Editorial

CFTC rule requires further scrutiny

Jan 13, 2013 @ 12:01 am

Whatever is in the best interests of investors is best for the financial services industry. For that reason, a new Commodity Futures Trading Commission rule to harmonize certain CFTC and SEC mandates that apply to mutual funds investing in commodities requires further scrutiny.

The rule requires mutual funds and their investment advisers to register with the CFTC if they trade commodities — including futures, swaps and options — above certain thresholds. The rule triggers record-keeping requirements, disclosure obligations and other responsibilities.

Industry experts and several industry trade groups have argued that the rule is redundant because the Securities and Exchange Commission already oversees mutual funds. What's more, concerns have been raised that the rule eventually will lead to higher costs for investors.

Some have argued that the CFTC failed to weigh the costs and benefits of the rules properly before finalizing them.

To that point, two industry trade groups, the Investment Company Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last month filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after a U.S. District Court upheld the registration rule, known as Rule 4.5. On Jan. 3, the two organizations filed an emergency motion to expedite their appeal.

“The District Court's decision fell far short of well-established D.C. Circuit precedent requiring agencies to adequately measure the costs imposed by capital markets regulations on businesses, investors and the economy as a whole, and to weigh them against the desired benefits,” said David Hirschmann, president and chief executive of the chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness. “Nothing in the district court's decision changes the fact that the CFTC did not adequately consider alternative approaches to its flawed and overly broad approach, which will only inject more confusion into our capital markets without offering any clear benefits to investors.”

CFTC officials declined to comment on the appeal.

“We brought this challenge because the CFTC failed to justify the regulatory excess and added costs of its amendments to Rule 4.5, which would impose that agency's regulatory regime atop the comprehensive regulation already applied to registered funds by the Securities and Exchange Commission,” said ICI president and chief executive Paul Schott Stevens. “We believe the District Court decision is deeply flawed and will clearly harm the many shareholders of registered funds that will bear the costs of overlapping regulation by two agencies.”

We respect the CFTC's authority in the regulation of commodities futures and swaps, and know that the regulator looks to uphold its mission to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation and abusive practices. However, Rule 4.5 appears to be an overreach by the agency into the regulation of mutual funds, which already are overseen by the SEC.

The CFTC approved the rule last February by a 4-1 vote. At that time, Jill E. Sommers, one of the regulator's commissioners, dissented, saying that the CFTC failed to show that the benefits of the rule outweighed the cost to the industry.

Ms. Sommers said in her dissenting statement that the CFTC failed to explain why the extensive information reporting it will now require of mutual funds is justified for systemic-risk purposes. She added that the rule's cost-benefit analysis was “sorely lacking.”

The CFTC rule undoubtedly will impose significant compliance costs on investment advisers, and those added costs will be passed along to the investor. And it has been argued that the additional disclosure requirements that will be imposed by the rule will result in lengthy and confusing prospectus disclosures for fund shareholders.

This flies in the face of the SEC's focus in recent years on making a mutual fund prospectus easier — not harder — to read.

Finally, this additional regulation likely will result in fewer choices for mutual fund investors. As a result, advisers may be forced to limit their commodities investments for their clients or look to gain exposure to various commodities for a diversified investment portfolio through more costly, and potentially more risky, means.

None of these choices is in the best interests of the investor.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

Apr 30

Conference

Retirement Income Summit

Join InvestmentNews at the 12th annual Retirement Income Summit - the industry's premier retirement planning conference.Much has changed - and much remains to be learned. Attend and discuss how the future is full of opportunity for ... Learn more

Featured video

Events

The power of data

Your clients have financial news and data at their fingertips, but donít know how to interpret it. Katy Gibson of Envestnet|Yodlee and Blake Kannady of Envestnet discuss the power of leveraging aggregated data.

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

Relying on trainees, Merrill Lynch boosts adviser headcount in 2017

Questions remain about long-term effectiveness of wirehouse's move away from recruiting experienced brokers.

Supreme Court review of SEC judges could roil pending cases

But long-term, the agency may get around questions of constitutionality by changing the way it brings on administrative law judges.

Lightyear Capital takes 50% stake in $9 billion HPM Partners

Private equity backing could fuel acquisitions by the large RIA.

Tax reform: 7 essential strategies for financial advisers

While advisers face the difficult task of analyzing the law's impact, they will also have a significant opportunity to prove their value by implementing money-saving strategies for clients as well as their own businesses.

Tax law: Everything advisers need to know about the pass-through provision

The provision is tricky, but could provide advisers and business-owner clients with sizable tax savings.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print