US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Research Articles

Hedging pressure and liquidity provision in commodity options markets

AbstractThis study examines hedging pressure and liquidity provision in commodity options markets using data from the weekly US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Commitments of Traders and Disaggregated Commitments of Traders reports. The “options‐only” reports are obtained from futures‐only and futures‐and‐options‐combined reports. We build the futures price series based on commodity options expiration dates. There are significant hedging pressure effects in commodity options markets. The empirical results indicate that commercials (swap dealers) provide liquidity to non‐commercials (money managers) in commodity options markets in the short run.

Правоприменительные подходы к юридической квалификации криптовалюты (судебная практика США)

The article deals with law application approaches of the US courts to the characterization of cryptocurrency. Facts of the cryptocurrency case filed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission against the ‘Cabbagetech’ Corporation for injunction are analyzed. The court formulated a case-law position according to which cryptocurrency is qualified as a civil turnover object that has the commodity economic and legal characteristics. The legal qualification of cryptocurrency as a commodity and the extension of the economic and legal features and attributes of the commodity to the cryptocurrency allows to structure property risks and to determine the civil law consequences of actions aimed at acquiring proprietary rights to cryptocurrencies. The emphasis on the legal policy of the US public institutions in the field of commodity and finance market security is placed.

Smart contracts that violate the Commodity Exchange Act: which parties are liable?

Purpose The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to date, has not directly addressed how liability for Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) violations involving blockchain or distributed ledger technology should be allocated among the various parties involved in the distributed ledger network, such as the network itself, persons running consensus nodes, developers building applications on the platform, and businesses and end users using such applications. This article discusses recent statements by CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz regarding this issue and the approach that the CFTC may take going forward. Design/methodology/approach This article examines the allocation of liability in the context of smart contracts that may violate the CEA. The article discusses how the CFTC, despite its significant focus in recent years on virtual currency and blockchain, has not addressed the issue of liability allocation directly. Recent remarks by Commissioner Quintenz may shed light on the CFTC’s future approach. Findings This article finds that liability allocation questions may become increasingly pressing as smart contracts that potentially violate the CEA proliferate, possibly exposing a broad range of parties involved in a distributed ledger network to liability. To the extent that Commissioner Quintenz’s recent remarks are indicative, the CFTC ultimately may adopt a foreseeability standard in determining liability. Practical implications Applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) are ever-expanding, continually posing novel CFTC regulatory issues. This is especially the case with respect to smart contracts that may be subject to CFTC jurisdiction. Parties involved in such applications should be mindful of potential liability. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced finance and derivatives lawyers with strong CFTC expertise.

CFTC enters the market for anti-corruption enforcement

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the March 6, 2019 enforcement advisory in which the Division of Enforcement (Division) of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) announced that it will work alongside the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies to investigate foreign bribery and corruption relating to commodities markets. Design/methodology/approach This paper explains the enforcement advisory and outlines key considerations for industry participants and their compliance teams, including the CFTC’s plan to investigate in parallel with other enforcement authorities, an expansion of the CFTC’s existing self-reporting, cooperation and remediation policy to address foreign corruption and the CFTC’s focus on market and economic integrity, and provides guidelines for commodities companies concerning anti-corruption compliance and training programs, investigating potential incidents of bribery and corruption, reporting obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, voluntary reporting of incidents of foreign corruption and whistleblowing. Findings The CFTC announcement adds a new dimension to an already crowded and complex landscape for anti-corruption enforcement. A range of industries, including energy, agriculture, metals, financial services, cryptocurrencies and beyond, must now consider the CFTC and the CEA when assessing global compliance and enforcement risks relating to bribery and corruption. Originality/value Expert guidance from lawyers with broad experience in white collar defense, investigations, financial services, securities, commodities, energy and derivatives.

CFTC’s demanding new cooperation guidelines for companies and individuals

PurposeTo explain and analyze two Enforcement Advisories that set forth the factors the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Enforcement may consider in assessing cooperation by companies and individuals in the context of CFTC enforcement proceedings.Design/methodology/approachExplains the background, including the 2007 Enforcement Advisory for Companies. Explains the 2017 Enforcement Advisory for Companies and the parallel Enforcement Advisory for Individuals, including policy-based considerations and factors such as the materiality, timeliness, nature, and quality of a company’s cooperation; the value of a company’s cooperation to the Commission’s broader law enforcement interests; and the company’s culpability, culture and other relevant factors. Provides examples of uncooperative conduct. Discusses a broader trend among enforcement authorities in the US and abroad of setting higher cooperation standards.FindingsThe new Advisories make clear that merely complying with requests for information from the CFTC staff will not be sufficient; a company or individual seeking cooperation credit as part of a resolution with the CFTC must go above and beyond its legal obligations in order to qualify for such credit.Originality/valuePractical guidance from experienced white collar defense, regulatory enforcement, civil litigation and arbitration lawyers.

Life on the margin: US margin rules finalized at last

Purpose To discuss the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC’s) final rule regarding margin for uncleared swaps (the CFTC margin rule) and an interim final rule exempting non-financial and certain other end-users who are eligible for the end-user clearing exception from the scope of the CFTC margin rule, both adopted in December 2015. Design/methodology/approach Compares the CFTC margin rule to the similar “Bank margin rule”; explains what trades and types of entities are covered, the treatment of inter-affiliate swaps, the initial margin and the variation margin requirements, the types of collateral that can be posted, the required documentation, how netting is applied, the custodian requirements and the compliance dates. Findings The margin rules apply to uncleared swaps including cross-currency swaps, non-deliverable foreign exchange forwards and currency options. Exempt foreign exchange swaps and deliverable foreign exchange forwards are not required to be margined. Non-financial end-users who rely on the end-user exception are exempt from margin requirements. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The Impact of Investors in Agricultural Commodity Derivative Markets

The objective of this paper was to test whether investing activity in the futures markets of different commodities (grains, sugar, coffee, cotton, cocoa, livestock) could be identified as a source of the increasing level and volatility of agricultural commodity prices. The causal link between trading activity and market factors (returns, volatility) can be investigated using weekly data, usually derived from the Commitment of Traders Reports released by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), or daily data expressed as the ratio of volume to open interest (VOIR). To increase the power of the estimation process and investigate the role of causal variables to determine the trends of all the market factors, the authors tested the estimates obtained by seemingly unrelated regression (SUR). One innovation is represented by the evaluation of the inverse relationships between market factors and causal variables. The market factors were also tested as causal variables, avoiding giving priority to only one part of the relationship according to Granger's causality. The lack of significance revealed by the Granger causality test on weekly models could be due to the inappropriate frequency of the information. The ratio of volume to open interest in futures contracts performs better than other parameters extensively adopted in the literature. The likely reason is that it depends on the daily frequency of this parameter, which provides statistical evidence of phenomena that include their effect in weekly intervals. The estimations for the daily model provide statistical evidence of a mutual relationship only between trading activity and realized volatility. No causal relationships were found for returns. The behaviour of all 12 futures markets examined is quite similar and uniform with respect to the scale of the coefficients and their temporal profile.

Can Economists Forecast Exchange Rates? The Debate Re‐Visited: The Case of the USD/GBP Market

In the debate on forecasting exchange rates, critics claimed that traditional macroeconomic models could not outperform a random walk in post‐sample forecasts. Perceived deficiencies include inadequate allowance for simultaneity, and expectations hypotheses inconsistent with the structure of models employed. This paper re‐visits the debate, first to address critics' major concerns, and second because in the view of the present authors, the debate closed on an unduly pessimistic note.This paper develops a simultaneous, rational expectations model of the USD/GBP market, with functional relationships for hedgers, speculators and a spot rate equation. The model is estimated with data contemporaneous to the debate, including a period during which the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission did not collect data on traders' open positions. Using the results of post‐debate research on tests for stationarity with missing observations, the model, using only public information, outperforms a random walk in post‐sample forecasts of the spot rate. Recent microstructure models of the exchange rate based on order flow have re‐kindled the forecasting debate. The model developed here, however, is differentiated from these microstructure models, first because order flow utilises both public and private information, and second because the microstructure models do not directly address critics' concerns.

Rising and Volatile Food Prices: Are Index Fund Investors to Blame?

The recent sharp increase in the prices of primary food commodities has raised serious concerns of policy makers on the role of index funds in these food markets. In this paper, we employ a dataset on trading positions of index fund investors from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and analyze the relationship between index fund activity and food prices and their volatility. We focus on three major and liquid agricultural markets: corn, soybeans and wheat. We find little evidence that the positions of index fund investors can help explain changes in food prices. Instead, causality from food price changes to position changes appears to be much stronger. Furthermore, our findings suggest that index trader positions bear some predictive ability for volatility. This relationship is mainly concentrated on the 2006-2009 period that includes the recent financial crisis. Finally, we find that volatility decreases with the positions of index fund traders.

CFTC proposes harmonization rules for mutual funds

PurposeThe paper aims to analyze amendments proposed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission to its disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting rules that are designed to resolve or minimize certain conflicts between CFTC rules and US Securities and Exchange Commission rules applicable to registered investment companies (Futures RICs) whose futures and swaps trading will subject their advisers to regulation as commodity pool operators as a result of the amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explains certain significant differences between the CFTC's rules applicable to commodity pool operators (CPOs) and the SEC's rules applicable to Futures RICs and their advisers in the areas of disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping and describes how the CFTC's proposed rules for Futures RICs are intended to resolve or minimize conflicts with SEC rules.FindingsCFTC and SEC rules differ in several significant areas, including the required contents of the disclosure document by which the pool is offered; when the disclosure document has to be delivered; how disclosure documents are updated and reviewed; when periodic reports are required to be made and what they are required to contain; and whether required books and records may be maintained at a location other than the main business office. The proposed harmonization rules attempt to resolve these conflicts by exempting the CPOs of Futures RICs from certain CFTC requirements regarding delivery of disclosure documents and recordkeeping, permitting CFTC‐required disclosures to appear in the prospectuses of Futures RICs after the SEC‐required disclosures and requiring monthly account statements to be posted to the CPO's website rather than distributed to shareholders of Futures RICs. Other conflicts between CFTC and SEC rules applicable to Futures RICs were not addressed by the proposed harmonization rules.Practical implicationsThe proposed harmonization rules attempt to adapt CFTC requirements to Futures RICs that have not been subject to CFTC regulation since 2003. Other conflicts between CFTC and SEC rules were not addressed. The CFTC has not adopted the final rules in this area.Originality/valueThe paper provides expert guidance by lawyers experienced in regulation of CPOs and RICs.

Is your investment management company regulated by the US CFTC?

In February 2012, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) adopted new rules amending its registration and compliance requirements for entities deemed to be ‘commodity trading advisors’ (CTAs) or ‘commodity pool operators’ (CPOs). Owing to the changes, many previously exempt investment advisers and managers of private funds that trade derivatives (directly or indirectly through funds-of-funds or other vehicles) will be required to register with the CFTC as CTAs or CPOs. This article explains the CFTC's technical rule changes, describes other remaining exemptions for US and non-US CTAs and CPOs, and summarizes some of the compliance obligations and other practical consequences of registration for managers and advisers of private funds (whether based in the United States or outside of the United States) that directly or indirectly maintain exposure to regulated derivatives contracts. In particular, this article focuses on swaps trading, in light of changes to the regulatory regime for swaps simultaneously underway in the United States.

The US financial regulatory reform, causes of financial crisis and its enlightenment on China

Deficiency of the US financial regulation has stimulated the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The fundamental causes of the regulatory deficiency can be categorized as follows: excessively indebted consumption culture in a long term, permanently abolishing the regulation on financial derivatives by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the regulations before the reform not fitting for the fictitious economy. The operation of financial products is like to fly a kite. The financial product is the kite, governmental adjustment is the string, market regulation is the wind, national culture and legislature and judicature are the environment. Those coordinated elements can guarantee a healthy financial market. To construct an effective financial regulatory system in China, it is needed to make culture with Chinese characteristics, advance the coordinated development of governmental and market regulation, and promote financial legislations and related implementation.

US CFTC ISSUES ADVISORY APPLICABLE TO CPOS OF OFFSHORE COMMODITY POOLS

This paper first generally describes the requirements under US federal law to register as a commodity pool operator (CPO), and the disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations which normally apply to registered CPOs. It then discusses in detail two particular sources of relief from certain of these disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations — an Advisory issued by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on 11th April, 1996, and CFTC Rule 4.7 — and compares the requirements to qualify for, and relief available under, the Advisory and CFTC Rule 4.7.