FR Doc 2010-10330[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24626-24633]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my10-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Order Finding That the TETCO-M3 Financial Basis Contract Traded
on the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., Does Not Perform a Significant
Price Discovery Function
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 9, 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'' or ``Commission'') published for comment in the Federal
Register \1\ a notice of its intent to undertake a determination
whether the TETCO-M3 Financial Basis (``TMT'') contract traded on the
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (``ICE''), an exempt commercial market
(``ECM'') under sections 2(h)(3)-(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(``CEA'' or the ``Act''), performs a significant price discovery
function pursuant to section 2(h)(7) of the CEA. The Commission
undertook this review based upon an initial evaluation of information
and data provided by ICE as well as other available information. The
Commission has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including all
comments received, and has determined to issue an order finding that
the TMT contract does not perform a significant price discovery
function. Authority for this action is found in section 2(h)(7) of the
CEA and Commission rule 36.3(c) promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 52186 (October 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: April 28, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory K. Price, Industry Economist,
Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
Telephone: (202) 418-5515. E-mail: [email protected]; or Susan Nathan,
Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, same address.
Telephone: (202) 418-5133. E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008 (``Reauthorization Act'') \2\
significantly broadened the CFTC's regulatory authority with respect to
ECMs by creating, in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA, a new regulatory
category--ECMs on which significant price discovery contracts
(``SPDCs'') are traded--and treating ECMs in that category as
registered entities under the CEA.\3\ The legislation authorizes the
CFTC to designate an agreement, contract or transaction as a SPDC if
the Commission determines, under criteria established in section
2(h)(7), that it performs a significant price discovery function. When
the Commission makes such a determination, the ECM on which the SPDC is
traded must assume, with respect to that contract, all the
responsibilities and obligations of a registered entity under the Act
and Commission regulations, and must comply with nine core principles
established by new section 2(h)(7)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Incorporated as Title XIII of the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, 122 Stat. 1624 (June 18,
2008).
\3\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2009, the CFTC promulgated final rules implementing
the provisions of the Reauthorization Act.\4\ As relevant here, rule
36.3 imposes increased information reporting requirements on ECMs to
assist the Commission in making prompt assessments whether particular
ECM contracts may be SPDCs. In addition to filing quarterly reports of
its contracts, an ECM must notify the Commission promptly concerning
any contract traded in reliance on the exemption in section 2(h)(3) of
the CEA that averaged five trades per day or more over the most recent
calendar quarter, and for which the exchange sells its price
information regarding the contract to market participants or industry
publications, or whose daily closing or settlement prices on 95 percent
or more of the days in the most recent quarter were within 2.5 percent
of the contemporaneously determined closing, settlement or other daily
price of another contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 74 FR 12178 (Mar. 23, 2009); these rules became effective on
April 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission rule 36.3(c)(3) established the procedures by which the
Commission makes and announces its determination whether a particular
ECM contract serves a significant price discovery function. Under those
procedures, the Commission will publish notice in the Federal Register
that it intends to undertake an evaluation whether the specified
agreement, contract or transaction performs a significant price
discovery function and to receive written views, data and arguments
relevant to its determination from the ECM and other interested
persons. Upon the close of the comment period, the Commission will
consider, among other things, all relevant information regarding the
subject contract and issue an order announcing and explaining its
[[Page 24627]]
determination whether or not the contract is a SPDC. The issuance of an
affirmative order signals the effectiveness of the Commission's
regulatory authorities over an ECM with respect to a SPDC; at that time
such an ECM becomes subject to all provisions of the CEA applicable to
registered entities.\5\ The issuance of such an order also triggers the
obligations, requirements and timetables prescribed in Commission rule
36.3(c)(4).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 110-246 at 13203; Joint Explanatory Statement of
the Committee of Conference, H.R. Rep. No. 110-627, 110 Cong., 2d
Sess. 978, 986 (Conference Committee Report). See also 73 FR 75888,
75894 (Dec. 12, 2008).
\6\ For an initial SPDC, ECMs have a grace period of 90 calendar
days from the issuance of a SPDC determination order to submit a
written demonstration of compliance with the applicable core
principles. For subsequent SPDCs, ECMs have a grace period of 30
calendar days to demonstrate core principle compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Notice of Intent To Undertake SPDC Determination
On October 9, 2009, the Commission published in the Federal
Register notice of its intent to undertake a determination whether the
TMT contract performs a significant price discovery function and
requested comment from interested parties.\7\ Comments were received
from Industrial Energy Consumers of America (``IECA''), Working Group
of Commercial Energy Firms (``WGCEF''), Platts, ICE, Economists
Incorporated (``EI''), Natural Gas Supply Association (``NGSA''),
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') and Financial
Institutions Energy Group (``FIEG'').\8\ The comment letters from FERC
\9\ and Platts did not directly address the issue of whether or not the
TMT contract is a SPDC; IECA expressed the opinion that the TMT
contract did perform a significant price discovery function; and thus,
should be subject to the requirements of the core principles enumerated
in Section 2(h)(7) of the Act, but did not elaborate on its reasons for
saying so or directly address any of the criteria. The remaining
comment letters raised substantive issues with respect to the
applicability of section 2(h)(7) to the TMT contract and generally
expressed the opinion that the TMT contract is not a SPDC because it
does not meet the price linkage, material price reference and material
liquidity criteria for SPDC determination. These comments are more
extensively discussed below, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Commission's Part 36 rules establish, among other
things, procedures by which the Commission makes and announces its
determination whether a specific ECM contract serves a significant
price discovery function. Under those procedures, the Commission
publishes a notice in the Federal Register that it intends to
undertake a determination whether a specified agreement, contract or
transaction performs a significant price discovery function and to
receive written data, views and arguments relevant to its
determination from the ECM and other interested persons.
\8\ IECA describes itself as an ``association of leading
manufacturing companies'' whose membership ``represents a diverse
set of industries including: Plastics, cement, paper, food
processing, brick, chemicals, fertilizer, insulation, steel, glass,
industrial gases, pharmaceutical, aluminum and brewing.'' WGCEF
describes itself as ``a diverse group of commercial firms in the
domestic energy industry whose primary business activity is the
physical delivery of one or more energy commodities to customers,
including industrial, commercial and residential consumers'' and
whose membership consists of ``energy producers, marketers and
utilities.'' McGraw-Hill, through its division Platts, compiles and
calculates monthly natural gas price indices from natural gas trade
data submitted to Platts by energy marketers. Platts includes those
price indices in its monthly Inside FERC's Gas Market Report
(``Inside FERC''). ICE is an exempt commercial market, as noted
above. EI is an economic consulting firm with offices located in
Washington, DC, and San Francisco, CA. NGSA is an industry
association comprised of natural gas producers and marketers. FERC
is an independent federal regulatory agency that, among other
things, regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil
and electricity. FIEG describes itself as an association of
investment and commercial banks who are active participants in
various sectors of the natural gas markets, ``including acting as
marketers, lenders, underwriters of debt and equity securities, and
proprietary investors.'' The comment letters are available on the
Commission's Web site: http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/
federalregister/federalregistercomments/2009/09-014.html.
\9\ FERC stated that the TMT contract is cash settled and does
not contemplate the actual physical delivery of natural gas.
Accordingly, FERC expressed the opinion that a determination by the
Commission that a contract performs a significant price discovery
function ``would not appear to conflict with FERC's exclusive
jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) over certain sales of
natural gas in interstate commerce for resale or with its other
regulatory responsibilities under the NGA'' and further that, ``FERC
staff will continue to monitor for any such conflict * * * [and]
advise the CFTC'' should any such potential conflict arise. CL 07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Section 2(h)(7) of the CEA
The Commission is directed by section 2(h)(7) of the CEA to
consider the following criteria in determining a contract's significant
price discovery function:
Price Linkage--the extent to which the agreement, contract
or transaction uses or otherwise relies on a daily or final settlement
price, or other major price parameter, of a contract or contracts
listed for trading on or subject to the rules of a designated contract
market (``DCM'') or derivatives transaction execution facility
(``DTEF''), or a SPDC traded on an electronic trading facility, to
value a position, transfer or convert a position, cash or financially
settle a position, or close out a position.
Arbitrage--the extent to which the price for the
agreement, contract or transaction is sufficiently related to the price
of a contract or contracts listed for trading on or subject to the
rules of a designated DCM or DTEF, or a SPDC traded on or subject to
the rules of an electronic trading facility, so as to permit market
participants to effectively arbitrage between the markets by
simultaneously maintaining positions or executing trades in the
contracts on a frequent and recurring basis.
Material price reference--the extent to which, on a
frequent and recurring basis, bids, offers or transactions in a
commodity are directly based on, or are determined by referencing or
consulting, the prices generated by agreements, contracts or
transactions being traded or executed on the electronic trading
facility.
Material liquidity--the extent to which the volume of
agreements, contracts or transactions in a commodity being traded on
the electronic trading facility is sufficient to have a material effect
on other agreements, contracts or transactions listed for trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM, DTEF or electronic trading facility
operating in reliance on the exemption in section 2(h)(3).
Not all criteria must be present to support a determination that a
particular contract performs a significant price discovery function,
and one or more criteria may be inapplicable to a particular
contract.\10\ Moreover, the statutory language neither prioritizes the
criteria nor specifies the degree to which a SPDC must conform to the
various criteria. In Guidance issued in connection with the Part 36
rules governing ECMs with SPDCs, the Commission observed that these
criteria do not lend themselves to a mechanical checklist or formulaic
analysis. Accordingly, the Commission has indicated that in making its
determinations it will consider the circumstances under which the
presence of a particular criterion, or combination of criteria, would
be sufficient to support a SPDC determination.\11\ For example, for
contracts that are linked to other contracts or that may be arbitraged
with other contracts, the Commission will consider whether the price of
the potential SPDC moves in such harmony with the other contract that
the two markets essentially become
[[Page 24628]]
interchangeable. This co-movement of prices would be an indication that
activity in the contract had reached a level sufficient for the
contract to perform a significant price discovery function. In
evaluating a contract's price discovery role as a price reference, the
Commission will consider the extent to which, on a frequent and
recurring basis, bids, offers or transactions are directly based on, or
are determined by referencing, the prices established for the contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register release, the
Commission identified material price reference, price linkage and
material liquidity as the possible criteria for SPDC determination
of the TMT contract. Arbitrage was not identified as a possible
criterion. As a result, arbitrage will not be discussed further in
this document and the associated Order.
\11\ 17 CFR part 36, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Findings and Conclusions
The TETCO-M3 Financial Basis (TMT) Contract and the SPDC Indicia
The TMT contract is cash settled based on the difference between
the bidweek price index for a particular calendar month at the Texas
Eastern Transmission Company's (``TETCO's'') M3 zone, as published in
Platts' Inside FERC's Gas Market Report, and the final settlement price
of the New York Mercantile Exchange's (``NYMEX's'') physically-
delivered Henry Hub natural gas futures contract for the same calendar
month. The Platts bidweek price, which is published monthly, is based
on a survey of cash market traders who voluntarily report to Platts
data on their fixed-price transactions conducted during the last five
business days of the month for physical delivery of natural gas at the
M3 zone; such bidweek transactions specify the delivery of natural gas
on a uniform basis throughout the following calendar month at the
agreed upon rate. The Platts bidweek index is published on the first
business day of the calendar month in which the natural gas is to be
delivered. The size of the TMT contract is 2,500 million British
thermal units (``mmBtu''), and the unit of trading is any multiple of
2,500 mmBtu. The TMT contract is listed for up to 72 consecutive
calendar months.
The Henry Hub,\12\ which is located in Erath, Louisiana, is the
primary cash market trading and distribution center for natural gas in
the United States. It also is the delivery point and pricing basis for
the NYMEX's actively traded, physically-delivered natural gas futures
contract, which is the most important pricing reference for natural gas
in the United States. The Henry Hub, which is operated by Sabine Pipe
Line, LLC, serves as a juncture for 13 different pipelines. These
pipelines bring in natural gas from fields in the Gulf Coast region and
ship it to major consumption centers along the East Coast and Midwest.
The throughput shipping capacity of the Henry Hub is 1.8 trillion mmBtu
per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The term ``hub'' refers to a juncture where two or more
natural gas pipelines are connected. Hubs also serve as pricing
points for natural gas at the particular locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the Henry Hub, there are a number of other locations
where natural gas is traded. In 2008, there were 33 natural gas market
centers in North America.\13\ Some of the major trading centers include
Alberta, Northwest Rockies, Southern California border and the Houston
Ship Channel. For locations that are directly connected to the Henry
Hub by one or more pipelines and where there typically is adequate
shipping capacity, the price at the other locations usually directly
tracks the price at the Henry Hub, adjusted for transportation costs.
However, at other locations that are not directly connected to the
Henry Hub or where shipping capacity is limited, the prices at those
locations often diverge from the Henry Hub price. Furthermore, one
local price may be significantly different than the price at another
location even though the two markets' respective distances from the
Henry Hub are the same. The reason for such pricing disparities is that
a given location may experience supply and demand factors that are
specific to that region, such as differences in pipeline shipping
capacity, unusually high or low demand for heating or cooling or supply
disruptions caused by severe weather. As a consequence, local natural
gas prices can differ from the Henry Hub price by more than the cost of
shipping and such price differences can vary in an unpredictable
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
feature_articles/2009/ngmarketcenter/ngmarketcenter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TETCO transports natural gas from production areas in Texas,
Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
regions of the United States. The TETCO system, owned and operated by
Spectra Energy Transmission, spans some 9,200 miles and has a capacity
of 6.7 billion cubic feet per day with 75 billion cubic feet of
storage.\14\ The TMT contract prices trading activity at the M3 zone of
TETCO's pipeline. The M3 zone is defined as the portion of the pipeline
traversing the area between eastern Pennsylvania near the New Jersey
border and north central New Jersey. Specifically, the Platts index
includes deliveries at any point between the Delmont compressor station
in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, and the Hanover and Linden
stations in Morris County, New Jersey. Included are deals delivered at
interconnections with New York City distributors' citygates and with
Algonquin Gas Transmission at Lambertville in Hunterdon County, New
Jersey, and at the Hanover station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See http://www.spectraenergy.com/what_we_do/businesses/
us/assets/texas_eastern/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dominion hub, a market center that encompasses the Leidy area
of north central Pennsylvania includes the TETCO M3 natural gas trading
hub. The Dominion market center had an estimated throughput capacity of
2.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2008. Moreover, the number of
pipeline interconnections at the Dominion hub was 17 in 2008, up from
16 in 2003. Lastly, the pipeline interconnection capacity of the
Dominion hub in 2008 was 8.3 billion cubic feet per day, which
constituted a 42 percent increase over the pipeline interconnection
capacity in 2003.\15\ The TMT hub is far removed from the Henry Hub but
is directly connected to the Henry Hub by TETCO's interstate pipeline
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
feature_articles/2009/ngmarketcenter/ngmarketcenter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local price at the TMT location typically differs from the
price at the Henry Hub. Thus, the price of the Henry Hub physically-
delivered futures contract is an imperfect proxy for the TMT price.
Moreover, exogenous factors, such as adverse weather, can cause the TMT
gas price to differ from the Henry Hub price by an amount that is more
or less than the cost of shipping, making the NYMEX Henry Hub futures
contract even less precise as a hedging tool than desired by market
participants. Basis contracts \16\ allow traders to more accurately
discover prices at alternative locations and hedge price risk that is
associated with natural gas at such locations. In this regard, a
position at a local price for an alternative location can be
established by adding the appropriate basis swap position to a position
taken in the NYMEX physically-delivered Henry Hub contract (or in the
NYMEX or ICE Henry Hub look-alike contract, which cash settle based on
the NYMEX physically-delivered natural gas contract's final settlement
price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Basis contracts denote the difference in the price of
natural gas at a specified location minus the price of natural gas
at the Henry Hub. The differential can be either a positive or
negative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice, the Commission
identified material price reference, price linkage and material
liquidity as the potential SPDC criteria applicable to the TMT
contract. Each of these criteria is discussed below.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted above, the Commission did not find an indication
of arbitrage in connection with this contract; accordingly, that
criterion was not discussed in reference to the TMT contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24629]]
1. Material Price Reference Criterion
The Commission's October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice
identified material price reference as a potential basis for a SPDC
determination with respect to this contract. The Commission considered
the fact that ICE sells its price data to market participants in a
number of different packages which vary in terms of the hubs covered,
time periods, and whether the data are daily only or historical. For
example, ICE offers the ``East Gas End of Day'' and ``OTC Gas End of
Day'' \18\ packages with access to all price data or just current
prices plus a selected number of months (i.e., 12, 24, 36 or 48 months)
of historical data. These two packages include price data for the TMT
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The OTC Gas End of Day dataset includes daily settlement
prices for natural gas contracts listed for all points in North
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also noted that its October 2007 Report on the
Oversight of Trading on Regulated Futures Exchanges and Exempt
Commercial Markets (``ECM Study'') \19\ found that in general, market
participants view the ICE as a price discovery market for certain
natural gas contracts. The study did not specify which markets
performed this function; nevertheless, the Commission determined that
the TMT contract, while not mentioned by name in the ECM Study, might
warrant further study. Following the issuance of the Federal Register
release, the Commission further evaluated ICE's data offerings and
their use by industry participants. The TETCO M3 zone is a significant
trading center for natural gas but is not as important as other hubs,
such as the Henry Hub, for pricing natural gas in the eastern half of
the U.S. marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/
file/pr5403-07_ecmreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will rely on one of two sources of evidence--direct
or indirect--to determine that the price of a contract was being used
as a material price reference and therefore, serving a significant
price discovery function.\20\ With respect to direct evidence, the
Commission will consider the extent to which, on a frequent and
recurring basis, cash market bids, offers or transactions are directly
based on or quoted at a differential to, the prices generated on the
ECM in question. Direct evidence may be established when cash market
participants are quoting bid or offer prices or entering into
transactions at prices that are set either explicitly or implicitly at
a differential to prices established for the contract in question. Cash
market prices are set explicitly at a differential to the section
2(h)(3) contract when, for instance, they are quoted in dollars and
cents above or below the reference contract's price. Cash market prices
are set implicitly at a differential to a section 2(h)(3) contract
when, for instance, they are arrived at after adding to, or subtracting
from the section 2(h)(3) contract, but then quoted or reported at a
flat price. With respect to indirect evidence, the Commission will
consider the extent to which the price of the contract in question is
being routinely disseminated in widely distributed industry
publications--or offered by the ECM itself for some form of
remuneration--and consulted on a frequent and recurring basis by
industry participants in pricing cash market transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 17 CFR part 36, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The M3 zone is a major trading center for natural gas in the United
States and, as noted, ICE sells price information for the TMT contract.
Upon further evaluation, however, the Commission has found that the
cash market transactions are not being directly based on or quoted as a
differential to the TMT contract nor is that contract routinely
consulted by industry participants in pricing cash market transactions.
Thus, the contract does not meet the Commission's Guidance for the
material price reference criterion. In this regard, liquidity
constraints caused by severe winter weather on peak days may create
complications for cash market participants. Because the TMT contract is
not consulted on a frequent basis, it does not satisfy the direct price
reference test for the existence of material price reference.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that publication of the TMT
contract's prices is not indirect evidence of material price reference.
The TMT contract's prices are published with those of numerous other
contracts, which are of more interest to market participants. Due to
the lack of importance of the M3 zone, the Commission has concluded
that traders likely do not specifically purchase the ICE data packages
for the TMT contract's prices and do not consult such prices on a
frequent and recurring basis in pricing cash market transactions.
i. Federal Register Comments
As noted above, WGCEF, ICE, EI, NGSA and FIEG addressed the
question of whether the TMT contract met the material price reference
criterion for a SPDC.\21\ The commenters argued that because the TMT
contract is cash-settled, it cannot truly serve as an independent
``reference price'' for transactions in natural gas at this location.
Rather, the commenters argue, the underlying cash price series against
which the ICE TMT contract is settled (in this case, the Platts bidweek
price for natural gas at this location) is the authentic reference
price and not the ICE contract itself. The Commission believes that
this interpretation of price reference is too limiting and believes
that a cash-settled derivatives contract could meet the price reference
criterion if market participants ``consult on a frequent and recurring
basis'' the derivatives contract when pricing forward, fixed-price
commitments or other cash-settled derivatives that seek to ``lock in''
a fixed price for some future point in time to hedge against adverse
price movements. As noted above, the M3 zone is a significant trading
center for natural gas in North America. However, traders do not
consider the M3 zone to be as important as other natural gas trading
points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As noted above, IECA expressed the opinion that the TMT
contract met the criteria for SPDC determination but did not provide
its reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE also argued that the Commission appeared to base the case that
the TMT contract is potentially a SPDC on a disputable assertion. In
issuing its notice of intent to determine whether the TMT contract is a
SPDC, the CFTC cited a general conclusion in its ECM Study ``that
certain market participants referred to ICE as a price discovery market
for certain natural gas contracts.'' ICE states that CFTC's reason is
``hard to quantify as the ECM report does not mention'' this contract
as a potential SPDC. ``It is unknown which market participants made
this statement in 2007 or the contracts that were referenced.'' In
response to the above comment, the Commission notes that it cited the
ECM Study's general finding that some ICE natural gas contracts appear
to be regarded as price discovery markets merely as an indicia that an
investigation of certain ICE contracts may be warranted. The ECM Study
was not intended to serve as the sole basis for determining whether or
not a particular contract meets the material price reference criterion.
Both EI \22\ and WGCEF \23\ stated that publication of price data
in a package format is a weak justification for material price
reference. These commenters argue that market participants generally do
not purchase
[[Page 24630]]
ICE data sets for one contract's prices, such as those for the TMT
contract. Instead, traders are interested in the settlement prices, so
the fact that ICE sells the TMT prices as part of a broad package is
not conclusive evidence that market participants are buying the ICE
data sets because they find the TMT prices have substantial value to
them. As mentioned above, the Commission notes that publication of the
TMT contract's prices is not indirect evidence of routine
dissemination. The TMT contract's prices are published with those of
numerous other contracts, which are of more interest to market
participants. Due to the lack of importance of the M3 zone, the
Commission has concluded that traders likely do not specifically
purchase the ICE data packages for the TMT contract's prices and do not
consult such prices on a frequent and recurring basis in pricing cash
market transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ CL 05.
\23\ CL 02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Conclusion Regarding Material Price Reference
Based on the above, the Commission finds that the TMT contract does
not meet the material price reference criterion because cash market
transactions are not priced either explicitly or implicitly on a
frequent and recurring basis at a differential to the TMT contract's
price (direct evidence). Moreover, while the ECM sells the TMT
contract's price data to market participants, market participants
likely do not specifically purchase the ICE data packages for the TMT
contract's prices and do not consult such prices on a frequent and
recurring basis in pricing cash market transactions (indirect
evidence).
2. Price Linkage Criterion
In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice, the Commission
identified price linkage as a potential basis for a SPDC determination
with respect to the TMT contract. In this regard, the final settlement
of the TMT contract is based, in part, on the final settlement price of
the NYMEX's physically-delivered natural gas futures contract, where
the NYMEX is registered with the Commission as a DCM.
The Commission's Guidance on Significant Price Discovery Contracts
notes that a ``price-linked contract is a contract that relies on a
contract traded on another trading facility to settle, value or
otherwise offset the price-linked contract.'' \24\ Furthermore, the
Guidance notes that, ``[f]or a linked contract, the mere fact that a
contract is linked to another contract will not be sufficient to
support a determination that a contract performs a significant price
discovery function. To assess whether such a determination is
warranted, the Commission will examine the relationship between
transaction prices of the linked contract and the prices of the
referenced contract. The Commission believes that where material
liquidity exists, prices for the linked contract would be observed to
be substantially the same as or move substantially in conjunction with
the prices of the referenced contract.'' \25\ Furthermore, the Guidance
proposes a threshold price relationship such that prices of the ECM
linked contract will fall within a 2.5 percent price range for 95
percent of contemporaneously determined closing, settlement or other
daily prices over the most recent quarter. Finally, in Guidance the
Commission stated that it would consider a linked contract that has a
trading volume equivalent to 5 percent of the volume of trading in the
contract to which it is linked to have sufficient volume to be deemed a
SPDC (``minimum threshold'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Appendix A to the Part 36 rules.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess whether the TMT contract meets the price linkage
criterion, Commission staff obtained price data from ICE and performed
the statistical tests cited above. Staff found that, while the TMT
contract price is determined, in part, by the final settlement price of
the NYMEX physically-delivered natural gas futures contract (a DCM
contract), the imputed TMT location price (derived by adding the NYMEX
Henry Hub Natural Gas price to the ICE TCO basis price) is not within
2.5 percent of the settlement price of the corresponding NYMEX Henry
Hub natural gas futures contract on 95 percent or more of the days.
Specifically, during the third quarter of 2009, none of the TMT natural
gas prices derived from the ICE basis values were within 2.5 percent of
the daily settlement price of the NYMEX Henry Hub futures contract. In
addition, staff found that the TMT contract fails to meet the volume
threshold requirement. In particular, the total trading volume in the
NYMEX Natural Gas contract during the third quarter of 2009 was
14,022,963 contracts, with 5 percent of that number being 701,148
contracts. Trades on the ICE centralized market in the TMT contract
during the same period was 145,681 contracts (equivalent to 36,420
NYMEX contracts, given the size difference).\27\ Thus, centralized-
market trades in the TMT contract amounted to less than the minimum
threshold.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The size of the NYMEX Henry Hub physically-delivered
natural gas futures contract is 10,000 mmBtu. The TMT contract has a
trading unit of 2,500 mmBtu, which is one-quarter the size of the
NYMEX Henry Hub contract.
\28\ Supplemental data subsequently submitted by the ICE
indicated that block trades are included in the on-exchange trades;
block trades comprise 63.3 percent of all transactions in the TMT
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Federal Register Comments
As noted above, WGCEF, ICE, EI, NGSA and FIEG addressed the
question of whether the TMT contract met the price linkage criterion
for a SPDC.\29\ Each of the commenters expressed the opinion that the
TMT contract did not appear to meet the above-discussed Commission
guidance regarding the price relationship and/or the minimum volume
threshold relative to the DCM contract to which the TMT is linked.
Based on its analysis discussed above, the Commission agrees with this
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ As noted above, IECA expressed the opinion that the TMT
contract met the criteria for SPDC determination but did not provide
its reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Conclusion Regarding the Price Linkage Criterion
Based on the above, the Commission finds that the TMT contract does
not meet the price linkage criterion because it fails the price
relationship and volume tests provided for in the Commission's
Guidance.
3. Material Liquidity Criterion
As noted above, in its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice,
the Commission identified material price reference, price linkage and
material liquidity as potential criteria for SPDC determination of the
TMT contract. To assess whether a contract meets the material liquidity
criterion, the Commission first examines trading activity as a general
measurement of the contract's size and potential importance. If the
Commission finds that the contract in question meets a threshold of
trading activity that would render it of potential importance, the
Commission will then perform a statistical analysis to measure the
effect that the prices of the subject contract potentially may have on
prices for other contracts listed on an ECM or a DCM.
The total number of transactions executed on ICE's electronic
platform in the TMT contract was 1,073 in the second quarter of 2009,
resulting in a daily average of 16.8 trades. During the same period,
the TMT contract had a total trading volume of 145,328 contracts and an
average daily trading
[[Page 24631]]
volume of 2,271 contracts. Moreover, open interest as of June 30, 2009,
was 168,963 contracts, which included trades executed on ICE's
electronic trading platform, as well as trades executed off of ICE's
electronic trading platform and then brought to ICE for clearing. In
this regard, ICE does not differentiate between open interest created
by a transaction executed on its trading platform and that created by a
transaction executed off its trading platform.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 74 FR 52186 (October 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a subsequent filing dated November 13, 2009, ICE reported that
total trading volume in the third quarter of 2009 was 145,681 contracts
(or 2,207 contracts on a daily basis). In terms of number of
transactions, 1,140 trades occurred in the third quarter of 2009 (17.3
trades per day). As of September 30, 2009, open interest in the TMT
contract was 251,573 contracts, which included trades executed on ICE's
electronic trading platform, as well as trades executed off of ICE's
electronic trading platform and then brought to ICE for clearing.
As indicated above, the average number of trades per day in the
second and third quarters of 2009 was above the minimum reporting level
(5 trades per day). Moreover, trading activity in the TMT contract, as
characterized by total quarterly volume, indicates that the TMT
contract experiences trading activity that is greater than in thinly-
traded contracts.\31\ This level of trading activity would ordinarily
merit a statistical analysis to measure the effect that the prices of
the subject contract potentially may have on prices for other contracts
listed on an ECM or DCM. However, in light of the fact that the
Commission has found that the TETCO-M3 contract does not meet the
material price reference or price linkage criteria, according to the
Commission's guidance it would be unnecessary to evaluate whether the
TETCO-M3 contract meets the material liquidity criterion since it
cannot be used alone for SPDC determination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Staff has advised the Commission that in its experience, a
thinly-traded contract is, generally, one that has a quarterly
trading volume of 100,000 contracts or less. In this regard, in the
third quarter of 2009, physical commodity futures contracts with
trading volume of 100,000 contracts or fewer constituted less than
one percent of total trading volume of all physical commodity
futures contracts.
\32\ In establishing guidance to illustrate how it will evaluate
the various criteria, or combinations of criteria, when determining
whether a contract is a SPDC, the Commission made clear that
``material liquidity itself would not be sufficient to make a
determination that a contract is a [SPDC], * * * but combined with
other factors it can serve as a guidepost indicating which contracts
are functioning as [SPDCs].'' For the reasons discussed above, the
Commission has found that the TMT contract does not meet either the
price linkage or material price reference criterion. In light of
this finding and the Commission's Guidance cited above, there is no
need to evaluate further the material liquidity criteria since it
cannot be used alone as a basis for a SPDC determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Federal Register Comments
As noted above, WGCEF, ICE, EI, NGSA and FIEG addressed the
question of whether the TMT contract met the material liquidity
criterion for a SPDC.\33\ These commenters stated that the TMT contract
does not meet the material liquidity criterion for SPDC determination
for a number of reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ As noted above, IECA expressed the opinion that the TMT
contract met the criteria for SPDC determination but did not provide
its reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WGCEF,\34\ ICE \35\ and EI \36\ noted that the Commission's
Guidance had posited concepts of liquidity that generally assumed a
fairly constant stream of prices throughout the trading day, and noted
that the relatively low number of trades per day in the TMT contract
did not meet this standard of liquidity. The Commission observes that a
continuous stream of prices would indeed be an indication of liquidity
for certain markets but the Guidance also notes that ``quantifying the
levels of immediacy and price concession that would define material
liquidity may differ from one market or commodity to another.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ CL 02.
\35\ CL 04.
\36\ CL 05.
\37\ Guidance, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WGCEF, FIEG \38\ and NGSA \39\ noted that the TMT contract
represents a differential, which does not affect other contracts,
including the NYMEX Henry Hub contract and physical gas contracts. FIEG
and WGCEF also noted that the TMT contract's trading volume represents
only a fraction of natural gas trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ CL 08.
\39\ CL 06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE opined that the Commission ``seems to have adopted a five
trade-per-day test to determine whether a contract is materially
liquid. It is worth noting that ICE originally suggested that the CFTC
use a five trades-per-day threshold as the basis for an ECM to report
trade data to the CFTC.'' Furthermore, FIEG cautioned the Commission in
using a reporting threshold as a measure of liquidity. In this regard,
the Commission adopted a five trades-per-day threshold as a reporting
requirement to enable it to ``independently be aware of ECM contracts
that may develop into SPDCs''\40\ rather than solely relying upon an
ECM on its own to identify any such potential SPDCs to the Commission.
Thus, any contract that meets this threshold may be subject to scrutiny
as a potential SPDC but this does not mean that the contract will be
found to be a SPDC merely because it met the reporting threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 73 FR 75892 (December 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE and EI proposed that the statistics provided by ICE were
misinterpreted and misapplied by the Commission. In particular, ICE
stated that the volume figures used in the Commission's analysis (cited
above) ``include trades made in all months of each contract'' as well
as in strips of contract months, and a ``more appropriate method of
determining liquidity is to examine the activity in a single traded
month or strip of a given contract.'' \41\ A similar argument was made
by EI, which observed that the five-trades-per-day number ``is highly
misleading * * * because the contracts can be offered for as long as
120 months, [thus] the average per day for an individual contract may
be less than 1 per day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In addition, both EI and ICE stated that the trades-per-day
statistics that it provided to the Commission in its quarterly
filing and which were cited in the Commission's October 9, 2009,
Federal Register notice includes 2(h)(1) transactions, which were
not completed on the electronic trading platform and should not be
considered in the SPDC determination process. The Commission staff
asked ICE to review the data it sent in its quarterly filings; ICE
confirmed that the volume data it provided and which the Commission
cited includes only transaction data executed on ICE's electronic
trading platform. As noted above, supplemental data supplied by ICE
confirmed that block trades are in addition to the trades that were
conducted on the electronic platform; block trades comprise about 63
percent of all transactions in the TMT contract. Commission
acknowledges that the open interest information it provided in its
October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice includes transactions made
off the ICE platform. However, once open interest is created, there
is no way for ICE to differentiate between ``on-exchange'' versus
``off-exchange'' created positions, and all such positions are
fungible with one another and may be offset in any way agreeable to
the position holder regardless of how the position was initially
created. CL 04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Commission's opinion that liquidity, as it pertains to
the TMT contract, is typically a function of trading activity in
particular lead months and, given sufficient liquidity in such months,
the ICE TMT contract itself would be considered liquid. In any event,
in light of the fact that the Commission has found that the TMT
contract does not meet the material price reference or price linkage
criteria, according to the Commission's Guidance, it would be
unnecessary to evaluate whether the TM contract meets the material
liquidity criterion since it cannot be used alone for SPDC
determination.
[[Page 24632]]
ii. Conclusion Regarding Material Liquidity
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission has found that the
TMT contract does not meet either the price linkage or material price
reference criteria. Accordingly, there is no need to evaluate further
the material liquidity criterion since it cannot be used alone as a
basis for a SPDC determination.
4. Overall Conclusion
After considering the entire record in this matter, including the
comments received, the Commission has determined that the TMT contract
does not perform a significant price discovery function under the
criteria established in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA.
Specifically, the Commission has determined that the TMT contract
does not meet the material price reference and price linkage criteria
at this time. In light of the fact that the Commission has found that
the TMT contract does not meet the material price reference or price
linkage criteria, according to the Commission's Guidance, it would be
unnecessary to evaluate whether the TMT contract meets the material
liquidity criterion since it cannot be used alone for SPDC
determination. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing the attached
Order declaring that the TMT contract is not a SPDC.
Issuance of this Order indicates that the Commission does not at
this time regard ICE as a registered entity in connection with its TMT
contract.\42\ Accordingly, with respect to its TMT contract, ICE is not
required to comply with the obligations, requirements and timetables
prescribed in Commission rule 36.3(c)(4) for ECMs with SPDCs. However,
ICE must continue to comply with the applicable reporting requirements
for ECMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 73 FR 75888, 75893 (Dec. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Related Matters
a. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') \43\ imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in
connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of
information as defined by the PRA. Certain provisions of Commission
rule 36.3 impose new regulatory and reporting requirements on ECMs,
resulting in information collection requirements within the meaning of
the PRA. OMB previously has approved and assigned OMB control number
3038-0060 to this collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Section 15(a) of the CEA \44\ requires the Commission to consider
the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing an order under the
Act. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to
quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the
benefits of the order outweigh its costs; rather, it requires that the
Commission ``consider'' the costs and benefits of its actions. Section
15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated
in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1)
Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency,
competitiveness and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price
discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public
interest considerations. The Commission may in its discretion give
greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its
discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular
order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to
effectuate any of the provisions or accomplish any of the purposes of
the Act. The Commission has considered the costs and benefits in light
of the specific provisions of section 15(a) of the Act and has
concluded that the Order, required by Congress to strengthen federal
oversight of exempt commercial markets and to prevent market
manipulation, is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes
of section 2(h)(7) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a futures contract begins to serve a significant price
discovery function, that contract, and the ECM on which it is traded,
warrants increased oversight to deter and prevent price manipulation or
other disruptions to market integrity, both on the ECM itself and in
any related futures contracts trading on DCMs. An Order fining that a
particular contract is a SPDC triggers this increased oversight and
imposes obligations on the ECM calculated to accomplish this goal. The
increased oversight engendered by the issue of a SPDC Order increases
transparency and helps to ensure fair competition among ECMs and DCMs
trading similar products and competing for the same business. Moreover,
the ECM on which the SPDC is traded must assume, with respect to that
contract, all the responsibilities and obligations of a registered
entity under the CEA and Commission regulations. Additionally, the ECM
must comply with nine core principles established by section 2(h)(7) of
the Act--including the obligation to establish position limits and/or
accountability standards for the SPDC. Amendments to section 4(i) of
the CEA authorize the Commission to require reports for SPDCs listed on
ECMs. These increased responsibilities, along with the CFTC's increased
regulatory authority, subject the ECM's risk management practices to
the Commission's supervision and oversight and generally enhance the
financial integrity of the markets.
The Commission has concluded that ICE's TMT contract, which is the
subject of the attached Order, is not a SPDC; accordingly, the
Commission's Order imposes no additional costs and no additional
statutorily or regulatory mandated responsibilities on the ECM.
c. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \45\ requires that
agencies consider the impact of their rules on small businesses. The
requirements of CEA section 2(h)(7) and the Part 36 rules affect exempt
commercial markets. The Commission previously has determined that
exempt commercial markets are not small entities for purposes of the
RFA.\46\ Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby
certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Order, taken in
connection with section 2(h)(7) of the Act and the Part 36 rules, will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\46\ 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Order
Order Relating to the TETCO-M3 Financial Basis Contract
After considering the complete record in this matter, including the
comment letters received in response to its request for comments, the
Commission has determined to issue the following Order:
The Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 2(h)(7) of
the Act, hereby determines that the TETCO-M3 Financial Basis contract,
traded on the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., does not at this time
satisfy the material price reference and price linkage criteria for
significant price discovery contracts. In light of the fact that the
Commission has found that the TMT contract does not meet the material
price reference or price linkage criteria, according to the
Commission's Guidance, it would be unnecessary to evaluate whether the
TMT contract meets the material
[[Page 24633]]
liquidity criterion since it cannot be used alone for SPDC
determination.
Consistent with this determination, the IntercontinentalExchange,
Inc., is not considered a registered entity \47\ with respect to the
TETCO-M3 Financial Basis contract and is not subject to the provisions
of the Commodity Exchange Act applicable to registered entities.
Further, the obligations, requirements and timetables prescribed in
Commission rule 36.3(c)(4) governing core principle compliance by the
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., are not applicable to the TETCO-M3
Financial Basis contract with the issuance of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Order is based on the representations made to the Commission
by the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., dated July 27, 2009, and
November 13, 2009, and other supporting material. Any material change
or omissions in the facts and circumstances pursuant to which this
order is granted might require the Commission to reconsider its current
determination that the TETCO-M3 Financial Basis contract is not a
significant price discovery contract. Additionally, to the extent that
it continues to rely upon the exemption in Section 2(h)(3) of the Act,
the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., must continue to comply with all of
the applicable requirements of Section 2(h)(3) and Commission
Regulation 36.3.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 28, 2010, by the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-10330 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Last Updated: May 5, 2010