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD provides the Commission and NFA
with notice within 24 hours if it is
required by the PRA to maintain
additional capital or additional liquidity
requirements, or to restrict its business
operations, or to comply with other
requirements pursuant to Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000, Part 4A
or the Capital Requirements Regulation
2013, Regulation 35B;
(19) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA within 24 hours if it fails to
maintain its MREL, if the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD is subject to
such requirement as set forth by the
Bank of England pursuant to the
Banking Act 2009, section 3A and the
Bank Recovery and Resolution (No. 2)
Order 2014, Part 9;
(20) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA if it experiences a 30 percent
or more decrease in its excess regulatory
capital as compared to that last reported
in the financial information filed
pursuant to Condition 10. The notice
filed with Commission and NFA must
be filed within two business days of the
firm experiencing the 30 percent or
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
58570
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
more decrease in excess regulatory
capital;
(21) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA within 24 hours if it fails to
make or keep current the financial
books and records;
(22) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA within 24 hours of the
occurrence of any of the following: (i) a
single counterparty, or group of
counterparties under common
ownership or control, fails to post
required initial margin or pay required
variation margin to the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD on uncleared swap and
non-cleared security-based swap
positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds
25 percent of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s minimum capital
requirement; (ii) counterparties fail to
post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin to the PRAdesignated UK nonbank SD for
uncleared swap and non-cleared
security-based swap positions that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; (iii) the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD fails to
post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin for uncleared
swap and non-cleared security-based
swap positions to a single counterparty
or group of counterparties under
common ownership and control that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD’s
minimum capital requirement; or (iv)
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
fails to post required initial margin or
pay required variation margin to
counterparties for uncleared swap and
non-cleared security-based swap
positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds
50 percent of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s minimum capital
requirement. For purposes of the
calculation, the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD’s minimum capital
requirement is the core capital
requirement under the UK PRA Capital
Rules, excluding capital buffers;
(23) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files a notice with the Commission
and NFA of a change in its fiscal yearend approved or permitted to go into
effect by the PRA. The notice required
by this paragraph will satisfy the
requirement for a nonbank SD to obtain
the approval of NFA for a change in
fiscal year-end under Commission
Regulation 23.105(g) (17 CFR 23.105(g)).
The notice of change in fiscal year-end
must be filed with the Commission and
NFA at least 15 business days prior to
the effective date of the PRA-designated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
UK nonbank SD’s change in fiscal yearend;
(24) The PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD or an entity acting on its behalf
notifies the Commission of any material
changes to the information submitted in
the application for Comparability
Determination, including, but not
limited to, proposed and final material
changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules or
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules and
proposed and final material changes to
the PRA’s supervisory authority or
supervisory regime over PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs; and
(25) Unless otherwise noted in the
conditions above, the reports, notices,
and other statements required to be filed
by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
with the Commission and NFA pursuant
to the conditions of this Comparability
Order must be submitted electronically
to the Commission and NFA in
accordance with instructions provided
by the Commission or NFA.
It is also hereby determined and
ordered that this Comparability Order
becomes effective upon its publication
in the Federal Register, with the
exception of Conditions 14, 20, and 22,
which will become effective 180
calendar days after publication of the
Comparability Order in the Federal
Register.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2024,
by the Commission.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendices to Order Granting
Conditional Substituted Compliance in
Connection With Certain Capital and
Financial Reporting Requirements
Applicable to Nonbank Swap Dealers
Subject to Regulation by the United
Kingdom Prudential Regulation
Authority—Voting Summary and
Chairman’s and Commissioners’
Statements
Appendix 1—Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Behnam and
Commissioners Johnson, and Goldsmith
Romero, Mersinger, and Pham voted in the
affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the
negative.
Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Rostin Behnam
I support the Commission’s approval of
four comparability determinations and
related orders finding that the capital and
financial reporting requirements in Japan,
Mexico, the European Union (France and
Germany), and the United Kingdom (for swap
dealers (SDs) designated for prudential
supervision by the UK Prudential Regulation
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Authority (PRA)) are comparable to the
Commission’s capital and financial reporting
requirements applicable to nonbank SDs.
These are the first comparability
determinations that the Commission has
finalized for applications filed following the
July 2020 adoption of its regulatory
framework for substituted compliance for
non-U.S. domiciled nonbank SDs.1 There are
currently 15 non-U.S. nonbank SDs that are
eligible to comply with these conditional
orders: three in Japan; three in Mexico; two
in Germany and one in France for the EU;
and six in the UK that are PRA-designated.
As part of the process leading to the
Commission’s final comparability
determinations and orders, Commission staff
engaged in a thorough analysis of each
foreign jurisdictions’ capital and financial
reporting frameworks and considered the
public comments received on the proposed
determinations and orders. Based on those
reviews, the Commission has determined that
the respective foreign jurisdictions’ rules are
comparable in purpose and effect, and
achieve comparable outcomes, to the CFTC’s
capital and financial reporting rules.
Specifically, the Commission considered the
scope and objectives of the foreign regulators’
capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements; the ability of those regulators
to supervise and enforce compliance with
their respective capital and financial
reporting requirements; and other facts or
circumstances the Commission deemed
relevant for each of the applications.
In certain instances, the Commission found
that a foreign jurisdiction’s rules impose
stricter standards. In limited circumstances,
where the Commission concluded that a
foreign jurisdiction lacks comparable and
comprehensive requirements on a specific
issue, the Commission included a targeted
condition designed to impose an equally
stringent standard. The Commission has
issued the final orders consistent with its
authority to issue a comparability
determination with the conditions it deems
appropriate. These conditions aim to ensure
that the orders only apply to nonbank SDs
that are eligible for substituted compliance in
these respective jurisdictions and that those
non-U.S. nonbank SDs comply with the
foreign country’s capital and financial
reporting requirements as well as certain
additional capital, financial reporting,
recordkeeping, and regulatory notice
requirements. This approach acknowledges
that jurisdictions may adopt unique
approaches to achieving comparable
outcomes. As a result, the Commission has
focused on whether the applicable foreign
jurisdiction’s capital and financial reporting
requirements achieve comparable outcomes
to the corresponding Commission
requirements for nonbank SDs, not whether
they are comparable in every aspect or
contain identical elements.
With these comparability determinations,
the Commission fully retains its enforcement
and examination authority as well as its
1 Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and
Major Swap Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15,
2020). The Commission issued the final rule on July
24, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ability to obtain financial and event specific
reporting to maintain direct oversight of
nonbank SDs located in these four
jurisdictions. The avoidance of duplicative
requirements without a commensurate
benefit to the Commission’s oversight
function reflects the Commission’s approach
to recognizing the global nature of the swap
markets with dually-registered SDs that
operate in multiple jurisdictions, which
mandate prudent capital and financial
reporting requirements. This is, however, an
added benefit and not the Commission’s sole
justification for issuing these comparability
determinations.
The comparability orders will become
effective upon their publication in the
Federal Register. For several order
conditions, the Commission is granting an
additional compliance period of 180 calendar
days. To rely on a comparability order, an
eligible non-U.S. nonbank SD must notify the
Commission of its intention to satisfy the
Commission’s capital and financial
requirements by substituted compliance and
receive a Commission confirmation before
relying on a determination.
I appreciate the hard work and dedication
of the staff in the Market Participants
Division over the past several years to
propose and finalize these four
determinations. I also thank the staff in the
Office of the General Counsel and the Office
of International Affairs for their support on
these matters.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Appendix 3—Statement of
Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson
I support the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission’s (Commission or CFTC)
issuance of four final capital and financial
reporting comparability determinations and
related orders (together, Final Comparability
Determinations) for non-U.S. nonbank swap
dealers (foreign nonbank SDs) and non-U.S.
nonbank major swap participants (foreign
nonbank MSPs) organized and domiciled in
the United Kingdom (UK), the European
Union (specifically, France and Germany),
Mexico, and Japan.1
The Final Comparability Determinations
allow eligible foreign nonbank SDs to satisfy
certain capital and financial reporting
requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA) and Commission
regulations if they: (1) are subject to, and
comply with, comparable capital and
financial reporting requirements under the
laws and regulations applicable in their
home countries and (2) comply with the
conditions enumerated in the applicable
Final Comparability Determination. Under
this conditional substituted compliance
framework, foreign nonbank SDs in the
relevant jurisdictions that comply with these
conditions are deemed to be in compliance
with the Commission’s capital and financial
reporting requirements.
Well-calibrated capital requirements create
a cushion to absorb unexpected losses in
1 Though
the Final Comparability Determinations
will apply to foreign nonbank MSPs in the relevant
jurisdictions, there are no such MSPs currently
registered with the Commission at this time. I will
refer only to SDs herein.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
times of market stress, and well-calibrated
financial reporting requirements provide the
Commission with information to monitor the
business operations and financial condition
of registered SDs. These tools are critical to
managing systemic risk and fostering the
stability of U.S. derivatives markets and the
U.S. financial system. The Commission’s
substituted compliance framework addresses
the need to promote sound global derivatives
regulation while mitigating potentially
duplicative cross-border regulatory
requirements for non-U.S. market
participants operating in our markets. Where
the Commission permits substituted
compliance, it must retain sufficient
oversight, examination, and enforcement
authority to ensure compliance with the
foreign jurisdiction’s laws and the conditions
to substituted compliance.
Crucially, while these Final Comparability
Determinations permit foreign nonbank SDs
to comply with home country regulations in
lieu of compliance with Commission
regulations, the Commission is also imposing
important guardrails to ensure continuous
supervision of the operations and financial
condition of the foreign SD.
Background
For an example of the detrimental
consequences of failing to adequately
capitalize nonbank swap market participants,
one need look no further than the 2008 global
financial crisis. According to the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, the crisis,
which threatened the stability of the U.S.
financial system and the health of the U.S.
economy, may have led to $10 trillion in
losses, including large declines in
employment and household wealth, reduced
tax revenues from lower economic activity,
and lost economic output.2 In response to the
crisis, in 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank
Act), which amended the CEA to create a
new regulatory framework for swaps.
As amended, section 4s(e) of the CEA
directs the Commission and prudential
regulators to impose minimum capital
requirements on SDs registered with the
Commission. Section 4s(e) adopts separate
approaches for the imposition of minimum
capital requirements on bank and nonbank
SDs. For bank SDs, prudential regulators are
authorized to set the minimum capital
requirements. For nonbank SDs, the
Commission is authorized to set those
requirements. The amended CEA also sets
out financial reporting requirements for SDs.
Under section 4s(f) of the CEA, registered
SDs are required to make financial condition
reports and other reports regarding
transactions and positions as mandated by
Commission regulations.
In 2020, the Commission adopted
regulations implementing both the capital
and financial reporting requirements for SDs,
which were amended in 2024 (the Capital
2 United States Government Accountability
Office, Financial Regulatory Reform: Financial
Crisis Losses and Potential Impacts of the DoddFrank Act (Jan. 2013), https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
title/gao-reports-testimonies-6136/financialregulatory-reform-622249.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58571
and Financial Reporting Rules).3 The Capital
and Financial Reporting Rules set minimum
capital levels that nonbank SDs must
maintain and financial reporting
requirements that nonbank SDs must comply
with, including filing periodic unaudited
financial statements and an annual audited
financial report.4
Like the U.S., many other nations adopted
their own regulatory regimes to govern swaps
markets in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. Since then, regulators from around the
world have endeavored to improve the
resilience of swaps markets and establish a
global set of standards on critical risk
management issues, such as capital and
financial reporting requirements. These
efforts led to the development of the
Principles for Financial Market
Infrastructures, to which many jurisdictions,
including our own, look for guidance.5
The Dodd-Frank Act amendments
specifically address the cross-border
application of the CFTC’s swaps regime.
Section 2(i) of the CEA establishes that the
CEA’s swaps provisions apply to foreign
swaps activities that have a ‘‘direct and
significant’’ connection to, or effect on, U.S.
markets. In line with section 2(i) of the CEA,
the Capital and Financial Reporting Rules set
out a substituted compliance framework in
Commission Regulation 23.106 for foreign
nonbank SDs seeking to comply with the
Commission’s capital and financial reporting
requirements.
The substituted compliance framework
consists of comparability determinations that
afford ‘‘due consideration [to] international
comity principles’’ while being ‘‘consistent
with . . . the Commission’s interest in
focusing its authority on potential significant
risks to the U.S. financial system.’’ 6 The
determinations involve an assessment of the
home-country requirements that is a
principles-based, holistic approach, focusing
on whether the applicable home-country
requirements have comparable objectives and
achieve comparable outcomes to the
Commission’s Capital and Financial
Reporting Rules.
Today’s Final Comparability Determinations
The Final Comparability Determinations
will apply to 15 foreign nonbank SDs
3 Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and
Major Swap Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15,
2020).
4 The reporting requirements imposed on bank SD
and bank MSPs were ‘‘more limited’’ ‘‘as the
financial condition of these entities will be
predominantly supervised by the applicable
prudential regulator and subject to its capital and
financial reporting requirements.’’ Id. at 57513. In
May 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to
the Capital and Financial Reporting Rules that
codified two previously-issued staff letters
providing interpretive guidance and no-action relief
and made other technical amendments. 89 FR
45569 (May 23, 2024).
5 Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures,
Bank for International Settlements and International
Organization of Securities Commissions (Apr.
2012), https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d101a.pdf.
6 Cross-Border Application of the Registration
Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to
Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 85 FR
56924, 56924 (Sept. 14, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
58572
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
currently registered with the Commission
and subject to oversight by the UK Prudential
Regulation Authority, the European Central
Bank, the Mexican Comisión Nacional
Bancaria y de Valores, and the Financial
Services Agency of Japan. I commend staff
for their hard work on the Final
Comparability Determinations, including
their work to thoroughly and thoughtfully
analyze and address comments.
Importantly, while the Final Comparability
Determinations permit foreign nonbank SDs
in the relevant jurisdictions to comply with
home country regulations in lieu of
compliance with Commission regulations,
there are numerous protections in place to
ensure the Commission’s ability to supervise
on an ongoing basis the adequacy of the
foreign nonbank SDs’ compliance. The Final
Comparability Determinations all include key
conditions with which the foreign nonbank
SDs must comply. For example, each of the
Final Comparability Determinations requires
that the foreign nonbank SDs provide
monthly and annual financial reports to the
Commission—and the Commission can
request additional information as required to
facilitate ongoing supervision. Each Final
Comparability Determination also requires
the foreign nonbank SDs to notify the
Commission if adverse events occur, such as
a significant decrease in excess regulatory
capital, a significant failure of a counterparty
to post required margin, or non-compliance
with certain capital or financial reporting
requirements. Finally, in recognition of the
fact that a country’s capital standards and
financial reporting requirements may change
over time, the Final Comparability
Determinations require the foreign nonbank
SDs to provide notice of material changes to
the home country capital or financial
reporting frameworks.
Moreover, the foreign nonbank SDs subject
to these determinations are registered with
the Commission and are members of the
National Futures Association (NFA).
Therefore, these entities are subject to the
CEA, Commission regulations, and NFA
membership rules, and each entity remains
subject to Commission supervisory,
examination and enforcement authority. As
noted in the Final Comparability
Determinations, if a foreign SD fails to
comply with its home country’s capital and
financial reporting requirements, the
Commission may initiate an action for a
violation of the Commission’s Capital and
Financial Reporting Rules.
As I have previously noted,7 it is important
to recognize foreign market participants’
7 Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC,
Combatting Systemic Risk and Fostering Integrity of
the Global Financial System Through Rigorous
Standards and International Comity (Jan. 24, 2024),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement012424;
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement
in Support of Notice and Order on EU Capital
Comparability Determination (June 7, 2023), https://
www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/
johnsonstatement060723c; Kristin N. Johnson,
Commissioner, CFTC, Statement in Support of
Proposed Order and Request for Comment on
Mexican Capital Comparability Determination (Nov.
10, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement111022c;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
compliance with the laws and regulations of
their regulators when the requirements lead
to an outcome that is comparable to the
outcome of complying with the CFTC’s
corresponding requirements. Respect for
partner regulators in foreign jurisdictions
advances the Commission as a global
standard setter for sound derivatives
regulation and enhances market stability.
I thank the staff in the Market Participants
Division for their hard work on these matters,
particularly Amanda Olear, Tom Smith, and
Lily Bozhanova.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Appendix 4—Statement of
Commissioner Caroline D. Pham
AGENCY:
I am pleased to support the order granting
conditional substituted compliance in
connection with certain capital and financial
reporting requirements applicable to
nonbank swap dealers subject to regulation
by the United Kingdom Prudential
Regulatory Authority (UK PRA) (UK Final
Order). The UK Final Order, on balance,
reflects an appropriate approach by the CFTC
to collaboration with non-U.S. regulators that
is consistent with IOSCO’s 2020 report on
Good Practices on Processes for Deference.1
I would like to thank Amanda Olear,
Thomas Smith, Rafael Martinez, Liliya
Bozhanova, Joo Hong, and Justin McPhee
from the CFTC’s Market Participants Division
for their truly hard work on the UK Final
Order and for addressing my concerns
regarding the conditions for notice
requirements.2 I also thank the UK PRA for
its assistance and support.
The CFTC’s capital comparability
determinations are the result of tireless
efforts spanning over a decade since the
global financial crisis. I commend the staff
for working together with our regulatory
counterparts around the world to promote
regulatory cohesion and financial stability,
and mitigate market fragmentation and
systemic risk.
[FR Doc. 2024–15094 Filed 7–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement
in Support of Proposed Order on Japanese Capital
Comparability Determination (July 27, 2022),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement072722c.
1 IOSCO Report, ‘‘Good Practices on Processes for
Deference’’ (June 2020), https://www.iosco.org/
library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD659.pdf.
2 Concurring Statement of Commissioner Caroline
D. Pham Regarding Proposed Order and Request for
Comment on an Application for a Capital
Comparability Determination (Nov. 10, 2022),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement111022;
Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham in
Support of Proposed Order and Request for
Comment on Comparability Determination for UK
PRA Swap Dealer Capital and Financial Reporting
Requirements (Jan. 24, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/
PressRoom/peechesTestimony/
phamstatement012424.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17 CFR Chapter I
Order Granting Conditional
Substituted Compliance in Connection
With Certain Capital and Financial
Reporting Requirements Applicable to
Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled in
the French Republic and Federal
Republic of Germany and Subject to
Regulation in the European Union
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Order.
On June 27, 2023, the
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) issued a notice and request for
comment on an application submitted
by the Institute of International Bankers,
International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association
requesting that the Commission
determine that registered nonbank swap
dealers organized and domiciled within
the European Union may comply with
certain capital and financial reporting
requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act and Commission
regulations by being subject to, and
complying with, corresponding capital
and financial reporting requirements of
the European Union. The Commission
also solicited public comment on a
proposed comparability determination
and related order providing for the
conditional availability of substituted
compliance in connection with the
application. The Commission is
adopting the proposed order with
certain modifications and clarifications
to address comments. The final order
provides that a nonbank swap dealer
organized and domiciled in the French
Republic or the Federal Republic of
Germany may satisfy the capital
requirements and the financial reporting
rules under the applicable provisions of
the Commodity Exchange Act and
Commission regulations by complying
with certain specified EU laws and
regulations and conditions set forth in
the order.
DATES: This determination was made by
the Commission on June 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda L. Olear, Director, 202–418–
5283, aolear@cftc.gov; Thomas Smith,
Deputy Director, 202–418–5495,
tsmith@cftc.gov; Rafael Martinez,
Associate Director, 202–418–5462,
rmartinez@cftc.gov; Warren Gorlick,
Associate Director, 202–418–5195,
wgorlick@cftc.gov; Liliya Bozhanova,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JYR2.SGM
18JYR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58535-58572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15094]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Chapter I
Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in Connection
With Certain Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements Applicable to
Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to Regulation by the United Kingdom
Prudential Regulation Authority
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 5, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
issued a notice and request for comment on an application submitted by
the Institute of International Bankers, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association requesting that the Commission determine that registered
nonbank swap dealers organized and domiciled in the United Kingdom may
comply with certain capital and financial reporting requirements under
the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations by being subject
to, and complying with, corresponding capital and financial reporting
requirements of the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority. The
Commission also solicited public comment on a proposed comparability
determination and related order providing for the conditional
availability of substituted compliance in connection with the
application.
The Commission is adopting the proposed order with certain
modifications and clarifications to address comments. The final order
provides that a nonbank swap dealer organized and domiciled in the
United Kingdom may satisfy the capital requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act and Commission applicable Commission regulations and the
financial reporting rules under the Commodity Exchange Act and
applicable Commission regulations by complying with certain specified
United Kingdom laws and regulations and conditions set forth in the
order.
DATES: This determination was made by the Commission on June 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda L. Olear, Director, 202-418-
5283, [email protected]; Thomas Smith, Deputy Director, 202-418-5495,
[email protected]; Rafael Martinez, Associate Director, 202-418-5462,
[email protected]; Liliya Bozhanova, Special Counsel, 202-418-6232,
[email protected]; Joo Hong, Risk Analyst, 202-418-6221,
[email protected]; Justin McPhee, Risk Analyst, 202-418-6223;
[email protected], Market Participants Division; Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') is issuing an order providing that
registered nonbank swap dealers (``SDs'') organized and domiciled in
the
[[Page 58536]]
United Kingdom (``UK'') may satisfy certain capital and financial
reporting requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') \1\
and Commission regulations \2\ by being subject to, and complying with,
comparable capital and financial reporting requirements under relevant
UK laws and regulations, subject to certain conditions set forth in the
order below. The order is based on the proposed comparability
determination and related proposed order published by the Commission on
February 5, 2024,\3\ as modified in certain aspects to address comments
and to clarify its terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The CEA may be accessed through the
Commission's website, www.cftc.gov.
\2\ 17 CFR Chapter I. Commission regulations may be accessed
through the Commission's website, www.cftc.gov.
\3\ Notice of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on an
Application for Capital Comparability Determination Submitted on
Behalf of Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to Capital and Financial
Reporting Requirements of the United Kingdom and Regulated by the
United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority, 89 FR 8026 (Feb. 5,
2024) (``2024 Proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
A. Regulatory Background--CFTC Capital, Margin, and Financial Reporting
Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants
Section 4s(e) of the CEA \4\ directs the Commission and
``prudential regulators'' \5\ to impose capital requirements on SDs and
major swap participants (``MSPs'') registered with the Commission.\6\
Section 4s(e) also directs the Commission and prudential regulators to
adopt regulations imposing initial and variation margin requirements on
swaps entered into by SDs and MSPs that are not cleared by a registered
derivatives clearing organization (``uncleared swaps'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(e).
\5\ The term ``prudential regulators'' is defined in the CEA to
mean the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Federal
Reserve Board''); the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Farm Credit
Administration; and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. 7 U.S.C.
1a(39).
\6\ Subject to certain exceptions, the term ``swap dealer'' is
generally defined as any person that: (i) holds itself out as a
dealer in swaps; (ii) makes a market in swaps; (iii) regularly
enters into swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of
business for its own account; or (iv) engages in any activity
causing the person to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or
market maker in swaps. 7 U.S.C. 1a(49).
The term ``major swap participant'' is generally defined as any
person who is not an SD, and: (i) subject to certain exclusions,
maintains a substantial position in swaps for any of the major swap
categories as determined by the Commission; (ii) whose outstanding
swaps create substantial counterparty exposure that could have
serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the U.S.
banking system or financial markets; or (iii) is a financial entity
that: (a) is highly leveraged relative to the amount of capital it
holds and that is not subject to capital requirements established by
an appropriate Federal banking agency; and (b) maintains a
substantial position in outstanding swaps in any major swap category
as determined by the Commission. 7 U.S.C. 1a(33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4s(e) applies a bifurcated approach with respect to the
above Congressional directives, requiring each SD and MSP that is
subject to the regulation of a prudential regulator (``bank SD'' and
``bank MSP,'' respectively) to meet the minimum capital requirements
and uncleared swaps margin requirements adopted by the applicable
prudential regulator, and requiring each SD and MSP that is not subject
to the regulation of a prudential regulator (``nonbank SD'' and
``nonbank MSP,'' respectively) to meet the minimum capital requirements
and uncleared swaps margin requirements adopted by the Commission.\7\
Therefore, the Commission's authority to impose capital requirements
and margin requirements for uncleared swap transactions extends to
nonbank SDs and nonbank MSPs, including nonbanking subsidiaries of bank
holding companies regulated by the Federal Reserve Board.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(2).
\8\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prudential regulators implemented section 4s(e) in 2015 by
amending existing capital requirements applicable to bank SDs and bank
MSPs to incorporate swap transactions into their respective bank
capital frameworks, and by adopting rules imposing initial and
variation margin requirements on bank SDs and bank MSPs that engage in
uncleared swap transactions.\9\ The Commission adopted final rules
imposing initial and variation margin obligations on nonbank SDs and
nonbank MSPs for uncleared swap transactions on January 6, 2016.\10\
The Commission also approved final capital requirements for nonbank SDs
and nonbank MSPs on July 24, 2020, which were published in the Federal
Register on September 15, 2020 with a compliance date of October 6,
2021 (``CFTC Capital Rules'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities,
80 FR 74840 (Nov. 30, 2015).
\10\ Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers
and Major Swap Participants, 81 FR 636 (Jan. 6, 2016).
\11\ Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15, 2020). On April 30, 2024, the
Commission amended the capital and financial reporting requirements
to revise certain financial reporting obligations, among other
changes. See Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements for Swap
Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 89 FR 45569 (May 23, 2024). The
amendments have limited impact on nonbank SDs covered by this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4s(f) of the CEA addresses SD and MSP financial reporting
requirements.\12\ Section 4s(f) authorizes the Commission to adopt
rules imposing financial condition reporting obligations on all SDs and
MSPs (i.e., nonbank SDs, nonbank MSPs, bank SDs, and bank MSPs).
Specifically, section 4s(f)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, that each
registered SD and MSP must make financial condition reports as required
by regulations adopted by the Commission.\13\ The Commission's
financial reporting obligations were adopted with the Commission's
nonbank SD and nonbank MSP capital requirements, and also had a
compliance date of October 6, 2021 (``CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(f).
\13\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(f)(1)(A).
\14\ 85 FR 57462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Commission Capital Comparability Determinations for Non-U.S. Nonbank
Swap Dealers and Non-U.S. Nonbank Major Swap Participants
Commission Regulation 23.106 establishes a substituted compliance
framework whereby the Commission may determine that compliance by a
non-U.S. domiciled nonbank SD or non-U.S. domiciled nonbank MSP with
its home country's capital and financial reporting requirements will
satisfy all or parts of the CFTC Capital Rules and all or parts of the
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules (such a determination referred to as a
``Comparability Determination'').\15\ The Commission's capital adequacy
and financial reporting requirements are designed to address and manage
risks
[[Page 58537]]
that arise from a firm's operation as an SD or MSP. Given their
functions, both sets of requirements and rules must be applied on an
entity-level basis (meaning that the rules apply on a firm-wide basis,
irrespective of the type of transactions involved) to effectively
address risk to the firm as a whole. The availability of such
substituted compliance is conditioned upon the Commission issuing a
Comparability Determination finding that the relevant foreign
jurisdiction's capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements
for non-U.S. nonbank SDs and/or non-U.S. nonbank MSPs are comparable to
the corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules. The Commission would issue a Comparability Determination in the
form of an order (``Comparability Order'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 17 CFR 23.106. Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(1) provides
that a request for a Comparability Determination may be submitted by
a non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-US nonbank MSP, a trade association or
other similar group on behalf of its SD or MSP members, or a foreign
regulatory authority that has direct supervisory authority over one
or more non-US nonbank SDs or non-U.S. nonbank MSPs. However,
Commission regulations also provide that any non-U.S. nonbank SD or
non-U.S. nonbank MSP that is dually-registered with the Commission
as a futures commission merchant (``FCM'') is subject to the capital
requirements of Commission Regulation 1.17 (17 CFR 1.17) and may not
petition the Commission for a Comparability Determination. 17 CFR
23.101(a)(5) and (b)(4), respectively. Furthermore, substituted
compliance is not available to non-U.S. bank SDs and non-U.S. bank
MSPs with respect to their respective financial reporting
requirements under Commission Regulation 23.105(p). Commission
Regulation 23.105(p), however, permits non-U.S. bank SDs and non-
U.S. bank MSPs that do not submit financial reports to a U.S.
prudential regulator to file with the Commission a statement of
financial condition, certain regulatory capital information, and
Schedule 1 of Appendix C to Subpart E of Part 23 of the Commission's
regulations prepared and presented in accordance with the accounting
standards permitted by the non-U.S. bank SD's or non-U.S. bank MSP's
home country regulatory authorities. 17 CFR 23.105(p)(2).
\16\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's approach for conducting a Comparability
Determination with respect to the CFTC Capital Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules is a principles-based, holistic approach that
focuses on assessing whether the applicable foreign jurisdiction's
capital and financial reporting requirements have comparable objectives
with, and achieve comparable outcomes to, corresponding CFTC
requirements.\17\ The Commission's assessment is not a line-by-line
evaluation or comparison of a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory
requirements with the Commission's requirements.\18\ In performing the
analysis, the Commission recognizes that jurisdictions may adopt
differing approaches to achieving regulatory objectives and outcomes,
and the Commission will focus on whether the foreign jurisdiction's
capital and financial reporting requirements are based on regulatory
objectives, and produce regulatory outcomes, that are comparable to the
Commission's in purpose and effect, and not whether they are comparable
in every aspect or contain identical elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3)(ii). See also 85 FR 57462 at 57521.
\18\ 85 FR 57462 at 57521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A person requesting a Comparability Determination is required to
submit an application to the Commission containing: (i) a description
of the objectives of the relevant foreign jurisdiction's capital
adequacy and financial reporting requirements applicable to entities
that are subject to the CFTC Capital Rules and the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules; (ii) a description (including specific legal and
regulatory provisions) of how the relevant foreign jurisdiction's
capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements address the
elements of the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules,
including, at a minimum, the methodologies for establishing and
calculating capital adequacy requirements and whether such
methodologies comport with international standards; and (iii) a
description of the ability of the relevant foreign regulatory authority
to supervise and enforce compliance with the relevant foreign
jurisdiction's capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements.
The applicant must also submit, upon request, such other information
and documentation as the Commission deems necessary to evaluate the
comparability of the capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements of the foreign jurisdiction.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will consider an application for a Comparability
Determination to be a representation by the applicant that the laws and
regulations of the foreign jurisdiction that are submitted in support
of the application are finalized and in force, that the description of
such laws and regulations is accurate and complete, and that, unless
otherwise noted, the scope of such laws and regulations encompasses the
relevant non-U.S. nonbank SDs and/or non-U.S. nonbank MSPs domiciled in
the foreign jurisdiction.\20\ Each non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-U.S.
nonbank MSP that seeks to rely on a Comparability Order is responsible
for determining whether it is subject to the foreign laws and
regulations found comparable in the Comparability Order. A non-U.S.
nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP that is not legally required to
comply with a foreign jurisdiction's laws and/or regulations determined
to be comparable in a Comparability Order may not voluntarily comply
with such laws and/or regulations in lieu of compliance with the CFTC
Capital Rules or the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Commission provides the applicant with an opportunity
to review for accuracy and completeness the Commission's description
of relevant home country laws and regulations on which a proposed
Comparability Determination and a proposed Comparability Order are
based. The Commission relies on this review, and any corrections or
feedback received, as part of the comparability assessment. A
Comparability Determination and Comparability Order based on an
inaccurate description of foreign laws and regulations may not be
valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission may consider all relevant factors in making a
Comparability Determination, including: (i) the scope and objectives of
the relevant foreign jurisdiction's capital and financial reporting
requirements; (ii) whether the relevant foreign jurisdiction's capital
and financial reporting requirements achieve comparable outcomes to the
Commission's corresponding capital requirements and financial reporting
requirements; (iii) the ability of the relevant foreign regulatory
authority or authorities to supervise and enforce compliance with the
relevant foreign jurisdiction's capital adequacy and financial
reporting requirements; and (iv) any other facts or circumstances the
Commission deems relevant, including whether the Commission and foreign
regulatory authority or authorities have a memorandum of understanding
(``MOU'') or similar arrangement that would facilitate supervisory
cooperation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(3) and 85 FR 57462 at 57520-57522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In performing the comparability assessment for foreign nonbank SDs,
the Commission's review will include the extent to which the foreign
jurisdiction's requirements address: (i) the process of establishing
minimum capital requirements for nonbank SDs and how such process
addresses risk, including market risk and credit risk of the nonbank
SD's on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures; (ii) the types
of equity and debt instruments that qualify as regulatory capital in
meeting minimum requirements; (iii) the financial reports and other
financial information submitted by a nonbank SD to its relevant
regulatory authority and whether such information provides the
regulatory authority with the means necessary to effectively monitor
the financial condition of the nonbank SD; and (iv) the regulatory
notices and other communications between a nonbank SD and its foreign
regulatory authority that address potential adverse financial or
operational issues that may impact the firm. With respect to the
ability of the relevant foreign regulatory authority to supervise and
enforce compliance with the foreign jurisdiction's capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements, the Commission's review will include
an assessment of the foreign jurisdiction's surveillance program for
monitoring nonbank SDs' compliance with such capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements, and the disciplinary process imposed
on firms that fail to comply with such requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Commission would conduct a similar analysis, adjusted
as appropriate to account for regulatory distinctions, in performing
a comparability assessment for foreign nonbank MSPs. Commission
Regulation 23.101(b) requires a nonbank MSP to maintain positive
tangible net worth. There are no MSPs currently registered with the
Commission. 17 CFR 23.101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58538]]
Commission Regulation 23.106 further provides that the Commission
may impose any terms or conditions that it deems appropriate in issuing
a Comparability Determination.\23\ Any specific terms or conditions
with respect to capital adequacy or financial reporting requirements
will be set forth in the Commission's Comparability Order. As a general
condition to all Comparability Orders, the Commission will require
notification from the applicants of any material changes to information
submitted by the applicants in support of a comparability finding,
including, but not limited to, changes in the foreign jurisdiction's
relevant laws and regulations, as well as changes to the relevant
supervisory or regulatory regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To rely on a Comparability Order, a nonbank SD or nonbank MSP
domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction and subject to supervision by the
relevant regulatory authority (or authorities) in the foreign
jurisdiction must file a notice with the Commission of its intent to
comply with the applicable capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements of the foreign jurisdiction set forth in the Comparability
Order in lieu of all or parts of the CFTC Capital Rules and/or CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules.\24\ Notices must be filed electronically
with the Commission's Market Participants Division (``MPD'').\25\ The
filing of a notice by a non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP
provides MPD staff with the opportunity to engage with the firm and to
obtain representations that it is subject to, and complies with, the
laws and regulations cited in the Comparability Order and that it will
comply with any listed conditions. MPD will issue a letter under
delegated authority from the Commission confirming that the non-U.S.
nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP may comply with the foreign laws and
regulations cited in the Comparability Order in lieu of complying with
the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules upon MPD's
confirmation through discussions with the non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-
U.S. nonbank MSP that the firm is subject to, and complies with, such
foreign laws and regulations, is subject to the jurisdiction of the
applicable foreign regulatory authority (or authorities), and can meet
the conditions in the Comparability Order.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(i).
\25\ Notices must be filed in electronic form to the following
email address: [email protected].
\26\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii) and 17 CFR 140.91(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each non-U.S. nonbank SD and each non-U.S. nonbank MSP that
receives confirmation from the Commission that it may comply with a
foreign jurisdiction's capital adequacy and financial reporting
requirements will be deemed by the Commission to be in compliance with
the corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and/or CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules.\27\ A non-U.S. nonbank SD or non-U.S. nonbank MSP that receives
confirmation of substituted compliance remains subject, however, to the
Commission's examination and enforcement authority.\28\ Accordingly, if
a nonbank SD or nonbank MSP fails to comply with the foreign
jurisdiction's capital adequacy and/or financial reporting
requirements, the Commission may initiate an action for a violation of
the corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and/or CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules.\29\ In addition, a finding of a violation by a foreign
jurisdiction's regulatory authority is not a prerequisite for the
exercise of such examination and enforcement authority by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii). Confirmation will be issued by MPD
under authority delegated by the Commission. Commission Regulation
140.91(a)(11). 17 CFR 140.91(a)(11).
\28\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii).
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Application for a Comparability Determination for Nonbank Swap
Dealers Domiciled in the United Kingdom and Subject to Regulation by
the Prudential Regulation Authority
On May 4, 2021, the Institute of International Bankers (``IIB''),
International Swaps and Derivatives Association (``ISDA''), and
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'')
(together, the ``Applicants'') submitted an application (the ``UK
Application'') requesting that the Commission conduct a Comparability
Determination and issue a Comparability Order finding that compliance
with certain designated capital and financial reporting requirements of
the United Kingdom satisfy certain Commission capital rules and
financial reporting rules for nonbank SDs.\30\ Specifically, the
Applicants requested that the Commission determine that registered
nonbank SDs \31\ organized and domiciled within the UK, licensed as
investment firms, and designated for prudential supervision by the UK
Prudential Regulation Authority (``PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs''),
may satisfy corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules applicable to a nonbank SD under sections 4s(e) and (f)
of the CEA and Commission Regulations 23.101 and 23.105.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Letter dated May 4, 2021 from Stephanie Webster, General
Counsel, IIB, Steven Kennedy, Global Head of Public Policy, ISDA,
and Kyle Brandon, Managing Director, Head of Derivatives Policy,
SIFMA. The UK Application is available on the Commission's website
at: https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/CDSCP/index.htm.
\31\ As discussed in Section I.A. immediately below, the
Commission has the authority to impose capital requirements on
registered SDs that are not subject to regulation by a U.S.
prudential regulator (i.e., nonbank SDs).
\32\ The Applicants also requested that the Commission determine
that nonbank SDs licensed as investment firms and prudentially
regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (``FCA'') (``FCA-
regulated UK nonbank SDs'') may satisfy certain capital and
financial reporting requirements under the CEA by being subject to,
and complying with, comparable capital and financial reporting
requirements under UK laws and regulations. Due to the differences
between the capital and financial reporting regimes applicable to
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD and FCA-regulated UK nonbank SDs, the
Commission anticipates assessing the comparability of the rules
applicable to FCA-regulated UK nonbank SDs through a separate
comparability determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be designated for prudential supervision by the UK Prudential
Regulation Authority (``PRA''), a UK-domiciled investment firm must be
authorized, or have requested authorization, to deal in investments as
principal.\33\ For an investment firm that is authorized, or has
requested authorization, to deal in investments as principal, the PRA
may designate the firm for prudential supervision if the PRA determines
that the dealing activities of the firm should be a PRA-regulated
activity. The PRA considers the following in determining whether an
investment firm should be subject to PRA supervision: (i) the assets of
the investment firm; and (ii) where the investment firm is a member of
a group, (a) the assets of other firms within the group that are
authorized, or have sought authorization, to deal in investments as
principal, (b) whether any other member of the group is subject to
prudential supervision by the PRA, and (c) whether the investment
firm's activities have, or might have, a material impact on the ability
of the PRA to advance any of its objectives in relation to a PRA-
authorized person in its group.\34\ The PRA also must consult
[[Page 58539]]
with the FCA before designating a person for prudential
supervision.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Article 3(1) and (2) of The Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 (PRA-regulated Activities) Order 2013.
\34\ Id., Article 3(4).
\35\ Id., Article 3(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRA also has issued a Statement of Policy providing further
detail regarding the factors that are considered in assessing an
investment firm for prudential supervision.\36\ The factors include:
(i) whether the firm's balance sheet exceeds an average of GBP 15
billion total gross assets over four quarters; (ii) where the
investment firm is part of a group, whether the sum of the balance
sheets of all firms within the group that are authorized, or have
requested authorization, to deal in investments as principals exceeds
an average of GBP 15 billion over four quarters; and/or (iii) where the
firm is part of a group subject to PRA supervision, whether the
investment firm's revenues, balance sheet and risk taking is
significant relative to the group's revenues, balance sheet, and risk-
taking.\37\ There are currently six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
registered with the Commission: Citigroup Global Markets Limited,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, Morgan
Stanley & Co. International Plc, MUFG Securities EMEA Plc, and Nomura
International Plc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ PRA, Statement of Policy, Designation of Investment Firms
for Prudential Supervision by the Prudential Regulation Authority,
December 2021, available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/statement-of-policy/2021/designation-of-investment-firms-for-prudential-supervision-by-the-pra-december-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=007EB17EDF2FA84714D372095F9E03627355776F.
\37\ Id., at p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants represented that the capital and financial reporting
framework applicable to PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs is primarily
based on the framework established by the European Union's (``EU'')
Capital Requirements Regulation \38\ and Capital Requirements
Directive,\39\ which set forth capital and financial reporting
requirements applicable to ``credit institutions'' \40\ and
``investment firms.'' \41\ CRR, as a regulation, is directly applicable
in all member states of the EU (``EU Member States'') and was,
therefore, binding law in the UK during the UK's membership in the
EU.\42\ CRD, as a directive, was required to be transposed into EU
Member States' national law, including UK law.\43\ With regard to PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs, the UK implemented CRD primarily through a
series of regulations, including the Capital Requirements Regulations
2013 \44\ and the Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-
prudential Measures) Regulations 2014,\45\ and the rules of the
PRA.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit
institutions and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (``Capital
Requirements Regulation'' or ``CRR'').
\39\ Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit
institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions,
amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC
and 2006/49/EC (``Capital Requirements Directive'' or ``CRD'').
\40\ The term ``credit institution'' is defined as an entity
whose business consists of taking deposits and other repayable funds
from the public and granting credits. CRR, Article 4(1), as
applicable in the UK. For a reference to CRR provisions applicable
in the UK, see infra note 50.
\41\ The term ``investment firm'' is defined as an entity
authorized under Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments
and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU
(``Markets in Financial Instruments Directive'' or ``MiFID''), and
whose regular business is the provision of one or more investment
services to third parties and/or the performance of one or more
investment-related activities on a professional basis, which
includes dealing in derivatives for its own account. CRR, Article
4(1)(2) cross-referencing Article 4(1)(1) of MiFID.
\42\ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, OJ (C 326) 171, Oct. 26, 2012 (``TFEU''),
Article 288.
\43\ Id., Article 288 (stating that a directive is binding as to
the result to be achieved upon each EU Member State to which the
directive is addressed, and further provides, however, that each EU
Member State elects the form and method of implementing the
directive). In this connection, EU Member States were required to
implement and start applying amendments to CRD, introduced by
Directive (EU) 2019/878 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 May 2019 amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards
exempted entities, financial holding companies, mixed financial
holding companies, remuneration, supervisory measures and powers and
capital conservation measures (``CRD V'') by December 29, 2020. Some
CRD V provisions were subject to delayed implementation deadlines of
June 28, 2021 and January 1, 2022. CRD V, Article 2.
\44\ Capital Requirements Regulations 2013, Statutory Instrument
2013 No. 3115 (``Capital Requirements Regulations 2013'').
\45\ Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential
Measures) Regulations 2014, Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 894
(``Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential
Measures) Regulations 2014'').
\46\ The PRA's rules (``PRA Rulebook'') are available here:
https://www.prarulebook.co.uk/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the UK's withdrawal from EU membership (``Brexit''), EU
laws that were in effect and applicable as of December 31, 2020, were
retained in UK law subject to certain non-substantive amendments
seeking to reflect the UK's new position outside of the EU.\47\ As
such, directly applicable EU law, such as CRR, was converted into
domestic UK law and UK legislation implementing EU directives, such as
CRD, was preserved. The UK subsequently adopted additional changes,
generally consistent with amendments introduced by the EU to CRR, CRD
and other relevant EU provisions,\48\ and incorporated certain CRR
provisions in the PRA Rulebook.\49\ The CRR provisions as applicable in
the UK are referred hereafter as ``UK CRR.'' \50\ The UK capital and
financial reporting framework also comprises UK-specific requirements
in respect of certain matters. Requirements applicable to PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs are included in the PRA Rulebook. In
addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61,\51\ which
supplements UK CRR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement for
credit institutions, applies to PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs and
imposes separate liquidity requirements to these firms.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See, An Act to Repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and
make other provisions in connection with the withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the EU (2018 c.16) (``European Union
(Withdrawal) Act 2018'').
\48\ PRA, Policy Statement 21/21--The UK Leverage Framework,
October 2021, available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2021/june/changes-to-the-uk-leverage-ratio-framework, and Policy Statement 22/21--Implementation
of Basel standards: Final rules, October 2021, available here:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2021/october/implementation-of-basel-standards.
\49\ Pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023
(``FSMA 2023''), the UK revoked CRR and replaced it with: (i) PRA
rules adopted under Section 144 of the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 (``FSMA'') and (ii) UK regulations, adopted under
Section 4 of FSMA 2023, restating CRR provisions.
\50\ The UK CRR is available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2013/575/contents. The provisions that
were incorporated in the PRA Rulebook are no longer part of UK CRR
and appear instead in the PRA Rulebook.
\51\ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 of 10 October
2014 to supplement Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European
Parliament and the Council with regard to liquidity coverage
requirement for Credit Institutions (``Liquidity Coverage Delegated
Regulation'').
\52\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity Coverage Requirement--UK
Designated Investment Firms Part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants also represented that in addition to UK CRR and the
PRA Rulebook, the Banking Act 2009 and its related secondary
legislation, through which the UK transposed the Bank Recovery and
Resolution Directive (``BRRD''), include relevant UK capital
requirements.\53\ Specifically, pursuant to the Banking Act 2009 and
its secondary legislation, the Bank of
[[Page 58540]]
England, in its role as resolution authority, requires certain
investment firms, including PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, to satisfy a
firm-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible
liabilities (``MREL'').\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and
resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending
Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC,
2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/
36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of
the European Parliament and of the Council. UK Application, p. 7.
\54\ Banking Act 2009, Section 3A (4) and (4B); Bank Recovery
and Resolution (No 2) Order 2014, Statutory Instrument No. 3348
(``Bank Recovery and Resolution (No 2) Order 2014''), Part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK CRR, Capital Requirements Regulations 2013, Capital Requirements
(Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) Regulations 2014,
Liquidity Coverage Delegated Regulation, relevant provisions of Banking
Act 2009 and its secondary legislation, and relevant parts of the PRA
Rulebook are referred to hereafter as the ``UK PRA Capital Rules.''
The Applicants further represented that with respect to supervisory
financial reporting, the framework applicable to PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs is also based on the EU requirements. In addition, the
framework comprises PRA-specific rules for matters not addressed by the
EU-based requirements. Specifically, Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 680/2014,\55\ which was initially retained in UK law following
Brexit, supplemented CRR with implementing technical standards (``CRR
Reporting ITS'') specifying, among other things, uniform formats and
frequencies for the financial and capital requirements reporting
required under CRR.\56\ CRR Reporting ITS included templates for the
common reporting (``COREP'') and the financial reporting (``FINREP'')
that specify the contents of the EU-based supervisory reporting
requirements. As part of the regulatory reforms that followed Brexit
and sought to implement Basel standards, the PRA incorporated the
entire body of the UK version of COREP and FINREP requirements into the
PRA Rulebook to create a single source for reporting requirements for
firms.\57\ For PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are not subject to
the EU-based FINREP requirements, the PRA Rulebook includes PRA-
specific requirements.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 680/2014 of 16
April 2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard
to supervisory reporting of institutions according to Regulation
(EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
\56\ UK Application, p. 24 and Responses to Staff Questions
dated October 5, 2023.
\57\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part.
\58\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants also represented that the Companies Act 2006
contains provisions related to financial reporting, including a mandate
that entities of a certain size be required to prepare annual audited
financial statements and a strategic report.\59\ UK CRR, relevant
provisions of the PRA Rulebook, and relevant provisions of the
Companies Act 2006, are collectively referred to hereafter as the ``UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ UK Application, p.7. Companies Act 2006, Part 15 and 16.
The Companies Act 2006 is available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants also noted that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') has issued orders permitting an SEC-registered
nonbank security-based swap dealer domiciled in the UK (``UK nonbank
SBSD'') \60\ to satisfy SEC capital \61\ and financial reporting
requirements via substituted compliance with applicable UK capital and
financial reporting.\62\ The UK Order conditioned substituted
compliance for capital requirements on a UK nonbank SBSD complying with
specified laws and regulations, including relevant parts of UK CRR and
the PRA Rulebook, and also maintaining total liquid assets in an amount
that exceeds the UK nonbank SBSD's total liabilities by at least $100
million and by at least $20 million after applying certain deductions
to the value of the liquid assets to reflect market, credit, and other
potential risks to the value of the assets.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ All six of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently
registered with the Commission are also UK nonbank SBSDs.
\61\ Section 15F(e)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10)
directs the SEC to adopt capital rules for security-based swap
dealers (``SBSDs'') that do not have a prudential regulator.
\62\ Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in
Connection with Certain Requirements Applicable to Non-U.S.
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap
Participants Subject to Regulation in the United Kingdom, 86 FR
43318 (July 30, 2021) (``Final UK Order''); Amended and Restated
Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in Connection with
Certain Requirements Applicable to Non-U.S. Security-Based Swap
Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants Subject to
Regulation in the Federal Republic of Germany; Amended Orders
Addressing Non-U.S. Security-Based Swap Entities Subject to
Regulation in the French Republic or the United Kingdom; and Order
Extending the Time to Meet Certain Conditions Relating to Capital
and Margin, 86 FR 59797 (Oct. 28, 2021) (``Amended UK Order,''
together with the Final UK Order, ``UK Order''); and Order
Specifying the Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and
Operational Information by Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants that are not U.S. Persons and are
Relying on Substituted Compliance with Respect to Rule 18a-7, 86 FR
59208 (Oct. 26, 2021) (``SEC Order on Manner and Format of Filing
Unaudited Financial and Operational Information'').
\63\ The conditioning of the UK substituted compliance order on
UK nonbank SBSDs maintaining liquid assets in an amount that exceeds
the UK nonbank SBSD's total liabilities by at least $100 million and
by at least $20 million after applying certain deductions to the
value of the liquid assets reflects that the SEC's capital rule for
nonbank SBSDs is a liquidity-based requirement and that the SEC
capital requirements are not based on the Basel standards. 17 CFR
240.18a-1(a)(1) (requiring a SBSD to maintain, in relevant part, net
capital of $20 million or, if approved to use capital models, $100
million of tentative net capital and $20 million of net capital).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Comparability Determination and Proposed Comparability
Order for PRA-Designated UK Nonbank Swap Dealers
On February 5, 2024, the Commission published the 2024 Proposal,
seeking comment on the Application and the Commission's proposed
Comparability Determination and related Comparability Order.\64\ The
2024 Proposal set forth the Commission's preliminary Comparability
Determination and proposed Comparability Order providing that, based on
its review of the UK Application and applicable UK laws and/or rules,
the Commission preliminarily found that the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, subject to the conditions set
forth in the proposed Comparability Order, achieve comparable outcomes
and are comparable in purpose and effect to the CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules.\65\ The Commission, however, noted that
there were certain differences between the UK PRA Capital Rules and
CFTC Capital Rules and certain differences between the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules and the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. As such, the
Commission proposed certain conditions to the Comparability Order.\66\
The proposed conditions were designed to promote consistency in
regulatory outcomes, to reflect the scope of substituted compliance
that would be available notwithstanding the differences, and to ensure
that the Commission and National Futures Association (``NFA'') receive
information to monitor PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs for ongoing
compliance with the Comparability
[[Page 58541]]
Order.\67\ The Commission further stated that, in its preliminary view,
the identified differences would not be inconsistent with providing a
substituted compliance framework for PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
subject to the conditions specified in the proposed Comparability
Order.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 2024 Proposal, 89 FR 8026 (Feb. 5, 2024).
\65\ Id. Consistent with the process specified in Section I.B.
above for conducting Comparability Determinations, the Commission
provided the Applicants with an opportunity to review for factual
accuracy and completeness the Commission's description of relevant
UK laws and regulations on which the proposed Comparability
Determination and proposed Comparability Order were based. The
Commission has relied on the Applicants' review, and has
incorporated feedback and corrections received from the Applicants.
As previously noted, a Comparability Determination and Comparability
Order based on an inaccurate description of foreign laws and
regulations may not be valid.
\66\ See 2024 Proposal at 8058-8061.
\67\ NFA is a registered futures association (``RFA'') under
Section 17 of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 21). Each SD registered with the
Commission is required to be an NFA member. 17 CFR 170.16. NFA, as
an RFA, is also required by the CEA to adopt rules imposing minimum
capital, segregation, and other financial requirements, as
applicable, to its members, including SDs, that are at least as
stringent as the Commission's minimum capital, segregation, and
other financial requirements for such registrants, and to implement
a program to audit and enforce such requirements. 7 U.S.C. 21(p).
Therefore, the Commission's proposed Comparability Order required
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file certain financial reports and
notices with NFA so that it may perform oversight of such firms as
required under Section 17 of the CEA. The Commission will refer to
NFA in this Comparability Determination when referring to the
requirements or obligations of an RFA.
\68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Comparability Order was limited to the comparison of
the UK PRA Capital Rules to the CFTC Capital Rules' Bank-Based Capital
Approach (``Bank-Based Approach'') for computing regulatory capital for
nonbank SDs, which is based on certain capital requirements imposed by
the Federal Reserve Board for bank holding companies.\69\ As noted by
the Commission in the 2024 Proposal, the Applicants have not requested,
nor has the Commission performed, a comparison of the UK PRA Capital
Rules to the Commission's TNW Approach or NLA Approach.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id. As described in the 2024 Proposal, the CFTC Capital
Rules provide nonbank SDs with three alternative capital approaches:
(i) the Tangible Net Worth Capital Approach (``TNW Approach''); (ii)
the Net Liquid Assets Capital Approach (``NLA Approach''); and (iii)
the Bank-Based Approach. See 2024 Proposal at 8031-8033, and 17 CFR
23.101. The Bank-Based Approach is consistent with the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision's (``BCBS'') international
framework for bank capital requirements (``BCBS framework'' or
``Basel standards''). The BCBS is the primary global standard-setter
for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for
cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Institutions represented
on the BCBS include the Federal Reserve Board, the European Central
Bank, Deutsche Bundesbank, Bank of England, Bank of France, Bank of
Japan, Banco de Mexico, and Bank of Canada. The BCBS framework is
available at https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/index.htm.
\70\ See 2024 Proposal at 8035-8036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. General Comments on the UK Application and the Commission's Proposed
Finding of Comparability Between the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules
The public comment period on the UK Application, the proposed
Comparability Determination, and the proposed Comparability Order ended
on March 24, 2024. The Commission received comments from the following
four interested parties: Michael Ravnitzky (``Ravnitzky''); William J.
Harrington (``Harrington''); Better Markets, Inc. (``Better Markets'');
and the Applicants.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Letters from: Michael Ravnitzky (``Ravnitzky Letter'');
Dennis M. Kelleher, Co-founder, President and CEO, and Cantrell
Dumas, Director of Derivatives Policy, Better Markets (March 24,
2024) (``Better Markets Letter''); and Stephanie Webster, General
Counsel, IIB, Steven Kennedy, Global Head of Public Policy, ISDA,
and Kyle L. Brandon, Managing Director, Head of Derivatives Policy,
SIFMA (March 24, 2024) (``Applicants' Letter''); Letter from William
J. Harrington dated March 24, 2024 (``Harrington 03/24/2024
Letter'') and supporting material. The comment letters and related
documents for the 2024 Proposal are available at: https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=7478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants filed a comment letter generally expressing support
for the proposed Comparability Determination and Comparability Order,
agreeing with the Commission's overall analysis and determination of
comparability of the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules.\72\ The Applicants also included several technical comments,
further discussed in section II. below, on the proposed conditions
requiring PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file a notice with the
Commission and NFA upon the occurrence of certain events. Finally, the
Applicants recommended that the Commission refine the condition
defining the scope of the UK PRA Capital Rules to specify that only the
MREL-related provisions of the Banking Act 2009 would be considered
part of UK PRA Capital Rules.\73\ In support of their request, the
Applicants stated that the reference to the Banking Act 2009 is
included only because it imposes MREL on PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs.\74\ The Commission notes that in the process leading to this
Comparability Determination, the Commission has considered the Banking
Act 2009 more broadly, including as it relates to the powers conferred
to the PRA in its role as resolution authority. With respect to the
definition of the UK PRA Capital Rules with which a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD must comply, however, the Commission believes that referring
to the Banking Act 2009 only to the extent it imposes MREL on PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs is appropriate. Accordingly, the Commission
has adjusted the language in final Condition 4 consistent with the
Applicants' recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Applicants' Letter at p. 2.
\73\ Id. at p. 4.
\74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, two commenters disagreed with the CFTC's proposed
Comparability Determination and proposed Comparability Order.\75\
Better Markets asserted that the principles-based, holistic approach
applied by the Commission, which assesses whether the applicable
foreign jurisdiction's capital and financial requirements achieve
comparable outcomes to the corresponding Commission requirements, ``is
insufficiently rigorous, leaving far too much room for inaccurate and
unwarranted comparability determinations.'' \76\ Better Markets further
asserted that in an attempt to restore London to its status of a global
financial center in the post-Brexit environment, both major political
parties in the UK are promising ``light touch'' regulation and
incentivizing regulatory arbitrage.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Better Markets Letter at p. 3-5; Harrington 03/24/2024
Letter at p. 4 (asserting, as further discussed below, that the
Commission should condition the Comparability Determination on a
prohibition against PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs' entering into
swap contracts with certain specified features).
\76\ Better Markets Letter at p. 5.
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not believe that the principles-based, holistic
assessment that it conducted on the comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules with the CFTC Capital Rules
and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules was ``insufficiently rigorous,'' nor
does the Commission believe that it left ``room for inaccurate and
unwarranted comparability determinations.'' The principles-based,
holistic approach employed in the Comparability Determination was
performed in accordance with the substituted compliance assessment
framework adopted by the Commission for capital and financial reporting
requirements for foreign nonbank SDs and set out in Commission
Regulation 23.106. Consistent with this assessment framework, the
Commission focused on whether the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules are designed with the objective of ensuring
overall safety and soundness of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs in a
[[Page 58542]]
manner that is comparable with the Commission's overall objective of
ensuring the safety and soundness of nonbank SDs.
As stated in the 2024 Proposal, due to the detailed and complex
nature of the capital frameworks, differences in how jurisdictions
approach and implement the requirements are expected, even among
jurisdictions that base their requirements on the principles and
standards set forth in the BCBS framework.\78\ Furthermore, as
discussed in section I.B. above, when adopting Commission Regulation
23.106, the Commission stated that ``its approach to substituted
compliance is a principles-based, holistic approach that focuses on
whether the foreign regulations are designed with the objectives of
ensuring the overall safety and soundness of the [non-US nonbank SD] in
a manner that is comparable with the Commission's overall capital and
financial reporting requirements, and is not based on a line-by-line
assessment or comparison of a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory
requirements with the Commission's requirements.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 2024 Proposal at 8036.
\79\ 85 FR 57462 at 57521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach and standards set forth in Commission Regulation
23.106, with the focus on ``comparable outcomes,'' are also consistent
with the Commission's precedents of undertaking a principles-based,
holistic assessment of the comparability of foreign regulatory regimes
for purposes of substituted compliance for cross-border swap
transactions. The Commission first outlined its approach to substituted
compliance with respect to swaps requirements in 2013, when it issued
an Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with
Certain Swap Regulations.\80\ In the Guidance, the Commission stated
that ``[i]n evaluating whether a particular category of foreign
regulatory requirement(s) is comparable and comprehensive to the
applicable requirement(s) under the CEA and Commission regulations, the
Commission will take into consideration all relevant factors, including
but not limited to, the comprehensiveness of those requirement(s), the
scope and objectives of the relevant regulatory requirement(s), the
comprehensiveness of the foreign regulator's supervisory compliance
program, as well as the home jurisdiction's authority to support and
enforce its oversight of the registrant.'' \81\ The Commission
emphasized that in this context, ``comparable does not necessarily mean
identical.'' \82\ Rather, the Commission stated that it would evaluate
whether the home jurisdiction's regulatory requirement is comparable
to, and as comprehensive as, the corresponding U.S. regulatory
requirement(s).\83\ In conducting comparability determinations based on
the policy set forth in the Guidance, the Commission noted that the
``outcome-based'' approach recognizes that ``foreign regulatory systems
differ and their approaches vary and may differ from how the Commission
chose to address an issue, but that the foreign jurisdiction's
regulatory requirements nonetheless achieve the regulatory outcome
sought to be achieved by a certain provision of the CEA or Commission
regulation.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Interpretative Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding
Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations, 78 FR 45292 (July 26,
2013) (``Guidance'').
\81\ Guidance at 45343.
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
\84\ See e.g., Comparability Determination for the European
Union: Certain Entity-Level Requirements, 78 FR 78923 (December 27,
2013) at 78926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further elaborated on the required elements of
comparability in 2016, when it issued final rules to address the cross-
border application of the Commission's margin requirements for
uncleared swap transactions. Specifically, the Commission stated that
its substituted compliance approach reflects an outcome-based
assessment of the comparability of a foreign jurisdiction's margin
requirements with the Commission's corresponding requirements.\85\ The
Commission further stated that it would evaluate the objectives and
outcomes of the foreign margin requirements in light of foreign
regulator(s)' supervisory and enforcement authority.\86\ Consistent
with its previously stated position, the Commission recognized that
jurisdictions may adopt different approaches to achieving the same
outcome and, therefore, the assessment would focus on whether the
foreign jurisdiction's margin requirements are comparable to the
Commission's in purpose and effect, not whether they are comparable in
every aspect or contain identical elements.\87\ The Commission's policy
thus reflects an understanding that a line-by-line evaluation of a
foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime is not the optimum approach to
assessing the comparability of complex structures whose individual
components may differ based on jurisdiction-specific considerations,
but which achieve the objective and outcomes set forth in the
Commission's framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers
and Major Swap Participants--Cross-Border Application of the Margin
Requirements, 81 FR 34817, 34836-34837 (May 31, 2016).
\86\ Id.
\87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the UK Application, the process leading to the
Commission's Comparability Determination involved Commission staff
reviewing relevant UK laws, rules, and regulations cited in the UK
Application. Staff verified the assertions and citations contained in
the UK Application regarding the specific UK PRA Capital Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules to the relevant UK laws, rules, and
regulations.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Staff also reviewed various documents relevant to the
proposed Comparability Determination and proposed Comparability
Order published by the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission staff also evaluated the comparability of the UK PRA
Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules with the CFTC
Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules with respect to the
following areas: (i) the process of establishing minimum capital
requirements for PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs and how such process
addresses risk, including market risk and credit risk of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet
exposures; (ii) the types of equity and debt instruments that qualify
as regulatory capital in meeting a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
minimum capital requirements; (iii) the financial reports and other
financial information submitted by a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
the PRA, and whether such information provides the PRA with the means
necessary to effectively monitor the financial condition of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD; and (iv) the regulatory notices and other
communications between a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD and the PRA that
address potential adverse financial or operational issues that may
impact the firm.\89\ With respect to the ability of the PRA to
supervise and enforce compliance with the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules, the Commission's assessment included a
review of the PRA's surveillance program for monitoring compliance by
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs with the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules, and the disciplinary process imposed on
firms that fail to comply with such requirements.\90\ In conducting its
assessment of the PRA's
[[Page 58543]]
regulatory and supervisory framework, the Commission did not identify
elements supporting Better Markets' assertion that the framework is
characterized by ``light touch'' regulation.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 2024 Proposal at 8036-8058.
\90\ Id. at 8057-8058.
\91\ For a further discussion of the Commission's assessment of
the PRA's supervision and enforcement powers, see Section II.F.
below. In addition, in its policy statement discussing the
forthcoming implementation of Basel 3.1 standards, the PRA noted
that despite some adjustments to the international standards, the
PRA considers that its policy and rules proposals align with the
international framework. In this regard, the PRA expressed the view
that alignment with international standards in turn supports the
UK's competitiveness, including relative standing of the UK as a
global financial center, by ``strengthening key stakeholders'
confidence in the UK banking system'' and ``assuring regulators in
other jurisdictions of UK's authorities' commitment to robust
standards.'' See PRA, PS17/23--Implementation of the Basel 3.1
Standards Near-Final Part 1, December 12, 2023, available here:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2023/december/pra-publishes-first-of-two-policy-statements-for-basel-3-1-standards-implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to the position articulated by Better Markets regarding
the nature of the comparability assessment, the Commission believes
that the principles-based, holistic assessment of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules against the CFTC Capital
Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules, as outlined above and
discussed in detail in section II below, was sufficiently rigorous for
purposes of determining if the UK PRA regulations are comparable in
purpose and effect to the CEA and Commission regulations. Better
Markets further asserted that even under a principles-based, holistic
approach, the UK PRA capital and financial reporting requirements for
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs do not satisfy the test for an order
granting substituted compliance as the PRA's regulatory framework
governing capital and financial reporting is not comparable to the
corresponding CFTC requirements.\92\ Better Markets cited the
Commission's inclusion of conditions in the proposed Comparability
Order as demonstrating the Commission's need ``to compensate for the
acknowledged gaps in the UK PRA framework'' and as a ``de facto
admission that the regulations are not comparable and that the [UK
Application] should be denied.'' \93\ Better Markets claimed that the
Commission proposed 12 filing requirements that must be met as a
condition for the comparability determination, and stated that the
Commission was not issuing a comparability finding, but was engaging in
a ``de facto rewriting'' of the PRA's laws and rules in the form of
conditions.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Better Markets Letter at p. 5.
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id. at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, another commenter, Ravnitzky, noted that the ``CFTC
need not be limited to finding a binary yes or no answer to the
comparability determination'' and ``has the flexibility to grant
conditional substituted compliance.'' \95\ In this regard, Ravnitzky
recommended that the Commission exercise its authority ``to make a
flexible and nuanced decision, and strive to impose only the necessary
conditions for approving the UK PRA rules as substitutes, to minimize
the regulatory burden while achieving the necessary risk reduction.''
\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Ravnitzky Letter at p. 6.
\96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission disagrees that the inclusion of conditions in the
Comparability Order precludes a finding of comparability with respect
to the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules. The
Commission's comparability assessment process, consistent with the
holistic approach, contemplates the potential need for a Comparability
Order to contain conditions. Specifically, Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(5) states that the Commission may impose any terms and
conditions it deems appropriate in issuing a Comparability Order,
including conditions with respect to capital adequacy and financial
reporting requirements of non-U.S. nonbank SDs.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5), which provides that in issuing a
Capital Comparability Determination, the Commission may impose any
terms and conditions it deems appropriate, including certain capital
adequacy and financial reporting requirements on swap dealers . . .
(Emphasis added). Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(3) establishes the
Commission's standard of review for performing a Comparability
Determination and provides that the Commission may consider all
relevant factors, including whether the relevant foreign
jurisdiction's capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements
achieve comparable outcomes to the Commission's corresponding
capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements for SDs. 17
CFR 23.106(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process employed in this Comparability Determination is
consistent with the Commission's established approach to conducting
comparability assessments. Upon a finding of comparability, the
Commission's policy generally is that eligible entities may comply with
a substituted compliance regime subject to the conditions the
Commission places on its finding, and subject to the Commission's
retention of its examination authority and its enforcement
authority.\98\ In this regard, the Commission has stated that certain
conditions included in a Comparability Order may be designed to ensure
the Commission's direct access to books and records required to be
maintained by an SD registered with the Commission.\99\ Other
conditions may address areas where the foreign jurisdiction lacks
analogous requirements.\100\ The inclusion of conditions in a
Comparability Order was contemplated as an integral part of the
Commission's holistic, principles-based approach to conducting
comparability assessments and is not inconsistent with a grant of
substituted compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 85 FR 57462 at 57520. See also Guidance at 45342-45344 and
Comparability Determination for the European Union: Certain
Transaction Level Requirements, 78 FR 78878 (December 27, 2013) at
78880.
\99\ Comparability Determination for the European Union: Certain
Transaction Level Requirements, 78 FR 78878 (December 27, 2013) at
78880.
\100\ Guidance at 45343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(5) states the
Commission's authority to impose conditions in issuing a Comparability
Determination in connection with the CFTC Capital Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. As further discussed below, the conditions
proposed in the 2024 Proposal are clearly of the nature contemplated by
Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(5).
The Commission also does not believe that the inclusion of the
conditions in the Comparability Order reflects a ``rewriting'' of the
UK laws and regulations as asserted by Better Markets. Consistent with
the Commission's policy described above, a majority of the conditions
contained in the Comparability Order are designed to ensure that: (i)
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is eligible for substituted compliance
based on the UK laws and regulations that were reviewed by the
Commission in performing the comparability assessment, and (ii) the
Commission and NFA receive timely financial information and notices to
effectively monitor a PRA-designated nonbank SD's compliance with
relevant UK capital and financial reporting rules and to assess the
ongoing safety and soundness of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD.
Specifically, there are 25 conditions in the final Comparability Order.
Six conditions set forth criteria that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
must meet to be eligible for substituted compliance pursuant to the
Comparability Order.\101\ The six
[[Page 58544]]
conditions ensure that only PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are
within the scope of, and comply with, the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules that were part of the Commission's
comparability assessment may apply for substituted compliance. Ten
additional conditions require PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs within the
scope of the Comparability Order to provide notice to the Commission
and NFA of certain defined events,\102\ and a further two conditions
require PRA-designated nonbank SDs to file with the Commission and NFA
copies of certain unaudited and audited financial reports that the
firms provide to the PRA.\103\ In addition, two additional conditions
reflect administrative matters necessary to implement the substituted
compliance framework.\104\ Lastly, five conditions impose obligations
on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that align with certain of the
Commission's requirements for nonbank SDs. The five conditions require
a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to: (i) maintain common equity tier 1
capital denominated in GBP equal to or in excess of the equivalent of
$20 million (Condition 7); (ii) prepare and keep current financial
books and records (Condition 9); (iii) file a monthly schedule of the
firm's financial positions on Schedule 1 of appendix B to Subpart E of
part 23 of the Commission's regulations (Condition 12); (iv) file a
monthly report listing the custodians holding margin posted by, and
collected by, the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, the amount of margin
held by each custodian, and the aggregate amount of margin required to
be posted and collected by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD (Condition
14); and (v) submit, with each filing of financial information, a
statement by an authorized representative that, to the best knowledge
and belief of the person making the representation, the information is
true and correct (Condition 13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The six criteria provide that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD: (i) is not subject to capital rules of a U.S. prudential
regulator (Condition 1); (ii) is organized and domiciled in the UK
(Condition 2); (iii) is licensed as an investment firm and
designated for prudential supervision by the PRA (Condition 3); (iv)
is subject to the UK CRR, CRD provisions as implemented in the UK,
the Liquidity Coverage Delegated Regulation, the provisions of the
Banking Act 2009 and its secondary legislation related to the MREL,
and the rules of the PRA as reflected in the PRA Rulebook (Condition
4); (v) satisfies at all times applicable UK CRR and PRA Rulebook
capital ratios, leverage ratios, and capital conservation buffer
ratios, and maintains a liquidity risk management program as
required under the PRA Rulebook (Condition 5); and (vi) is subject
to and complies with the UK financial reporting requirements that
are part of the Commission's comparability assessment (Condition 6).
\102\ The ten conditions require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
to provide notice to the Commission in the event that the firm: (i)
is informed by the PRA that the firm has failed to comply with any
component of the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules (Condition 15); (ii) fails to maintain common equity tier 1
capital denominated in GBP in an equivalent amount of at least $20
million (Condition 16); (iii) breaches its combined capital buffer
requirement and is required to file a capital conservation plan with
the PRA (Condition 17); (iv) is required by the PRA to maintain
additional capital or additional liquidity (Condition 18); (v) fails
to meet the required MREL (Condition 19); (vi) experiences a 30
percent or more decrease in its excess regulatory capital (Condition
20); (vii) fails to make or keep current financial books and records
(Condition 21); (viii) fails to post or collect margin for uncleared
swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps with one or more
counterparties in amounts that exceed defined limits (Condition 22);
(ix) changes its fiscal year-end date (Condition 23); and (x) is
subject to material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules, UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules, or the supervisory authority of the PRA
(Condition 24).
\103\ The two conditions provide that a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD must file with the Commission and NFA: (i) a copy of SEC
Form X-17A-5 (``FOCUS Report'') that the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files with the SEC or copies of certain financial reporting
templates that the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is required to
submit to the PRA pursuant to PRA Rulebook rules, as applicable
(Condition 10), and (ii) copies of its annual audited accounts and
strategic report that are required to be prepared and published
pursuant to Parts 15 and 16 of Companies Act 2006 (Condition 11).
\104\ One of the administrative conditions provides that a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD must provide a notice to the Commission of
its intent to comply with the Comparability Order and the UK PRA
Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules in lieu of the
CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. The notice
must include the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's representation that
the firm is organized and domiciled in the UK, is a licensed
investment firm designated for prudential supervision by the PRA,
and is subject to and complies with the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules (Condition 8). The second
administrative condition provides that a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD must file any documents with the Commission and NFA via
electronic transmission (Condition 25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the substance of these conditions demonstrates, the primary
objective of a majority of the conditions is not to compensate for
regulatory gaps in the UK PRA capital and financial reporting
framework, but rather to ensure that the Commission and NFA receive
information to conduct ongoing monitoring of PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs for compliance with relevant capital and financial reporting
requirements and to assess the firm's overall safety and soundness. As
discussed above, in issuing the Comparability Order, the Commission is
not ceding its supervisory and enforcement authorities. The
Comparability Order permits PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to satisfy
the Commission's capital and financial reporting requirements by
complying with certain UK laws and/or regulations that have been found
comparable to the Commission's laws and/or regulations in purpose and
effect. The Commission and NFA, however, have a continuing obligation
to conduct ongoing oversight, including potential examination, of PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs that operate under a Comparability Order to
ensure compliance with the Comparability Order, including its
conditions.\105\ To that effect, the notice and financial reporting
conditions set forth in the Comparability Order provide the Commission
and NFA with information necessary to monitor for such compliance and
to evaluate the operational condition and ongoing financial condition
of PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs. The Commission may also initiate an
enforcement action against a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that fails to
comply with the conditions of the Comparability Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ As the Commission stated in the 2024 Proposal, a non-U.S.
nonbank SD that operates under a Comparability Order issued by the
Commission remains subject to the Commission's examination and
enforcement authority. Specifically, the Commission may initiate an
enforcement action against a non-U.S. nonbank SD that fails to
comply with its home-country capital adequacy and/or financial
reporting requirements cited in a Comparability Order. See 2024
Proposal at 8029. See also 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii), which provides
that the Commission may examine all nonbank SDs, regardless of
whether the nonbank SDs rely on substituted compliance, and that the
Commission may initiate an enforcement action under the Commission's
capital and financial reporting regulations against a non-U.S.
nonbank SD that fails to comply with a foreign jurisdiction's
capital adequacy and financial reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, to the extent that a condition imposes a new
regulatory obligation on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, the imposition
of such condition is also consistent with Commission Regulation 23.106
and the Commission's established policy with regard to comparability
determinations. As discussed above, the Commission contemplated that
even in circumstances where the Commission finds two regulatory regimes
comparable, the Commission may impose requirements on entities relying
on substituted compliance where the Commission determines that the home
jurisdiction's regime lacks comparable and comprehensive regulation on
a specific issue.\106\ The Commission's authority to impose such
conditions is set out in Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(5), which
states that the Commission may impose ``any terms and conditions it
deems appropriate, including certain capital adequacy and financial
reporting requirements [on SDs].'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Guidance at 45343.
\107\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Markets further stated that, if the Commission grants
substituted compliance with regard to materially
[[Page 58545]]
different regulatory requirements, it must make a well-supported,
evidence-based determination that those different requirements
nevertheless will, in fact, lead to comparable regulatory
outcomes.\108\ In this connection, Better Markets stated that if the
Commission grants the Comparability Determination and Comparability
Order, it must, at a minimum, clearly and specifically set forth the
desired regulatory outcome and provide a detailed, evidence-based
explanation as to how the jurisdiction's different legal requirements
nonetheless lead to that regulatory outcome.\109\ Better Markets
further asserted that ``[a] determination that a foreign jurisdiction's
nonbank SDs rules would produce comparable regulatory outcomes is the
beginning, not the end, of the CFTC's obligation to ensure that the
activities of the foreign nonbank SD entities do not pose risks to the
U.S. financial system. As time goes on, regulatory requirements that,
in theory, are expected to produce one regulatory outcome may, in
practice, produce a different one. And, of course, the regulatory
requirements may themselves be changed in a variety of ways. Finally,
the effectiveness of an authority's supervision and enforcement program
can become weakened for any number of reasons--the CFTC cannot assume
that an enforcement program that it believes is presently effective
will continue to be effective.'' \110\ Better Markets further asserted
that to fulfill its obligation to protect the U.S. financial system,
the CFTC must ensure, on an ongoing basis, that each grant of
substituted compliance remains appropriate over time by requiring, at a
minimum, each order of substituted compliance, and each MOU with a
foreign regulatory authority, to impose an obligation on the applicant,
as appropriate, to: (i) periodically apprise the Commission of the
activities and results of its supervision and enforcement programs, to
ensure that they remain sufficiently robust to deter and address
violations of the law; and (ii) immediately apprise the Commission of
any material changes to the regulatory regime, including changes to
rules or interpretations of rules.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Better Markets at p. 10.
\109\ Id.
\110\ Id.
\111\ Id. at p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Commission disagrees that the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, as a whole, are materially
different or do not achieve comparable regulatory outcomes, the
Commission concurs that granting substituted compliance should be the
result of a well-supported comparability assessment. Consistent with
that view, the Commission believes that this final Comparability
Determination clearly states the desired regulatory outcomes,
articulates the Commission's analysis in sufficient detail, and
provides an appropriate explanation of how the foreign jurisdiction's
requirements are comparable in purpose and effect with the Commission's
requirements, and lead to comparable regulatory outcomes with the
Commission's requirements. Specifically, section III of the 2024
Proposal and section II of the final Comparability Determination
reflect, among other observations, the Commission's detailed analysis
with respect to each of the elements for consideration listed in
Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(3).
The Commission also concurs that the availability of substituted
compliance is conditioned upon a non-US nonbank SD's ongoing compliance
with the terms and conditions of the final Comparability Order, and the
Commission's ongoing assessment that the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules remain comparable in purpose and effect
with the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. As
noted above, and discussed in more detail in sections II.D. and E.
below, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are subject to notice and
financial reporting requirements under the final Comparability Order
that provide Commission and NFA staff with the ability to monitor the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs' ongoing compliance with the conditions
set forth in the final Comparability Order. In addition, the final
Comparability Order requires a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, or an
entity acting on its behalf, to inform the Commission of changes to the
relevant UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules so
that the Commission may assess the continued effectiveness of the
Comparability Order in ensuring that the relevant UK laws and
regulations have the comparable regulatory objectives of the CEA and
Commission regulations of ensuring the safety and soundness of nonbank
SDs.\112\ Commission staff will also monitor the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs directly as part of its supervisory program and will
discuss with the firms any proposed or pending revisions to specific
rules cited in the final Comparability Order. Lastly, in addition to
assessing the effectiveness of the Comparability Order as a result of
revisions or proposed revisions to the UK laws, regulations, or
supervisory regime administered by the PRA, the Commission further
notes that future material changes to the CFTC Capital Rules or CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules, or the Commission's or NFA's supervisory
programs, may necessitate an amendment to the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order to reflect those changes.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order requires a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, or an entity acting on its behalf, to
notify the Commission of any material changes to the information
submitted in its application, including, but not limited to,
proposed and final material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules or
UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules and proposed and final material
changes to the PRA's supervisory authority or supervisory regime
over PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs. The Commission notes that it
made certain non-substantive, clarifying changes to the language of
final Condition 24 as compared to proposed Condition 24.
\113\ 2024 Proposal at 8036 (n. 128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter, Harrington, stated that the Commission must
condition the Comparability Order on an ``outright prohibition against
regulated entities providing [swap contracts that include a ``flip
clause''].'' \114\ Harrington has elsewhere referred to a description
of a ``flip clause'' as a provision in swap contracts with structured
debt issuers that reverses or ``flips'' the priority of payment
obligations owed to the swap counterparty on the one hand and the
noteholders on the other, following a specified event of default.\115\
Based on Harrington's description, flip clauses present a risk to the
SD in synthetic transactions where payments under a swap contract are
secured with the same collateral that would serve to cover payments
under the notes issued by a structured debt issuer. In such
circumstances, an ``event of default'' by the SD would cause the SD's
priority of
[[Page 58546]]
payment from the collateral under a swap to ``flip'' to a more junior
priority position, including for mark-to-market gains on ``in the
money'' swaps.\116\ Harrington argued that swap contracts with a flip
clause incentivize SDs to ``self-sabotage by under-sourcing
themselves.'' \117\ Harrington recognized, however, that the CFTC
margin requirements for uncleared swap transactions address his
concerns associated with the inclusion of a flip clause.\118\
Nonetheless, according to Harrington, risks arise in circumstances when
non-U.S. margin rules exempt SDs from margin obligations in connection
with swaps with a structured debt issuer.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 4. Harrington also
referenced the following two separate submissions to the Commission
and noted that these submissions support the Harrington 03/24/2024
Letter: a letter dated October 20, 2022 (``Harrington 10/20/2022
Letter''), submitted in connection with the Commission's Notice of
Proposed Order and Request for Comment on an Application for a
Capital Comparability Determination From the Financial Services
Agency of Japan, 87 FR 48092, (August 8, 2022) and a letter dated
August 28, 2023 (``Harrington 08/28/2023 Letter''), submitted in
connection with the Commission's Notice of Proposed Order and
Request for Comment on an Application for a Capital Comparability
Determination Submitted on Behalf of Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled
in the French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany and Subject
to Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements of the European
Union, 88 FR 41774 (June 27, 2023). Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at
p.7.
\115\ William J. Harrington, Submission to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission Re: File No. S7-08-12 (Nov. 19, 2018) at
p.8.
\116\ For additional information on the legal mechanics of a
flip clause, see Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc v. Bank of
America N.A., No. 18-1079 (2nd Cir. 2020).
\117\ Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 8.
\118\ Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 21 (noting that ``[the
CFTC margin requirements] render the flip-clause-contract
commercially impracticable in the U.S.'' and that ``U.S. swap margin
rules, including the CFTC swap margin rule, have greatly benefited
U.S. persons by subduing financial sector credit exposures that
might otherwise draw bailouts or other U.S. government support'').
\119\ Harrington 03/24/2024 Letter at p. 25 (arguing that ``U.K.
and other non-U.S. swap margin and capital rules perpetuate the
flip-clause-swap-contract by allowing [asset-backed securities]
issuers, other structured debt issuers, banks, and swap dealers to
under-resource their [respective] contract exposures via both
exemptions from margin posting and see-no-evil capital rules that
treat the contract as `plain vanilla'.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that given some definitional differences
and differences in the activity thresholds with respect to the scope of
application of the CFTC margin requirements and non-U.S. margin
requirements, some transactions that are subject to the CFTC margin
requirements for uncleared swaps may not be subject to margin
requirements in another jurisdiction. In connection with this
Comparability Determination, however, the Commission notes that both
under the CFTC Capital Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules,
uncollateralized exposures from uncleared swap transactions would
generate a higher counterparty credit risk amount than the exposures
resulting from transactions under which the counterparties have posted
collateral.\120\ Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that the
respective sets of rules adopt a conflicting approach or lead to a
disparate outcome with respect to the capital treatment of
uncollateralized uncleared swap exposures that would warrant a finding
of non-comparability of the CFTC Capital Rules and the UK PRA Capital
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 12 CFR 217.34 and 12 CFR 217.132 (indicating that nonbank
SDs may recognize the risk-mitigating effects of financial
collateral for collateralized derivatives contracts) and PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk Part, Article 276 and
UK CRR, Article 285 (setting forth rules for the recognition and
treatment of collateral in calculating the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD's counterparty credit risk exposure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, one commenter, Ravnitzky, noted that due to differences in
how the respective jurisdictions define the regulatory categories of
registrants involved in swap dealing activity (i.e., differences
between the term ``swap dealer'' as defined under the Commission's
regulations and the term ``investment firm'' as defined under the PRA's
framework), it may be ``unclear or inconsistent which entities can use
substituted compliance under the [proposed Comparability Order].''
\121\ The Commission notes, as discussed above, that the Comparability
Order will apply with respect to UK-domiciled, PRA-designated
investment firms that are registered with the Commission as SDs and not
subject to regulation by a U.S. prudential regulator. In this regard,
the Commission believes that proposed Conditions 1 through 4, which the
Commission adopts without material changes, clearly define the scope of
entities that may request to rely on the Comparability Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Ravnitzky Letter at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Capital and Financial Reporting Comparability Determination
and Comparability Order
The following section provides the Commission's comparative
analysis of the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules with the corresponding CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules, as described in the 2024 Proposal, further modified to
address comments received. As emphasized in the 2024 Proposal, the
capital and financial reporting regimes are complex structures
comprised of a number of interrelated regulatory components.\122\
Differences in how jurisdictions approach and implement these regimes
are expected, even among jurisdictions that base their requirements on
the principles and standards set forth in the BCBS framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See 2024 Proposal at 8036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission performed the analysis by assessing the
comparability of the UK PRA Capital Rules for PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs as set forth in the UK Application and in certain applicable UK
laws and regulations with the Commission's Bank-Based Approach for
nonbank SDs. The Commission understands that all PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs addressed by the UK Application, as of the date of the
final Comparability Determination, are subject to a bank-based capital
approach under the UK PRA Capital Rules. Accordingly, when the
Commission makes its final determination herein about the comparability
of the UK PRA Capital Rules with the CFTC Capital Rules, the
determination pertains to the comparability of the UK PRA Capital Rules
with the Bank-Based Approach under the CFTC Capital Rules. The
Commission notes that any material changes to the information submitted
in the UK Application, including, but not limited to, proposed and
final material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, as well as any proposed and final material changes to
the PRA's supervisory authority or supervisory regime over PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs, will require notification to the Commission
and NFA pursuant to Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order.\123\
Therefore, if there are subsequent material changes to the UK PRA
Capital Rules, UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, or PRA's supervisory
authority or regime, the Commission will review and assess the impact
of such changes on the final Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order as they are then in effect, and may amend or
supplement the Comparability Order as appropriate.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order. The
Commission notes that it made certain non-substantive, clarifying
changes to the language of final Condition 24 as compared to
proposed Condition 24.
\124\ See 2024 Proposal at 8036. As stated in the 2024 Proposal,
the Commission may also amend or supplement the final Comparability
Order to address any material changes to the CFTC Capital Rules and
CFTC Financial Reporting Rules, including rule amendments to capital
rules of the Federal Reserve Board that are incorporated into the
CFTC Capital Rules' Bank-Based Approach under Commission Regulation
23.101(a)(1)(i), that are adopted after the final Comparability
Order is issued. See id., (n. 128). As noted in the 2024 Proposal,
the Commission is aware that the PRA is considering changes to the
UK PRA Capital Rules to implement Basel 3.1 standards. See PRA,
PS17/23--Implementation of the Basel 3.1 Standards Near-Final Part
1, December 12, 2023, available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2023/december/pra-publishes-first-of-two-policy-statements-for-basel-3-1-standards-implementation. If the
PRA proceeds with the implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards as
proposed, the regulatory changes would be applicable after July 1,
2025 with a 4.5-year transitional period ending on January 1, 2030.
The Commission will monitor progress on the PRA's proposed
regulatory changes and may amend or supplement the Comparability
Order. As noted, the Commission requires notification of any
material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules, including any Basel
3.1 implementing provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58547]]
A. Regulatory Objectives of CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules and UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules
1. Preliminary Determination
As reflected in the 2024 Proposal and discussed above, the
Commission preliminarily determined that the overall objectives of the
UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in that
both sets of rules are intended to ensure the safety and soundness of
nonbank SDs by establishing regulatory regimes that require nonbank SDs
to maintain a sufficient amount of qualifying regulatory capital to
absorb losses, including losses from swaps and other trading
activities, and to absorb decreases in the value of firm assets and
increases in the value of firm liabilities without the nonbank SDs
becoming insolvent.\125\ The Commission further noted that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules are based on, and consistent with,
the BCBS framework, which was designed to ensure that banking entities
hold sufficient levels of capital to absorb losses and decreases in the
value of firm assets and increases in the value of firm liabilities
without the banks becoming insolvent.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See 2024 Proposal at 8037.
\126\ The BCBS's mandate is to strengthen the regulation,
supervision, and practices of banks with the purpose of enhancing
financial stability. See Basel Committee Charter available on the
Bank for International Settlement website: www.bis.org/bcbs/charter.htm. See 2024 Proposal at 8037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also preliminarily found that the UK PRA Capital
Rules are comparable in purpose and effect to the CFTC Capital Rules
given that both regulatory approaches compute the minimum capital
requirements based on the level of a nonbank SD's on-balance sheet and
off-balance sheet exposures, with the objective and purpose of ensuring
that the nonbank SD's capital is adequate to absorb losses or decreases
in the value of firm assets or increases in the value of firm
liabilities resulting from such exposures. The Commission observed that
the UK PRA Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules provide for a
comparable approach to the calculation of market risk and credit risk
exposures using standardized or internal model-based approaches.\127\
In addition, as discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the UK PRA Capital
Rules' and CFTC Capital Rules' requirements for identifying and
measuring on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures under
standardized or internal model-based approaches are also consistent
with the requirements set forth under the BCBS framework for
identifying and measuring on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet
exposures.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 2024 Proposal at 8039-8047.
\128\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission preliminarily noted that the UK PRA Capital
Rules and CFTC Capital Rules further achieve comparable outcomes and
are comparable in purpose and effect in that both sets of rules limit
the types of capital instruments that qualify as regulatory capital to
cover the on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet risk exposures to high
quality equity capital and qualifying subordinated debt instruments
that meet conditions designed to ensure that the holders of the debt
have effectively subordinated their claims to other creditors of the
nonbank SD.\129\ As discussed in the 2024 Proposal and in section II.B.
below, both the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules define
high quality capital by the degree to which the capital represents
permanent capital that is contributed, or readily available to a
nonbank SD, on an unrestricted basis to absorb unexpected losses,
including losses from swaps trading and other activities, without the
nonbank SD becoming insolvent.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 2024 Proposal at 8039.
\130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further stated that it preliminarily found the UK
PRA Financial Reporting Rules to be comparable in purpose and effect to
the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules as both the PRA and CFTC require
nonbank SDs to file periodic financial reports, including unaudited
financial reports and an annual audited financial report, detailing
their financial operations and demonstrating their compliance with
minimum capital requirements.\131\ As discussed in the 2024 Proposal,
in addition to providing the CFTC and the PRA with information
necessary to comprehensively assess the financial condition of a
nonbank SD on an ongoing basis, the financial reports further provide
the CFTC and the PRA with information regarding potential changes in a
nonbank SD's risk profile by disclosing changes in account balances
reported over a period of time.\132\ Such changes in account balances
may indicate, among other things, that the nonbank SD has entered into
new lines of business, has increased its activity in an existing line
of business relative to other activities, or has terminated a previous
line of business.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Id. at 8037.
\132\ Id.
\133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the comparability between the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules and the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, the Commission noted
that the prompt and effective monitoring of the financial condition of
nonbank SDs through the receipt and review of periodic financial
reports supports the Commission and the PRA in meeting their respective
objectives of ensuring the safety and soundness of nonbank SDs. In this
regard, the Commission stated that the early identification of
potential financial issues provides the Commission and the PRA with an
opportunity to address such issues with the nonbank SD before they
develop to a state where the financial condition of the firm is
impaired such that it may no longer hold a sufficient amount of
qualifying regulatory capital to absorb decreases in the value of firm
assets, absorb increases in the value of firm liabilities, or cover
losses from its business activities, including the firm's swap dealing
activities and obligations to swap counterparties.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comment Analysis and Final Determination
In response to the Commission's request for comment, Better Markets
identified certain differences between the CFTC Capital Rules and
Financial Reporting Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules and Financial
Reporting Rules and stated that the differences mandated denial of the
request for a comparability determination.\135\ Better Markets further
stated that the nature and number of conditions that the Commission
deemed necessary to impose are inconsistent with a finding of
comparability.\136\ In this connection, Better Markets also noted that
the imposition of conditions will exacerbate complexity as the
Commission will have to monitor compliance with the conditions,
including reviewing the financial reports of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs and tracking developments in the UK PRA regulatory regime
more generally.\137\ Finally, Better Markets asserted that the proposed
Comparability Order failed to provide sufficient analysis as to exactly
how and why the Commission concluded that the UK and U.S. frameworks
would produce ``comparable outcomes.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Better Markets Letter at p. 15.
\136\ Id. at p. 11.
\137\ Id. at p. 16.
\138\ Id. at p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58548]]
As described herein and in the 2024 Proposal, Commission staff has
engaged in a detailed, comprehensive study and evaluation of the UK PRA
capital and financial reporting framework and has confirmed that its
understanding of the elements and application of the framework is
accurate. The Commission has also concluded, based on its evaluation,
that the PRA has a comprehensive oversight program for monitoring PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs' compliance with relevant UK PRA Capital
Rules.
Furthermore, as discussed in section I.E. above, the conditions set
forth in the Comparability Order are generally intended to ensure that:
(i) only PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are subject to the laws and
regulations assessed under the Comparability Determination are eligible
for substituted compliance; (ii) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
subject to supervision by the PRA; and (iii) the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs provide information to the Commission and NFA that is
relevant to the ongoing supervision of their operations and financial
condition. Considering this thorough analysis, and the ongoing
requirement for PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to provide information to
the Commission and NFA demonstrating compliance with the Comparability
Order, the Commission is confident that it is capable of effectively
conducting, together with NFA, oversight of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs consistent with the conduct of oversight of U.S.-domiciled
nonbank SDs. In light of the Commission's ultimate conclusion that the
UK PRA capital and financial reporting requirements are comparable
based on the standards articulated in Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(3), the Commission believes that a failure to issue a
Comparability Determination and Comparability Order would in fact
``exacerbate complexity'' as it would impose duplicative requirements
that would result in increased costs for registrants and market
participants without a commensurate benefit from an oversight
perspective.
As discussed in sections I.B. and E. above, and detailed herein,
the Commission finds that the CFTC Capital Rules and Financial
Reporting Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules and Financial Reporting
Rules are comparable in purpose and effect, and have overall comparable
objectives, notwithstanding the identified differences. In this regard,
the Commission notes that, as described above, instead of conducting a
line-by-line assessment or comparison of the UK PRA Capital and
Financial Reporting Rules and the CFTC Capital and Financial Reporting
Rules, it has applied in the assessment set forth in the determination
and order, a principles-based, holistic approach in assessing the
comparability of both regimes, consistent with the standard of review
it adopted in Commission Regulation 23.106(a)(3). Based on that
principles-based, holistic assessment, the individual elements of which
are described in more detail in sections II.B. through II.F. below, the
Commission has determined that both sets of rules are designed to
ensure the safety and soundness of nonbank SDs and achieve comparable
outcomes. As such, the Commission adopts the Comparability
Determination and Comparability Order as proposed with respect to the
analysis of the regulatory objectives of the CFTC Capital Rules and
Financial Reporting Rules and the UK PRA Capital and Financial
Reporting Rules.
B. Nonbank Swap Dealer Qualifying Capital
1. Preliminary Determination
As discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the Commission preliminarily
determined that the UK PRA Capital Rules are comparable in purpose and
effect to the CFTC Capital Rules with regard to the types and
characteristics of a nonbank SD's equity that qualifies as regulatory
capital in meeting its minimum requirements.\139\ The Commission
explained that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules for
nonbank SDs both require a nonbank SD to maintain a quantity of high-
quality and permanent capital that, based on the firm's activities and
on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures, is sufficient to
absorb losses and decreases in the value of firm assets and increases
in the value of firm liabilities without resulting in the firm becoming
insolvent.\140\ The Commission observed that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules permit nonbank SDs to recognize comparable
forms of equity capital and qualifying subordinated debt instruments
toward meeting minimum capital requirements, with both the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules emphasizing high quality
capital instruments.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See 2024 Proposal at 8039.
\140\ Id.
\141\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its preliminary Comparability Determination, the
Commission noted that the CFTC Capital Rules require a nonbank SD
electing the Bank-Based Approach to maintain regulatory capital in the
form of common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, and
tier 2 capital in amounts that meet certain stated minimum requirements
set forth in Commission Regulation 23.101.\142\ Common equity tier 1
capital is generally composed of an entity's common stock instruments,
and any related surpluses, retained earnings, and accumulated other
comprehensive income, and is a more conservative or permanent form of
capital that is last in line to receive distributions in the event of
the entity's insolvency.\143\ Additional tier 1 capital is generally
composed of equity instruments such as preferred stock and certain
hybrid securities that may be converted to common stock if triggering
events occur and may have a preference in distributions over common
equity tier 1 capital in the event of an insolvency.\144\ Total tier 1
capital is composed of common equity tier 1 capital and further
includes additional tier 1 capital. Tier 2 capital includes certain
types of instruments that include both debt and equity characteristics
such as qualifying subordinated debt.\145\ Subordinated debt must meet
certain conditions to qualify as tier 2 capital under the CFTC Capital
Rules.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i) and 2024 Proposal at 8037-8038. The
terms ``common equity tier 1 capital,'' ``additional tier 1
capital,'' and ``tier 2 capital'' are defined in the bank holding
company regulations of the Federal Reserve Board. 12 CFR 217.20.
\143\ 12 CFR 217.20(b).
\144\ 12 CFR 217.20(c).
\145\ 12 CFR 217.20(d).
\146\ Subordinated debt must meet requirements set forth in SEC
Rule 18a-1d. Specifically, subordinated debt instruments must have a
term of at least one year (with the exception of approved revolving
subordinated debt agreements which may have a maturity term that is
less than one year), and contain terms that effectively subordinate
the rights of lenders to receive any payments, including accrued
interest, to other creditors of the firm. 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B)
and 17 CFR 240.18a-1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preliminary Comparability Determination also noted that the UK
PRA Capital Rules require a PRA-designated nonbank SD to maintain an
amount of regulatory capital (i.e., equity capital and qualifying
subordinated debt) equal to or greater than 8 percent of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's total risk exposure, which is calculated as
the sum of the firm's: (i) capital charges for market risk; (ii) risk-
weighted exposure amounts for credit risk; (iii) capital charges for
settlement risk; (iv) credit valuation adjustment (``CVA'') risk of
over-the-counter (``OTC'') derivatives instruments; and (v) capital
charges for operational risk. The UK PRA Capital Rules limit the
composition of regulatory capital to
[[Page 58549]]
common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2
capital in a manner consistent with the BCBS framework. Specifically,
the UK PRA Capital Rules provide that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
regulatory capital may be composed of: (i) common equity tier 1 capital
instruments, which generally include the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
common equity (stock), retained earnings, and accumulated other
comprehensive income; (ii) additional tier 1 capital instruments, which
includes other forms of capital instruments and certain long-term
convertible debt instruments; and (iii) tier 2 capital instruments,
which include other reserves, hybrid capital instruments, and certain
qualifying subordinated term debt.\147\ Capital instruments that
qualify as common equity tier 1 capital under the UK PRA Capital Rules
include instruments that: (i) are issued directly by the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD; (ii) are paid in full and not funded directly or
indirectly by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; and (iii) are
perpetual.\148\ In addition, the principal amount of the common equity
tier 1 capital instruments may not be reduced or repaid, except in the
liquidation of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD.\149\ Furthermore, to
qualify as additional tier 1 capital, the capital instruments must meet
certain conditions including: (i) the instruments are issued directly
by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD and paid in full; (ii) the
instruments are not owned by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD or its
subsidiaries; (iii) the purchase of the instruments is not funded
directly or indirectly by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; (iv) the
instruments rank below tier 2 instruments in the event of the
insolvency of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; (v) the instruments are
not secured or guaranteed by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD or an
affiliate; (vi) the instruments are perpetual and do not include an
incentive for the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to redeem them; and
(vii) distributions under the instruments are pursuant to defined terms
and may be cancelled under the full discretion of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD.\150\ Lastly, subordinated debt instruments must meet
certain conditions to qualify as tier 2 regulatory capital under the UK
PRA Capital Rules, including that the: (i) loans are not granted by the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD or its subsidiaries; (ii) claims on the
principal amount of the subordinated loans under the provisions
governing the subordinated loan agreement rank below any claim from
eligible liabilities instruments (i.e., certain non-capital
instruments), meaning that they are effectively subordinated to claims
of all non-subordinated creditors of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD;
(iii) subordinated loans are not secured, or subject to a guarantee
that enhances the seniority of the claim, by the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD, its subsidiaries, or affiliates; (iv) loans have an
original maturity of at least five years; and (v) provisions governing
the loans do not include any incentive for the principal amount to be
repaid by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD prior to the loans'
maturity.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 2024 Proposal at 8038.
\148\ Id. and UK CRR, Articles 26 and 28.
\149\ Id.
\150\ Id. and UK CRR, Articles 51-52.
\151\ Id. and UK CRR, Article 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its comparative assessment, the Commission preliminarily
found that the types and characteristics of the equity instruments that
qualify as common equity tier 1 capital and additional tier 1 capital
under the UK PRA Capital Rules are comparable to the types and
characteristics of equity instruments comprising common equity tier 1
capital and additional tier 1 capital under the CFTC Capital
Rules.\152\ Specifically, the Commission noted that the UK PRA Capital
Rules' common equity tier 1 capital and additional tier 1 capital and
the CFTC Capital Rules' common equity tier 1 capital and additional
tier 1 capital are comparable in that these forms of equity capital
have similar characteristics (e.g., the equity must be in the form of
high-quality, committed, and permanent capital) and represent
contributed equity capital that generally has no priority to the
distribution of firm assets or income with respect to other
shareholders or creditors of the firm, which allows a nonbank SD to use
this equity to absorb decreases in the value of firm assets, absorb
increases in the value of firm liabilities, and cover losses from
business activities, including the firm's swap dealing activities.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ See 2024 Proposal at 8039.
\153\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also found subordinated debt under the UK PRA
Capital Rules comparable to tier 2 capital under the CFTC Capital
Rules.\154\ Specifically, the Commission noted that the qualifying
conditions imposed on subordinated debt instruments are comparable
under the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules in that they
are designed to ensure that the debt has qualities supporting its
recognition by a nonbank SD as equity for capital purposes, including
by effectively subordinating the debt lenders' claims for repayment on
the debt to other creditors of the nonbank SD and by limiting or
restricting repayment of the subordinated loans if such repayments
result in the nonbank SD's equity falling below certain defined
thresholds.\155\ The Commission preliminarily concluded that these
terms and conditions provided assurances that the subordinated debt is
appropriate to be recognized as regulatory capital available to a
nonbank SD to meet its obligations and to absorb business losses and
decreases in the value of firm assets and increases in the value of
firm liabilities.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Id.
\155\ Id.
\156\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comment Analysis and Final Determination
The Commission did not receive comments regarding its preliminary
determination that the UK PRA Capital Rules are comparable in purpose
and effect to the CFTC Capital Rules with regard to the types and
characteristics of a nonbank SD's equity and subordinated debt that
qualifies as regulatory capital in meeting its minimum requirements. In
conclusion, the Commission finds that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the
CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in purpose and effect, and achieve
comparable regulatory outcomes, with respect to the types of capital
instruments that qualify as regulatory capital. Both the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules limit regulatory capital to permanent
and conservative forms of capital, including common equity, capital
surpluses, retained earnings, and subordinate debt where debt holders
effectively subordinate their claims to repayment to all other
creditors of the nonbank SD in the event of the firm's insolvency.
Limiting regulatory capital to the above categories of equity and debt
instruments promotes the safety and soundness of the nonbank SD by
helping to ensure that the regulatory capital is not withdrawn or
converted to other equity instruments that may have rights or priority
with respect to payments, such as dividends or distributions in
insolvency, over other creditors, including swap counterparties. The
Commission, therefore, is adopting the Comparability Order as proposed
with respect to the types and characteristics of equity and
subordinated debt that qualifies as regulatory capital to meet minimum
[[Page 58550]]
capital requirements under the UK PRA Capital Rules.
C. Nonbank Swap Dealer Minimum Capital Requirement
1. Introduction to Nonbank Swap Dealer Minimum Capital Requirements
As reflected in the 2024 Proposal, the CFTC Capital Rules require a
nonbank SD electing the Bank-Based Approach to maintain regulatory
capital that satisfies each of the following criteria: (i) an amount of
common equity tier 1 capital of at least $20 million; (ii) an aggregate
amount of common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, and
tier 2 capital equal to or greater than 8 percent of the nonbank SD's
total risk-weighted assets, provided that common equity tier 1 capital
comprises at least 6.5 percent of the 8 percent; (iii) an aggregate of
common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2
capital in an amount equal to or in excess of 8 percent of the nonbank
SD's uncleared swap margin amount; \157\ and (iv) the amount of capital
required by NFA.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i). See also 2024 Proposal at 8039.
The term ``uncleared swap margin'' is defined in Commission
Regulation 23.100 to generally mean the amount of initial margin
that a nonbank SD would be required to collect from each
counterparty for each outstanding swap position of the nonbank SD.
17 CFR 23.100. A nonbank SD must include all swap positions in the
calculation of the uncleared swap margin amount, including swaps
that are exempt or excluded from the scope of the Commission's
uncleared swap margin regulations. A nonbank SD must compute the
uncleared swap margin amount in accordance with the Commission's
margin rules for uncleared swaps. 17 CFR 23.154.
\158\ 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(D). See also 2024 Proposal at 8039.
Commission Regulation 23.101(a)(1)(i)(D) sets forth one of the
minimum thresholds that a nonbank SD must meet as the ``the amount
of capital required by a registered futures association.'' As
previously noted, NFA is currently the only entity that is
registered with the Commission as a futures association. NFA has
adopted the Commission's capital requirements as its own
requirements, and has not adopted any additional or stricter minimum
capital requirements. See NFA rulebook, Financial Requirements
Section 18 Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Financial
Requirements, available at nfa.futures.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison, the UK PRA Capital Rules, consistent with the BCBS
framework, require each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to maintain
sufficient levels of capital to satisfy the following, expressed as a
percentage of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's ``total risk exposure
amount'' (i.e., the sum of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's risk-
weighted assets and exposures): (i) a common equity tier 1 capital
ratio of 4.5 percent; (ii) a tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent; and
(iii) a total capital ratio of 8 percent. Furthermore, PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs must maintain a capital conservation buffer composed of
common equity tier 1 capital in an amount equal to 2.5 percent of the
firm's total risk exposure. The common equity tier 1 capital used to
meet the capital conservation buffer must be separate and in addition
to the 4.5 percent of common equity tier 1 capital required to meet its
core 8 percent capital requirement.\159\ As explained in the 2024
Proposal, the ``total risk exposure amount'' is calculated as the sum
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's: (i) capital requirements for
market risk; (ii) risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk; (iii)
capital requirements for CVA risk of OTC derivatives; and (iv) capital
requirements for operational risk.\160\ Capital charges for market risk
and credit risk are computed based on a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures, weighted according to
risk.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ See 2024 Proposal at 8041-8042.
\160\ Id. at 8042.
\161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Preliminary Determination and Comment Analysis
While noting certain differences in the minimum capital
requirements and calculation of regulatory capital between the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules, the Commission preliminarily
found that the UK PRA Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules achieve,
subject to the conditions in the proposed Comparability Determination
and proposed Comparability Order, comparable outcomes by requiring a
nonbank SD to maintain a minimum level of qualifying regulatory capital
and subordinated debt to absorb losses from the firm's business
activities, including its swap dealing activities, and decreases in the
value of the firm's assets and increases in the firm's liabilities
without the nonbank SD becoming insolvent.\162\ As further discussed
below, the Commission's preliminary finding of comparability was based
on a principles-based, holistic comparative analysis of the three
minimum capital requirement thresholds of the CFTC Capital Rules' Bank-
Based Approach referenced above and the respective elements of the UK
PRA Capital Rules' requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Id. at 8045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Fixed Amount Minimum Capital Requirement
As noted above, prong (i) of the CFTC Capital Rules requires each
nonbank SD electing the Bank-Based Approach to maintain a minimum of
$20 million of common equity tier 1 capital. The CFTC's $20 million
fixed-dollar minimum capital requirement is intended to ensure that
each nonbank SD maintains a level of regulatory capital, without regard
to the level of the firm's dealing and other activities, sufficient to
meet its obligations to swap market participants given the firm's
status as a CFTC-registered nonbank SD and to help ensure the safety
and soundness of the nonbank SD.\163\ In comparison, the UK PRA Capital
Rules also contain a requirement that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
maintain a fixed amount of minimum initial capital of GBP 750,000.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 85 FR 57462 at 57492.
\164\ 2024 Proposal at 8045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, in the 2024 Proposal, recognized that the $20
million fixed-dollar minimum capital required under the CFTC Capital
Rules is substantially higher than the GBP 750,000 minimum base capital
required under the UK PRA Capital Rules. Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily proposed a condition that each PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD would be required to maintain, at all times, a minimum amount of
common equity tier 1 capital, as defined in Article 26 of UK CRR,
denominated in GBP equal to or in excess of the equivalent of $20
million.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Id. The Commission also noted that the six current PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs maintain common equity tier 1 capital in
amounts in excess of the equivalent of $20 million based on
financial filings made with the Commission. Id. (note 255).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter, Better Markets, argued that the establishment in the
UK PRA Capital Rules of a base level requirement that is substantially
lower than the CFTC Capital Rules' fixed amount minimum requirement
``demonstrates a fatal lack of comparability.'' \166\ Better Markets
further stated that to compensate for this gap, the Commission proposed
a condition requiring PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to maintain a
minimum amount of common equity tier 1 capital denominated in GBP equal
to or in excess of the equivalent of $20 million.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Better Markets Letter at p. 13.
\167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Commission recognized the material difference
in the requirement under the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital
Rules with respect to the $20 million minimum dollar amount of
regulatory capital a nonbank SD is required to maintain. The
Commission's proposed condition, however, effectively addresses this
difference by providing that a PRA-
[[Page 58551]]
designated UK nonbank SD may not avail itself of substituted compliance
unless it maintains a minimum amount of common equity tier 1 capital
denominated in GBP equal to or excess of the equivalent of $20 million.
Furthermore, the imposition of conditions in a Comparability Order, as
discussed in section I.E. above, is authorized by Commission Regulation
23.106(a)(5), which provides that the Commission may issue terms and
conditions as it deems appropriate. In addition, as further noted in
section I.E. above, the Guidance also provides that the Commission may
impose conditions as part of the substituted compliance process to
address a lack of comparable and comprehensive regulation in a home
jurisdiction.\168\ In this connection, the Commission concludes that
requiring PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to maintain an amount of
regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier 1 items, as
defined in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal to or in excess of the
equivalent of $20 million will impose an equally stringent standard to
the analogue requirement under the CFTC Capital Rules and will
appropriately address the substantially lower minimum fixed amount
capital requirement under the UK PRA Capital Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Guidance at 45343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules, with the imposition of the condition for
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to maintain a minimum level of common
equity tier 1 capital in an amount equivalent to at least $20 million,
are comparable in purpose and effect and achieve comparable outcomes
with respect to capital requirements based on a minimum dollar amount.
The requirement for a nonbank SD with limited swap dealing or other
business activities to maintain a minimum level of regulatory capital
equivalent to $20 million helps to ensure the firm's safety and
soundness by allowing it to absorb decreases in firm assets, absorb
increases in firm liabilities, and meet obligations to swap
counterparties, other creditors, and market participants, without the
firm becoming insolvent.
b. Minimum Capital Requirement Based on Risk-Weighted Assets
Prong (ii) of the CFTC Capital Rules' minimum capital requirements
described above requires each nonbank SD electing the Bank-Based
Approach to maintain an aggregate of common equity tier 1 capital,
additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2 capital in an amount equal to or
greater than 8 percent of the nonbank SD's total risk-weighted assets,
with common equity tier 1 capital comprising at least 6.5 percent of
the 8 percent.\169\ Risk-weighted assets are a nonbank SD's on-balance
sheet and off-balance sheet market risk and credit risk exposures,
including exposures associated with proprietary swap, security-based
swap, equity, and futures positions, weighted according to risk. The
requirements and capital ratios set forth in prong (ii) are based on
the Federal Reserve Board's capital requirements for bank holding
companies and are consistent with the BCBS framework. The requirement
for each nonbank SD to maintain regulatory capital in an amount that
equals or exceeds 8 percent of the firm's total risk-weighted assets is
intended to help ensure that the nonbank SD's level of capital is
sufficient to absorb decreases in the value of the firm's assets and
increases in the value of the firm's liabilities, and to cover
unexpected losses resulting from the firm's business activities,
including losses resulting from uncollateralized defaults from swap
counterparties, without the nonbank SD becoming insolvent.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B).
\170\ See generally 85 FR 57462 at 57530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK PRA Capital Rules contain capital requirements for PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs that the Commission preliminarily found
comparable to the requirements in prong (ii) of the CFTC Capital
Requirements.\171\ Specifically, the UK PRA Capital Rules require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to maintain: (i) common equity tier 1
capital equal to at least 4.5 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD's total risk exposure amount; (ii) total tier 1 capital (i.e.,
common equity tier 1 capital plus additional tier 1 capital) equal to
at least 6 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's total risk
exposure amount; and (iii) total capital (i.e., an aggregate amount of
common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2
capital) equal to at least 8 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD's total risk exposure amount. The UK PRA Capital Rules further
require each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to maintain an additional
capital conservation buffer equal to 2.5 percent of the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD's total risk exposure amount, which must be met with
common equity tier 1 capital. Thus, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is
effectively required to maintain total qualifying regulatory capital in
an amount equal to or in excess of 10.5 percent of the market risk,
credit risk, CVA risk, settlement risk, and operational risk of the
firm (i.e., total capital requirement of 8 percent of risk-weighted
assets and an additional 2.5 percent of risk-weighted assets as a
capital conservation buffer), which is a higher capital ratio than the
8 percent required of nonbank SDs under prong (ii) of the CFTC Capital
Rules.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
\172\ Id. and UK CRR Articles 26, 28, 50-52, 61-63 and 92, and
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 2 Capital
Conservation Buffer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also preliminarily found that the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules are comparable with respect to the
approaches used in the calculation of risk-weighted asset amounts for
market risk and credit risk in determining the nonbank SD's risk-
weighted assets.\173\ In that regard, the Commission noted that both
regimes require a nonbank SD to use standardized approaches to compute
market risk and credit risk amounts, unless the firm is approved to use
internal models.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
\174\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Commission observed, the standardized approaches to
calculating risk-weighted asset amounts for market risk and credit risk
under both sets of rules follow the same structure that is now the
common global standard: (i) allocating assets to categories according
to risk and assigning each a risk weight; (ii) allocating
counterparties according to risk assessments and assigning each a risk
factor; (iii) calculating gross exposures based on valuation of assets;
(iv) calculating a net exposure allowing offsets following well defined
procedures and subject to clear limitations; (v) adjusting the net
exposure by the market risk weights; and finally, (vi) for credit risk
exposures, multiplying the sum of net exposures to each counterparty by
their corresponding risk factor.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, with respect to the calculation of standardized
risk-weighted asset amounts for market risk, the Commission explained
that the CFTC Capital Rules incorporate by reference the standardized
market risk charges set forth in Commission Regulation 1.17 for FCMs
and SEC Rule 18a-1 for nonbank security-based swap dealers
(``SBSDs'').\176\ The standardized market risk charges under Commission
Regulation 1.17 and SEC Rule 18a-1 are calculated as a standardized or
table-based percentage of the market value or notional value of the
nonbank SD's marketable securities and derivatives positions, with the
percentages applied
[[Page 58552]]
to the market value or notional value increasing as the expected or
anticipated risk of the positions increases.\177\ For example, CFTC
Capital Rules require nonbank SDs to calculate standardized market
risk-weighted asset amounts for uncleared swaps based on notional
values of the swap positions multiplied by percentages set forth in the
applicable rules.\178\ In addition, market risk-weighted asset amounts
for readily marketable equity securities are calculated by multiplying
the fair market value of the securities by 15 percent.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Id. at 8040 and paragraph (3) of the definition of the
term BHC equivalent risk-weighted assets in 17 CFR 23.100.
\177\ See 2024 Proposal at 8040, 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5), and 17 CFR
240.18a-1(c)(1).
\178\ 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(iii).
\179\ 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(v), referencing SEC Rule 15c3-
1(c)(2)(vi) (17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2)(vi)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CFTC Capital Rules, the resulting total market risk-
weighted asset amount is multiplied by a factor of 12.5 to cancel the
effect of the 8 percent multiplication factor applied to all of the
nonbank SD's risk-weighted assets under prong (ii) of the rules'
minimum capital requirements described above. As a result, a nonbank SD
is effectively required to hold qualifying regulatory capital equal to
or greater than 100 percent of the amount of its market risk exposure
amount.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ 17 CFR 23.100 (definition of BHC equivalent risk-weighted
assets). As noted, a nonbank SD is required to maintain qualifying
capital (i.e., an aggregate of common equity tier 1 capital,
additional tier 1 capital, and tier 2 capital) in an amount that
equals or exceeds 8 percent of its risk-weighted assets. The
regulations, however, require the nonbank SD to effectively maintain
qualifying capital equal to or in excess of 100 percent of its
market risk-weighted assets by requiring the nonbank SD to multiply
its market-risk weighted assets by a factor of 12.5. For example,
the market risk exposure amount for marketable equity securities
with a current fair market value of $250,000 is $37,500 (market
value of $250,000 x .15 standardized market risk factor). The
nonbank SD is required to maintain regulatory capital equal to or in
excess of full market risk exposure amount of $37,500 (risk exposure
amount of $37,500 x 8 percent regulatory capital requirement equals
$3,000; the regulatory capital requirement is then multiplied by a
factor of 12.5, which effectively requires the nonbank SD to hold
regulatory capital in an amount equal to at least 100 percent of the
market risk exposure amount ($3,000 x 12.5 factor equals $37,500)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparable to the CFTC Capital Rules, the UK PRA Capital Rules
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to calculate its standardized
risk-weighted asset amounts for market risk by multiplying the notional
or carrying amount of net positions by risk-weighting factors, which
are based on the underlying market risk of each asset or exposure and
increase as the expected risk of the positions increases.\181\ The
Commission further explained that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is
required to calculate market risk requirements for debt instruments and
equity instruments separately, by computing each category as the sum of
specific risk and general risk of the positions.\182\ As further
discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the UK PRA Capital Rules also require
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to include in their risk-weighted assets
market risk exposures to certain foreign currency and gold positions.
Specifically, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD with net positions in
foreign exchange and gold that exceed 2 percent of the firm's total
capital must calculate capital requirements for foreign exchange
risk.\183\ The capital requirement for foreign exchange risk under the
standardized approach is 8 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD's net positions in foreign exchange and gold.\184\ The UK PRA
Capital Rules further require PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to include
exposures to commodity positions in calculating the firm's risk-
weighted assets. The standardized calculation of commodity risk
exposures may follow one of three approaches depending on type of
position or exposure. The first is the sum of a flat percentage rate
for net positions, with netting allowed among tightly defined sets,
plus another flat percentage rate for the gross position.\185\ The
other two standardized approaches are based on maturity-ladders, where
unmatched portions of each maturity band (i.e., portions that do not
net out to zero) are charged at a step-up rate in comparison to the
base charges for matched portions.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ See 2024 Proposal at 8042.
\182\ Id. and UK CRR, Article 326. As indicated in Article 326
of UK CRR, securitizations are treated as debt instruments for
market risk requirements.
\183\ 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article 351.
\184\ Id.
\185\ 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article 360.
\186\ 2024 Proposal at 8042 and UK CRR, Article 359-361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to standardized risk-weighted asset amounts for credit
risk, the Commission explained that under the CFTC Capital Rules, a
nonbank SD must compute its on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet
exposures in accordance with the standardized risk-weighting
requirements adopted by the Federal Reserve Board and set forth in
Subpart D of 12 CFR 217 as if the SD itself were a bank holding company
subject to Subpart D.\187\ Standardized risk-weighted asset amounts for
credit risk are computed by multiplying the amount of the exposure by
defined counterparty credit risk factors that range from 0 percent to
150 percent.\188\ A nonbank SD with off-balance sheet exposures is
required to calculate a risk-weighted amount for credit risk by
multiplying each exposure by a credit conversion factor that ranges
from 0 percent to 100 percent, depending on the type of exposure.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ 23.101(a)(1)(i)(B) and paragraph (1) of the definition of
the term BHC equivalent risk-weighted assets in 17 CFR 23.100. See
also 2024 Proposal at 8040.
\188\ 12 CFR 217.32. Lower credit risk factors are assigned to
entities with lower credit risk and higher credit risk factors are
assigned to entities with higher credit risk. For example, a credit
risk factor of 0 percent is applied to exposures to the U.S.
government, the Federal Reserve Bank, and U.S. government agencies
(12 CFR 217.32(a)(1)), and a credit risk factor of 100 percent is
assigned to an exposure to foreign sovereigns that are not members
of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (12 CFR
217.32(a)(2)). See also discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8040.
\189\ 12 CFR 217.33. See also discussion in 2024 Proposal at
8040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison, the Commission noted that the UK PRA Capital Rules
require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to calculate its standardized
risk-weighted asset amounts for credit risk in a manner aligned with
the Commission's Bank-Based Approach and the BCBS framework by taking
the carrying value or notional value of each of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD's on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures, making
certain additional credit risk adjustments, and then applying specific
risk weights based on the type of counterparty and the asset's credit
quality.\190\ For instance, exposures to the ECB, the UK government,
and the Bank of England, carry a zero percent risk weight; exposures to
other central governments and central banks may carry risk weights
between 0 and 150, depending on the credit rating available for the
central government or central bank; and exposures to banks, PRA-
designated investment firms, or other businesses may carry risk weights
between 20 percent and 150 percent depending on the credit ratings
available for the entity or, for exposures to banks and investment
firms, for the central government of the jurisdiction in which the
entity is incorporated.\191\ If no credit rating is available, the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD must generally apply a 100 percent risk
weight, meaning the total accounting value of the exposure is
used.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles 111 and 113(1).
\191\ 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles 114-122.
\192\ 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles 121(2) and
122(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to counterparty credit risk for derivatives positions,
the Commission explained that under the CFTC Capital Rules, a nonbank
SD may compute standardized credit risk
[[Page 58553]]
exposures, using either the current exposure method (``CEM'') or the
standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk (``SA-
CCR'').\193\ Both CEM and SA-CCR are non-model, rules-based approaches
to calculating counterparty credit risk exposures for derivatives
positions. Credit risk exposure under CEM is the sum of: (i) the
current exposure (i.e., the positive mark-to-market) of the derivatives
contract; and (ii) the potential future exposure, which is calculated
as the product of the notional principal amount of the derivatives
contract multiplied by a standard credit risk conversion factor set
forth in the rules of the Federal Reserve Board.\194\ Credit risk
exposure under SA-CCR is defined as the exposure at default amount of a
derivatives contract, which is computed by multiplying a factor of 1.4
by the sum of: (i) the replacement costs of the contract (i.e., the
positive mark-to market); and (ii) the potential future exposure of the
contract.\195\ In comparison, the UK PRA Capital Rules require a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD that is not approved to use credit risk models
to calculate its exposure using the SA-CCR.\196\ The exposure amount
under the SA-CCR is computed, under both the UK PRA Capital Rules and
the Commission's Bank-Based Approach, as the sum of the replacement
cost of the contract and the potential future exposure of the contract,
multiplied by a factor of 1.4.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ 17 CFR 217.34 and 17 CFR 23.100 (defining the term BHC
risk-weighted assets and providing that a nonbank SD that does not
have model approval may use either CEM or SA-CCR to compute its
exposures for OTC derivative contracts without regard to the status
of its affiliate with respect to the use of a calculation approach
under the Federal Reserve Board's capital rules). See also
discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8040.
\194\ 12 CFR 217.34.
\195\ 12 CFR 217.132(c).
\196\ 2024 Proposal at 8043, UK CRR, Articles 92(3)(f), and PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3
Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two, Chapter Six CRR).
As noted in the 2024 Proposal, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs with
smaller-sized derivatives business may also use a ``simplified
standardized approach to counterparty credit risk'' or an ``original
exposure method'' as simpler methods for calculating exposure
values. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR)
Part, Chapter 3 Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two,
Chapter Six CRR), Articles 281-282. To use either of these
alternative methods, an entity's on-and off-balance sheet
derivatives business must be equal to or less than 10 percent of the
entity's total assets and GBP 260 million or 5 percent of the
entity's total assets and GBP 88 million, respectively. PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part, Chapter 3
Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two, Chapter Six CRR),
Article 273a.
\197\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR)
Part, Chapter 3 Counterparty Credit Risk (Part Three, Title Two,
Chapter Six CRR), Article 274 and 12 CFR 217.132(c). See also
discussion in 2024 Proposal at 8043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK PRA Capital Rules also require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
include its exposures to settlement risk in its calculation of its
risk-weighted assets.\198\ Consistent with the BCBS framework, the
risk-weighted asset amount for settlement risk for transactions settled
on a delivery-versus-payment basis is computed by multiplying the price
difference to which a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is exposed as a
result of an unsettled transaction by a percentage factor that varies
from 8 percent to 100 percent based on the number of working days after
the settlement due date during which the transaction remains
unsettled.\199\ The CFTC's Bank-Based Approach provides for a similar
calculation methodology for risk-weighted asset amounts for unsettled
transactions involving securities, foreign exchange instruments, and
commodities.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Article 378 (indicating
that if transactions in which debt instruments, equities, foreign
currencies and commodities excluding repurchase transactions and
securities or commodities lending and securities or commodities
borrowing are unsettled after their delivery due dates, a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD must calculate the price difference to
which it is exposed).
\199\ Id. The price difference to which a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD is exposed is the difference between the agreed
settlement price for an instrument (i.e., a debt instrument, equity,
foreign currency or commodity) and the instrument's current market
value, where the difference could involve a loss for the firm. UK
CRR, Article 378.
\200\ 17 CFR 23.100 (definition of BHC equivalent risk-weighted
assets), 12 CFR 217.38 and 12 CFR 217.136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the BCBS framework, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
is also required to calculate a CVA risk-weighted asset amount for OTC
derivative instruments to reflect the current market value of the
credit risk of the counterparty to the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD.\201\ Risk-weighted asset amounts for CVA risk can be calculated
following similar methodologies as those described in Subpart E of the
Federal Reserve Board's part 217 regulations.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 2024 Proposal at 8043 and UK CRR, Articles 381 and 382(1).
\202\ UK CRR, Articles 383-384 and 12 CFR 217.132(e)(5) and (6).
Under the CFTC's Bank-Based Approach, nonbank SDs calculating their
credit risk-weighted assets using the regulations in Subpart D of
the Federal Reserve Board's Part 217 regulations do not calculate
CVA of OTC derivatives instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the 2024 Proposal, both the CFTC Capital Rules and
the UK PRA Capital Rules also provide that, if approved by NFA or the
PRA, respectively, nonbank SDs may also use internal models to
calculate market and/or credit risk exposures.\203\ The Commission
noted that the internal market and credit risk models under the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules are based on the BCBS
framework and preliminarily found that such models must meet comparable
quantitative and qualitative requirements covering the same risks,
though with slightly different categorization, and including comparable
model risk management requirements.\204\ In this regard, the Commission
observed that both rule sets address the same types of risk, with
similar allowed methodologies and under similar controls.\205\ The
Commission also preliminarily determined that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules are comparable with respect to the
requirement that nonbank SDs account for operational risk in computing
their minimum capital requirements.\206\ In this connection, the
Commission noted that the UK PRA Capital Rules require a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD to calculate an operational risk exposure as a component
of the firm's total risk exposure amount.\207\ PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs may use either a standardized approach or, if the PRA-
designated UK nonbank has obtained regulatory permission, an internal
approach based on the firm's own measurement systems, to calculate
their risk-weighted asset amounts for
[[Page 58554]]
operational risk. The CFTC Capital Rules address operational risk both
as a stand-alone, separate minimum capital requirement that a nonbank
SD is required to meet under prong (iii) of the Bank-Based Approach and
as a component of the calculation of risk-weighted assets for nonbank
SDs that use Subpart E of the Federal Reserve Board's part 217
regulations to calculate their credit risk-weighted assets via internal
models.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ See 2024 Proposal at 8040-8041 and 8043, respectively, for
discussions of NFA and PRA model approvals. In discussing approval
requirements for credit risk models as part of the general overview
of the UK PRA Capital Rules, the Commission referred generally to
counterparty credit risk exposures for ``OTC derivatives
transactions.'' See 2024 Proposal at 8034-8035 (n. 115). For
clarity, the Commission notes that the Internal Model Methodology
for counterparty credit risk set out in UK CRR, Articles 283-294,
can be used for the derivatives listed in Annex II of UK CRR,
securities financing transactions, and long settlement transactions.
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR) Part,
Article 273.
\204\ See 2024 Proposal at 8046. For a discussion of the
qualitative and quantitative requirements that models must meet
under the CFTC Capital Rules and the UK PRA Capital Rules, see 2024
Proposal at 8040-8041 and 8043-8044, respectively. In discussing
model approval conditions, the Commission noted that PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs were not permitted to use internal models to
calculate counterparty credit risk amounts for large exposures. See
2024 Proposal at 8043 and 8044 (n. 217 and n. 237). The Commission
notes that this statement is not correct with regard to securities
financing transactions. PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are allowed to
use internal models to calculate exposure values for securities
financing transactions. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Large Exposures
(CRR) Part, Chapter 4 Large Exposures (Part Four CRR), Article 390.
\205\ See 2024 Proposal at 8046.
\206\ Id.
\207\ Id. and UK CRR, Article 92(3).
\208\ Id. and 17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i) and 17 CFR 23.100
(definition of BHC equivalent risk-weighted assets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one commenter specifically addressed the Commission's
comparative analysis of the minimum capital requirement based on risk-
weighted assets. The commenter, Ravnitzky, stated that the UK PRA
Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules differ in several areas,
including in their approaches to calculating risk-weighted amounts for
market risk and credit risk.\209\ Ravnitzky asserted that unlike the UK
PRA Capital Rules, which use a standardized approach, the CFTC Capital
Rules use a model-based approach to calculating risk-weighted
amounts.\210\ The Commission notes that this description of the
respective rule sets is not accurate. As discussed above, the currently
applicable UK PRA Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules both incorporate
standardized and model-based approaches to calculating market risk and
credit risk amounts.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Ravnitzky Letter at pp. 3-4.
\210\ Id.
\211\ As noted in the 2024 Proposal, the Commission is aware
that the PRA is considering changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules to
implement Basel 3.1 standards. If the PRA proceeds with the
implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards as proposed, the
regulatory changes would be applicable after July 1, 2025 with a
4.5-year transitional period ending on January 1, 2030. The
Commission will monitor progress on the PRA's proposed regulatory
changes and may amend or supplement the Comparability Order, as
appropriate. 2024 Proposal at 8036 (n. 128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in purpose and effect with
respect to the computation of minimum capital requirements based on a
nonbank SD's risk-weighted assets. In this regard, the Commission finds
that the UK PRA Capital Rules and the CFTC Capital rules have a
comparable approach to the computation of market risk exposure amounts
and credit risk exposure amounts for on-balance sheet and off-balance
sheet exposures, which are intended to ensure that a nonbank SD
maintains a sufficient level of regulatory capital to absorb decreases
in firm assets, absorb increases in firm liabilities, and meet
obligations to counterparties and creditors, without the firm becoming
insolvent.
c. Minimum Capital Requirement Based on the Uncleared Swap Margin
Amount
As noted above, prong (iii) of the CFTC Capital Rules' Bank-Based
Approach requires a nonbank SD to maintain regulatory capital in an
amount equal to or greater than 8 percent of the firm's total uncleared
swap margin amount associated with its uncleared swap transactions to
address potential operational, legal, and liquidity risks.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ More specifically, in establishing the requirement that a
nonbank SD must maintain a level of regulatory capital in excess of
8 percent of the uncleared swap margin amount associated with the
firm's swap transactions, the Commission stated that the intent of
the uncleared swap margin amount was to establish a method of
developing a minimum amount of capital for a nonbank SD to meet all
of its obligations as an SD to market participants, and to cover
potential operational risk, legal risk and liquidity risk, and not
just the risks of its trading portfolio. 85 FR 57462 at 57485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK PRA Capital Rules differ from the CFTC Capital Rules in that
they do not impose a capital requirement on PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs based on a percentage of the margin for uncleared swap
transactions.\213\ In the 2024 Proposal, the Commission described,
however, how certain UK PRA capital and liquidity requirements may
compensate for the lack of direct analogue to the 8 percent uncleared
swap margin amount requirement.\214\ Specifically, the Commission noted
that under the UK PRA Capital Rules the total risk exposure amount is
computed as the sum of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's risk-weighted
asset amounts for market risk, credit risk, settlement risk, CVA risk
of OTC derivatives instruments, and operational risk.\215\ Notably, the
UK PRA Capital Rules require that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs,
including firms that do not use internal models, calculate capital
charges for operational risk as a separate component of the total risk
exposure amount. The UK PRA Capital Rules also impose separate
liquidity requirements designed to ensure that the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs can meet both short- and long-term obligations, in addition
to the general requirement to maintain processes and systems for the
identification of liquidity risk.\216\ In comparison, the Commission
requires nonbank SDs to maintain a risk management program covering
liquidity risk, among other risk categories, but does not have a
distinct liquidity requirement.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See 2024 Proposal at 8046-8047.
\214\ Id.
\215\ Id. at 8047 and UK CRR, Article 92(3).
\216\ Id. More specifically, the UK PRA Capital Rules impose
separate liquidity buffers and ``stable funding'' requirements
designed to ensure that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs can cover both
long-term obligations and short-term payment obligations under
stressed conditions for 30 days. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity
(CRR) Part, Chapter 4 Liquidity (Part Six CRR), Article 412-413. In
addition, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to maintain
robust strategies, policies, processes, and systems for the
identification of liquidity risk over an appropriate set of time
horizons, including intra-day. PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Internal
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Part.
\217\ See 2024 Proposal at 8047. Specifically, Commission
Regulation 23.600(b) requires each SD to establish, document,
maintain, and enforce a system of risk management policies and
procedures designed to monitor and manage the risks related to
swaps, and any products used to hedge swaps, including futures,
options, swaps, security-based swaps, debt or equity securities,
foreign currency, physical commodities, and other derivatives. The
elements of the SD's risk management program are required to include
the identification of risks and risk tolerance limits with respect
to applicable risks, including operational, liquidity, and legal
risk, together with a description of the risk tolerance limits set
by the SD and the underlying methodology in written policies and
procedures. 17 CFR 23.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing the Commission's request for comment on the
comparability between the CFTC's capital requirement based on a
percentage of the margin for uncleared swap transactions and the UK PRA
Capital Rules' requirements with respect to operational risk and
liquidity risk, one commenter, Better Markets, asserted that the
requirement for PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to hold qualifying
regulatory capital to cover operational risk is not comparable to the
CFTC's requirement for nonbank SDs to hold qualifying capital in an
amount equal to at least 8 percent of the nonbank SD's uncleared swap
margin amount.\218\ Better Markets further asserted that the proposed
Comparability Determination fell short in furnishing an adequate
analysis substantiating that the incorporation of an operational risk
charge and the existence of separate liquidity requirements would
genuinely yield an equivalent result.\219\ Furthermore, Better Markets
argued that the Commission should have undertaken ``an examination to
ascertain whether the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's operational risk
charge and liquidity requirements would adequately cover [its]
cumulative amounts of uncleared swaps margin.'' \220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Better Markets Letter at p. 13.
\219\ Id.
\220\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicants offered a contrasting view in their comment letter,
stating that, although the UK PRA Capital Rules do not ``have a direct
analogue to the 8 percent uncleared swap margin requirement'' under the
CFTC Capital
[[Page 58555]]
Rules, they have ``various other measures that achieve the same
regulatory objective of ensuring that an SD maintains an amount of
capital that is sufficient to cover the full range of risks a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD may face.'' \221\ In support of the statement,
the Applicants discussed, among other measures, the various categories
of risk charges that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is required to
include in its total risk exposure amount, as well as the capital
conservation buffer, leverage ratio floor, and liquidity requirements
that the UK PRA Capital Rules impose on PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Applicants' Letter at p. 3.
\222\ Id. at pp. 2-3. As discussed in the 2024 Proposal, the UK
PRA Capital Rules impose a 3.35 percent leverage ratio floor on PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs that hold significant amounts of non-UK
assets, as an additional element of the capital requirements.
Specifically, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that has non-UK assets
equal to or greater than GBP 10 billion is required to maintain tier
1 capital (i.e., an aggregate of common equity tier 1 capital and
additional tier 1 capital) equal to or in excess of 3.35 percent of
the firm's on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposures,
including exposures on uncleared swaps but excluding certain
exposures to central banks, without regard to any risk-weighting.
See 2024 Proposal at 8034 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Leverage
Ratio (CRR) Part, Chapter 3 Leverage Ratio (Part Seven CRR), Article
429 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the additional categories of risk-
weighted asset amounts that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required
to include in the total risk-weighted assets amount, as well as the
various regulatory measures seeking to ensure that PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs hold sufficient capital to cover the full range of risks
that they may face, support the comparability of the UK PRA Capital
Rules and the CFTC Capital Rules even in the absence of a separate
capital requirement in the UK PRA Capital Rules requiring PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs to have qualified capital equal to or greater
than 8 percent of the amount of uncleared swap margin. The Commission
notes that the minimum capital requirement based on a percentage of the
nonbank SD's uncleared swap margin amount was conceived as a proxy, not
an exact measure, for inherent risk in the SD's positions and
operations, including operational risk, legal risk, and liquidity
risk.\223\ As the Commission noted in adopting the CFTC Capital Rules,
although the amount of capital required of a nonbank SD under the
uncleared swap margin calculation is directly related to the volume,
size, complexity, and risk of the covered SD's positions, the minimum
capital requirement is intended to cover a multitude of potential risks
faced by the SD.\224\ The Commission understands that other
jurisdictions may adopt alternative measures to cover the same risks.
As such, a strict comparison between the amounts that a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD holds to account for operational risk and liquidity risk
pursuant to the UK PRA Capital Rules and the amount of uncleared swap
margin that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD would have been required to
hold pursuant to the CFTC Capital Rules is not warranted. As discussed
in section I.E. above, the Commission's analysis in ascertaining the
comparability of a foreign jurisdiction's capital rules to the CFTC
Capital Rules is focused on determining whether the foreign
jurisdiction's rules have comparable regulatory objectives and achieve
comparable outcomes. Following this standard of review, the Commission
finds that the various measures that the UK PRA Capital Rules have
established to help ensure that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs hold
sufficient capital to cover the full range of risks that they face have
comparable objectives and achieve comparable outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ 85 FR 57462 at 57497.
\224\ 85 FR 57462 at 57485 and 57497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the CFTC Capital Rules are comparable in purpose and effect with
respect to the requirement that a nonbank SD's minimum level of
regulatory capital reflects potential operational risk exposures in
addition to market risk and credit risk exposures. The Commission
emphasizes that the intent of the minimum capital requirement based on
a percentage of the nonbank SD's uncleared swap margin is to establish
a minimum capital requirement that would help ensure that the nonbank
SD meets its obligations as an SD to market participants, and to cover
potential operational risk, legal risk, and liquidity risk in addition
to the risks associated with its trading portfolio.\225\ The UK PRA
Capital Rules address comparable risks albeit not through a requirement
based on a UK nonbank SD's uncleared swap margin amount. In this
regard, UK nonbank SDs are required to maintain a minimum level of
regulatory capital based on an aggregate of the firm's total risk-
weighted asset amounts for market risk, credit risk, and operational
risk. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, notwithstanding
the differences in approaches, the UK PRA Capital Rules and CFTC
Capital Rules are comparable in purpose and effect in requiring nonbank
SDs to maintain a minimum level of regulatory capital that addresses
potential market risk, credit risk, and operational risk to help ensure
the safety and soundness of the firm, and to ensure that the firm has
sufficient capital to absorb decreases in firm assets, absorb increases
in firm liabilities, and meet obligations to counterparties and
creditors, without the firm becoming insolvent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ See 2024 Proposal at 8040 (referencing 85 FR 57462).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Final Determination
Based on its analysis of comments and its holistic assessment of
the respective requirements discussed in sections II.C.2.a., b., and c.
above, the Commission adopts the Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order as proposed with respect to the minimum capital
requirements and calculation of regulatory capital, subject to the
condition that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs must maintain a minimum
level of regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier 1 capital
that equals or exceeds the equivalent of $20 million U.S. dollars.
D. Nonbank Swap Dealer Financial Reporting Requirements
1. Proposed Determination
The Commission detailed the requirements of the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules in the 2024 Proposal.\226\ Specifically, the 2024
Proposal noted that the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules require nonbank
SDs to file with the Commission and NFA periodic unaudited and annual
audited financial reports.\227\ The unaudited financial reports must
include: (i) a statement of financial condition; (ii) a statement of
income/loss; (iii) a statement demonstrating compliance with, and
calculation of, the applicable regulatory minimum capital requirement;
(iv) a statement of changes in ownership equity; (v) a statement of
changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors; and
(vi) such further material information necessary to make the required
statements not misleading.\228\ The annual audited financial reports
must include the same financial statements that are required to be
included in the unaudited financial reports, and must further include:
(i) a statement of cash flows; (ii) appropriate footnote disclosures;
and (iii) a reconciliation of any material differences between the
financial statements contained in the annual audited financial reports
and the financial statements contained in the
[[Page 58556]]
unaudited financial reports prepared as of the nonbank SD's year-end
date.\229\ In addition, a nonbank SD must attach to each unaudited and
audited financial report an oath or affirmation that to the best
knowledge and belief of the individual making the affirmation the
information contained in the financial report is true and correct.\230\
The individual making the oath or affirmation must be a duly authorized
officer if the nonbank SD is a corporation, or one of the persons
specified in the regulation for business organizations that are not
corporations.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ 2024 Proposal at 8047-8048.
\227\ Id. and 17 CFR 23.105(d) and (e).
\228\ Id. and 17 CFR 23.105(d)(2).
\229\ Id. and 17 CFR 23.105(e)(4).
\230\ Id. at 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(f).
\231\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFTC Financial Reporting Rules also require a nonbank SD to
file the following financial information with the Commission and NFA on
a monthly basis: (i) a schedule listing the nonbank SD's financial
positions reported at fair market value; \232\ (ii) schedules showing
the nonbank SD's counterparty credit concentration for the 15 largest
exposures in derivatives, a summary of its derivatives exposures by
internal credit ratings, and the geographic distribution of derivatives
exposures for the 10 largest countries; \233\ and (iii) for nonbank SDs
approved to use internal capital models, certain model metrics, such as
aggregate value-at-risk (``VaR''), a graph reflecting the daily intra-
month VaR for each business line, and counterparty credit risk
information.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ 2024 Proposal at 8048, Regulation 23.105(l), and Schedule
1 of Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23 (``Schedule 1''). 17 CFR
23.105(l) and 17 CFR Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23. Schedule 1
includes a nonbank SD's holding of U.S Treasury securities, U.S.
government agency debt securities, foreign debt and equity
securities, money market instruments, corporate obligations, spot
commodities, and cleared and uncleared swaps, security-based swaps,
and mixed swaps in addition to other position information.
\233\ 2024 Proposal 8048 and schedules 2, 3 and 4, respectively,
of Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23.
\234\ 2024 Proposal 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(k) and (l), and
schedules 2, 3 and 4 of Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFTC Financial Reporting Rules further require a nonbank SD to
provide the Commission and NFA with information regarding the
custodianship of margin for uncleared swap transactions (``Margin
Report'').\235\ The Margin Report must contain: (i) the name and
address of each custodian holding initial margin or variation margin on
behalf of the nonbank SD or its swap counterparties; (ii) the amount of
initial and variation margin required by the uncleared margin rules
held by each custodian on behalf of the nonbank SD and on behalf its
swap counterparties; and (iii) the aggregate amount of initial margin
that the nonbank SD is required to collect from, or post with, swap
counterparties for uncleared swap transactions subject to the uncleared
margin rules.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ 2024 Proposal 8048 and 17 CFR 23.105(m).
\236\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonbank SD electing the Bank-Based Capital Approach is required
to file the unaudited financial report, Schedule 1, schedules of
counterparty credit exposures, and the Margin Report with the
Commission and NFA no later than 17 business days after the applicable
month-end reporting date.\237\ A nonbank SD must file its annual report
with the Commission and NFA no later than 60 calendar days after the
end of its fiscal year.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ Id.
\238\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 Proposal also detailed relevant financial reporting
requirements of the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules.\239\ The UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
report information to the PRA concerning its capital and financial
condition sufficient to provide a comprehensive view of the firm's risk
profile, including information on the firm's capital requirements,
leverage ratio, large exposures, and liquidity requirements.\240\ PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs must follow the templates and instructions
provided in the PRA Rulebook for purposes of the prudential
requirements reporting referred to COREP.\241\ Under the COREP
requirements, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to provide, on
a quarterly basis,\242\ calculations in relation to the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD's capital and capital requirements,\243\ capital ratios
and capital levels,\244\ and market risk,\245\ among other items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ 2024 Proposal at 8048-8050.
\240\ 2024 Proposal at 8048-8049 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 4 Reporting (Part Seven A CRR), Rule
1.
\241\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions.
\242\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, 5 Reporting
Requirements, Chapter 3 Format and Frequency of Reporting on Own
Funds, Own Funds Requirements.
\243\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Annex I, Templates C 01.00 and C 02.00.
\244\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Annex I, Template C 03.00.
\245\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Annex I, Template C 02.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the prudential requirements reporting, Article
430(3) of the Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA Rulebook imposes
financial information reporting on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that
are subject to section 403(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (i.e., entities
that are parent companies \246\ and report on a consolidated basis
using UK-adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and
that issue securities admitted to trading on a UK-regulated
market).\247\ The relevant reporting templates and instructions,
referred to as FINREP, are included in Chapter 6 of the Reporting (CRR)
Part of the PRA Rulebook. Under the FINREP requirements, PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs subject to the requirements of Article 430(3) of the
Reporting (CRR) Part of the PRA Rulebook are required to provide the
following documents to the PRA, among other items: (i) on a quarterly
basis, a balance sheet statement (or statement of financial position)
that reflects the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's financial condition;
\248\ (ii) on a quarterly basis, a statement of profit or loss; \249\
(iii) on a quarterly basis, a breakdown of financial liabilities by
product and by counterparty sector; \250\ (iv) on a quarterly basis, a
listing of subordinated financial liabilities; \251\ and (v) on an
annual basis, a statement of changes in equity.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ A parent company (i.e., ``parent undertaking'') is defined
in Companies Act 2006, Section 1162.
\247\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 4
Reporting (Part Seven A CRR), Article 430, Rule 3. The International
Accounting Standards Board is an independent, private-sector body
that develops and approves IFRS.
\248\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Templates 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3 at Annex
III (for reporting according to IFRS) and Templates 1.1., 1.2., and
1.3 at Annex IV (for reporting according to national accounting
frameworks).
\249\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 2 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 2 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
\250\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 8.1 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 8.1 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
\251\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 8.2 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 8.2. at Template 8.2 at Annex IV
(for reporting according to national accounting frameworks).
\252\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 46 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 46 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the FINREP requirements, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
subject to the requirements of Article 430(3) of the Reporting (CRR)
Part of the PRA Rulebook is also required to provide the PRA with
additional financial information, including a breakdown of
[[Page 58557]]
its loans and advances by product and type of counterparty,\253\ as
well as detailed information regarding its derivatives trading
activities,\254\ collateral, and guarantees.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Templates 5.1 and 6.1 at Annex III (for
reporting according to IFRS) and Templates 5.1 and 6.1 at Annex IV
(for reporting according to national accounting frameworks).
\254\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 10 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 10 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
\255\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6
Templates and Instructions, Template 13 at Annex III (for reporting
according to IFRS) and Template 13 at Annex IV (for reporting
according to national accounting frameworks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that are not subject to financial
information reporting under Article 430(3) of the Reporting (CRR) Part
of the PRA Rulebook, the Regulatory Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook
dictates the applicable reporting requirements.\256\ Specifically, as
firms that fall into Regulated Activity Group 3 (``RAG 3''), PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs are required to provide the following
documents to the PRA, among other items: (i) on a quarterly basis, a
balance sheet statement (or statement of financial position) that
reflects the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's financial condition; \257\
(ii) on a quarterly basis, a statement of profit or loss; \258\ and
(iii) on an annual basis, an annual report and accounts.\259\ The
Applicants represented that the six UK PRA-designated nonbank SDs
currently registered with the Commission are designated as RAG 3 firms
and are required to provide the aforementioned documents.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ As indicated by the Applicants, the Regulatory Reporting
Part of the PRA Rulebook applies to all PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs. See Responses to Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
\257\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part,
Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group 3, Rule 9.2 (referencing
Templates 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3 at Annex III and Templates 1.1., 1.2.,
and 1.3 at Annex IV of Chapter 6 of the Reporting (CRR) Part) and
Rule 9.3.
\258\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part,
Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group 3, Rule 9.2 (referencing Template
2 at Annex III and Template 2 at Annex IV of Chapter 6 of the
Reporting (CRR) Part) and Rule 9.3.
\259\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part,
Chapter 9 Regulated Activity Group 3, Rule 9.2 and Rule 9.3.
\260\ See Response to Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023. For
the avoidance of doubt, as represented by the Applicants, the six
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently registered with the
Commission are subject to the RAG 3 requirements in the Regulatory
Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook but are not subject the FINREP
requirements set forth in Article 430(3) of the Reporting (CRR) Part
of the PRA Rulebook. As such, the six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
currently registered with the Commission are required to submit to
the PRA only Templates 1 through 3 of FINREP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, all PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to
prepare annual audited accounts and a strategic report (together,
``annual audited financial report'') pursuant to Parts 15 and 16 of the
Companies Act 2006.\261\ The audit of the accounts and report is
required to be performed by one or more independent statutory auditors,
which have the required skill, resources, and experience to perform
their duties based on the complexity of the firm's business and the
regulatory requirements to which the firm is subject.\262\ PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs must submit the annual audited financial
report to the PRA within 80 business days from the firm's accounting
reference date.\263\ In addition, under generally applicable company
law requirements, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to submit
the annual audited financial report to the UK Registrar of
Companies.\264\ The registrar makes the report available to the public
on its website, free of charge.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ Companies Act 2006, Sections 393 to 414D and 475. Section
475 provides for an exemption from the audit requirement for certain
entities (i.e., ``small companies'', qualifying ``subsidiary
companies'' and ``dormant companies''.) None of the six PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD, however, falls into the exempt categories.
See Responses to Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
\262\ Companies Act 2006, Section 485 et seq.; see also PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Auditors Part, Rule 3 Auditors' Qualifications,
and Rule 4 Auditors' Independence.
\263\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part,
Chapter 9 Regulatory Activity Group 3, Rules 9.1. and 9.4. The
``accounting reference date'' is determined in accordance with
Section 391 of the Companies Act 2006 and depending on the firm's
date of incorporation.
\264\ Companies Act 2006, Section 441. The deadline for filing
the annual audited financial report with the UK Registrar of
Companies is nine months from the firm's accounting reference date
for private companies and six months from the firm's accounting
reference date for public companies. Id., Articles 442 (setting
forth the filing deadlines by category of firm) and 391 (defining
the terms ``accounting reference period'' and ``accounting reference
date'').
\265\ Companies Act 2006, Sections 1080 and 1085. Information
filed with the UK Registrar of Companies is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual audited accounts must comprise, at a minimum, a balance
sheet, a profit and loss statement, and notes about the accounts.\266\
The auditor's audit report must include: (i) a description of the
annual accounts subject to the audit and the financial reporting
framework that was applied in their preparation; (ii) a description of
the scope of the audit, which must specify the auditing standards used
to conduct the audit; (iii) an audit opinion stating whether the annual
accounts give a true and fair view of the state of affairs and/or the
profit and loss of the firm, as applicable, and whether the annual
accounts have been prepared in accordance with the relevant financial
reporting framework; and (iv) a reference to any matters emphasized by
the auditor that did not qualify the audit opinion.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ Companies Act 2006, Section 396.
\267\ Id., Section 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strategic report is required to include a review of the
development and performance of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
during the financial year and a description of the principal risks and
uncertainties that the firm faces.\268\ The auditors are required to
express an opinion on whether the strategic report is consistent with
the accounts for the same financial year, and whether the strategic
report has been prepared in accordance with applicable legal
requirements.\269\ The opinion also must state whether the auditor has
identified material misstatements in the strategic report and, if so,
describe the misstatement.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Id., Section 414C.
\269\ Id., Section 496.
\270\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted in the 2024 Proposal, the SEC's UK Order
granting substituted compliance for financial reporting to UK nonbank
SBSDs, as supplemented by the SEC Order on Manner and Format of Filing
Unaudited Financial and Operational Information, require a UK nonbank
SBSD to file an unaudited FOCUS Report with the SEC on a monthly
basis.\271\ The FOCUS Report is required to include, among other
statements and schedules: (i) a statement of financial condition; (ii)
a statement of the UK nonbank SBSD's capital computation in accordance
with home country Basel-based requirements; (iii) a statement of
income/loss; and (iv) a statement of capital withdrawals.\272\ A UK
nonbank SBSD is required to file its FOCUS Report with the SEC within
35 calendar days of the month end.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ See 2024 Proposal at 8050 and UK Order. See also SEC Order
on Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and Operational
Information.
\272\ See, SEC Order on Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited
Financial and Operational Information.
\273\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its review of the UK Application and the relevant UK laws
and regulations, the Commission preliminarily determined that, subject
to the conditions specified in the 2024 Proposal, the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules are comparable to CFTC Financial Reporting Rules in
purpose and effect. The Commission noted that both sets of rules
provide the PRA,
[[Page 58558]]
Commission, and NFA with financial information to monitor a nonbank
SD's compliance with capital requirements, and to assess a nonbank SD's
overall safety and soundness.\274\ Specifically, the Commission
preliminarily found that the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules impose
reporting requirements that are comparable with respect to overall form
and content to the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules.\275\ In this regard,
both the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules require a nonbank SD to file statements of financial
condition, statements of profit and loss, and statements of regulatory
capital that, collectively, provide information for the PRA,
Commission, and NFA to assess a nonbank SD's overall ability to absorb
decreases in the value of firm assets, absorb increases in the value of
firm liabilities, and cover losses from business activities, including
swap dealing activities, without the firm becoming insolvent.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ 2024 Proposal at 8050.
\275\ Id.
\276\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed conditions would ensure that the Commission and NFA
receive appropriate and timely financial information from PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs to monitor the firms' compliance with UK PRA
capital requirements and to assess the firms' overall safety and
soundness. The proposed conditions would require a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to provide the Commission and NFA with copies of the
relevant templates of the FINREP reports and COREP reports that
correspond to the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's statement of financial
condition, statement of income/loss, and statement of regulatory
capital, total risk exposure, and capital ratios. These templates
consist of FINREP templates 1.1 (Balance Sheet Statement: assets), 1.2
(Balance Sheet Statement: liabilities), 1.3 (Balance Sheet Statement:
equity), and 2 (Statement of profit or loss), and COREP templates 1
(Own Funds), 2 (Own Funds Requirements) and 3 (Capital Ratios). In
addition, the Commission proposed to require PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs to submit to the Commission and NFA copies of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD's annual audited financial report.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Id. at 8051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed conditions would also require that the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD provide the reports and statements with balances
converted to U.S. dollars.\278\ The Commission further recognized that
the requirement to convert accounts denominated in British pound to
U.S. dollars on the annual audited financial report may have an
unintended impact on the opinion expressed by the independent auditor.
The Commission, therefore, proposed to accept the annual audited
financial report denominated in British pound.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ Id. In the 2024 Proposal, the Commission proposed that the
conversion of account balances from British pound to U.S. dollars
would not be required to be subject to the audit of the independent
auditor. A PRA-designated UK nonbank SD would be required report the
exchange rate that it used to convert balances from British pound to
U.S. dollars to the Commission and NFA as part of the financial
reporting.
\279\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed conditions also would require a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to file with the Commission and NFA its: (i) FINREP reports
and COREP reports within 35 calendar days of the end of each month; and
(ii) annual audited financial report on the on the earlier of the date
the report is filed with the PRA or the date the report is required to
be filed with the PRA.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ Id. The Commission noted that the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules require PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to submit the
unaudited FINREP and COREP templates to PRA on a quarterly basis,
whereas the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules contain a more frequent
reporting requirement by requiring nonbank SDs that elect the Bank-
Based Approach to file unaudited financial information with the
Commission and NFA on a monthly basis. In emphasizing the importance
of financial statement reporting requirements for the Commission's
and NFA's oversight and the Commission's experience in monitoring
the financial conditions of registrants through the receipt of
monthly financial statements, the Commission proposed to condition
the Comparability Order on a more frequent reporting submission. See
2024 Proposal at 8050-8051. The Commission also noted that PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs are required to submit the annual audited
financial report to the PRA within 80 business days of the firm's
accounting reference date. See PRA Rulebook, Regulatory Reporting
Part, Rule 9.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed a condition to require PRA-designated
UK nonbank SDs to file with the Commission and NFA, on a monthly basis,
Schedule 1 showing the aggregate securities, commodities, and swap
positions of the firm at fair market value as of the reporting
date.\281\ The Commission explained that Schedule 1 provides the
Commission and NFA with detailed information regarding the financial
positions that a nonbank SD holds as of the end of each month,
including the firm's swaps positions, which allows the Commission and
NFA to monitor the types of investments and other activities that the
firm engages in and would assist the Commission and NFA in monitoring
the safety and soundness of the firm.\282\ The Commission proposed to
require that Schedule 1 be filed by a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
along with the firm's monthly submission of selected FINREP and COREP
templates.\283\ The Commission also proposed to require that Schedule 1
be prepared with balances reported in U.S. dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ 2024 Proposal at 8052. Schedule 1 includes a nonbank SD's
holding of U.S Treasury securities, U.S. government agency debt
securities, foreign debt and equity securities, money market
instruments, corporate obligations, spot commodities, and cleared
and uncleared swaps, security-based swaps, and mixed swaps in
addition to other position information.
\282\ 2024 Proposal at 8052.
\283\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further proposed that, in lieu of filing FINREP and
COREP reports, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are registered with
the SEC as UK nonbank SBSDs could satisfy this condition by filing with
the CFTC and NFA, on a monthly basis, copies of the unaudited FOCUS
Reports that the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to file
with the SEC pursuant to the SEC UK Order, as supplemented by the SEC
Order on Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and
Operational Information. The filing of a FOCUS Report was proposed as
an elective option for the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, as an
alternative to the filing of unaudited FINREP templates, COREP
templates, and Schedule 1 that such firms would otherwise be required
to file with the Commission and NFA pursuant to the proposed
Comparability Order. In this connection, the Commission noted that all
six of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are currently registered with
the SEC as UK nonbank SBSDs and would be eligible to file copies of
their monthly FOCUS Report with the Commission and NFA in lieu of the
FINREP and COREP templates and Schedule 1. A PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD electing to file copies of its monthly FOCUS Report would be
required to submit the reports to the Commission and NFA within 35
calendar days of the end of each month.
Proposing that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are registered
with the SEC as UK nonbank SBSDs file the FOCUS Report in lieu of the
FINREP and COREP templates and Schedule 1 as an elective option was
consistent with Commission Regulation 23.105(d)(3), which at the time
the 2024 Proposal was issued, provided that a nonbank SD or nonbank MSP
that is also registered with the SEC as a broker or dealer, an SBSD, or
a major security-based swap participant might elect to file a FOCUS
Report in lieu of the financial reports required by the Commission. On
April
[[Page 58559]]
30, 2024, the Commission amended Commission Regulation 23.105(d)(3) to
mandate the filing of a FOCUS Report by such dually-registered
entities, including dually-registered non-U.S. nonbank SDs, in lieu of
the Commission's financial reports.\284\ As such, the Commission is
also adopting as final a revised Condition 10 to require that PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs registered as UK nonbank SBSDs comply with
the requirement to file periodic financial statements by filing a copy
of the FOCUS Report that the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required
to file with the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ See Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements of Swap
Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 89 FR 45569 (May 23, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed a condition to require a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD to submit with each set of selected FINREP and
COREP templates, annual audited financial report, and the applicable
Schedule 1, a statement by an authorized representative or
representatives of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that to the best
knowledge and belief of the person(s) the information contained in the
respective reports and statements is true and correct, including the
conversion of balances in the statements to U.S. dollars, as
applicable.\285\ The statement by the authorized representative or
representatives of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD was intended to be
a substitute of the oath or affirmation required of nonbank SDs under
Commission Regulation 23.105(f),\286\ to ensure that reports and
statements filed with the Commission and NFA are prepared and submitted
by firm personnel with knowledge of the financial reporting of the firm
who can attest to the accuracy of the reporting and conversion.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 2024 Proposal at 8052.
\286\ 17 CFR 23.105(f). Commission Regulation 23.105(f) requires
a nonbank SD to attach to each unaudited and audited financial
report an oath or affirmation that to the best knowledge and belief
of the individual making the affirmation the information contained
in the financial report is true and correct. The individual making
the oath or affirmation must be a duly authorized officer if the
nonbank SD is a corporation, or one of the persons specified in the
regulation for business organizations that are not corporations.
\287\ 2024 Proposal at 8052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission noted that a Margin Report would assist the
Commission and NFA in their assessment of the safety and soundness of
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs by providing information regarding
the firm's swap book and the extent to which it has uncollateralized
exposures to counterparties or has not met its financial obligations to
counterparties. The Commission explained that this information, along
with the list of custodians holding both the firms' and counterparties'
collateral for swap transactions, would assist with identifying
potential financial impacts to the nonbank SD resulting from defaults
on its swap transactions. The Commission further proposed to require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to file the Margin Report with the
Commission and NFA within 35 calendar days of the end of each month,
which corresponds with the proposed timeframe for the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to file the selected FINREP and COREP templates or FOCUS
Report, as applicable. The Commission also proposed to require the
Margin Report to be provided with balances reported in U.S. dollars.
The Commission's preliminary determination did not require a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD to file the model metrics and counterparty
credit exposure information required by Commission Regulations
23.105(k) and (l) \288\ in recognition that NFA's current SD risk
monitoring program requires all SDs, including PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs, to file with NFA on a monthly basis certain risk metrics
that are comparable with the risk metrics contained in Commission
Regulation 23.105(k) and (l) and address the market risk and credit
risk of the SD's positions.\289\ Specifically, the Commission noted
that NFA's monthly risk metric information includes: (i) VaR for
interest rates, credit, foreign exchange, equities, commodities, and
total VaR; (ii) total stressed VaR; (iii) interest rate, credit spread,
foreign exchange market, and commodity sensitivities; (iv) total swaps
current exposure both before and after offsetting against collateral
held by the firm; and (v) a list of the 15 largest swaps counterparty
current exposures before collateral and net of collateral.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Commission Regulation 23.105(k) requires a nonbank SD that
has obtained approval from the Commission or NFA to use internal
capital models to submit to the Commission and NFA each month
information regarding its risk exposures, including VaR, and
requires certain credit risk exposure information from model and
non-model approved firms. 17 CFR 23.105(k). Commission Regulation
23.105(l) requires each nonbank SD to provide information to the
Commission and NFA regarding its counterparty credit concentration
for the 15 largest exposures in derivatives, a summary of its
derivatives exposures by internal credit ratings, and the geographic
distribution of derivatives exposures for the 10 largest countries
in Schedules 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 17 CFR 23.105(l).
\289\ 2024 Proposal at 8052-8053. As previously noted, however,
the current six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs will be required to
include credit risk information set forth in Schedules 2-4 of
Appendix B to Subpart E in the monthly FOCUS Report that the firms
will be required to file with the Commission under Condition 10 of
the final Comparability Order. In addition, as previously noted,
each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD will be required to file Schedule
1 under Condition 12 of the final Comparability Determination.
\290\ See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and NFA Financial Requirements,
Section 17--Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Reporting
Requirements (``NFA Section 17 Rule''), available here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/rules.aspx?RuleID=SECTION%2017&Section=7, and Notice to Members--
Monthly Risk Data Reporting for Swap Dealers (May 30, 2017) (``NFA
Notice I-17-10''), available here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsNotice.asp?ArticleID=4817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Commission recognized that although the UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules do not contain an analogue to the CFTC's
requirements for nonbank SDs to file monthly model metric information
and counterparty exposures information, the PRA has access to
comparable information. More specifically, the Commission noted that,
under the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, the PRA has broad powers to
request any information necessary for the exercise of its
functions.\291\ As such, the PRA has access to information allowing it
to assess the ongoing performance of risk models and to monitor the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's credit exposures, which may be comprised
of credit exposures to primarily other UK and EU counterparties. In
addition, the COREP reports, which PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are
required to file with the PRA on a quarterly basis, include information
regarding the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's risk exposure amounts,
including risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and FSMA, Part XI (indicating
that the PRA has broad information gathering powers).
\292\ See 2024 Proposal at 8053 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 6 Templates and Instructions, Annex I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comment Analysis and Final Determination
The Commission received comments regarding the comparability of
financial reporting and specific comments addressing several of the
financial reporting issues on which the Commission solicited feedback.
Better Markets expressed a general disagreement with the Commission's
preliminary finding of comparability, arguing that the number and
variety of conditions regarding financial reporting are the most
compelling evidence that the requirements are not comparable.\293\ More
generally, Better Markets asserted that the 2024 Proposal did not
provide a sufficient analysis supporting the Commission's preliminary
conclusion that the UK PRA and the U.S. financial
[[Page 58560]]
reporting frameworks would produce comparable outcomes.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ Better Markets Letter at p. 14.
\294\ Id. at p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Markets also disagreed with the 2024 Proposal to the extent
that the Commission proposed not to require PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs that have been approved by the PRA to use capital models to file
the monthly model metric information required by Commission Regulation
23.105(k) with the Commission or NFA.\295\ Commission Regulation
23.105(k) requires nonbank SDs that have been approved by the
Commission or NFA to use models to compute market risk or credit risk
for computing capital requirements to file certain information with the
Commission and NFA on a monthly basis.\296\ As noted above, the
information required to be filed includes: (i) for nonbank SDs approved
to use market risk models, a listing of any products that the nonbank
SD excludes from the approved market risk model and the amount of the
standardized market risk charge taken on such products; (ii) a graph
reflecting, for each business line of the nonbank SD, the daily intra-
month VaR; (iii) the aggregate VaR for the nonbank SD; (iv) certain
credit risk information for swaps, mixed swaps and security-based
swaps, including: (a) overall current exposure, (b) current exposure
listed by counterparty for the 15 largest exposures, (c) the 10 largest
commitments listed by counterparty, (d) maximum potential exposure
listed by counterparty for the 15 largest exposures, (e) aggregate
maximum potential exposure, (f) a summary report reflecting the SD's
current and maximum potential exposures by credit rating category, and
(g) a summary report reflecting current exposure for each of the top
ten countries to which the nonbank SD is exposed.\297\ Better Markets
stated that by not requiring the information contained in Commission
Regulation 23.105(k), the Commission was proposing to take a back seat
to the UK and blindly accept the assessments resulting from the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs' use of internal models to calculate
risk.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ Id. at pp. 14-15.
\296\ 17 CFR 23.105(k).
\297\ 17 CFR 23.105(k)(1).
\298\ Better Markets Letter at p.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Better Markets' statement that the number and
variety of conditions regarding financial reporting are the most
compelling evidence that the requirements are not comparable, the
Commission disagrees that the inclusion of conditions in the
Comparability Order demonstrates that the UK PRA Financial Reporting
Requirement are not comparable to CFTC Financial Reporting Requirements
in achieving the overall objective of ensuring the safety and soundness
of nonbank SDs. As discussed in section I.E. above, the conditions
impose obligations on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to provide
information to the Commission and NFA necessary for the effective
oversight of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs on an ongoing basis. As
also discussed in section I.E. above, Commission staff engaged in a
thorough analysis of the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules, which supports the Commission's conclusion that the
respective regulatory frameworks would produce comparable outcomes.
The Commission also does not agree that its approach is effectively
deferring model oversight to the PRA or that it is otherwise
``blindly'' accepting the internal model-based assessments of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs. As noted above, pursuant to NFA rules, all
registered SDs, including PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, are required
to submit to NFA, on a monthly basis, a list of specified risk metrics
related to the SD's market risk and credit risk exposures.\299\
Specifically, the risk metrics include: (i) VaR for interest rates,
credit, foreign exchange, equities, commodities, and total VaR; (ii)
total stressed VaR; (iii) interest rate, credit spread, foreign
exchange market, and commodity sensitivities; (iv) total swaps current
exposure both before and after offsetting against collateral held by
the firm; and (v) a list of the 15 largest swaps counterparty current
exposures.\300\ As part of its regulatory oversight program, NFA uses
the risk metrics information to identify firms that may pose heightened
risk and to allocate appropriate oversight resources. NFA also may
request additional information from a nonbank SD to the extent it
determines that information in the risk metrics or other financial
filings warrants a need for additional follow-up. Furthermore,
Commission staff has access to the collected risks metrics information
and participates in NFA's risk monitoring function by regularly
exchanging information and discussing potential risks with NFA staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ NFA Section 17 Rule, available here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/rules.aspx?RuleID=SECTION%2017&Section=7, and NFA Notice I-17-10,
available here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsNotice.asp?ArticleID=4817.
\300\ See 2024 Proposal at 8053, NFA Section 17 Rule, and NFA
Notice I-17-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the list of specified risk metrics discussed above indicates,
although the information collected by NFA is not identical to the
information required under Commission Regulation 23.105(k), there is a
significant overlap in the data items. The Commission also notes that
NFA, in its role of primary supervisor of nonbank SDs' risk management
practices, has identified the risk data items listed in NFA Notice I-
17-10 as the most relevant risk metrics to be collected for oversight
purposes. As such, the Commission finds that the information required
pursuant to NFA Notice I-17-10 would provide the Commission and NFA
with key data allowing them to monitor nonbank SDs' risk exposures. In
addition, the Commission has the ability to request additional
information from its registrants, including PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs, at any time. Finally, the Commission notes that the PRA, which
will be conducting the initial approval and ongoing assessment of the
performance of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs' internal models,
under a regulatory framework that the Commission finds comparable to
the CFTC Capital Rules, will have access to additional information that
the PRA deems relevant in the conduct of such approval and assessment.
The Commission, therefore, concludes that it is not necessary to
require PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs relying on the final
Comparability Order to submit the model metric information and credit
risk information mandated by Commission Regulations 23.105(k) and (l).
Finally, the Applicants addressed the Commission's request for
comment on the compliance dates for the reporting conditions that the
proposed Comparability Order would impose on PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs.\301\ The Applicants requested that the Commission set the
compliance date at least six months following the issue date of the
final Comparability Order to allow PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
adequately prepare for compliance with the reporting conditions imposed
by the Comparability Order.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ Applicants' Letter at p. 8.
\302\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that granting an additional period of time
to allow PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to develop and implement the
necessary systems and processes for compliance with the Comparability
Order is appropriate with respect to the new reporting obligations
imposed on PRA-
[[Page 58561]]
designated UK nonbank SDs under the final Order. For other reporting
obligations, for which a process already exists, such as the reports
that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently submit to the Commission
and NFA pursuant to CFTC Staff Letter 22-10,\303\ prepare pursuant to
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, and/or submit to the SEC (i.e.,
FOCUS Reports), additional time for compliance does not appear
necessary. Accordingly, the Commission is setting a compliance date of
180 calendar days from the date of publication of the final
Comparability Order in the Federal Register, to comply with final
Condition 14, which requires PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file
monthly Margin Reports with the Commission and NFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ CFTC Staff Letter No. 22-10, Extension of Time-Limited No-
Action Position for Foreign Based Nonbank Swap Dealers domiciled in
Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, issued by
MPD on August 17, 2022. CFTC Staff Letter No. 22-10, which extended
the expiration of CFTC Letter 21-20, provides that MPD would not
recommend an enforcement action to the Commission if a non-U.S.
nonbank SD covered by the letter, subject to certain conditions,
complied with their respective home-country capital and financial
reporting requirements in lieu of the Commission's capital and
financial reporting requirements set forth in Commission Regulations
23.100 through 23.106, pending the Commission's determination of
whether the capital and financial reporting requirements of certain
foreign jurisdictions are comparable to the Commission's
corresponding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of clarity, the Commission also notes that PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs may present the financial information
required to be provided to the Commission and NFA under the final
Comparability Order in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles that the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD uses to prepare
general purpose financial statements in the UK. This clarification is
consistent with proposed Condition 9, which the Commission adopts
without modification in the final Comparability Order, requiring that
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD prepares and keeps current ledgers and
other similar records ``in accordance with [the PRA Rulebook] and
conforming with the applicable accounting principles.'' \304\ In taking
the position that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs may provide financial
reporting prepared in accordance with the accounting standards
applicable in their home jurisdiction, the Commission considered the
nature of the financial reporting information required from nonbank SDs
for purposes of monitoring their overall financial condition and
compliance with capital requirements. Specifically, the Commission
notes that the requirements for how nonbank SDs calculate their risk-
weighted assets and capital ratio, in both the UK and the U.S., follow
a rules-based approach consistent with the Basel standards, and,
consequently, the Commission does not anticipate that a variation in
the applicable accounting standards would materially impact this
calculation.\305\ In this regard, the Commission notes that PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs currently submit financial reports, including
a statement of financial condition and a statement of regulatory
capital, pursuant to CFTC Staff Letter 22-10.\306\ The reports provide
the Commission with appropriate information to assess the financial and
operational condition of PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, as well as the
firms' compliance with the capital ratios imposed on PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs under the UK PRA Capital Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ 2024 Proposal at 8059.
\305\ Furthermore, the Commission's approach to permitting PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs to maintain financial books and records,
and to file financial reports and other financial information,
prepared in accordance with local accounting standards is consistent
with the SEC's final comparability determinations for non-U.S.
SBSDs. German Order at 59812 and SEC Order on Manner and Format of
Filing Unaudited Financial and Operational Information at 59219.
Specifically, the SEC stated that the use of local reporting
requirements will avoid non-U.S. SBSDs ``having to perform and
present two Basel capital calculations (one pursuant to local
requirements and one pursuant to U.S. requirements).'' SEC Order on
Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and Operational
Information at 59219. The SEC noted, in this regard, that the Basel
standards are international standards that have been adopted in the
U.S. and in jurisdictions where substituted compliance is available
for capital under the SEC comparability determinations and that,
therefore, requirements for how firms calculate capital pursuant to
the Basel standards generally should be similar. Id. The
Commission's approach to permitting PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
maintain financial books and records, and file financial
information, prepared in accordance with local accounting standards
will also facilitate financial reporting by dually-registered PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs--UK nonbank SBSDs. In such case, dually-
registered entities would not have to perform multiple calculations
under different accounting standards or submit two different FOCUS
Reports.
\306\ CFTC Staff Letter No. 22-10, Extension of Time-Limited No-
Action Position for Foreign Based Nonbank Swap Dealers domiciled in
Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, August
17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Commission adopts the final Comparability Order and
conditions substantially as proposed with respect to the comparability
of the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting
Requirements, subject to the amendment in Condition 10 to mandate the
filing by EU nonbank SDs registered as EU nonbank SBSDs of a copy of
the FOCUS Report that such dually-registered PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs are required to file with the SEC. The Commission also specifies,
in final Conditions 10, 12, and 14, that the conversion of balances to
U.S. dollars must be done using a commercially reasonable and
observable British pound/U.S. dollar spot rate as of the date of the
respective report. Finally, the Commission also grants an additional
compliance period for the new reporting obligations imposed on PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs under the final Order set forth below.
E. Notice Requirements
1. Proposed Determination
The Commission noted in the 2024 Proposal that the CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules require nonbank SDs to provide the Commission and NFA
with written notice of certain defined events.\307\ Commission
Regulation 23.105(c) requires a nonbank SD to file written notice with
the Commission and NFA of the following events: (i) the nonbank SD's
regulatory capital is less than the minimum amount required; (ii) the
nonbank SD's regulatory capital is less than 120 percent of the minimum
amount required; (iii) the nonbank SD fails to make or to keep current
required financial books and records; (iv) the nonbank SD experiences a
reduction in the level of its excess regulatory capital of 30 percent
or more from the amount last reported in a financial report filed with
the Commission; (v) the nonbank SD plans to distribute capital to
equity holders in an amount in excess of 30 percent of the firm's
excess regulatory capital; (vi) the nonbank SD fails to post to, or
collect from, a counterparty (or group of counterparties under common
ownership or control) required initial and variation margin, and the
aggregate amount of such margin equals or exceeds 25 percent of the
nonbank SD's minimum capital requirement; (vii) the nonbank SD fails to
post to, or collect from, swap counterparties required initial and
variation margin, and the aggregate amount of such margin equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the nonbank SD's minimum capital requirement; and
(viii) the nonbank SD is registered with the SEC as an SBSD and files a
notice with the SEC under applicable SEC Rules.\308\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ 2024 Proposal at 8053-8054 and 17 CFR 23.105(c).
\308\ 17 CFR 23.105(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notices are part of the Commission's overall program of helping
to ensure the safety and soundness of nonbank SDs and the
[[Page 58562]]
swaps markets in general.\309\ Notices provide the Commission and NFA
with an opportunity to assess whether there is an actual or potential
financial and/or operational issue at a nonbank SD. In situations where
there is an underlying issue, Commission and NFA staff engage with the
nonbank SD in an effort to minimize potential adverse impacts on the
firm, swap counterparties, and the larger swaps market.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ Id.
\310\ See 2024 Proposal at 8053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK capital and resolution framework, in turn, require PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs to provide certain notices to the PRA
concerning the firm's compliance with relevant laws and
regulations.\311\ The Commission noted that the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to provide
notice to the PRA within five business days if the firm fails to meet
its combined buffer requirement, which at a minimum consists of a
capital conservation buffer of 2.5 percent of the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD's total risk exposure amount.\312\ To meet its capital
buffer requirements, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD must hold common
equity tier 1 capital in addition to the minimum common equity tier 1
ratio requirement of 4.5 percent of the firm's core capital requirement
of 8 percent of the firm's total risk exposure amount.\313\ The notice
to the PRA must be accompanied by a capital conservation plan that sets
out how the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD will restore its capital
levels.\314\ The capital conservation plan is required to include: (i)
the ``maximum distributable amount'' calculated in accordance with the
PRA rules; (ii) estimates of income and expenditures and a forecast
balance sheet; (iii) measures to increase the capital ratios of the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; and (iv) a plan and timeframe for the
increase in the capital of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD with the
objective of meeting fully the combined buffer requirement.\315\ The
PRA is required to assess the capital conservation plan and may approve
the plan only if it considers that the plan would be reasonably likely
to conserve or raise sufficient capital to enable the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to meet its combined capital buffer requirement within a
timeframe that the PRA considers to be appropriate.\316\ A PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD is required to notify the PRA as early as
possible where it has identified a material risk to its ability to meet
the combined buffer according to the capital conservation plan and
timeframe approved by the PRA.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Id. at 8054.
\312\ See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital Conservation Measures, Rule
4.4. The combined capital buffer requirement is the total common
equity tier 1 capital required to meet the sum of the capital
conservation buffer and the institution-specific countercyclical
capital buffer. PRA Rulebook, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 1
Application and Definitions, Rule 1.2.
\313\ Id.
\314\ See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital Conservation Measures, Rules
4.4 and 4.5.
\315\ See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4 Capital Conservation Measures, Rule
4.5.
\316\ See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and Supervisory Statement SS6/14
Implementing Capital Buffers, Prudential Regulation Authority,
January 2021 (``SS6/14''), available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2014/implementing-crdiv-capital-buffers-ss.
\317\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD must notify the PRA if
the firm's management considers that the firm is failing or will in the
near future fail to satisfy one or more of the ``threshold
conditions,'' which are the minimum requirements that a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD must meet to be permitted to carry the regulated
activities in which it engages.\318\ In broad terms, the PRA's
threshold conditions include, among other things, requirements that the
firm has appropriate financial resources and capacity to measure,
monitor and manage risks.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ See 2024 Proposal at 8054 and PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms,
Notifications Part, Chapter 8 Specific Notifications, Rule 8.3.
\319\ FSMA, Part 4A and Schedule 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emphasizing that the requirement for a nonbank SD to file notice
with the Commission and NFA if the firm becomes undercapitalized or if
the firm experiences a decrease of excess regulatory capital below
defined levels is a central component of the Commission's and NFA's
oversight program for nonbank SDs, the Commission proposed a condition
to require a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to file with the Commission
and NFA copies of notices filed under the Capital Buffers Part of the
PRA Rulebook by PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs alerting the PRA of a
breach of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's combined capital
buffer.\320\ The Commission proposed to require that the notice be
filed by the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD within 24 hours of the filing
of the notice with the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ See 2024 Proposal at 8055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, however, preliminarily determined that the
requirement for a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to provide notice of a
breach of its capital buffer requirements to the PRA is not
sufficiently comparable in purpose and effect to the CFTC notice
provisions contained in Commission Regulation 23.105(c)(1) and
(2),\321\ which require a nonbank SD to provide notice to the
Commission and to NFA if the firm fails to meet its minimum capital
requirement or if the firm's regulatory capital falls below 120 percent
of its minimum capital requirement (``Early Warning Level''). The
Commission noted that, in its preliminary view, the requirement for a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to provide notice of a breach of its
capital buffer requirements does not achieve a comparable outcome to
the CFTC's Early Warning Level requirement due to the difference in the
thresholds triggering a notice requirement in the respective rule sets.
Therefore, the Commission proposed a condition to require a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD to file a notice with the Commission and NFA
if the firm's capital ratio does not equal or exceed 12.6 percent.\322\
The proposed condition would further require the PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to file the notice with the Commission and NFA within 24
hours of when the firm knows or should have known that its regulatory
capital was below 120 percent of its minimum capital requirement.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ 17 CFR 23.105(c)(1) and (2).
\322\ 2024 Proposal at 8055.
\323\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also noted that the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
also do not contain an explicit requirement for a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to notify the PRA if the firm fails to maintain current
books and records, experiences a decrease in regulatory capital over
levels previously reported, or fails to collect or post initial margin
with uncleared swap counterparties that exceed certain threshold
levels.\324\ The UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules also do not require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to provide the PRA with advance notice of
equity withdrawals initiated by equity holders that exceed defined
amounts or percentages of the firm's excess regulatory capital.\325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ Id. at 8056.
\325\ Commission Regulation 23.105(c)(5) requires a nonbank SD
to provide written notice to the Commission and NFA two business
days prior to the withdrawal of capital by action of the equity
holders if the amount of the withdrawal exceeds 30 percent of the
nonbank SD's excess regulatory capital. 17 CFR 23.105(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the Commission and NFA receive prompt information
concerning potential operational or financial issues that may adversely
[[Page 58563]]
impact the safety and soundness of a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD, the
Commission proposed to condition the Comparability Order to require
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file certain notices mandated by
Commission Regulation 23.105(c) with the Commission and NFA as
discussed below. Pursuant to the proposed conditions, a PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD would be required to file a notice the Commission and NFA
if the firm fails to maintain current books and records with respect to
its financial condition and financial reporting requirements.\326\ The
Commission stated that, in this context, books and records would
include current ledgers or other similar records which show or
summarize, with appropriate references to supporting documents, each
transaction affecting the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's asset,
liability, income, expense, and capital accounts in accordance with the
accounting principles accepted by the relevant authorities.\327\ The
Commission further stated that it preliminarily believed that the
maintenance of current books and records is a fundamental and essential
component of operating as a registered nonbank SD and that the failure
to comply with such a requirement may indicate an inability of the firm
to promptly and accurately record transactions and to ensure compliance
with regulatory requirements, including regulatory capital
requirements. As such, the Commission proposed to condition the
proposed Order on a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD providing the
Commission and NFA with a written notice within 24 hours if the firm
fails to maintain books and records on a current basis.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ 2024 Proposal at 8056.
\327\ For comparison, see Commission Regulation 23.105(b), which
similarly defines the term ``current books and records'' as used in
the context of the Commission's requirements. 17 CFR 23.105(b).
\328\ 2024 Proposal at 8056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further proposed to condition the Comparability
Order on a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD filing a notice with the
Commission and NFA if: (i) a single counterparty, or group of
counterparties under common ownership or control, fails to post
required initial margin or pay required variation margin on uncleared
swap and security-based swap positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds
25 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital
requirement; (ii) counterparties fail to post required initial margin
or pay required variation margin to the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
for uncleared swap and security-based swap positions that, in the
aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
minimum capital requirement; (iii) a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD fails
to post required initial margin or pay required variation margin for
uncleared swap and security-based swap positions to a single
counterparty or group of counterparties under common ownership and
control that, in the aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital requirement; and (iv) a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD fails to post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin to counterparties for uncleared swap and
security-based swap positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds 50
percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital
requirement. The Commission proposed to require this notice so that, in
the event that such a notice is filed, the Commission and NFA may
commence communication with the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD and the
PRA to obtain an understanding of the facts that have led to the
failure to exchange material amounts of initial margin and variation
margin in accordance with the applicable margin rules, and to assess
whether there is a concern regarding the financial condition of the
firm that may impair its ability to meet its financial obligations to
customers, counterparties, creditors, and general market participants,
or otherwise adversely impact the firm's safety and soundness.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not propose to require a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD to file notices with the Commission and NFA concerning
withdrawals of capital or changes in capital levels as such information
would be reflected in the financial statement reporting filed with the
Commission and NFA as conditions of the order, and because the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's capital levels are monitored by the PRA. As
such, the Commission preliminarily considered that the separate
reporting of the information to the Commission would be
superfluous.\330\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposed to require that a PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD file any notices required under the Order with the Commission and
NFA reflecting any balances, where applicable, in U.S. dollars. The
Commission stated that each notice required by the proposed
Comparability Order had to be filed in accordance with instructions
issued by the Commission or NFA.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its review of the UK Application and the relevant UK laws
and regulations, and subject to the proposed conditions discussed above
and specified in the proposed Comparability Order, the Commission
preliminarily determined that the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
related to notice provisions are comparable in purpose and effect to
the notice provisions of the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ Id. at 8054-8057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comments and Final Determination
With respect to the proposed requirements in Condition 20 that a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD file a notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours of when the firm knew or should have known that its
regulatory capital fell below 120 percent of its minimum capital
requirement, the Applicants asserted that the wording of the proposed
condition raises practical challenges as it would require notification
prior to the discovery of the relevant event.\333\ The Applicants
recommended that the Commission amend the proposed condition to require
notice within 24 hours of when the firm ``knew'' that its regulatory
capital fell below 120 percent of the minimum capital requirement.\334\
Similarly, with respect to proposed Condition 21, which would require a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to file a notice with the Commission and
NFA within 24 hours if the firm fails to make or keep current the
financial books and records, the Applicants recommended that the
Commission amend the condition to require that a PRA-designated UK file
a notice within 24 hours ``of when it knows it has failed to make or
keep current the financial books and records.'' \335\ In addition, with
respect to proposed Condition 20, the Applicants asserted that,
pursuant to the condition, a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD would
calculate the Early Warning Level by applying a buffer of 20 percent in
excess capital, in the form of common equity tier 1 capital, on top of
the firm's capital conservation buffer, which, at a minimum, equals 2.5
percent of the firm's total risk exposure amount and must be met in the
form of common equity tier 1 capital. In the Applicants' view, an
aggregate notification trigger of 12.6 percent of total risk exposure
amount would be too
[[Page 58564]]
high. The Applicants recommended that the Commission set the
notification trigger at 120 percent of the minimum total capital
requirement.\336\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ Applicants' Letter at p. 5.
\334\ Id.
\335\ Id.
\336\ Applicants' Letter at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Early Warning Level notice requirement is a central component
of the Commission's and NFA's oversight programs. The Commission,
however, recognizes that by requiring a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD to
provide notice if its capital ratio falls below 120 percent of the
firm's minimum capital requirement, as defined to comprise the
applicable capital buffers, the Commission would be imposing a higher
threshold level for the notice trigger than is currently applicable to
nonbank SDs under the CFTC Capital Rules. To achieve the condition's
goal of providing the Commission and NFA with information on decreases
in capital that may indicate financial or operational challenges at the
firm, the Commission is revising proposed Condition 20 to require
instead that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD provide notice to the
Commission if it experiences a 30 percent or more decrease in its
excess regulatory capital as compared to the last reported.\337\ The
condition is consistent with the requirement applicable to nonbank SDs
under Commission Regulation 23.105(c)(4).\338\ The Commission believes
that this condition, combined with the condition requiring a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD to file with the Commission and NFA copies of
notices filed with the PRA of a breach of the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD's combined capital buffer, will provide a timely opportunity to the
Commission and NFA to initiate conversations and fact finding with a
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that may be experiencing operational or
financial issues that may adversely impact the firm's ability to meet
its obligations to market participants, including customers or swap
counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ For clarity, by ``excess regulatory capital,'' the
Commission refers to the capital ratio by which the firm's capital
exceeds the core capital ratio requirement of 8 percent of the
firm's risk-weighted assets. For instance, if a firm maintains a
capital ratio of 20 percent, its excess regulatory capital would be
12 percent. In this example, 30 percent of the excess regulatory
capital would equal 3.6 percent.
\338\ 17 CFR 23.105(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the Applicants' general request that the
Commission set the compliance date of the Comparability Order at least
six months following the issuance of the final Order, the Commission
believes, as stated above, that granting an additional period of time
to allow PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to establish and implement the
necessary systems and processes to comply with the notice reporting
obligations imposed by the Comparability Order is appropriate with
respect to certain notice obligations. Specifically, the Commission
understands that establishing a system and process for monitoring
material decreases in excess regulatory capital as required by final
Condition 20 or for monitoring failures to collect or post initial
margin or variation margin for uncleared swap transactions that exceed
specified thresholds for purposes of complying with final Condition 22
may take time.\339\ Conversely, the Commission does not believe that
additional time is necessary for implementing a system and process of
providing a notice to the Commission and NFA in connection with the
occurrence of events that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently
monitor and/or report to the PRA. The Commission is also of the view
that, given the nature of the notice obligation, PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs should be in a position to comply with all other notice
obligations, including those requiring PRA-designated UK nonbanks SDs
to provide notice to the Commission and NFA if they fail to make or
keep current financial books and records or if they fail to maintain
regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier 1 equal or in
excess of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $20 million, immediately upon
effectiveness of the Comparability Order. Specifically, with respect to
the requirement in Condition 21 that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
notify the Commission and NFA if the firm fails to make or keep current
the financial books and records, the Commission notes that maintaining
current books and records of all financial transactions is a
fundamental recordkeeping requirement for a registered nonbank SD, and
is essential to provide management with the information necessary to
ensure that transactions are timely and accurately reported and that
the firm complies with capital and other regulatory requirements. The
Commission finds that it is necessary for a nonbank SD to maintain
internal controls and procedures to affirmatively monitor that
financial books and records are being maintained on a current basis.
The Commission also notes that the language of Condition 21 is
consistent with the timing standard of Commission Regulation
23.105(c)(3).\340\ As such, the Commission is adopting Condition 21 as
proposed. The Commission, however, is setting a compliance date of 180
calendar days after the publication of the final Comparability Order in
the Federal Register with respect to the notice reporting obligations
under final Conditions 20 and 22 of the Comparability Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ With regard to Condition 22, the Commission also notes,
for clarity, that in proposing a notice condition based on
thresholds of ``required'' margin, the Commission's intent was to
set the notice trigger by reference to margin amounts that are
legally required to be exchanged under the applicable margin
requirements. To determine the applicable margin requirements, the
Commission will consider the framework set forth in Commission
Regulation 23.160. To the extent PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
intending to rely on the Comparability Order have inquiries
regarding the scope of uncleared swap margin transactions to be
monitored for purposes of complying with final Condition 22, MPD
will discuss such inquiries with the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
during the confirmation process referenced in final Condition 8 of
the Comparability Order.
\340\ 17 CFR 23.105(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the notice requirement in final Condition 22, the
Applicants also recommended that the Commission clarify the term
``minimum capital requirement,'' used in connection with the thresholds
triggering a notice requirement.\341\ In response, the Commission will
amend the condition to indicate that, in the context of final Condition
22, the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's ``minimum capital requirement''
is the core capital requirement under the UK PRA Capital Rules,
excluding capital buffers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ Applicants' Letter at p. 7. The Applicants indicated that
in the context of proposed Condition 22, they understand the term
``minimum capital requirement'' to mean an amount equal to 8 percent
of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's total risk exposure amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Applicants recommended that the Commission amend
proposed Condition 24 to require that a PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs,
or an entity acting on its behalf, notify the Commission and NFA of
``material changes'' to the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules instead of ``proposed or final material changes'' to
the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules.\342\
Separately, the Applicants noted that the language of proposed
Condition 24 is confusing in that it differentiates between rules that
are ``imposed on'' and those that ``apply to'' PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs.\343\ The Commission did not intend to distinguish between
rules that are ``imposed on'' and rules that ``apply to'' PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs and will use instead the defined terms ``UK
PRA Capital Rules'' and ``UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules'' to address
the potential for confusion. The
[[Page 58565]]
Commission, however, believes that it is necessary that the Commission
and NFA receive an advance notice of potential material changes to the
foreign jurisdiction's rules to allow the Commission a sufficient time
to assess the potential impact of the proposed amendments and to
address potential changes to the Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order. As such, the Commission is adopting Condition 24
as proposed with regard to the required notice of ``proposed and final
material changes'' to the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ Applicants' Letter at p. 8.
\343\ Applicants' Letter at p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not receive any comments with respect to the
following proposed notice conditions: (i) the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD files notice with the Commission and NFA within 24 hours of being
informed by the PRA that the firm is not in compliance with any
component of the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting
Rules (proposed Condition 15); (ii) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
files notice with the Commission and NFA within 24 hours if the firm
fails to maintain regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier
1 capital, as defined in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal to or in excess of
the U.S. dollar equivalent of $20 million (proposed Condition 16);
(iii) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD provides the Commission and NFA
with notice within 24 hours of filing a capital conservation plan
(proposed Condition 17); (iv) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files
notice with the Commission and NFA within 24 hours of being required by
the PRA to maintain additional capital or additional liquidity
requirements, or to restrict its business operations, or to comply with
certain other additional requirements that the PRA may impose pursuant
to the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules
(proposed Condition 18); (v) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a
notice with the Commission and NFA within 24 hours if it fails to
maintain its MREL (proposed Condition 19); or (vi) the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD files notice of PRA approving a change in the firm's
fiscal year-end date, which must be filed with the Commission and NFA
at least 15 business days prior to the effective date of the change
(proposed Condition 23).
With regard to the proposed condition requiring that the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD file a notice with the Commission and NFA
within 24 hours of filing a capital conservation plan, the Commission
will revise the condition to require that the notice be filed within 24
hours of when the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD breaches its combined
capital buffer requirement and is required to file a capital
conservation plan. Thus, the Commission will help ensure that the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD provides a timely notice within 24 hours of
breaching its combined capital buffer requirement instead of 24 hours
of filing the capital conservation plan, which may occur up to five
business days after the breach of the combined buffer requirement.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the regulatory notice
provisions of the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules and the CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules, after consideration of the conditions
imposed in the final Comparability Order, are comparable in purpose and
effect, and achieve comparable outcomes, by providing timely notice to
the PRA, and to the Commission and NFA, of specified events at a
nonbank SD that may potentially indicate an ongoing issue with the
safety and soundness of the firm and/or its ability to meet its
obligations to swap counterparties, creditors, or other market
participants without the firm becoming insolvent. As such, the
Commission adopts the final Comparability Order and conditions as
proposed with respect to the Commission's analysis of comparability of
the PRA and Commission's nonbank SD notice reporting requirements,
subject to the revisions in final Conditions 17 and 20, and the
clarifying changes to final Condition 24 discussed above. The
Commission is also adopting a compliance date for certain notice
reporting requirements as discussed above in the final Comparability
Order.
F. Supervision and Enforcement
1. Preliminary Determination
In the 2024 Proposal, the Commission discussed the oversight of
nonbank SDs, noting that the Commission and NFA conduct ongoing
supervision of nonbank SDs to assess their compliance with the CEA,
Commission regulations, and NFA rules by reviewing financial reports,
notices, risk exposure reports, and other filings that nonbank SDs are
required to file with the Commission and NFA.\344\ The 2024 Proposal
also noted that the Commission and NFA also conduct periodic
examinations as part of the supervision of nonbank SDs, including
routine onsite examinations of nonbank SDs' books, records, and
operations to ensure compliance with CFTC and NFA requirements.\345\ In
this regard, as noted in section I.E. above, section 17(p) of the CEA
requires NFA, as a registered futures association, to establish minimum
capital and financial requirements for nonbank SDs and to implement a
program to audit and enforce compliance with such requirements.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ 2024 Proposal at 8057.
\345\ Id.
\346\ 7 U.S.C. 21(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also discussed the financial reports and notices
required under the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules, noting that the
reports and notices provide the Commission and NFA with information
necessary to: ensure the nonbank SD's compliance with minimum capital
requirements; assess the firm's overall safety and soundness by being
able to meet its financial obligations to customers, counterparties,
creditors, and general market participants; and identify potential
issues at a nonbank SD that may impact the firm's ability to maintain
compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations.\347\ As discussed
in the 2024 Proposal, the Commission and NFA also have the authority to
require a nonbank SD to provide any additional financial and/or
operational information as the Commission or NFA may specify to monitor
the safety and soundness of the firm.\348\ The Commission further noted
that it has authority to take disciplinary actions against a nonbank SD
for failing to comply with the CEA and Commission regulations. In this
regard, section 4b-1(a) of the CEA provides the Commission with
exclusive authority to enforce the capital requirements imposed on
nonbank SDs adopted under section 4s(e) of the CEA.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ 2024 Proposal at 8057.
\348\ Commission Regulation 23.105(h) (17 CFR 23.105(h)). See
also 2024 Proposal at 8057.
\349\ 7 U.S.C. 6s(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, the Commission noted
in the 2024 Proposal that the PRA conducts oversight of the firm's
compliance with the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules. In this regard, the Commission noted that the PRA has
supervision, audit, and investigation powers with respect to PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs, which include the powers to obtain specified
information reasonably required in connection with the exercise of the
PRA's functions, the power to conduct or order investigations, and the
power to impose sanctions on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that breach
their regulatory obligations, including those deriving from the UK PRA
Capital Rules
[[Page 58566]]
and the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ 2024 Proposal at 8057 and FSMA, Parts 4A, XI, and XIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRA also monitors the capital adequacy of PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs through supervisory measures on an ongoing basis. The
monitoring includes assessing the notices and the capital conservation
plan discussed in section II.E.1. above. In addition, the PRA is
empowered with a variety of measures to address a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD's financial deterioration.\351\ Under its general
supervisory powers, the PRA may impose new requirements to a PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD if the firm is failing, or likely to fail, to
satisfy the threshold conditions for which the PRA is responsible.\352\
More specifically, a breach in a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's capital
buffers automatically triggers restrictions on the firm's ability to
make certain distributions (e.g., pay certain dividends or employee
bonuses).\353\ In addition, the PRA may impose administrative penalties
or other administrative measures, including prudential charges, if a
PRA-designated nonbank SD's liquidity position falls below the
liquidity and stable funding requirements.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ See 2024 Proposal at 8057 and PRA, The Prudential
Regulation Authority's approach to banking supervision, July 2023,
available at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/pras-approach-to-supervision-of-the-banking-and-insurance-sectors.
\352\ 2024 Proposal at 8057 and FSMA, Part 4A, Section 55M.
\353\ PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, Chapter 4
Capital Conservation Measures, Rule 4.3.
\354\ Capital Requirements Regulations 2013, Regulation 35B and
FSMA, Part XIV Disciplinary Measures (setting forth the PRA's
disciplinary power with respect to all rules adopted under FSMA).
The Applicants represented that ``CRR rules'' (i.e., general PRA
rules applying to CRR firms, including PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs) are adopted pursuant to FSMA, Part 9D, and as such the PRA has
power to impose disciplinary measures in connection with these
rules. See Response to Staff Questions dated October 5, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of non-compliance with the capital and liquidity
thresholds, the PRA may also order PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
comply with additional requirements, including: (i) maintaining
additional capital in excess of the minimum requirements, if certain
conditions are met; (ii) requiring that the PRA-designated UK nonbank
SD submit a plan to restore compliance with applicable capital or
liquidity thresholds; (iii) imposing restrictions on the business or
operations of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD; (iv) imposing
restrictions or prohibitions on distributions or interest payments to
shareholders or holders of additional tier 1 capital instruments; (v)
requiring additional or more frequent reporting requirements; and (vi)
imposing additional specific liquidity requirements.\355\ The PRA may
also sanction the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD if the firm's capital or
liquidity fall below the applicable thresholds or the PRA has evidence
that the firm will breach such thresholds in the next 12 months.\356\
The PRA may also withdraw a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
authorization if the firm no longer meets its minimum capital
requirements.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ FSMA, Parts 4A, Sections 55M and 55P, and Capital
Requirements Regulation 2013, Regulation 35B.
\356\ FSMA, Parts 4A and XIV.
\357\ FSMA, Part 4A, Sections 55J-55K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, if the capital and liquidity requirements are
breached, the PRA may take early measures to intervene, such as
requiring management to take certain actions, order members of
management to be removed or replaced, or require changes to the firm's
business strategy or legal or operational structure, among other
measures.\358\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\358\ Bank Recovery and Resolution (No. 2) Order 2014, Article 2
(defining ``conditions for early intervention'' in case of breach of
UK CRR requirements or requirements derived from CRD) and Part 8
(laying down the procedure to be followed by the PRA to determine
whether early intervention measures should be taken under FSMA). If
additional requirements are met, it is also possible that the Bank
of England, as the resolution authority, may assess the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD as ``failing or likely to fail,''
triggering a resolution action, which could occur even before the
firm actually breached its minimum capital requirements. Banking Act
2009, Sections 4 to 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the PRA generally has broad discretion as to what powers
it may exercise, the UK PRA Capital Rules and the UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules specifically mandate that the PRA require PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs to hold increased capital when: (i) risks or
elements of risks are not covered by the capital requirements imposed
by the UK PRA Capital Rules; (ii) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
lacks robust governance arrangements, appropriate resolution and
recovery plans, processes to manage large exposures or effective
processes to maintain on an ongoing basis the amounts, types, and
distribution of capital needed to cover the nature and level of risks
to which it might be exposed; or (iii) the sole application of other
administrative measures would be unlikely to timely and sufficiently
improve the firm's arrangements and processes.\359\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ Capital Requirements Regulation 2013, Section 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its review of the Application and its analysis of the
relevant laws and regulations, the Commission preliminarily found that
the PRA has the necessary powers to supervise, investigate, and
discipline PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs for compliance with the
applicable capital and financial reporting requirements, and to detect
and deter violations of, and ensure compliance with, the applicable UK
capital and financial reporting requirements.\360\ Furthermore, the
Commission noted that it retains supervision, examination, and
enforcement authority over PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are
covered by the Comparability Order.\361\ Specifically, the Commission
noted that a non-U.S. nonbank SD that operates under substituted
compliance remains subject to the Commission's examination authority
and may be subject to a Commission enforcement action if the firm fails
to comply with a foreign jurisdiction's capital adequacy or financial
reporting requirements.\362\ The ability of the Commission to exercise
its enforcement authority over a PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is not
conditioned upon a finding by the PRA of a violation of the UK PRA
Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules. In addition, as each
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is a member of NFA, the firm is subject to
NFA membership rules, examination authority, and disciplinary
process.\363\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\360\ 2024 Proposal at 8058.
\361\ 2024 Proposal at 8029.
\362\ Id. See also 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii), which provides that
all nonbank SDs, regardless of whether they rely on a Comparability
Order or Comparability Determination, remain subject to the
Commission's examination and enforcement authority.
\363\ 7 U.S.C. 21(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comment Analysis and Final Determination
The Commission did not receive comments directly related to its
analysis set forth in the proposed Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order, or on its preliminary determination that the PRA
has the necessary powers to supervise, investigate, and discipline PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs for non-compliance with the applicable UK
capital and financial reporting requirements. The Commission has
reviewed its preliminary Comparability Determination and finds that the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are subject to a supervisory and
enforcement framework that is comparable to the Commission's
supervisory and enforcement framework for nonbank SDs.
[[Page 58567]]
As detailed in section II.F.1. above, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
are subject to direct supervision by the PRA in its capacity of
prudential regulator. The PRA has supervision, audit, and investigation
powers with respect to the six PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs currently
registered with the Commission.
The Commission's assessment of the PRA's supervisory programs
included an evaluation of the PRA's authority to supervise PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs based on applicable UK laws and regulations,
as discussed in section II.F.1. above. This evaluation included an
assessment of the financial reporting that PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs are required to provide to the PRA, the PRA's ability to conduct
examinations, including onsite inspections of PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs, and the PRA's ability to impose sanctions or take other action to
address noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations. Based upon
its evaluation, the Commission preliminarily determined that the
relevant UK laws and regulations are comparable in purpose and effect
to the CEA and Commission regulations, and that the PRA has appropriate
power to supervise PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs for compliance with
the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules. The
Commission further determined, based on applicable UK laws and
regulations, that the PRA has the ability to sanction PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs for failing to comply with regulatory requirements.
Specifically, as discussed in section II.F.1. above, the PRA has the
power to impose sanctions on the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD if the
firm's capital or liquidity fall below the applicable thresholds,\364\
and may impose various requirements on PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs,
including a requirement to hold additional capital if certain
conditions are met.\365\ The PRA may also withdraw a PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD's authorization to operate if the firm no longer meets its
minimum capital requirements.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\364\ FSMA, Parts 4A and XIV.
\365\ FSMA, Parts 4A, Sections 55M and 55P, and Capital
Requirements Regulation 2013, Regulation 35B.
\366\ FSMA, Part 4A, Sections 55J-55K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as discussed in this Comparability Determination, by
issuing a Comparability Order, the Commission is not ceding its
supervisory and enforcement authorities. PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
that are subject to a Comparability Order are registered with the
Commission as SDs and are members of NFA, and, as such, are subject to
the CEA, Commission regulations, and NFA membership rules and
requirements. In this regard, PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs covered by
a Comparability Order are required to directly provide the Commission
with additional information upon the Commission's request to facilitate
the ongoing supervision of such firms.\367\ Further, section 17 of
NFA's SD Financial Requirements rule provides that each SD member of
NFA must file the financial, operational, risk management and other
information required by NFA in the form and manner prescribed by
NFA.\368\ The ability to obtain information directly from PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs ensures that the Commission and NFA have
access to the information necessary to monitor the financial condition
of such firms and to assess the firms' compliance with applicable
capital and financial reporting requirements. PRA-designated UK nonbank
SDs covered by a Comparability Order remain subject to the Commission's
examination and enforcement authority with respect to all elements of
the CEA and Commission regulations, including capital and financial
reporting.\369\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ 17 CFR 23.105(h).
\368\ NFA Section 17 Rule available at NFA's website: https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/index.aspx.
\369\ 17 CFR 23.106(a)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as detailed in section I.E. above, the conditions set
forth in the Comparability Order reflect the fact that the Commission
and NFA have a continuing obligation to conduct ongoing oversight,
including potential examination, of PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to
ensure compliance with the Comparability Order and with relevant CEA
requirements and Commission regulations. Specifically, the conditions
require PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to file directly with the
Commission and NFA financial reports and notices that are comparable to
the financial reports and notices filed by nonbank SDs domiciled in the
U.S. In addition to requiring PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs to maintain
current books and records reflecting all transactions,\370\ the
conditions further require each PRA-designated UK nonbank SD covered by
the Comparability Order to file directly with the Commission and NFA:
(i) monthly and annual financial reports; \371\ (ii) notice that the
firm was informed by the PRA that it is not in compliance with the UK
PRA Capital Rules and/or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules; \372\ (iii)
notice that the firm has experienced a decrease of 30 percent or more
in its excess regulatory capital as compared to the last excess
regulatory capital reported in filings with the Commission and NFA;
\373\ (iv) notice that the firm has breached its combined capital
buffer requirement and is required to file a capital conservation plan
with the PRA; \374\ (v) notice that the firm has failed to maintain
regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier 1 capital equal to
or in excess of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $20 million; \375\ and
(vi) notice that the firm has failed to maintain current financial
books and records.\376\ The Comparability Order further requires the
Applicants to provide notice to the Commission of any material changes
to the information submitted in the application, including, but not
limited to, proposed and final material changes to the UK PRA Capital
Rules or UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules and proposed and final
material changes to the PRA's supervisory authority or supervisory
regime over PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs.\377\ The financial
information and notices required to be filed directly with the
Commission and NFA under the Comparability Order, and through the
Commission's and NFA's direct authority to obtain additional
information from PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs, will allow the
Commission and NFA to conduct ongoing oversight of such firms to assess
their overall safety and soundness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\370\ Condition 9 of the final Comparability Order.
\371\ Conditions 10 and 11 of the final Comparability Order.
\372\ Condition 15 of the final Comparability Order.
\373\ Condition 20 of the final Comparability Order.
\374\ Condition 17 of the final Comparability Order.
\375\ Condition 16 of the final Comparability Order.
\376\ Condition 21 of the final Comparability Order.
\377\ Condition 24 of the final Comparability Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Commission Regulation 23.106 does not condition the
issuance of a Comparability Order on the Commission and the authority
or authorities in the relevant foreign jurisdiction having entered into
a formal MOU or similar arrangement, the Commission recognizes the
benefit that such an arrangement may provide. Specifically, although
Commission staff may engage directly with PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs
to obtain information regarding their financial and operational
condition, it may not be able to exchange and discuss such firm-
specific information \378\ with the PRA or
[[Page 58568]]
reach shared expectations on procedures for conducting on-site
examinations in the UK.\379\ Therefore, Commission staff will continue
its engagement with PRA staff to negotiate and finalize an MOU or
similar arrangement to facilitate the joint supervision of PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ The sharing of non-public information by CFTC staff would
require assurances related to the use and treatment of such
information in a manner consistent with Section 8(e) of the CEA, 7
U.S.C. 12(e).
\379\ For UK nonbank SDs regulated by the FCA, the Commission
and the FCA are signatories to a supervisory MOU that covers
information sharing and examinations. Memorandum of Understanding
Concerning Cooperation and the Exchange of Information in the
Context of Supervising Covered Firms (June 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Capital Comparability Determination and Comparability Order
A. Commission's Final Comparability Determination
Based on the UK Application and the Commission's review of
applicable UK laws and regulations, as well as the review of comments
submitted in response to the Commission's request for comment on the UK
Application and the proposed Comparability Determination and
Comparability Order, the Commission finds that the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules, subject to the conditions set
forth in the Comparability Order below, achieve comparable outcomes and
are comparable in purpose and effect to the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC
Financial Reporting Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission
recognizes that there are certain differences between the UK PRA
Capital Rules and CFTC Capital Rules and certain differences between
the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules and the CFTC Financial Reporting
Rules. The Comparability Order is subject to conditions that are
necessary to promote consistency in regulatory outcomes, or to reflect
the scope of substituted compliance that would be available
notwithstanding certain differences. In the Commission's view, the
differences between the two rules sets are not inconsistent with
providing a substituted compliance framework for PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs subject to the conditions specified in the Order below.
Furthermore, the Comparability Determination and Comparability
Order are limited to the comparison of the UK PRA Capital Rules to the
Bank-Based Approach contained within the CFTC Capital Rules. As noted
previously, the Applicants have not requested, and the Commission has
not performed, a comparison of the UK PRA Capital Rules to the
Commission's NLA Approach or TNW Approach.
B. Order Providing Conditional Capital Comparability Determination for
Certain PRA-Designated UK Nonbank Swap Dealers
It is hereby determined and ordered, pursuant to Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'' or ``Commission'') Regulation 23.106 (17
CFR 23.106) under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') (7 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.) that a swap dealer (``SD'') subject to the Commission's capital
and financial reporting requirements under sections 4s(e) and (f) of
the CEA (7 U.S.C. 6s(e) and (f)), that is organized and domiciled in
the United Kingdom (``UK'') and designated for prudential supervision
by the UK Prudential Regulation Authority (``PRA''), may satisfy the
capital requirements under section 4s(e) of the CEA and Commission
Regulation 23.101(a)(1)(i) (17 CFR 23.101(a)(1)(i)) (``CFTC Capital
Rules''), and the financial reporting rules under section 4s(f) of the
CEA and Commission Regulation 23.105 (17 CFR 23.105) (``CFTC Financial
Reporting Rules''), by complying with certain specified requirements of
the UK laws and regulations cited below and otherwise complying with
the following conditions, as amended or superseded from time to time:
(1) The SD is not subject to regulation by a prudential regulator
defined in section 1a(39) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1a(39));
(2) The SD is organized under the laws of the UK and is domiciled
in the UK;
(3) The SD is licensed as an investment firm in the UK and is
designated for prudential supervision by the PRA (``PRA-designated UK
nonbank SD'');
(4) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is subject to and complies
with: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit
institutions and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as restated and
applicable in the UK (``UK CRR''), the provisions implementing the
Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the
prudential supervision of credit institutions, amending Directive 2002/
87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (``CRD''),
including Capital Requirements Regulations 2013 and Capital
Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures)
Regulations 2014, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 of 10
October 2014 to supplement Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European
Parliament and the Council with regard to liquidity coverage
requirement for Credit Institutions (``Liquidity Coverage Delegated
Regulation''), the provisions of the Banking Act 2009 and its secondary
legislation related to the minimum requirement for own funds and
eligible liabilities (``MREL''), and the rules of the PRA as reflected
in the PRA Rulebook (collectively the ``UK PRA Capital Rules'');
(5) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD satisfies at all times
applicable capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements set forth in
Article 92 of UK CRR and the rules in PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Leverage
Ratio--Capital Requirements and Buffers Part, Chapter 3 Minimum
Leverage Ratio, the capital conservation buffer requirements set forth
in PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital Buffers Part, and applicable
liquidity requirements set forth in PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity
Coverage Requirement--UK Designated Investment Firms Part and PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Liquidity (CRR) Part, and otherwise complies with
the requirements to maintain a liquidity risk management program as
required under PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Internal Liquidity Adequacy
Assessment Part;
(6) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is subject to and complies
with: Reporting (CRR) and Regulatory Reporting parts of the PRA
Rulebook and the Companies Act 2006, Parts 15 and 16 (collectively and
together with UK CRR, the ``UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules'');
(7) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD maintains at all times an
amount of regulatory capital in the form of common equity tier 1
capital as defined in Article 26 of UK CRR, equal to or in excess of
the equivalent of $20 million in United States dollars (``U.S.
dollars''). The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD shall use a commercially
reasonable and observable British pound/U.S. dollar exchange rate to
convert the value of the pound-denominated common equity tier 1 capital
to U.S. dollars;
(8) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD has filed with the Commission
a notice stating its intention to comply with the UK PRA Capital Rules
and the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules in lieu of the CFTC Capital
Rules and the CFTC Financial Reporting Rules. The notice of intent must
include the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's representation that the firm
is organized and domiciled in the UK, is a licensed investment firm
designated for prudential supervision by the PRA, and
[[Page 58569]]
is subject to, and complies with, the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA
Financial Reporting Rules. A PRA-designated UK nonbank SD may not rely
on this Comparability Order until it receives confirmation from
Commission staff, acting pursuant to authority delegated by the
Commission under Commission Regulation 140.91(a)(11) (17 CFR
140.91(a)(11)), that the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD may comply with
the UK PRA Capital Rules and UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules in lieu
of the CFTC Capital Rules and CFTC Reporting Rules. Each notice filed
pursuant to this condition must be submitted to the Commission via
email to the following address: [email protected];
(9) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD prepares and keeps current
ledgers and other similar records in accordance with the PRA Rulebook,
General Organisational Requirements Part, Rule 2.2 and Record Keeping
Part, Rule 2.1 and 2.2, and conforming with the applicable accounting
principles;
(10) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files with the Commission and
with the National Futures Association (``NFA'') a copy of templates 1.1
(Balance Sheet Statement: assets), 1.2 (Balance Sheet Statement:
liabilities), 1.3 (Balance Sheet Statement: equity), and 2 (Statement
of profit or loss) of the financial reports (``FINREP'') that PRA-
designated UK nonbank SDs are required to submit pursuant to PRA
Rulebook, CRR Firms, Regulatory Reporting Part, Chapter 9 Regulatory
Activity Group 3, Rule 9.2, and templates 1 (Own Funds), 2 (Own Funds
Requirements) and 3 (Capital Ratios) of the common reports (``COREP'')
that PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs are required to submit pursuant to
PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Reporting (CRR) Part, Chapter 4 Reporting
(Part Seven A CRR), Article 430 Reporting on Prudential Requirements
and Financial Information, Rule 1. The FINREP and COREP templates must
be provided with balances converted to U.S. dollars, using a
commercially reasonable and observable British pound/U.S. dollar spot
rate as of the date of the reports, and must be filed with the
Commission and NFA within 35 calendar days of the end of each month.
PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are registered as security-based
swap dealers (``SBSDs'') with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') must comply with this condition by filing with the
Commission and NFA a copy of Form X-17A-5 (``FOCUS Report'') that the
PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is required to file with the SEC or its
designee pursuant to an order granting conditional substituted
compliance with respect to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 18a-7.
The copy of the FOCUS Report must be filed with the Commission and NFA
within 35 calendar days after the end of each month in the manner,
format and conditions specified by the SEC in Order Specifying the
Manner and Format of Filing Unaudited Financial and Operational
Information by Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants that are not U.S. Persons and are Relying on
Substituted Compliance with Respect to Rule 18a-7, 86 FR 59208 (Oct.
26, 2021);
(11) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files with the Commission and
with NFA a copy of its annual audited accounts and strategic report
(together, ``annual audited financial report'') that are required to be
prepared and published pursuant to Parts 15 and 16 of Companies Act
2006. The annual audited financial report may be reported in British
pound. The annual audited financial report must be filed with the
Commission and NFA on the earlier of the date the report is filed with
the PRA or the date the report is required to be filed with the PRA
pursuant to the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules;
(12) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files Schedule 1 of appendix
B to Subpart E of part 23 of the Commission's regulations (17 CFR 23
Subpart E--appendix B) with the Commission and NFA on a monthly basis.
Schedule 1 must be prepared with balances reported in U.S. dollars,
using a commercially reasonable and observable British pound/U.S.
dollar spot rate as of the date of the report, and must be filed with
the Commission and NFA within 35 calendar days of the end of each
month. PRA-designated UK nonbank SDs that are registered as SBSDs must
comply with this condition by filing with the Commission and NFA a copy
of the FOCUS Report that they file with the SEC or its designee as set
forth in Condition 10;
(13) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD submits with each set of
FINREP and COREP templates, annual audited financial report, and
Schedule 1 of appendix B to Subpart E of part 23 of the Commission's
regulations, a statement by an authorized representative or
representatives of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD that to the best
knowledge and belief of the representative or representatives, the
information contained in the reports, including the conversion of
balances in the reports to U.S. dollars, is true and correct;
(14) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a margin report
containing the information specified in Commission Regulation 23.105(m)
(17 CFR 23.105(m)) (``Margin Report'') with the Commission and with NFA
within 35 calendar days of the end of each month. The Margin Report's
balances must be reported in U.S. dollars, using a commercially
reasonable and observable British pound/U.S. dollar spot rate as of the
date of the report;
(15) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours of being informed by the PRA that
the firm is not in compliance with any component of the UK PRA Capital
Rules or the UK PRA Financial Reporting Rules;
(16) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice within 24
hours with the Commission and NFA if it fails to maintain regulatory
capital in the form of common equity tier 1 capital as defined in
Article 26 of UK CRR, equal to or in excess of the U.S. dollar
equivalent of $20 million using a commercially reasonable and
observable British pound/U.S. dollar exchange rate;
(17) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD provides the Commission and
NFA with notice within 24 hours of breaching its combined capital
buffer requirement and being required to file a capital conservation
plan with the PRA pursuant to PRA Rulebook, CRR Firms, Capital Buffers
Part, Chapter 4 Capital Conservation Measures, Rule 4.4;
(18) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD provides the Commission and
NFA with notice within 24 hours if it is required by the PRA to
maintain additional capital or additional liquidity requirements, or to
restrict its business operations, or to comply with other requirements
pursuant to Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Part 4A or the
Capital Requirements Regulation 2013, Regulation 35B;
(19) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours if it fails to maintain its MREL, if
the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD is subject to such requirement as set
forth by the Bank of England pursuant to the Banking Act 2009, section
3A and the Bank Recovery and Resolution (No. 2) Order 2014, Part 9;
(20) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA if it experiences a 30 percent or more decrease in
its excess regulatory capital as compared to that last reported in the
financial information filed pursuant to Condition 10. The notice filed
with Commission and NFA must be filed within two business days of the
firm experiencing the 30 percent or
[[Page 58570]]
more decrease in excess regulatory capital;
(21) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours if it fails to make or keep current
the financial books and records;
(22) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA within 24 hours of the occurrence of any of the
following: (i) a single counterparty, or group of counterparties under
common ownership or control, fails to post required initial margin or
pay required variation margin to the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD on
uncleared swap and non-cleared security-based swap positions that, in
the aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
minimum capital requirement; (ii) counterparties fail to post required
initial margin or pay required variation margin to the PRA-designated
UK nonbank SD for uncleared swap and non-cleared security-based swap
positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital requirement; (iii) the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD fails to post required initial margin or pay
required variation margin for uncleared swap and non-cleared security-
based swap positions to a single counterparty or group of
counterparties under common ownership and control that, in the
aggregate, exceeds 25 percent of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
minimum capital requirement; or (iv) the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD
fails to post required initial margin or pay required variation margin
to counterparties for uncleared swap and non-cleared security-based
swap positions that, in the aggregate, exceeds 50 percent of the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital requirement. For purposes of
the calculation, the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's minimum capital
requirement is the core capital requirement under the UK PRA Capital
Rules, excluding capital buffers;
(23) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD files a notice with the
Commission and NFA of a change in its fiscal year-end approved or
permitted to go into effect by the PRA. The notice required by this
paragraph will satisfy the requirement for a nonbank SD to obtain the
approval of NFA for a change in fiscal year-end under Commission
Regulation 23.105(g) (17 CFR 23.105(g)). The notice of change in fiscal
year-end must be filed with the Commission and NFA at least 15 business
days prior to the effective date of the PRA-designated UK nonbank SD's
change in fiscal year-end;
(24) The PRA-designated UK nonbank SD or an entity acting on its
behalf notifies the Commission of any material changes to the
information submitted in the application for Comparability
Determination, including, but not limited to, proposed and final
material changes to the UK PRA Capital Rules or UK PRA Financial
Reporting Rules and proposed and final material changes to the PRA's
supervisory authority or supervisory regime over PRA-designated UK
nonbank SDs; and
(25) Unless otherwise noted in the conditions above, the reports,
notices, and other statements required to be filed by the PRA-
designated UK nonbank SD with the Commission and NFA pursuant to the
conditions of this Comparability Order must be submitted electronically
to the Commission and NFA in accordance with instructions provided by
the Commission or NFA.
It is also hereby determined and ordered that this Comparability
Order becomes effective upon its publication in the Federal Register,
with the exception of Conditions 14, 20, and 22, which will become
effective 180 calendar days after publication of the Comparability
Order in the Federal Register.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2024, by the Commission.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendices to Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in
Connection With Certain Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements
Applicable to Nonbank Swap Dealers Subject to Regulation by the United
Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority--Voting Summary and Chairman's
and Commissioners' Statements
Appendix 1--Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Behnam and Commissioners Johnson, and
Goldsmith Romero, Mersinger, and Pham voted in the affirmative. No
Commissioner voted in the negative.
Appendix 2--Statement of Chairman Rostin Behnam
I support the Commission's approval of four comparability
determinations and related orders finding that the capital and
financial reporting requirements in Japan, Mexico, the European
Union (France and Germany), and the United Kingdom (for swap dealers
(SDs) designated for prudential supervision by the UK Prudential
Regulation Authority (PRA)) are comparable to the Commission's
capital and financial reporting requirements applicable to nonbank
SDs. These are the first comparability determinations that the
Commission has finalized for applications filed following the July
2020 adoption of its regulatory framework for substituted compliance
for non-U.S. domiciled nonbank SDs.\1\ There are currently 15 non-
U.S. nonbank SDs that are eligible to comply with these conditional
orders: three in Japan; three in Mexico; two in Germany and one in
France for the EU; and six in the UK that are PRA-designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15, 2020). The Commission issued
the final rule on July 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the process leading to the Commission's final
comparability determinations and orders, Commission staff engaged in
a thorough analysis of each foreign jurisdictions' capital and
financial reporting frameworks and considered the public comments
received on the proposed determinations and orders. Based on those
reviews, the Commission has determined that the respective foreign
jurisdictions' rules are comparable in purpose and effect, and
achieve comparable outcomes, to the CFTC's capital and financial
reporting rules. Specifically, the Commission considered the scope
and objectives of the foreign regulators' capital adequacy and
financial reporting requirements; the ability of those regulators to
supervise and enforce compliance with their respective capital and
financial reporting requirements; and other facts or circumstances
the Commission deemed relevant for each of the applications.
In certain instances, the Commission found that a foreign
jurisdiction's rules impose stricter standards. In limited
circumstances, where the Commission concluded that a foreign
jurisdiction lacks comparable and comprehensive requirements on a
specific issue, the Commission included a targeted condition
designed to impose an equally stringent standard. The Commission has
issued the final orders consistent with its authority to issue a
comparability determination with the conditions it deems
appropriate. These conditions aim to ensure that the orders only
apply to nonbank SDs that are eligible for substituted compliance in
these respective jurisdictions and that those non-U.S. nonbank SDs
comply with the foreign country's capital and financial reporting
requirements as well as certain additional capital, financial
reporting, recordkeeping, and regulatory notice requirements. This
approach acknowledges that jurisdictions may adopt unique approaches
to achieving comparable outcomes. As a result, the Commission has
focused on whether the applicable foreign jurisdiction's capital and
financial reporting requirements achieve comparable outcomes to the
corresponding Commission requirements for nonbank SDs, not whether
they are comparable in every aspect or contain identical elements.
With these comparability determinations, the Commission fully
retains its enforcement and examination authority as well as its
[[Page 58571]]
ability to obtain financial and event specific reporting to maintain
direct oversight of nonbank SDs located in these four jurisdictions.
The avoidance of duplicative requirements without a commensurate
benefit to the Commission's oversight function reflects the
Commission's approach to recognizing the global nature of the swap
markets with dually-registered SDs that operate in multiple
jurisdictions, which mandate prudent capital and financial reporting
requirements. This is, however, an added benefit and not the
Commission's sole justification for issuing these comparability
determinations.
The comparability orders will become effective upon their
publication in the Federal Register. For several order conditions,
the Commission is granting an additional compliance period of 180
calendar days. To rely on a comparability order, an eligible non-
U.S. nonbank SD must notify the Commission of its intention to
satisfy the Commission's capital and financial requirements by
substituted compliance and receive a Commission confirmation before
relying on a determination.
I appreciate the hard work and dedication of the staff in the
Market Participants Division over the past several years to propose
and finalize these four determinations. I also thank the staff in
the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of International
Affairs for their support on these matters.
Appendix 3--Statement of Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson
I support the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (Commission
or CFTC) issuance of four final capital and financial reporting
comparability determinations and related orders (together, Final
Comparability Determinations) for non-U.S. nonbank swap dealers
(foreign nonbank SDs) and non-U.S. nonbank major swap participants
(foreign nonbank MSPs) organized and domiciled in the United Kingdom
(UK), the European Union (specifically, France and Germany), Mexico,
and Japan.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Though the Final Comparability Determinations will apply to
foreign nonbank MSPs in the relevant jurisdictions, there are no
such MSPs currently registered with the Commission at this time. I
will refer only to SDs herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Comparability Determinations allow eligible foreign
nonbank SDs to satisfy certain capital and financial reporting
requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and Commission
regulations if they: (1) are subject to, and comply with, comparable
capital and financial reporting requirements under the laws and
regulations applicable in their home countries and (2) comply with
the conditions enumerated in the applicable Final Comparability
Determination. Under this conditional substituted compliance
framework, foreign nonbank SDs in the relevant jurisdictions that
comply with these conditions are deemed to be in compliance with the
Commission's capital and financial reporting requirements.
Well-calibrated capital requirements create a cushion to absorb
unexpected losses in times of market stress, and well-calibrated
financial reporting requirements provide the Commission with
information to monitor the business operations and financial
condition of registered SDs. These tools are critical to managing
systemic risk and fostering the stability of U.S. derivatives
markets and the U.S. financial system. The Commission's substituted
compliance framework addresses the need to promote sound global
derivatives regulation while mitigating potentially duplicative
cross-border regulatory requirements for non-U.S. market
participants operating in our markets. Where the Commission permits
substituted compliance, it must retain sufficient oversight,
examination, and enforcement authority to ensure compliance with the
foreign jurisdiction's laws and the conditions to substituted
compliance.
Crucially, while these Final Comparability Determinations permit
foreign nonbank SDs to comply with home country regulations in lieu
of compliance with Commission regulations, the Commission is also
imposing important guardrails to ensure continuous supervision of
the operations and financial condition of the foreign SD.
Background
For an example of the detrimental consequences of failing to
adequately capitalize nonbank swap market participants, one need
look no further than the 2008 global financial crisis. According to
the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the crisis, which
threatened the stability of the U.S. financial system and the health
of the U.S. economy, may have led to $10 trillion in losses,
including large declines in employment and household wealth, reduced
tax revenues from lower economic activity, and lost economic
output.\2\ In response to the crisis, in 2010, the U.S. Congress
passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(the Dodd-Frank Act), which amended the CEA to create a new
regulatory framework for swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Government Accountability Office, Financial
Regulatory Reform: Financial Crisis Losses and Potential Impacts of
the Dodd-Frank Act (Jan. 2013), https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/gao-reports-testimonies-6136/financial-regulatory-reform-622249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As amended, section 4s(e) of the CEA directs the Commission and
prudential regulators to impose minimum capital requirements on SDs
registered with the Commission. Section 4s(e) adopts separate
approaches for the imposition of minimum capital requirements on
bank and nonbank SDs. For bank SDs, prudential regulators are
authorized to set the minimum capital requirements. For nonbank SDs,
the Commission is authorized to set those requirements. The amended
CEA also sets out financial reporting requirements for SDs. Under
section 4s(f) of the CEA, registered SDs are required to make
financial condition reports and other reports regarding transactions
and positions as mandated by Commission regulations.
In 2020, the Commission adopted regulations implementing both
the capital and financial reporting requirements for SDs, which were
amended in 2024 (the Capital and Financial Reporting Rules).\3\ The
Capital and Financial Reporting Rules set minimum capital levels
that nonbank SDs must maintain and financial reporting requirements
that nonbank SDs must comply with, including filing periodic
unaudited financial statements and an annual audited financial
report.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 85 FR 57462 (Sept. 15, 2020).
\4\ The reporting requirements imposed on bank SD and bank MSPs
were ``more limited'' ``as the financial condition of these entities
will be predominantly supervised by the applicable prudential
regulator and subject to its capital and financial reporting
requirements.'' Id. at 57513. In May 2024, the Commission adopted
amendments to the Capital and Financial Reporting Rules that
codified two previously-issued staff letters providing interpretive
guidance and no-action relief and made other technical amendments.
89 FR 45569 (May 23, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the U.S., many other nations adopted their own regulatory
regimes to govern swaps markets in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. Since then, regulators from around the world have endeavored
to improve the resilience of swaps markets and establish a global
set of standards on critical risk management issues, such as capital
and financial reporting requirements. These efforts led to the
development of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures,
to which many jurisdictions, including our own, look for
guidance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures, Bank for
International Settlements and International Organization of
Securities Commissions (Apr. 2012), https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d101a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dodd-Frank Act amendments specifically address the cross-
border application of the CFTC's swaps regime. Section 2(i) of the
CEA establishes that the CEA's swaps provisions apply to foreign
swaps activities that have a ``direct and significant'' connection
to, or effect on, U.S. markets. In line with section 2(i) of the
CEA, the Capital and Financial Reporting Rules set out a substituted
compliance framework in Commission Regulation 23.106 for foreign
nonbank SDs seeking to comply with the Commission's capital and
financial reporting requirements.
The substituted compliance framework consists of comparability
determinations that afford ``due consideration [to] international
comity principles'' while being ``consistent with . . . the
Commission's interest in focusing its authority on potential
significant risks to the U.S. financial system.'' \6\ The
determinations involve an assessment of the home-country
requirements that is a principles-based, holistic approach, focusing
on whether the applicable home-country requirements have comparable
objectives and achieve comparable outcomes to the Commission's
Capital and Financial Reporting Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and
Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants, 85 FR 56924, 56924 (Sept. 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Final Comparability Determinations
The Final Comparability Determinations will apply to 15 foreign
nonbank SDs
[[Page 58572]]
currently registered with the Commission and subject to oversight by
the UK Prudential Regulation Authority, the European Central Bank,
the Mexican Comisi[oacute]n Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, and the
Financial Services Agency of Japan. I commend staff for their hard
work on the Final Comparability Determinations, including their work
to thoroughly and thoughtfully analyze and address comments.
Importantly, while the Final Comparability Determinations permit
foreign nonbank SDs in the relevant jurisdictions to comply with
home country regulations in lieu of compliance with Commission
regulations, there are numerous protections in place to ensure the
Commission's ability to supervise on an ongoing basis the adequacy
of the foreign nonbank SDs' compliance. The Final Comparability
Determinations all include key conditions with which the foreign
nonbank SDs must comply. For example, each of the Final
Comparability Determinations requires that the foreign nonbank SDs
provide monthly and annual financial reports to the Commission--and
the Commission can request additional information as required to
facilitate ongoing supervision. Each Final Comparability
Determination also requires the foreign nonbank SDs to notify the
Commission if adverse events occur, such as a significant decrease
in excess regulatory capital, a significant failure of a
counterparty to post required margin, or non-compliance with certain
capital or financial reporting requirements. Finally, in recognition
of the fact that a country's capital standards and financial
reporting requirements may change over time, the Final Comparability
Determinations require the foreign nonbank SDs to provide notice of
material changes to the home country capital or financial reporting
frameworks.
Moreover, the foreign nonbank SDs subject to these
determinations are registered with the Commission and are members of
the National Futures Association (NFA). Therefore, these entities
are subject to the CEA, Commission regulations, and NFA membership
rules, and each entity remains subject to Commission supervisory,
examination and enforcement authority. As noted in the Final
Comparability Determinations, if a foreign SD fails to comply with
its home country's capital and financial reporting requirements, the
Commission may initiate an action for a violation of the
Commission's Capital and Financial Reporting Rules.
As I have previously noted,\7\ it is important to recognize
foreign market participants' compliance with the laws and
regulations of their regulators when the requirements lead to an
outcome that is comparable to the outcome of complying with the
CFTC's corresponding requirements. Respect for partner regulators in
foreign jurisdictions advances the Commission as a global standard
setter for sound derivatives regulation and enhances market
stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Combatting Systemic
Risk and Fostering Integrity of the Global Financial System Through
Rigorous Standards and International Comity (Jan. 24, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement012424;
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement in Support of
Notice and Order on EU Capital Comparability Determination (June 7,
2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement060723c; Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC,
Statement in Support of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on
Mexican Capital Comparability Determination (Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement111022c;
Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement in Support of
Proposed Order on Japanese Capital Comparability Determination (July
27, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement072722c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank the staff in the Market Participants Division for their
hard work on these matters, particularly Amanda Olear, Tom Smith,
and Lily Bozhanova.
Appendix 4--Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham
I am pleased to support the order granting conditional
substituted compliance in connection with certain capital and
financial reporting requirements applicable to nonbank swap dealers
subject to regulation by the United Kingdom Prudential Regulatory
Authority (UK PRA) (UK Final Order). The UK Final Order, on balance,
reflects an appropriate approach by the CFTC to collaboration with
non-U.S. regulators that is consistent with IOSCO's 2020 report on
Good Practices on Processes for Deference.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IOSCO Report, ``Good Practices on Processes for Deference''
(June 2020), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD659.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank Amanda Olear, Thomas Smith, Rafael
Martinez, Liliya Bozhanova, Joo Hong, and Justin McPhee from the
CFTC's Market Participants Division for their truly hard work on the
UK Final Order and for addressing my concerns regarding the
conditions for notice requirements.\2\ I also thank the UK PRA for
its assistance and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Concurring Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham
Regarding Proposed Order and Request for Comment on an Application
for a Capital Comparability Determination (Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement111022;
Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham in Support of Proposed
Order and Request for Comment on Comparability Determination for UK
PRA Swap Dealer Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements (Jan.
24, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/peechesTestimony/phamstatement012424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFTC's capital comparability determinations are the result
of tireless efforts spanning over a decade since the global
financial crisis. I commend the staff for working together with our
regulatory counterparts around the world to promote regulatory
cohesion and financial stability, and mitigate market fragmentation
and systemic risk.
[FR Doc. 2024-15094 Filed 7-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P