White House pushes for futures fees
The Bush administration has asked the US House of Representatives to approve a proposed transaction fee on futures and options contracts.
In the statement, the President’s office of management and budget recommended that the House approve the transaction fees as recommended recently in a report by the Senate homeland security and governmental affairs’ permanent subcommittee on investigations, which looked to increase the powers of the CFTC following the collapse of Amaranth Advisors, an energy hedge fund, in 2006.
“The CFTC is the only federal financial regulator that does not derive its funding from the specialised entities it regulates, and because its programmes provide clear benefits to participants in these markets, it is appropriate for those participants to contribute toward their cost,” the statement said.
It also encouraged the House to “join the Senate appropriations committee in matching the [Bush administration] requested $116 million for the CFTC, which will allow more effective monitoring of the markets the Commission oversees and strengthen enforcement in cases where market abuses may have occurred.” The House bill seeks only $102.5 million.
The notion of transaction fees has been rejected by participants in the futures industry who view the move as a tax on futures transactions that would raise the costs while discouraging institutions and individuals from using futures contracts for risk-management purposes.
The renewed recommendation follows the July request by the securities, insurance and investment subcommittee of the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs for a study on whether the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC should merge some of their oversight functions.
Currently the CFTC regulates trading in commodity futures and options, while the SEC monitors key players in the securities world, including securities exchanges, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers and mutual funds.
The CFTC will hold hearings next month to examine its oversight of trading on regulated futures exchanges and other commercial markets.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga