|
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
February 13, 2002
1:30 PM
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Thank you, Chairman Barton, and
members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate your having given me the opportunity to testify
here today on behalf of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
I would first like to say --
both as a federal financial regulator and as a citizen -- that I
have great sympathy for those who are harmed by incomplete or inaccurate
financial information. I also share
the concern of many that appropriate action be taken to ensure that investors,
creditors, commercial counterparties, and others who rely on the accuracy and
completeness of financial disclosures by publicly-held companies can continue to
do so with full confidence.
Today, I would like to
tell you about the important role of the futures markets in our economy and the
role of the CFTC in overseeing those markets -- particularly
with respect to energy-based contracts --
and how that role has changed under the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act. I will also describe how the
Commission responded to the Enron situation last fall and would like to finish
with some thoughts on how the Commission might make a contribution as we move
forward.
Background:
The Commission was created by
Congress in 1974 to oversee the nation's commodity futures and options
markets. The Commission perceives
its mission to be twofold: to
foster transparent, competitive, and financially sound markets, and, to protect
market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices.
There are important differences between the futures markets and the stock
markets. While the stock markets
provide a means of capital formation, a way for new and existing businesses to
raise funds, the futures markets perform a different role, providing producers,
distributors, and users of commodities with a means to manage their exposure to
commodity price risk.
Historically, commodity futures
and options were traded primarily on agricultural products.
And while contracts based on agricultural products are traded as actively
today as ever, a great many futures contracts are now based on non-agricultural
physical commodities like precious metals or energy products and on financial
commodities like interest rates, foreign currencies, or stock market indices. Because they serve the risk management needs of businesses in
virtually every sector of the economy, the volume of trading in these financials
and non‑agricultural physicals is now nine times that in agricultural
contracts. While farmers and
ranchers continue to use futures contracts to effectively lock in the prices for
their crops and herds months before they come to market, manufacturers now can
also use futures contracts to plan their raw material costs and to reduce
uncertainty over the prices they receive for finished products sold overseas.
Mutual fund managers can use stock index futures to protect against
market volatility and effectively put a floor on portfolio losses.
And electric power generators can use futures contracts to secure stable
pricing for their coal and natural gas needs.
These producers, distributors,
and users of commodities (whether physical or financial) are called hedgers.
The futures contract positions that hedgers put on are referred to as
covered positions. For example, a
power generator's obligation to purchase natural gas will be covered by its
ability to use that natural gas in its electricity generation.
There are other participants in the futures markets who take uncovered
positions in the hope of making profits rather than mitigating risks.
These individuals and firms are known as speculators and they contribute
to the smooth operation of a futures market by increasing its liquidity.
Because the needs of different hedgers for long or short positions may
not always be perfectly balanced, the presence of speculators increases market
effectiveness by better ensuring that hedgers will be able to put on positions
they need.
Although I have described the
primary purpose of futures markets as mechanisms for risk management, it should
be noted that many futures markets play another important role in the economy,
that of price discovery. Many
businesses and investors that are not direct participants in the futures markets
nonetheless refer to the quoted prices of futures market transactions as
reference points or benchmarks for other types of transactions and decisions.
This is particularly important in many agricultural markets where no
other means of price discovery exists outside of the quoted futures prices but
it is also true in other sectors, including many energy markets.
How
the CFTC Performs Its Mission:
In seeking to fulfill its
mission to foster transparent, competitive, and financially sound markets and to
protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive
practices, the Commission focuses on issues of integrity. We seek to protect the economic
integrity of the futures markets so that they may operate free from
any fraud or manipulation of prices. We
seek to protect the financial integrity
of the futures markets so that the insolvency of a single market participant
does not become a systemic problem affecting other market participants or
financial institutions. We seek to
protect the operational integrity
of the futures markets so that transactions are executed fairly, so that proper
disclosures are made to existing and prospective customers, and so that
fraudulent sales practices are not tolerated.
The Commission pursues these
goals through a multi-pronged approach to market oversight.
We seek to protect the economic
integrity of the markets against attempts at manipulation through
direct market surveillance and through oversight of the surveillance efforts of
the exchanges themselves. The heart
of the Commission's direct market surveillance is a large‑trader
reporting system, under which clearing members of exchanges, commodity brokers
(called "futures commission merchants" or "FCMs"), and foreign brokers
electronically file daily reports with the Commission.
These reports contain the futures and option positions of traders that
hold positions above specific reporting levels set by CFTC regulations.
Because a trader may carry futures positions through more than one FCM
and because a customer may control more than one account, the Commission
routinely collects information that enables its surveillance staff to aggregate
information across FCMs and for related accounts.
Using these reports, the
Commission's surveillance staff closely monitors the futures and option market
activity of all traders whose positions are large enough to potentially impact
the orderly operation of a market. For contracts which at expiration are settled through
physical delivery, such as in the energy futures complex, staff carefully
analyze the adequacy of potential deliverable supply.
In addition, staff monitor futures and cash markets for unusual movements
in price relationships, such as cash/futures basis relationships and
inter-temporal futures spread relationships, which often provide early
indications of a potential problem.
The Commissioners and senior
staff are kept apprised of significant market events and potential problems at
weekly market surveillance meetings, and on a more frequent basis when needed.
At the weekly market surveillance meetings, surveillance staff brief the
Commission on broad economic and financial developments and on specific market
developments in futures and option markets of particular concern. At least one energy product market is usually discussed and
officials from the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy
periodically attend such meetings.
If indications of attempted
manipulation are found, the Enforcement Division investigates and prosecutes
alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act" or "CEA") or
the Commission's regulations. Subject
to such actions are all individuals that are (or should be) registered with the
Commission, those who engage in trading on any domestic exchange, and those who
improperly market commodity futures or option contracts.
The Commission has available to it a variety of administrative sanctions
against wrongdoers, including revocation or suspension of registration,
prohibitions on futures trading, cease and desist orders, civil monetary
penalties, and restitution orders. The
Commission may seek federal court injunctions, restraining orders, asset
freezes, receiver appointments, and disgorgement orders.
If evidence of criminal activity is found, matters may be referred to
state authorities or the Justice Department for prosecution of violations of not
only the CEA but also state or federal criminal statutes, such as mail fraud,
wire fraud, and conspiracy. Over
the years, the Commission has brought numerous enforcement actions and imposed
sanctions against firms and individual traders for attempting to manipulate
prices, including the well-publicized cases against Sumitomo for alleged
manipulation of copper prices and against the Hunt brothers for manipulation of
the silver markets.
In protecting the financial
integrity of the futures markets, the Commission's two main
priorities are to avoid disruptions to the system for clearing and settling
contract obligations and to protect the funds that customers entrust to FCMs.
Clearinghouses and FCMs are the backbone of the exchange system:
together, they protect against the financial difficulties of one trader
from becoming a systemic problem for other traders or the market as a whole.
Several aspects of the oversight framework help the Commission achieve
these goals:
(1) requiring that market
participants post a performance bond, referred to as "margin," to secure
their ability to fulfill obligations;
(2) requiring participants on
the losing side of trades to meet their obligations, in cash, through daily (and
sometimes intraday) margin calls;
(3) requiring that FCMs
segregate customer funds from their own funds and protect these customer funds
from obligations of the FCM; and
(4) monitoring the
capitalization and financial strength of intermediaries, such as FCMs and
clearinghouses.
The Commission works with the
exchanges and the National Futures Association (the "NFA") to closely
monitor the financial condition of FCMs. The
Commission, the exchanges, and the NFA receive various monthly, quarterly, and
annual financial reports from FCMs. The exchanges and the NFA also conduct annual audits and
daily financial surveillance of their respective member FCMs.
Part of this financial surveillance involves looking at each FCM's
exposure to losses from large customer positions that it carries and one way in
which such positions are tracked is through the large trader reporting system.
As an oversight regulator, the Commission primarily reviews the audit and
financial surveillance work of the exchanges and the NFA but also monitors the
health of FCMs directly, as necessary and appropriate.
We also periodically reviews clearinghouse procedures for monitoring
risks and protecting customer funds.
As with attempts at
manipulation, the Commission's Enforcement Division investigates and
prosecutes FCMs that are alleged to have violated financial and capitalization
requirements or to have committed other supervisory and compliance failures in
connection with the handling of customer business. Such cases can result in substantial remedial changes in the
supervisory structures and systems of FCMs and can influence the way particular
firms conduct business. This is an
important part of the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that sound
practices are followed by FCMs.
Protecting the operational
integrity of the futures markets is also accomplished through the
efforts of several divisions within the Commission. The Division of Trading and
Markets promulgates requirements that mandate appropriate disclosure and
customer account reporting, as well as fair sales and trading practices by
registrants. Trading and Markets also seeks to maintain appropriate sales
practices by screening the fitness of industry professionals and by requiring
proficiency testing, continuing education, and supervision of these persons.
Extensive recordkeeping of all futures transactions is also required.
Trading and Markets also monitors compliance with those requirements and
supervises the work of exchanges and the NFA in enforcing the requirements.
And, as with the Commission's
efforts to protect the economic and financial integrity of the futures markets,
the Division of Enforcement also plays an important role in deterring behavior
that could compromise the operational integrity of the markets.
Enforcement investigates a variety of trade and sales practice abuses
that affect customers. For example,
the Commission brings actions alleging unlawful trade allocations, trading ahead
of customer orders, misappropriating customer trades, and non-competitive
trading. The Commission also takes
actions against unscrupulous commodity professionals who engage in a wide
variety of fraudulent sales practices against the public.
The CFTC's Role in the
Energy Markets and Our Response to the Enron Situation:
The Commission oversees
on-exchange trading of energy-related futures and options contracts based on
such things as crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, propane, gasoline, and coal.
Several U.S. exchanges are designated to trade energy product futures and
options, but the overwhelming majority of on-exchange transactions are executed
on New York Mercantile Exchange (the "NYMEX"), where contracts in each of
the products I mentioned are actively traded.
The CFTC does not regulate trading of energy products on spot (cash)
markets or forward markets, which are excluded from our jurisdiction by the CEA.
Because Enron was a large
trader of energy-based contracts traded on the NYMEX, its on‑exchange
activity has been monitored by our market surveillance over the years.
At this time, we have no indication that manipulation of any on-exchange
futures market was attempted by Enron. However,
the rapid financial deterioration of Enron last year presented an additional
concern for the Commission: Could
Enron's on-exchange futures positions be closed out without causing sudden
price volatility or unduly reducing liquidity?
In fact, Enron was but one of many significant participants in these
large and liquid markets and the markets proved to be quite resilient.
When its financial difficulties became known and Enron voluntarily closed
out its positions, energy futures markets showed remarkably little reaction.
The prices of energy-based futures did not spike nor did liquidity dry
up.
As would the financial
difficulties of any large futures customer, Enron's difficulties also raised
concerns about the ability of the FCMs that carried Enron's on‑exchange
futures positions to successfully close out those positions if Enron were to
fail to meet margin calls. When
Enron's financial troubles became known last fall, staff from our Division of
Trading and Markets worked closely with the NYMEX clearinghouse and the affected
FCMs to monitor and to manage the closing out of these positions.
By appropriately adjusting margin requirements, the clearinghouse was
able to ensure that adequate Enron funds remained on deposit at the FCMs, which
both provided additional security for the FCMs and their customers and gave
Enron a strong incentive to reduce its positions as quickly as possible.
The closing out of Enron's
on-exchange positions was accomplished quickly and smoothly so that, by the time
of Enron's bankruptcy filing, the risks to which FCMs were exposed, as
measured by standard margin requirements, had dropped by 80% from only a week
earlier. By mid-December, all of
Enron's positions on the regulated exchanges had been liquidated.
(Enron also owned a small subsidiary FCM, Enron Trading Services, that
carried no positions for other customers and only a very small portion of
Enron's own on‑exchange positions. At all times, ETS had regulatory
capital several times the required level. Also
by mid-December, ETS had transferred its customers to other FCMs.)
I believe that this episode was a success for the system of financial
controls in the on‑exchange futures markets.
There were no disruptions to the system of clearance and settlement.
Enron met all its obligations. No
customer lost any funds entrusted to any FCM.
How the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act Changed Things:
The Commodity Futures
Modernization Act of 2000 (the "CFMA") was signed into law by President
Clinton on December 21, 2000. It
amended the Commodity Exchange Act to, among other things, provide legal
certainty for over‑the‑counter derivatives products. For contracts based on energy products and certain other
non‑agricultural and non‑financial commodities, the CFMA added a new
Section 2(h) to the Act that exempted two types of markets from much of the
CFTC's oversight.
The first type is bilateral,
principal-to-principal trading between two eligible contract participants, a
category that includes sophisticated entities such as regulated banks and
well‑capitalized companies or individuals (for example, those with assets
of at least $10 million), among others. The
second type is electronic multilateral trading among eligible commercial
entities, such as eligible contract participants that can also demonstrate an
ability to either make or take delivery of the underlying commodity (called
"eligible commercial entities") or dealers that regularly provide hedging
services to those entities.
Suggestions on Moving
Forward:
As an oversight regulator, we
will continue to look at how and why the markets within our statutory
jurisdiction respond the way they do, whether well or poorly, to situations such
as the failure of a significant participant.
Separately, as a member of the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets, the CFTC is working with the SEC, the Treasury Department, and the
Federal Reserve Board to review for the President possible improvements in
accounting, auditing, disclosure practices with respect to publicly‑held
companies. And, within the
Commission, we recently proposed a reorganization plan that will consolidate our
market oversight functions into one division to help improve already excellent
programs in market and financial surveillance.
The Enron situation has led
some to call for further responses from Congress and regulators, even for
re-regulation of markets that were provided legal certainty by the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act. While I agree that it is prudent for a regulator to
constantly review its policies and procedures to ensure that an appropriate
level of oversight is exercised, I also believe that a situation of this
magnitude deserves careful consideration before a regulator seeks to take
action. I believe that regulators
should make sure that the true problem has been identified before remedies are
pursued.
I supported passage of the CFMA
because I sincerely believed that a one‑size‑fits‑all approach
to regulation was outdated, particularly in light of important advances in
technology within the financial services industry.
Rules tailored to the participant, the product, and the trading facility
seemed to me to be a more appropriate approach than the prescriptive regulations
of the past. To date, I have seen
no evidence to the contrary in my agency's initial analysis of the Enron
situation. The CFMA was enacted
after a number of hearings conducted by our House and Senate oversight
committees in the context of reauthorizing the Commission.
Many issues relating to evolving markets received a full airing and
important changes to the law were agreed upon as a result. I believe that any departure from the path of progress
represented by this important piece of legislation should be approached with
extreme caution.
We will continue to monitor the
markets within our jurisdiction and to utilize all authorities given to us by
the Congress to aggressively pursue violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.
We stand ready to work with this Subcommittee, the Congress, other
regulators, and market participants. Thank
you for the invitation to appear before your Committee.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Printer
Friendly
Comment
On This Page
Related
Documents
|