Earlier this week, the US CFTC approved rules governing the execution of swap transactions. Among the major issues was a proposal to require market participants to seek five price quotes on trades done on a swap execution facility. The Commission ultimately voted to mandate two “request for quotes” (RFQs), with the requirement eventually increasing to three.
The range of headlines (and stories) following the CFTC vote was interesting:
“US in Compromise on Derivatives Trade Rules” (Financial Times)
“Regulators Strike Compromise on New Derivatives Rules” (Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones)
“Big Banks Get Break in Rules to Limit Risks” (New York Times)
“Wall Street Wins Rollback in Dodd-Frank Swap-Trade Rules” (Bloomberg)
“CFTC adopts SEF rule, including RFQ3, voice broking” (Reuters)
Hmmmm. Was it a compromise, a rollback, a break or something else entirely? (It clearly was an adoption of a rule, as Reuters notes.)
Another point of interest: in at least some of the articles, there’s a presumption in favor of requiring five RFQs.
Why? How or why is it “good” to mandate that a derivatives user request a certain number of price quotes from different dealers? And why five?
Shouldn’t this be up to market participants to decide? Particularly since getting a quote is easy enough, given the different ways derivatives users can get or check prices (via phone, terminals, and dealer, broker and other trading systems)?
The flawed assumption is that the client is not qualified to decide for itself whether 2, 3 or 23 quotes are optimal. It also ignores the fact that information has value for the recipient of the quote requests and the client might not want to offer that information to any more counterparties than is appropriate to the situation.
There’s something else that’s interesting: it’s the presumption that these trade execution rules have anything to do with reducing risks in the financial system. Trade execution is about market structure – not systemic risk. If the goal of financial regulatory reform is to reduce systemic risk, shouldn’t we focus on issues that affect it, like regulatory capital, clearing, margining and regulatory transparency?
Shouldn’t we also avoid mandating “more” to customers when it really means less, and just leave it to them to decide how much is enough?
# # #
Latest
ISDA AGM Studio: Event Preview with ISDA CEO Scott O’Malia and ISDA Chairman Jeroen Krens
As ISDA’s 39th Annual General Meeting gets underway in Amsterdam, ISDA CEO Scott O’Malia and chairman Jeroen Krens speak to Nick Sawyer, ISDA’s global head of communications, about the big themes of this year’s event, including the value of derivatives,...
ISDA AGM 2025 Day 1 Scott O'Malia Remarks
ISDA Annual General Meeting Amsterdam, Netherlands May 14, 2025 Opening Remarks: Our Remarkable Journey Scott O’Malia, ISDA CEO Good morning, and welcome to ISDA’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). Welcome to Amsterdam. Let’s go back to 1985. Back to the...
ISDA Animation: The ISDA Notices Hub
Derivatives contracts sometimes need to be terminated early, requiring a termination notice to be delivered to the counterparty using the company address specified in the original agreement. Complications can arise if the firm has relocated without updating the documentation or...
ISDA Margin Survey Year-end 2024
ISDA has published its latest annual margin survey, which shows that initial margin (IM) and variation margin (VM) collected by leading derivatives market participants for their non-cleared derivatives exposures increased by 6.4% to $1.5 trillion at the end of 2024....