SEC Reopens Comment Period on Security-Based Swap Capital and Margin Rules | Practical Law

SEC Reopens Comment Period on Security-Based Swap Capital and Margin Rules | Practical Law

The SEC voted to reopen the comment period on proposed capital, margin, and segregation rules for security-based swap dealers (SBSDs) and major security-based swap participants (MSBSPs) as well as proposed amendments on cross-border treatment of security-based swaps (SBS).

SEC Reopens Comment Period on Security-Based Swap Capital and Margin Rules

Practical Law Legal Update w-017-0851 (Approx. 5 pages)

SEC Reopens Comment Period on Security-Based Swap Capital and Margin Rules

by Practical Law Finance
Published on 18 Oct 2018USA (National/Federal)
The SEC voted to reopen the comment period on proposed capital, margin, and segregation rules for security-based swap dealers (SBSDs) and major security-based swap participants (MSBSPs) as well as proposed amendments on cross-border treatment of security-based swaps (SBS).
On October 11, 2018, the SEC voted to reopen the comment period on the following proposed rules:
These rules were proposed pursuant to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act as part of a comprehensive regulatory framework for over the counter (OTC) derivatives. The CFTC, which has regulatory authority over non-security based swaps, has a framework in place for swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs), but the SEC has not yet finalized many of its analogous SBSD/MSBSP rules (see Practice Note, Summary of the Dodd-Frank Act: Swaps and Derivatives: Requirements for Swap Dealers and MSPs and Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and MSBSPs).
In addition to re-opening all aspects of the proposed rules for public comment, the SEC is also proposing potential modifications to the proposed rules and is requesting comment on those proposed modifications.
The SEC's proposed modifications include:
  • Modifying the minimum net capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs by simplifying the calculation of "risk margin amount" in the ratio used to derive the SBSD's minimum net capital requirement. Under the 2012 proposals, the minimum net capital requirement would be equal to eight percent of the SBSD's risk margin amount.
  • Providing a risk-based threshold under which a nonbank SBSD is not required to take a capital charge.
  • Expanding the option of a credit-risk charge for nonbank SBSDs for uncleared SBS transactions with commercial end users to other types of counterparties and transactions. The credit risk charge is used as an alternative to the 100% capital charge that a nonbank SBSD takes when it does not collect variation margin (VM) or initial margin (IM) in connection with an uncleared SBS where the parties are taking advantage of a regulatory exception or exemption from margin collection.
  • Providing an exception for nonbank SBSDs from taking a capital charge, whether the 100% capital charge or the credit-risk charge, under conditions that allow the SBSD prompt access to the collateral if needed.
  • Permitting the use of a uniform margin model, including a standard industry model, to compute IM for uncleared SBS.
  • Providing for a risk-based threshold, instead of a fixed-dollar threshold, under which a nonbank SBSD does not need to collect IM.
  • Providing margin exceptions for SBSDs, including an exception from collecting IM when the counterparty is another SBSD, and an exception from segregating IM that is collected from another SBSD. These exceptions were provided for in the 2012 proposals, and the SEC is specifically requesting comment on the potential impacts of these exceptions.
  • Modifying the omnibus segregation requirements for SBSDs as well as the cross-border application of the proposed segregation requirements (see Practice Note: The Dodd-Frank Act: Derivatives Margin Collateral Rules: SEC Optional Customer IM Segregation Rules for SBS).
  • Increasing the threshold applicable to SBSD customer reserve accounts held at a single unaffiliated bank to 15% (from 10%) of the bank's equity capital and excluding any cash deposited with an affiliated bank, and providing an exemption from the 15% threshold for bank SBSDs that hold customer reserve accounts directly.
  • Providing additional guidance on the factors that the SEC would consider when making a substituted compliance determination with respect to capital and margin requirements available for non-US nonbank SBSDs that are not also registered with the SEC as broker-dealers (see Practice Note, The Dodd-Frank Act: Cross-Border Application of Swaps Rules: Proposed Rules on Eligibility for SBS Substituted Compliance; for information on certain finalized SEC cross-border rules, see Practice Note, The Dodd-Frank Act: Cross-Border Application of Swaps Rules: SEC Cross-Border Security-Based Swaps Rules).
  • Extending the proposed compliance schedule for SBSD registration in order to allow registrants to take the necessary steps to come into compliance with the applicable requirements (see Legal Update, SEC Adopts Registration Rules for Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants: Compliance Date).
  • Consideration of the economic implications of the proposed rules and whether the economic analysis has changed since the publication of the proposals.
According to the SEC website, the SEC still has eight Dodd-Frank SBS rules in the proposal stage:
  • Data collection and reporting rules for SBS execution facilities (Section 763(c) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Rules governing SBS execution facilities (Section 763(c) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Rules regarding SBS market fraud (Section 763(g) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Capital and margin rules for SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs (Section 764(a) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Rules regarding daily trading recordkeeping (Section 764(a) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Reporting and recordkeeping rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs (Section 764(a) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Conflict-of-interest rules (Section 765(a) of Dodd-Frank).
  • Recordkeeping for certain SBS (Section 766(a) of Dodd-Frank).
The SEC also issued a press release on the reopening of the comment period.
The proposed rule was republished in the Federal Register on October 11, 2018. Public comment must be received by November 19, 2018.