After reviewing the comments received in response to the RFC 2018, the Commission published, on 31 December 2019, in the Federal Register, a proposal for a rule prohibiting the abandonment of post-trade names for swaps executed and considered anonymously (proposal). [2] The proposal prohibits an SEF, directly or indirectly, even through a third-party supplier, from disclosing the identity of a counterparty to a swap to be executed and deleted anonymously. The proposal also requires the SEF to establish and enforce rules prohibiting any person from obtaining such disclosure. In the proposal, the Commission sought public opinion on the effect of a ban on the post-negotiation name, if at all, on commercial protocols such as auctions, portfolio compression and/or review meetings. JPMorgan and the FSF stated that post-negotiation addition is an integral part of trading protocols, and the proposal will affect work protocols and affect distributors` ability to protect themselves. [90] These commentators argued that a trader`s willingness to offer a larger size through a treatment could depend on who his counterparty was, particularly if the counterparty would be able to execute the full size of the trader[91] and (2), as the counterparty found that the counterparty could impose unfavourable selection costs on the distributor with knowledge of its commercial interests. [92] The FSF proposed that the Commission, if it continues to prohibit the post-market name, should exclude from the ban any SEF that receives a substantial portion of its trading volume over a period determined by workups. [93] Obligation to meet specific binding commitments in each of the following areas: market access; Domestic assistance Export competition and reach agreement on health and plant health issues; The Commission refuses to reduce the ban, as requested by the ICAP TP, and adopts, as proposed, point 37.9 (d) for swaps to be approved. The Commission continues to believe that there is no need to abandon names after trading when a swap is made on an SEF and a DCO is submitted for compensation in accordance with Gfb0 requirements. A narrowing of the prohibition on the use of only trading contracts that must be authorized under Section 2 H) (1) of the Act would unduly limit its scope and interfere with the legal and regulatory objectives underlying the prohibition. Removing a swap is an essential concept that affects trading prices and workflows, and it`s something an SEF can determine at the time of execution.

[76] However, to the extent that the current FSS systems do not specify whether a swap should be approved, the Commission notes that the SEF must make the necessary adjustments to its systems and procedures to ensure that it can determine whether a swap must be approved before allowing post-trade names. [77] The Commission recognises that some EFs may need time to make such adjustments and the Commission has launched page 44699, which is why it indicates a later date for discretionary swaps, as described below.

Comments are closed.

Post Navigation