2015-30533
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78823-78948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30533]
[[Page 78823]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 242
December 17, 2015
Part II
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR Parts 1, 38, 40, et al.
Regulation Automated Trading; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 78824]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
RIN 3038-AD52
Regulation Automated Trading
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'' or
``Commission'') is proposing a series of risk controls, transparency
measures, and other safeguards to enhance the regulatory regime for
automated trading on U.S. designated contract markets (``DCMs'')
(collectively, ``Regulation AT''). The Commission's proposals build on
efforts by numerous entities in recent years to promote best practices
and regulatory standards for automated trading, including standards and
best practices for algorithmic trading systems (``ATSs''), electronic
trade matching engines, and new connectivity methods that characterize
modern financial markets. In 2012 the Commission adopted rules
requiring futures commission merchants (``FCMs''), swap dealers
(``SDs''), and major swap participants (``MSPs'') to use automated
means to screen orders for compliance with certain risk-based limits.
It also adopted rules requiring certain financial risk control
requirements for DCMs offering direct market access to their customers.
In 2013 the Commission published an extensive Concept Release on Risk
Controls and System Safeguards for Automated Trading Environments
(``Concept Release''), compiling in one document a comprehensive
discussion of industry practices, Commission regulations, and evolving
concerns in automated trading.\1\ Now, through this notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NPRM'') for Regulation AT, the Commission seeks to update
Commission rules in response to the evolution from pit trading to
electronic trading. In particular, the Commission is proposing to adopt
a comprehensive approach to reducing risk and increasing transparency
in automated trading. Proposed Regulation AT is designed to consolidate
previous work by industry participants, the Commission, and fellow
regulators into a unified body of law addressing automation in order
placement and execution in U.S. derivatives markets. The Commission
welcomes all public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Concept Release on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for
Automated Trading Environments, 78 FR 56542 (Sept. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AD52, by any
of the following methods:
CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online
process on the Web site.
Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Please submit comments by only one method. All comments should be
submitted in English or accompanied by an English translation. Comments
will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish
the Commission to consider information that may be exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), a petition
for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted
according to the procedures established in 17 CFR 145.9. The Commission
reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, prescreen,
filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of your submission from
http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for
publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been
so treated that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will
be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as
required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable
laws, and may be accessible under FOIA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate
Director, Division of Market Oversight, [email protected] or 202-418-5641;
Marilee Dahlman, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight,
[email protected] or 202-418-5264; Mark Schlegel, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Oversight, [email protected] or 202-418-5055;
Michael Penick, Economist, Office of the Chief Economist,
[email protected] or 202-418-5279; Richard Haynes, Economist, Office of
the Chief Economist, [email protected] or 202-418-5063; Andrew Ridenour,
Senior Trial Attorney, Division of Enforcement, [email protected] or
202-418-5438; or John Dunfee, Assistant General Counsel, Office of
General Counsel, [email protected] or 202-418-5396.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Overview--Development of Automated Trading Environment
B. Risks and Potential Benefits Associated With Automated
Trading
C. The Proposed Regulations
1. Overview of NPRM
2. The Proposed Regulations Under Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
II. Background on Regulatory Responses to Automated Trading
A. The Commission's Regulatory Response to Date
B. The Commission's 2013 Concept Release
C. Other Recent Regulatory Responses
1. SEC Regulatory Initiatives
2. FINRA Initiatives
3. European and Other Regulatory Initiatives
D. Industry and Regulatory Best Practices and Recommendations
1. NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Supervision
2. FIA Reports on Automated Trading
3. IOSCO Reports on Electronic Trading
4. CFTC TAC Subcommittee
5. FIX Risk Management Working Group
6. Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) Briefing Note
7. Treasury Market Practices Group Best Practices
III. Recent Disruptive Events in Automated Trading Environments
IV. Overview of Regulation AT
A. Concept Release/Regulation AT Terminology
B. Commenter Preference for Principles-Based Regulations
C. Multi-Layered Approach to Pre-Trade Risk Controls and Other
Measures
D. Codification of Defined Terms Used Throughout Regulation AT
1. ``Algorithmic Trading''--Sec. 1.3(zzzz)
2. ``Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue''--Sec. 1.3(tttt)
3. ``Algorithmic Trading Disruption''--Sec. 1.3(uuuu)
4. ``Algorithmic Trading Event''--Sec. 1.3(vvvv)
5. ``AT Order Message''--Sec. 1.3(wwww)
6. ``AT Person''--Sec. 1.3(xxxx)
7. ``Direct Electronic Access''--Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
E. Registration of Certain Persons Not Otherwise Registered With
Commission--Sec. 1.3(x)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
F. RFA Standards for Automated Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems--Sec. 170.19
1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
G. AT Persons Must Become Members of an RFA--Sec. 170.18
[[Page 78825]]
1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
H. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls for AT Persons--Sec. 1.80
1. Concept Release Comments on Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
I. Standards for Development, Testing, Monitoring, and
Compliance of Algorithmic Trading Systems--Sec. 1.81
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
J. Risk Management by Clearing Member FCMs--Sec. 1.82
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Discussion of Persons Subject to Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80 and
1.82
5. Request for Comments
K. Compliance Reports Submitted by AT Persons and Clearing FCMs
to DCMs; Related Recordkeeping Requirements--Sec. 1.83
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
L. Risk Controls for Trading: Direct Electronic Access Provided
by DCMs--Sec. 38.255(b) and (c)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
M. Disclosure and Transparency in DCM Trade Matching Systems--
Sec. 38.401(a)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
N. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls at DCMs--Sec. 40.20
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
O. DCM Test Environments for AT Persons--Sec. 40.21
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
P. DCM Review of Compliance Reports by AT Persons and Clearing
FCMs; DCM Rules Requiring Certain Books and Records; and DCM Review
of Such Books and Records as Necessary--Sec. 40.22
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
Q. Self-Trade Prevention Tools--Sec. 40.23
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Commission Analysis of Amount of Self-Trading in the
Marketplace
3. Description of Regulation
4. Policy Discussion
5. Request for Comments
R. DCM Market Maker and Trading Incentive Programs--Sec. Sec.
40.25-40.28
1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulations
3. Request for Comments
V. Related Matters
A. Calculation of Number of Persons Subject to Regulations
1. Request for Comments
B. Calculation of Hourly Wage Rates Used in Related Matters
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. FCMs and DCMs
2. AT Persons
3. Request for Comments
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Information Provided by Reporting Entities/Persons
a. Sec. 1.3(x)(3)--Submissions by newly registered floor
traders
b. Sec. 1.83(a)--Compliance reports submitted by AT Persons to
DCMs
c. Sec. 1.83(b)--Compliance reports submitted by clearing
member FCMs to DCMs
d. Sec. 1.83(c)--AT Person retention and production of books
and records
e. Sec. 1.83(d)--Clearing member FCM retention and production
of books and records
f. Sec. 38.401(a) and (c)--Public dissemination of information
by DCMs pertaining to electronic matching platforms
g. Sec. 40.23--Information publicly disseminated by DCMs
regarding self-trade prevention
h. Sec. 40.25--Information in public rule filings provided by
DCMs regarding Market Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
i. Sec. 40.26--Information provided by DCMs to the Division of
Market Oversight upon request regarding Market Maker and Trading
Incentive Programs
2. Information Collection Comments
E. Cost Benefit Considerations
1. The Statutory Requirement for the Commission to Consider the
Costs and Benefits of its Actions
2. Concept Release Comments Regarding Costs and Benefits
3. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation
AT--Baseline Point
4. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation
AT--Cross-Border Effects
5. General Request for Comment
6. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation
AT--Proposed Definitions
7. Pre-Trade Risk Controls, Testing and Supervision of Automated
Systems, Requirement to Submit Compliance Reports, and Other Related
Algorithmic Trading Requirements
8. Requirements for Certain Entities to Register as Floor
Traders
9. Transparency in Exchange Trade Matching Systems
10. Self-Trade Prevention
11. Market-Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
VI. Aggregate Estimated Cost of Regulation AT
VII. List of All Questions in the NPRM
I. Introduction
A. Overview--Development of Automated Trading Environment
U.S. derivatives markets have historically relied on manual
processes for the origination of orders, transmission of information,
and execution of trades. Trading decisions were typically initiated by
natural persons, and transmitted through intermediaries via
comparatively simple communications networks. Execution occurred in
open-outcry trading pits operated by DCMs. Access to these pits was
limited to brokers and traders granted trading privileges by the
exchange. A range of other processing and risk management services were
equally reliant on manual processes, and the complete trading system
could move only as fast as its human decision-makers. Trading
information was often recorded on paper order tickets and trading
cards, and time-stamps were recorded only to the nearest minute. The
physical element of trading was reflected in exchange or Commission
rules governing diverse matters such as the types of trading permitted
from the top step of a futures pit,\2\ as well as requirements that
certain orders for execution in a trading pit be recorded in ``non-
erasable ink.'' This basic structure remained constant for decades, and
produced a parallel regulatory framework also premised on natural
persons and human decision-making speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, press reports surrounding the initiation of
CME's ``top step'' rule in the S&P 500 stock-index pit in 1987
indicated that brokers preferred the top step to ``get a panoramic
view of the trading activity and quickly grab customer order sheets
being relayed by nearby clerks.'' They described a trading pit where
``[s]ome 400 traders are jammed shoulder-to-shoulder in the
amphitheater-like pit, which accounts for three-fourths of the
nation's stock-index futures trading.'' See Jouzaitis, Carol, ``Merc
Launches `Top-step' Reform,'' Chicago Tribune (June 22, 1987)
available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-06-22/business/8702160155_1_dual-trading-stock-index-futures-market-chicago-mercantile-exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, derivatives markets have transitioned from the manual
processes described above to highly automated trading and trade
matching systems. Modern DCMs and DCM market participants, in
particular, are characterized by a wide array of algorithmic and
electronic systems for the generation, transmission, management, and
execution of orders, as well as systems used to confirm transactions,
communicate market data, and link markets and market participants
through high-speed networks. Collectively, such DCM and market
participant trading systems constitute the ``automated trading
[[Page 78826]]
environment'' at the center of Regulation AT. Automated trading
environments often make use of automated systems for either the
generation or the execution of orders (in many cases, both). Such
automated systems are based on sets of rules or instructions (commonly
referred to as algorithms) and related computer systems used to
automate the execution of a trading strategy.\3\ In futures markets,
orders generated by automated trading systems are ultimately
transmitted to DCMs that accept, manage and match orders by automated
means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See IOSCO Report on Regulatory Issues Raised by
Technological Changes, infra note 103 at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While technologies have evolved, the underlying functions of
derivatives markets remain the same, as do the Commission's
responsibilities under the Commodity Exchange Act (the ``CEA'' or
``Act''). Such markets, typically operated by DCMs, provide valuable
risk mitigation and price discovery services for numerous financial and
physical commodities businesses, including producers and consumers of
energy, foodstuff, metals, and other raw materials, as well as natural
person investors. The Commission is committed to the safety and
integrity of U.S. markets as they continue their rapid technological
change. Through proposed Regulation AT, the Commission is taking its
next steps in ensuring that its regulatory standards and industry
practices properly address current and foreseeable risks arising from
automated trading, and promote responsible innovation and fair
competition among markets and market participants.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See CEA Section 3, ``Findings and Purposes,'' noting in
Section 3(a) that transactions subject to the CEA are ``affected
with a national public interest'' and in Section 3(b) that ``[t]o
foster these public interests, it is further the purpose of this Act
to deter . . . any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure
the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Act and
the avoidance of systemic risk; . . . and to promote responsible
innovation and fair competition among boards of trade . . . and
market participants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within U.S. derivatives markets, DCMs represent a significant
catalyst in the transition to automated trading. From its beginnings
with CME Globex in 1992, DCM on-exchange trading now occurs almost
exclusively on electronic matching platforms, using internal algorithms
to rapidly match incoming orders from an array of market
participants.\5\ Data available to Commission staff indicates that in
an approximately two-year period through October 2014, over 95 percent
of all on-exchange futures trading occurred on DCMs' electronic trade
matching platforms.\6\ In this regard, the Commission notes that CME
Group, the largest U.S. exchange operator, announced in February 2015
its intention to close all but one of its open-outcry trading floors
for futures.\7\ IntercontinentalExchange, the second largest DCM
operator, ended all futures open-outcry trading in March 2008, and
ended all options open-outcry trading in October 2012. On-exchange
trading on DCMs other than the CME Group exchanges and
IntercontinentalExchange now occurs exclusively on electronic matching
platforms. Concurrent with their transition to electronic trade
matching platforms, DCMs have taken steps to increase the speed of
trading in their markets. These include offering co-location and
proximity hosting services to reduce latencies between the DCM and
market participants, as well as measures taken by DCMs to reduce
processing times within their electronic trade matching platform. The
two largest DCMs, for example, have for several years indicated in
their public materials average or median order entry round trip times
of less than one millisecond.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Trading on CME Globex was initially limited to ``after-
hours'' periods when the Exchange's open-outcry pits were closed.
The first products offered on Globex in 1992 included German mark
and Japanese yen futures and options on futures contracts, followed
by other FX and currency products. In 1997, CME launched the E-mini
S&P 500 futures contract, the first CME product available
exclusively on Globex, including during regular (open-outcry)
trading hours in other CME products. Globex monthly volume exceeded
100,000 contracts for the first time in 1997. In 1999, CME for the
first time began offering ``side-by-side'' trading, allowing its
Eurodollar contract to be traded both on Globex and in open-outcry
during regular trading hours. Side-by-side trading was expanded in
the ensuing years, including for example to FX products in 2001.
Globex average daily volume exceeded 1,000,000 contracts for the
first time in 2002. By 2004, Globex trading volume began exceeding
open-outcry volume for the first time. Through agreements or
mergers, CME began listing NYMEX products (2006) and CBOT products
(2007) on Globex as well. See Aldinger, Lori, and Labuszewski, John
W., ``ELECTRONIC TRADING Twenty Years of CME Globex'' (2012),
available at http://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/globex-retrospective-2012-06-12.pdf.
\6\ Haynes, Richard & Roberts, John S., ``Automated Trading in
Futures Markets,'' CFTC Office of Chief Economist (Mar. 13, 2015),
available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@economicanalysis/documents/file/oce_automatedtrading.pdf.
\7\ See CME Press Release, ``CME Group to Close Most Open Outcry
Futures Trading in Chicago and New York by July; Most Options
Markets to Remain Open,'' (Feb. 4, 2014) available at http://cmegroup.mediaroom.com/2015-02-04-CME-Group-to-Close-Most-Open-Outcry-Futures-Trading-in-Chicago-and-New-York-by-July-Most-Options-Markets-to-Remain-Open?pagetemplate=article.
\8\ See CME Group, ``The World's Leading Electronic Platform:
CME Globex,'' (2014) at 3, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/globexbrochure.pdf; IntercontinentalExchange, 2010
Annual Report, (2011) at 26, available at http://ir.theice.com/~/
media/Files/I/Ice-IR/annual-reports/2010/ice-2010ar.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largely complete transition of DCMs to electronic trade
matching platforms has occurred alongside an equally important shift in
the technologies used by market participants to place and manage
orders. Market participants have applied a range of sophisticated
technological tools to their trading. For example, market participants
are increasingly using ATSs, often coupled with high-speed
communication networks. Market participants are also increasingly
relying on electronic market and other data feeds to inform trading
decisions, and on multiple computer algorithms to generate, manage, or
route orders to DCMs. Market participants may also make use of direct
electronic access and/or co-location services to minimize latencies
between an ATS, market data systems, and a DCM's electronic trading
matching platform.
Data available to the Commission highlights the importance of ATS
trading on DCMs today. The Commission's analysis of data covering the
same approximately two-year period addressed above (through October
2014) indicates that ATSs were present on at least one side in almost
80 percent of foreign exchange futures volume, 67 percent of interest
rate futures volume, and 62 percent of equity futures volume analyzed.
They were also present on at least one side in approximately 47 percent
of metals and energy product volumes. Even in agricultural products, a
category not typically associated with automation in recent years, ATSs
were present in at least 38 percent of futures volume analyzed.
Finally, in the aggregate, ATSs were present in over 60 percent of all
futures volume traded across all products in the nearly two-year period
that the Commission examined. In highly liquid product categories, ATSs
represented both sides of the transaction over 50 percent of the
time.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Haynes & Roberts, supra note 6 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market participants using ATSs may transact on DCMs through
registered intermediaries, including their clearing members. Such
intermediaries themselves often rely on extensive automation, using
ATSs for functions ranging from simple order routing to the generation
of independent trading decisions. These registered intermediaries
include FCMs, commodity pool operators (``CPOs''), commodity trading
advisors (``CTAs''), introducing brokers (``IBs''), and floor brokers
(``FBs''). In addition, Commission-registered SDs and MSPs
[[Page 78827]]
may use ATSs to conduct trading on DCMs. As discussed in more detail
below, each of these categories of Commission registrants may be
subject to Regulation AT in the event that they conduct algorithmic
trading on a DCM.
B. Risks and Potential Benefits Associated With Automated Trading
Regulation AT proposes a series of pre-trade risk controls and
other measures intended to address the risks related to automated
trading on DCMs. The proposed rules primarily address operational risk
issues, as well as related issues such as self-trading and market maker
and trading incentive programs.
The potential risks of automated trading were recently described in
a report discussing the events of October 15, 2014, when the market for
U.S. Treasury securities, futures, and other closely related financial
markets experienced an unusually high level of volatility and a very
rapid round-trip in prices. On July 13, 2015, five regulatory agencies
issued a joint staff report on the unusual market events of October 15,
2014 (the ``October 15 Joint Staff Report'').\10\ In addition to
discussing the events of October 15, the report includes an Appendix C
that summarizes many of the risks of automated trading. These risks
include the following: Operational risks (ranging from malfunctioning
and incorrectly deployed algorithms to algorithms reacting to
inaccurate or unexpected data); market liquidity risks (arising from
abrupt changes in trading strategies even when a firm executes its
strategy perfectly); market integrity risks (automated trading can
provide new tools to engage in unlawful conduct); transmission risks
(shocks based on erroneous orders impacting multiple markets); clearing
and settlement risks (as more firms gain access to trading platforms,
trades may not be subject to sufficient settlement risk mitigation
techniques); and risks to effective risk management (the speed of trade
execution may make critical risk mitigation devices less effective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Joint Staff Report: The U.S. Treasury Market on October
15, 2014 (July 13, 2015) [hereinafter ``October 15 Joint Staff
Report''], prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bank of New
York, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, available at http://cftc.wss/OCE/conceptrelease/documentlibrary/Regulation%20AT/Reg%20AT%20--%20DRAFT%20PREAMBLE/October%2015%20report/treasury-market-volatility-10-14-2014-joint-report.pdf. The report discusses the
preliminary findings regarding the conditions that may have
contributed to the October 15 volatility, particularly in the
``event window'' that began at 9:33 a.m. ET. Among other potential
causes of this volatility, the October 15 Joint Staff Report states
that several large transactions occurred between the release of
certain U.S. retail sales data and the start of the event window;
that there was a significant reduction in market depth following the
retail sales data release, which appears to have resulted from a
high volume of transactions and bank-dealers and principal trading
firms changing their participation in the cash and futures order
books; that latency associated with a significant increase in
message traffic due to order cancellations increased just before the
event window; and there was a higher incidence of ``self-trading''
during the event window. Id. at 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the risks described above, several commentators
have argued that algorithmic trading results in a more efficient
marketplace. A recent study of the equities market concluded that
algorithmic trading narrows spreads, reduces adverse selection, and
reduces trade-related price discovery.\11\ The study also suggested
that algorithmic trading improves liquidity and enhances the
information provided in quotes. Another recent study of low latency
activity in the equities market (typically associated with high
frequency trading) concluded that ``an increase in low-latency activity
reduces quoted spreads and the total price impact of trades, increases
depth in the limit order book, and lowers short-term volatility.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Hendershott, Jones and Menkveld, ``Does
Algorithmic Trading Improve Liquidity?,'' The Journal of Finance,
Vol. LXVI, No. 1 (Feb. 2011), available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hender/algo.pdf.
\12\ See Hasbrouck and Saar, ``Low-latency trading,'' Journal of
Financial Markets 16 (2013) at 646-679, available at http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/Research/LowLatencyTradingJFM.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Proposed Regulations
1. Overview of NPRM
The Commission is pursuing a number of goals in proposed Regulation
AT. As an overarching goal, the Commission seeks to update Commission
rules in response to the evolution from pit trading to electronic
trading. The risk controls and other rules proposed in this NPRM are
focused on algorithmic order origination or routing by market
participants, and electronic order execution by DCMs. In addition to
mitigating risks arising from algorithmic trading activity, the
proposed rules are intended to increase transparency around DCM
electronic trade matching platforms and the use of self-trade
prevention tools on DCMs.\13\ Furthermore, the proposed rules are
intended to foster transparency with respect to DCM programs and
activities, including market maker and trading incentive programs, that
have become more prominent as automated trading becomes the dominant
market model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of the term
``self-trade'' and proposed regulations with respect to self-trade
prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that Regulation AT generally does not address
trading activity on swap execution facilities (``SEFs''). The
Commission believes that neither execution nor order entry on SEF
markets are sufficiently automated at this time to require the degree
of automated safeguards proposed herein.\14\ In addition, Regulation AT
is not proposing a number of measures discussed in the Concept Release,
such as the following: Proposals to implement various post-trade
reports (post-order drop copies, post-trade drop copies, and post-
clearing drop copies), ``reasonability checks'' on incoming market data
used by firms operating automated systems, policies and procedures for
identifying ``related'' contracts, and proposals to standardize and
simplify order types, each of which was discussed in the Concept
Release.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The requirements on DCMs arising out of Regulation AT may
ultimately be imposed on SEFs. However, an important consideration
for the Commission is that SEFs and SEF markets are much newer and
less liquid than the more established and liquid DCMs and DCM
markets. While SEFs and SEF markets are still in this nascent stage,
the Commission does not want to impose additional requirements that
may have the effect of decreasing the number of SEFs or decreasing
liquidity. For these reasons, and in light of the lesser degree of
automation in SEF markets, the policy considerations underlying
Regulation AT are not as critical, at least at this time, in the SEF
context.
\15\ See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56569-73 for a summary of
measures discussed in the Concept Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market participants using automated trading include an important
population of proprietary traders that, while responsible for
significant trading volumes and liquidity in key futures products, are
not registered with the Commission. These unregistered proprietary
traders include a number of traders engaged in high-frequency trading
(``HFT''). The Commission notes, however, that the risk control
requirements under proposed Regulation AT do not vary in response to a
market participant's algorithmic trading strategies; the same risk
controls would be required in connection with high-frequency and low-
frequency algorithmic trading. In particular, HFT is not specifically
identified under the proposed regulations, and is not regulated in a
different fashion from other types of algorithmic trading under
proposed Regulation AT. Instead, the proposed regulations focus on
automation of order origination, transmission and execution, and the
risks that may arise from such activity. As discussed above, nearly
universal electronic order matching at DCMs is
[[Page 78828]]
increasingly complemented by algorithmic order origination among market
participants. Against this backdrop, the Commission believes that
appropriate pre-trade and other risk controls are necessary at the
level of market participants, clearing FCMs, and DCMs, in order to
ensure the integrity of Commission-regulated markets and provide market
participants with greater confidence that intentional, bona fide
transactions are being executed.
Principal elements of Regulation AT for market participants and
clearing FCMs include: (i) Codification of defined terms used
throughout Regulation AT; (ii) registration of certain entities not
otherwise registered with the Commission; (iii) new algorithmic trading
procedures for trading firms and clearing firms, including pre-trade
and other risk controls; (iv) testing, monitoring, and supervision
requirements for ATSs; and (v) requirements that certain persons submit
compliance reports to DCMs regarding their ATSs. Principal elements for
DCMs include: (i) New risk controls for Direct Electronic Access
(``DEA'') provided by DCMs; (ii) transparency in DCM electronic trade
matching platforms; and (iii) new risk control procedures, including
pre-trade risk controls, compliance report review standards, self-trade
prevention tool requirements, and market-maker and trading incentive
program disclosure and related requirements.
As mentioned above, Regulation AT is not intended to discriminate
across registration categories, connectivity methods, or even ``high-
frequency'' or slower trading strategies. Rather, Regulation AT is
focused on reducing risk, increasing transparency and disclosure, and
related DCM procedures.\16\ In developing Regulation AT, the Commission
built on the Concept Release and relevant comments received, which are
discussed further in section II(B) below. However, interested parties
will observe that the Commission has chosen not to pursue certain
measures discussed in the Concept Release (as discussed above), while
also proposing a small number of new measures not addressed in the
Concept Release. In addition, Regulation AT in certain cases seeks only
to clarify the scope of existing Commission regulations that may be
impacted by the growth of automated trading environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., the compliance reports required to be submitted
by AT Persons and clearing member firms of AT Persons under Sec.
1.83, the statistics required to be reported by DCMs regarding self-
trading that they have both authorized and prevented on their
platforms under Sec. 40.23, and the disclosure required of DCMs
with respect to market maker and trading incentive programs under
Sec. 40.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing this NPRM, the Commission has reviewed relevant
industry practices, measures taken by other U.S. and foreign
regulators, and best practices or guidance set forth by other informed
parties. In these sources and comments received in response to the
Concept Release, the Commission has identified an emerging consensus
around pre-trade risk controls for automated trading and supervision
standards for ATSs. The Commission also notes comments received in
response to the Concept Release that are supportive of risk controls
placed in multiple stages across the life-cycle of order generation,
transmission, management and execution (i.e., similar risk controls
placed at the levels of market participants, clearing member FCMs, and
DCMs). Proposed Regulation AT attempts to balance flexibility in a
rapidly changing technological landscape with the need for a regulatory
baseline that provides a robust and sufficiently clear standard for
pre-trade risk controls, supervision standards, and other safeguards
for automated trading environments. The specific regulations and
amendments proposed by Regulation AT are discussed in greater detail
below.
2. The Proposed Regulations Under Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
Regulation AT proposes new regulations or amendments to existing
regulations in parts 1, 38, 40, and 170 of the Commission's
regulations. It proposes to amend part 1 by inserting the following
defined terms: Sec. 1.3(tttt)--Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue;
Sec. 1.3(uuuu)--Algorithmic Trading Disruption; Sec. 1.3(vvvv)--
Algorithmic Trading Event; Sec. 1.3(wwww)--AT Order Message; Sec.
1.3(xxxx)--AT Person; Sec. 1.3(yyyy)--Direct Electronic Access; and
Sec. 1.3(zzzz)--Algorithmic Trading. Regulation AT also proposes to
amend existing Sec. 1.3(x), which defines Floor Trader.
In addition, Regulation AT would create a new subpart A in part 1
that includes the following new regulations applicable to AT Persons
and their clearing FCMs: Sec. 1.80--requiring AT Persons to implement
pre-trade risk controls and other related measures; Sec. 1.81--
requiring AT Persons to implement standards for the development,
testing, monitoring, and compliance of their ATSs; Sec. 1.82--
requiring clearing member FCMs to implement pre-trade risk controls and
other related measures for orders from their AT Person customers; and
Sec. 1.83--requiring AT Persons and their clearing member FCMs to
provide to DCMs annual compliance reports, and to keep and provide upon
request to DCMs certain related books and records.
Regulation AT also proposes to amend part 38 of the Commission's
regulations. Specifically, it would amend existing Sec. 38.255--Risk
controls for trading, to require DCMs to have in place systems
reasonably designed to facilitate the FCM's management of the risks
that may arise from their customers' Algorithmic Trading using Direct
Electronic Access. Regulation AT would also make corresponding changes
to the discussion of risk controls in Appendix B--Guidance on, and
Acceptable Practices in, Compliance with Core Principles (Subsection
(b)(5)--Acceptable Practices for Risk controls for trading). Finally in
part 38, Regulation AT would amend existing Sec. 38.401(a) to require
DCMs to provide additional public disclosure regarding their electronic
matching platforms.
Regulation AT would also amend part 40 of the Commission's
regulations. It would create the following new regulations: Sec.
40.20--requiring DCMs to implement pre-trade risk controls and other
related measures; Sec. 40.21--requiring DCMs to provide a test
environment to AT Persons; Sec. 40.22--requiring DCMs to implement a
review program for compliance reports regarding Algorithmic Trading
submitted by AT Persons and clearing member FCMs, require that certain
books and records be maintained by such persons, and review such books
and records as necessary; Sec. 40.23--requiring DCMs to implement
self-trade prevention tools, mandate their use, and publish statistics
concerning self-trading; and Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28--requiring DCMs to
provide disclosure and implement other controls regarding their market
maker and trading incentive programs. Finally, Regulation AT would make
changes to the definition of Rule in Sec. 40.1(i) in response to
certain of the changes proposed above.
Finally, Regulation AT proposes to amend part 170 of the
Commission's regulations. It would require in new Sec. 170.18 that all
AT Persons become members of at least one registered futures
association (``RFA''). Regulation AT would create a new subpart D in
part 170, and require in proposed Sec. 170.19 that RFAs adopt
membership rules, as deemed appropriate by the RFA, requiring pre-trade
risk controls and other measures for ATSs; standards for the
development, testing, monitoring, and compliance of ATSs; designation
and training of algorithmic
[[Page 78829]]
trading staff; and clearing FCM risk management standards.
II. Background on Regulatory Responses to Automated Trading
A. The Commission's Regulatory Response to Date
The Commission has responded to the development of automated
trading environments through a number of regulatory measures that
address risk controls within both new and existing categories of
registrants, including DCMs, SEFs, FCMs, SDs, MSPs and others.\17\
While focused to a degree on financial and related risks, these
provisions reflect the Commission's ongoing commitment to maintaining
the safety and soundness of automated trading in modern derivatives
markets. The Commission has adopted regulations with respect to DCMs
and SEFs that require exchanges to establish risk control mechanisms to
prevent market disruptions, including mechanisms that pause or halt
trading.\18\ The guidance and acceptable practices to the SEF and DCM
rules in part 37 and 38, respectively, provide examples of acceptable
risk controls.\19\ In addition, in the DCM final rules, the Commission
adopted new risk control requirements for exchanges that provide DEA to
clients. Regulation 38.607 requires DCMs that permit DEA to have
effective systems and controls reasonably designed to facilitate an
FCM's management of financial risk.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These measures are discussed in more detail in the Concept
Release. See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56548.
\18\ See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated
Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36703 (June 19, 2012) [hereinafter
``DCM Final Rules'']; Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Swap Execution Facilities, 78 FR 33476, 33590 (June 4, 2013)
[hereinafter ``SEF Final Rules''].
\19\ See DCM Final Rules, 77 FR at 36718; SEF Final Rules, 78 FR
at 33601.
\20\ See 17 CFR 38.607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also adopted relevant regulations for FCMs, SDs, and
MSPs. Such firms that are clearing members must establish risk-based
limits based on position size, order size, margin requirements, or
similar factors for all proprietary accounts and customer accounts.\21\
The regulations, codified in Sec. Sec. 1.73 and 23.609, also require
these entities to ``use automated means to screen orders for compliance
with the [risk] limits'' when such orders are subject to automated
execution.\22\ In addition, Sec. 1.11 requires FCMs to have
``automated financial risk management controls reasonably designed to
prevent the placing of erroneous orders'' and ``policies and procedures
governing the use, supervision, maintenance, testing, and inspection''
of automated trading programs.\23\ The Commission also adopted
regulations requiring SDs and MSPs that are clearing members to ensure
that their ``use of trading programs is subject to policies and
procedures governing the use, supervision, maintenance, testing, and
inspection of the program.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 CFR 1.73(a)(1) and 23.609(a)(1).
\22\ 17 CFR 1.73(a)(2)(i) and 23.609(a)(2)(i).
\23\ 17 CFR 1.11(e)(3)(ii). The Commission notes that the
requirements of Sec. 1.11(e)(3)(ii) fall within an FCM's broader
obligation in Sec. 1.11 to establish and maintain a formal ``Risk
Management Program.'' Such program must include a risk management
unit independent of the business unit; quarterly risk exposure
reports to senior management and the governing body of the FCM, with
copies to the Commission; and other substantive requirements.
Proposed Regulation AT would not require FCMs to subsume applicable
requirements into their Sec. 1.11 Risk Management Programs.
However, the Commission is seeking public comment in the questions
below regarding whether, in any final rules arising from this NPRM,
FCMs should in fact be required to incorporate elements of
Regulation AT proposed in Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and
1.83(c) into their Sec. 1.11 Risk Management Programs. Such
incorporation could help improve the interaction between an FCM's
operational risk efforts pursuant to Sec. 1.11(e)(3)(ii) and its
pre-trade risk controls and development, monitoring, and compliance
efforts pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c). It
could also help ensure that an FCM's Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a),
and 1.83(c) processes benefit from the same internal rigor and
independence required by Sec. 1.11.
\24\ 17 CFR 23.600(d)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission adopted final rules implementing new
authority under the CEA to, among other things, broadly prohibit
manipulative and deceptive devices and price manipulation.\25\ The
Commission also provided guidance on the scope and application of CEA
Section 4c(a)(5), which makes it unlawful for any person to engage in
any trading, practice, or conduct on or subject to the rules of a
registered entity that violates bids or offers, demonstrates
intentional or reckless disregard for the orderly execution of
transactions during the closing period, or is, is of the character of,
or is commonly known to the trade as, ``spoofing.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 17 CFR 180.1 and 180.2.
\26\ See Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 78 FR 31890 (May
28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Commission's 2013 Concept Release
Overview of Concept Release. As noted above, in 2013 the Commission
issued a ``Concept Release on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for
Automated Trading Environments,'' which provided an overview of the
automated trading environment and discussed a series of pre-trade risk
controls, post-trade reports and other measures, system safeguards, and
additional protections that could be implemented by Commission
registrants or other market participants. The Concept Release reflects
the Commission's ongoing commitment to the safety and soundness of U.S.
derivatives markets in times of technological change, including the
growth of automated trading.
The Concept Release was published in the Federal Register on
September 12, 2013.\27\ The initial 90-day comment period closed on
December 11, 2013, but was reopened from January 21 through February
14, 2014, in conjunction with a meeting of the CFTC's Technology
Advisory Committee (``TAC''). The Concept Release requested public
comment on 124 separate questions regarding the necessity and operation
of potential pre-trade risk controls, post-trade reports and other
measures, system safeguards and additional protections (such as
proposals to identify ``related'' contracts on trading platforms, and
proposals to standardize and simplify order types). The Concept Release
served as a vehicle to catalogue existing industry practices, determine
their efficacy and implementation to date, and evaluate the need for
additional measures. The Concept Release was not a proposed rule, but
rather a prior step designed to facilitate a public dialogue and
educate the Commission so that it may make an informed determination as
to whether rulemaking is necessary and, if so, the substantive
requirements of such a rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topics Discussed in Concept Release. The Concept Release
highlighted data on the increased importance of electronic and
algorithmic trading across a number of U.S. markets (including
equities, futures and fixed income markets). The Concept Release also
noted that the infrastructure of automated trading environments has
progressively decreased the time necessary to process orders and
execute trades, reducing the communication times between market
participants and trading venues.\28\ One exchange group now indicates
that its ``median inbound latency for order entry'' on its trading
platform is fifty-two (52) microseconds within its ``four walls.'' \29\
As discussed in the Concept Release, advances in trading speeds are
partly due to the development of dedicated fiber-optic and microwave
communications networks that have dramatically reduced transmission
times across large
[[Page 78830]]
distances.\30\ On a smaller scale, co-location and proximity hosting
are two common methods for reducing the distance, and thus latency,
between market participants and the exchanges. Co-location services are
now provided by most large electronic trading platforms within the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See id. at 56546-47.
\29\ See CME Group, ``The World's Leading Electronic Platform.
CME Globex,'' (2014) at 3, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/globexbrochure.pdf.
\30\ See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important latency-reducing advance in connectivity
discussed in the Concept Release is Direct Market Access (``DMA''). For
purposes of the Concept Release, the Commission defined DMA as a
connection method that enables a market participant to transmit orders
to a trading platform without reentry or prior review by systems
belonging to the market participant's clearing firm.\31\ DMA can be
provided directly by an exchange or through the infrastructure of a
third-party provider, but in all cases, DMA implies that an order is
not routed through a clearing firm prior to reaching the trading
platform.\32\ For purposes of Regulation AT, as discussed in section
IV(D)(7) below, the Commission proposes to define a slightly modified
term: ``Direct Electronic Access'' (``DEA''), as opposed to Direct
Market Access. Despite the slightly modified name, the Commission
intends that the term ``Direct Electronic Access'' has a meaning
similar to ``Direct Market Access,'' as such term was used in the
Concept Release.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See id.
\32\ See id.
\33\ The Commission notes that the term ``direct electronic
access'' is also used in existing Commission regulation 38.607.
Regulation AT does not modify Sec. 38.607, and the term ``direct
electronic access'' in Sec. 38.607 will continue to have the
meaning specified in that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concept Release discussed a set of risk controls that would be
intended to operate at the same rapid speed at which trading occurs in
the automated trading environment. As the industry reduces latency
through improvements in technologies for the generation, transmission
and execution of orders or management of other data, there is concern
that the drive for ever lower latencies may lead to a competitive race
toward progressively less stringent risk controls.\34\ A separate, but
related, concern is that market participants may simply engage in
trading at speeds beyond the abilities of their risk management
systems, or those tasked with monitoring their activity. Risk
management systems operating at these misaligned speeds could allow an
active algorithm to breach its prescribed risk controls and disrupt one
or more markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ As noted by the Futures Industry Association's Market
Access Working Group, for example: ``[p]re-trade risk controls have
become a point of negotiation between trading firms and clearing
members because they can add latency to a trade.'' See FIA Market
Access Risk Management Recommendations, infra note 97 at 8.
Similarly, the TAC's Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee noted that
latency is a key area where trading firms and brokers are competing
to gain an advantage. See TAC Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee,
``Recommendations on Pre-Trade Practices for Trading Firms, Clearing
Firms, and Exchanges Involved in Direct Market Access'' (Mar. 1,
2011) at 2 [hereinafter ``CFTC TAC Recommendations''], available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@swaps/documents/dfsubmission/tacpresentation030111_ptfs2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the potential for disruptive trading events related to
such high-speed algorithmic trading, the Concept Release addressed 23
potential risk controls and other measures broadly grouped into four
categories. The first includes ``pre-trade risk controls,'' such as
controls designed to prevent potential errors or disruptions from
reaching trading platforms, or to minimize their impact once they have.
A second category of safeguards includes ``post-trade reports'' and
``other post-trade measures.'' Examples in this category include
reports that promote the flow of order, trade and position information;
uniform trade adjustment or cancellation policies; and standardized
error trade reporting obligations. The third category of risk controls
discussed in the Concept Release is termed ``system safeguards,''
including safeguards for the design, testing and supervision of ATSs,
as well as measures such as ``kill switches'' that facilitate emergency
intervention in the case of malfunctioning ATSs.\35\ Finally, the
Concept Release presented a fourth category of measures focusing on
various options for improving market functioning or structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ As explained in section IV(A) below, the Concept Release
used the term ``ATS'' or ``automated trading system'' to refer to
the algorithms used to automate the generation and execution of a
trading strategy. For purposes of this NPRM, the Commission has
determined to use the term ``Algorithmic Trading'' or ``algorithmic
trading system'' (abbreviated as ATS), as opposed to the term
``automated trading system.'' For purposes of discussing comments to
the Concept Release, the Commission may use the terms ATS and
automated trading system as such terms were used in the Concept
Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received on Concept Release and Commission Response. The
Commission received a total of 43 public comments on the Concept
Release, including comments from DCMs, an array of trading firms, trade
associations, public interest groups, members of academia, and
consulting, technology and information service providers in the
financial industry. All comments are available on www.cftc.gov. Many of
the comments received are detailed and thorough, and the Futures
Industry Association (``FIA'') conducted surveys to gauge existing
risk-management practices. Other commenters provided academic papers in
support of their points of view.
Staff reviewed all comments received and made recommendations to
the Commission. This NPRM reflects the Commission's decision to propose
regulations in certain areas addressed by the Concept Release,
including: Registration of certain entities not otherwise registered
with the Commission; enhanced identification of orders placed on
exchanges; pre-trade risk controls at exchanges, trading firms and
clearing firms; standards for development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic systems; trading firm and clearing member FCM compliance
reports regarding algorithmic trading; and self-trade prevention tools.
Regulation AT also addresses several areas not covered in the Concept
Release, including transparency in exchange trade matching systems and
market-maker protections, and in certain cases seeks to clarify the
scope of existing Commission regulations that may be impacted by the
growth of automated trading environments.
C. Other Recent Regulatory Responses
1. SEC Regulatory Initiatives
The SEC has recently taken regulatory steps related to automated
trading, aimed at preventing instability in the equities markets. Most
significantly, the SEC adopted the Market Access Rule and Regulation
SCI.
The Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c3-5--Risk Management Controls
for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access (the ``Market Access Rule''),
adopted in November 2010, requires brokers and dealers to have risk
controls in place before providing their customers with access to the
market.\36\ Specifically, the Market Access Rule requires risk controls
that prevent entry of (i) orders exceeding appropriate pre-set credit
or capital thresholds in the aggregate for each customer and the
broker-dealer; and (ii) erroneous orders, by rejecting orders that
exceed appropriate price or size parameters, on an order-by-order basis
or over a short period of time, or those that indicate duplicative
orders.\37\
[[Page 78831]]
These risk controls must be under the direct and exclusive control of
the broker-dealer (subject to certain exceptions) and regularly
reviewed for effectiveness.\38\ In October 2013, the SEC brought its
first enforcement action under the Market Access Rule, securing a $12
million settlement with Knight Capital in connection with the firm's
August 2012 trading incident that disrupted the markets.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Market Access Rule, 75 FR 69792 (Nov. 15, 2010); see
also SEC Press Release No. 2010-210, ``SEC Adopts New Rule
Preventing Unfiltered Market Access'' (Nov. 3, 2010), available at
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-210.htm.
\37\ See Market Access Rule, supra note 36 at 69825-26; see also
SEC, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Risk
Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access (Apr.
15, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/faq-15c-5-risk-management-controls-bd.htm.
\38\ See Market Access Rule, supra note 36 at 69826.
\39\ See SEC Press Release No. 2013-222, ``SEC Charges Knight
Capital With Violations of Market Access Rule'' (Oct. 16, 2013),
available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539879795 [hereinafter ``SEC Knight Capital
Release''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2014, the SEC adopted Regulation Systems Compliance
and Integrity (``Reg SCI'').\40\ Reg SCI applies to alternative trading
systems, certain self-regulatory organizations (including registered
clearing agencies), plan processors, and exempt clearing agencies
(collectively, ``SCI entities''). Under Reg SCI, SCI entities are
required to have comprehensive policies and procedures in place for
their technological systems. The SCI entities must, among other things,
take appropriate corrective action when systems issues occur; provide
notifications and reports to the SEC regarding systems problems and
systems changes; inform members and participants about systems issues;
conduct business continuity testing; implement standards that result in
SCI systems being designed, developed, tested, maintained, operated,
and surveilled in a manner that facilitates the successful collection,
processing, and dissemination of market data; and conduct annual
reviews of their automated systems, which must be summarized in a
report that is provided to the SEC.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Reg SCI, 79 FR 72252 (Dec. 5, 2014); see also SEC Press
Release No. 2014-260, ``SEC Adopts Rules to Improve Systems
Compliance and Integrity'' (Nov. 19, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370543496356#.VKQS2qxOlaQ.
\41\ See Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SEC has also taken action in the area of enhancing oversight of
proprietary trading firms. In March 2015, the SEC proposed a rule that
would narrow an exemption that currently exempts certain broker-dealers
from membership in a national securities association.\42\ The exemption
was originally designed to accommodate exchange specialists and other
floor members that might need to conduct limited hedging or other off-
exchange activities ancillary to their business.\43\ Over time,
proprietary trading firms were able to take advantage of this
exemption.\44\ The SEC's proposed rules would amend the exemption to
target those broker-dealers for which it was originally designed, and
require broker-dealers trading in off-exchange venues to become members
of a national securities association. In the securities markets, this
association is the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'').\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See SEC, Press Release No. 2015-48, ``SEC Proposes Rule to
Require Broker-Dealers Active in Off-Exchange Market to Become
Members of National Securities Association'' (Mar. 25, 2015)
[hereinafter ``SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer Registration''],
available at http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-48.html#.VSbd9KwpBaQ; Exemption for Certain Exchange Members, 80 FR
18036, 18042-43 (Apr. 2, 2015) [hereinafter ``SEC Proposed Rule on
Exemption for Certain Exchange Members''].
\43\ See SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer Registration, supra
note 42.
\44\ See id. The SEC estimates that there are approximately 125
firms exempt from association membership, which includes some of the
most active cross-market proprietary trading firms. See SEC Proposed
Rule on Exemption for Certain Exchange Members, 80 FR at 18042.
\45\ See SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer Registration, supra
note 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SEC's Chair explained that the proposed rule ``embodies a
simple but powerful principle of the federal securities laws--the
protection of investors and the stability of our markets require that
trading is overseen by both the Commission and a strong self-regulatory
organization.'' \46\ In its preamble to the proposed rule, the SEC
explained that, in the event that a broker-dealer trades electronically
across a range of exchange and off-exchange venues, an individual
exchange of which the broker-dealer is a member may be unable to
effectively regulate the off-exchange activity of the broker-dealer,
because the exchange may lack the resources or expertise to oversee
such off-exchange activity.\47\ The SEC viewed FINRA, the self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') to which off-exchange trades are
reported, as being in the best position to regulate cross-market
activity by broker-dealers.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See id.
\47\ SEC Proposed Rule on Exemption for Certain Exchange
Members, 80 FR at 18042-43.
\48\ See id. at 18041-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SEC has taken additional regulatory initiatives in this area.
On July 11, 2012, the SEC adopted Rule 613 under Regulation NMS,
requiring SROs to submit a plan to the SEC to create, implement, and
maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT''). This audit trail is
intended to increase the data available to regulators investigating
illegal activities such as insider trading and market manipulation, and
improve the ability to reconstruct broad-based market events in an
accurate and timely manner.\49\ The SROs submitted the plan on
September 30, 2014.\50\ In addition, in response to policy
recommendations resulting from the Flash Crash events of May 6, 2010,
the SEC and the securities industry implemented market-wide circuit
breakers as well as a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism in order to
moderate price volatility in individual securities.\51\ The SEC is also
working to update its regulatory regime to improve firms' risk
management of trading algorithms and to enhance regulatory oversight
over their use.\52\ The SEC is also developing an anti-disruptive
trading rule to address the use of aggressive, potentially
destabilizing trading strategies during vulnerable market periods.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See SEC Press Release No. 2012-134, ``SEC Approves New Rule
Requiring Consolidated Audit Trail to Monitor and Analyze Trading
Activity'' (July 11, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1365171483188#.VKQkAqxOlaQ.
\50\ See SEC, ``Rule 613 (Consolidated Audit Trail),'' available
at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule613-info.htm.
\51\ See Mary Jo White, Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure (June 5, 2014),
available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.VKP_o6xOlaS.
\52\ See id.
\53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while not directly relevant to Commission-regulated
markets, the SEC is working with equities exchanges and FINRA to
minimize latency between different market feeds. Specifically,
exchanges must not transmit data directly to customers any sooner than
they transmit data to a securities information processor (``SIP''), the
system that consolidates market feeds from all platforms and publishes
the public price ticker. In addition, the technology used for
transmitting data to the SIP must be on a par with what is used for
transmitting data to direct feeds.\54\ Finally, the SEC is working to
address concerns associated with the fragmentation of trading venues,
dark trading venues, and broker conflicts.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See id.
\55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FINRA Initiatives
In addition to the SEC, FINRA is developing rules focused on
automated trading and transparency in the equities markets. In March
2015, FINRA published a Request for Comment proposing to require
registration (as a ``Limited Representative--Equity Trader'') persons
that are (1) primarily responsible for the design, development
[[Page 78832]]
or significant modification of an algorithmic strategy; or (2)
responsible for supervising such functions.\56\ FINRA explained that
given today's highly automated environment (according to FINRA, where
firms trade using automated systems that initiate pre-programmed
trading instructions based on specified variables, referred to as
algorithmic trading strategies), it is concerned that persons involved
in preparing or supervising algorithmic trading may lack adequate
knowledge of securities rules and regulations, which could result in
algorithms that do not comply with applicable rules.\57\ Accordingly,
FINRA believes such persons should meet the same minimum competency
standards for knowledge of securities regulations that apply to
individual traders.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See FINRA, Regulatory Notice 15-06, ``Registration of
Associated Persons Who Develop Algorithmic Trading Strategies''
(Mar. 2015), available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_doc_file_ref/Notice_Regulatory_15-06.pdf.
\57\ See id. at 3.
\58\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2015, FINRA published a regulatory notice (15-09)
providing guidance on supervision and control practices for algorithmic
trading strategies in the equities markets.\59\ The notice offered
guidance on practices in five general areas: General risk assessment
and response; software/code development and implementation; software
testing and system validation; trading systems; and compliance. Among
other practices, the notice recommended that firms should consider:
Implementing a development and change management process that tracks
the development of new trading code or material changes to existing
code; implementing a basic summary description of algorithmic trading
strategies that enables supervisory and compliance staff to understand
the intended function of an algorithm; conducting testing to confirm
that core code components operate as intended and do not produce
unintended consequences; implementing controls, monitors, alerts and
reconciliation processes that enable the firm to quickly identify
whether an algorithmic is experiencing unexpected results; and
providing for adequate communication between supervisory and compliance
staff related to the function and control of algorithms such that the
firm meets its regulatory obligations.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See FINRA, Regulatory Notice 15-09, ``Equity Trading
Initiatives: Supervision and Control Practices for Algorithmic
Trading Strategies'' (Mar. 2015) [hereinafter ``FINRA Notice 15-
09''], available at https://www.finra.org/industry/notices/15-09.
\60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. European and Other Regulatory Initiatives
a. ESMA
The European Securities and Markets Authority (``ESMA'') is an
independent EU Authority established in January 2011. ESMA published
guidelines on automated trading in February 2012, which became
effective across the European Union on May 1, 2012.\61\ The ESMA
guidelines addressed the operation of an electronic trading system by a
regulated market or a multilateral trading facility; the use of an
electronic trading system, including a trading algorithm, by an
investment firm for dealing on its own account or for the execution of
orders on behalf of clients; and the provision of direct market access
or sponsored access by an investment firm as part of the service of the
execution of orders on behalf of clients.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See ESMA, ``Systems and controls in an automated trading
environment for trading platforms, investment firms and competent
authorities'' (Feb. 24, 2012) [hereinafter ``ESMA Guidelines''],
available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma_2012_122_en.pdf and accompanying public statement, available at
http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2012-128.pdf.
\62\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other elements, the ESMA guidelines recommended that trading
platforms should have: Arrangements to prevent the excessive flooding
of the order book; arrangements (such as throttling) to prevent
capacity limits on messaging from being breached; and arrangements (for
example, volatility interruptions or automatic rejection of orders
which are outside of certain set volume and price thresholds) to
constrain trading or to halt trading in individual or multiple
financial instruments when necessary.\63\ The ESMA guidelines also
recommended that trading platforms should have procedures in place to
identify potential market abuse in an automated trading environment,
such as ping orders, quote stuffing, momentum ignition, and layering
and spoofing.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See id. at 13.
\64\ See id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the ESMA guidelines recommended that investment firms
should make use of clearly delineated development and testing
methodologies prior to deploying an electronic trading system or a
trading algorithm, and should monitor their electronic trading systems,
including trading algorithms, in real-time.\65\ ESMA also recommended
that investment firms implement price and size parameters, systems that
control messaging traffic to individual trading platforms, financial
risk controls, and controls that block a trader's orders if they are
for a financial instrument that the trader does not have permission to
trade.\66\ As to orders submitted via direct market access and
sponsored access, ESMA recommended, among other things, that such
orders be submitted to the same pre-trade risk controls that it
recommends for investment firms (including, for example, price and size
parameters).\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See id. at 10.
\66\ See id. at 14-15.
\67\ See id. at 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2015, ESMA released a report finding that all 30
participating European Economic Area members have incorporated the
Guidelines into their legal framework, and all except three have
incorporated it into their supervisory framework.\68\ The report went
on to identify challenges to further enhancing compliance including:
Market complexity, IT-knowledge, additional on-site inspections of
markets, testing of trading halts, and setting up ring-defense against
cyber-attacks.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ESMA, Automated Trading Guidelines: ESMA Peer Review Among
National Competent Authorities (Mar. 18, 2015), available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma-2015-592-automated_trading_peer_review_report_publication.final_.pdf.
\69\ See id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, ESMA has performed additional work in the area
of automated trading, such as developing technical standards for the
requirements of MiFID II.
b. MiFID II
The European Commission published a new Directive on markets in
financial instruments (``MiFID II'') on June 12, 2014.\70\ The
Directive contains a definition of both `algorithmic trading' and
`high-frequency algorithmic trading technique,' which is defined as a
specific type of algorithmic trading. Among other requirements, the
Directive requires that an investment firm engaged in algorithmic
trading must have effective systems and risk controls to ensure that
its trading systems are resilient and have sufficient capacity, are
subject to appropriate trading thresholds and limits, and prevent the
sending of erroneous orders or other system activity that may create or
contribute to a disorderly market.\71\ Such a firm must also have
effective business continuity arrangements to deal with any failure of
its trading
[[Page 78833]]
systems and must ensure its systems are fully tested and properly
monitored.\72\ Furthermore, an investment firm that engages in a high-
frequency algorithmic trading technique must store in an approved form
accurate and time sequenced records of all its placed orders, including
cancellations of orders, executed orders and quotations on trading
venues and make them available to the competent authority upon
request.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See European Commission, ``Updated rules for markets in
financial instruments: MiFID 2'' (June 12, 2014) [hereinafter
``MiFID II''], available at http://ec.europa.eu/finance/securities/isd/mifid2/index_en.htm.
\71\ See id. at Article 17(1).
\72\ See id.
\73\ See id. at Article 17(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MiFID II Directive also requires a regulated market to be able
to temporarily halt or constrain trading if there is a significant
price movement in a financial instrument on that market or a related
market during a short period. In exceptional cases, a regulated market
must be able to cancel, vary or correct any transaction.\74\ In
addition, the Directive requires a regulated market to have in place
effective systems, procedures and arrangements, including requiring
members or participants to carry out appropriate testing of algorithms.
A regulated market must also provide environments to facilitate such
testing, to ensure that algorithmic trading systems cannot create or
contribute to disorderly trading conditions on the market. The
Directive requires a regulated market to implement systems to limit the
ratio of unexecuted orders to transactions that may be entered into the
system by a member or participant, to be able to slow down the flow of
orders if there is a risk of its system capacity being reached, and to
limit and enforce the minimum tick size that may be executed on the
market.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See id. at Article 48(5).
\75\ See id. at Article 48(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission requested that ESMA develop technical and
implementing standards for MiFID II. On May 22, 2014, ESMA published a
consultation paper seeking comments on certain topics in connection
with MiFID II, including ``micro-structural issues'' such as testing
and risk control requirements for investment firms engaged in
algorithmic trading and trading venues.\76\ ESMA published another
consultation paper on December 19, 2014, seeking further comments on
technical and implementing standards in connection with the
implementation of MiFID II and summarizing comments received in
response to ESMA's May 2014 paper.\77\ The comment period for the
December 19, 2014 consultation paper closed in March 2015. In late
2014, ESMA released a final report covering technical advice in certain
areas, including the definition of algorithmic trading, HFT, and direct
electronic access.\78\ In July 2015, ESMA released final technical
advice relating to investor protection topics, including procedures for
financial services firms to apply for authorized status, information
required of firms applying to passport into other jurisdictions, and
co-operation between regulatory authorities.\79\ On September 28, 2015,
ESMA released a final report on draft regulatory and implementing
technical standards for MiFID II (``2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards'').\80\ This report provides regulatory standards for
investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading as well as for trading
venues that allow algorithmic trading. Details regarding ESMA's
standards are discussed below as relevant to the Commission's proposed
regulations relating to risk controls and other measures that AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs must implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ ESMA, ``Consultation Paper,'' (May 22, 2014), available at
http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-549_-_consultation_paper_mifid_ii_-_mifir.pdf.
\77\ ESMA, ``Consultation Paper,'' (Dec. 19, 2014) and
accompanying Annexes A and B, available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1570_cp_mifid_ii.pdf.
\78\ ESMA, ``ESMA's Technical Advice to the Commission on MiFID
II and MiFIR,'' (Dec. 19, 2014) [hereinafter ``ESMA Technical Advice
Final Report''], available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1569_final_report_-_esmas_technical_advice_to_the_commission_on_mifid_ii_and_mifir.pdf.
\79\ ESMA, Final Report: MiFID II/MiFIR draft Technical
Standards on authorization, passporting, registration of third
country firms and cooperation between competent authorities, Art.
6(g) (June 29, 2015), available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015-esma-1006_-_mifid_ii_final_report_on_mifid_ip_technical_standards.pdf.
\80\ ESMA, Final Report: Draft Regulatory and Implementing
Technical Standards MiFID II/MiFIR (Sept. 28, 2015) [hereinafter,
the ``ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report''], available
at https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015-esma-1464_-_final_report_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_mifid_ii_and_mifir.pdf; ESMA,
Regulatory technical and implementing standards--Annex 1 (Sept. 28,
2015) [hereinafter, the ``ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report Annex 1''], available at https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015-esma-1464_annex_i_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_mifid_ii_and_mifir.pdf; ESMA, Cost-Benefit
Analysis--Annex II, Draft Regulatory and Implementing Technical
Standards MiFID II/MiFIR (Sept. 28, 2015), [hereinafter, the ``ESMA
September 2015 Cost-Benefit Annex II''], available at https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015-esma-1464_annex_ii_-_cba_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_mifid_ii_and_mifir.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Other European Regulatory Initiatives
In May 2013, Germany enacted the Act on the Prevention of Risks and
Abuse in High-frequency Trading (the ``High-frequency Trading Act'').
\81\ The High-frequency Trading Act requires that firms engaged in
high-frequency trading must be licensed.\82\ In summary, high-frequency
trading is defined to include each of the following four elements: (i)
Trading for one's own account, or by proprietary trading firms; (ii)
trading algorithmically without human intervention; (iii) trading using
low-latency infrastructures; and (iv) trading that generates a high
intraday message rate.\83\ In addition, exchanges must impose, on a
product-by-product basis, an excessive system usage fee and an order-
to-trade ratio limit intended to prevent unnecessary messaging.\84\
Finally, the High-frequency Trading Act requires identification of
algorithmically generated orders and trading algorithms, which is
intended to enhance monitoring of manipulative activity.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See online summaries of High-frequency Trading Act (2013),
available at http://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veranstaltungen/EN/WA11_20130430_hft_workshop_en.html.
\82\ See id.; see also Morgan, Megan, Tabb Forum, ``Decoding the
German HFT Act: A Guide to Regulating Electronic Markets'' (Oct. 17,
2014), available at http://tabbforum.com/opinions/decoding-the-german-hft-act-how-to-regulate-electronic-markets.
\83\ See id.
\84\ See id.
\85\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2015, the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority
(``PRA''), the United Kingdom's prudential supervisor of major trading
firms, announced that it would assess the adequacy of existing risk
measurement and management practices with respect to trading
algorithms, including whether controls around algorithmic trading are
``fit for purpose.'' \86\ The PRA discussed the growth of automated
trading in financial markets, which has included incidents of extreme
volatility. For example, volatility seen in the Swiss Franc exchange
rate on January 15, 2015, following the Swiss central bank's decision
to remove a floor to the exchange rate, may have been exacerbated by
high-frequency trading.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Bailey, Andrew, Bank of England, ``Financial Markets:
Identifying risks and appropriate responses,'' at 9 (May 15, 2015),
available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2015/speech814.pdf.
\87\ See id. at 5-6; Binham, Caroline, ``High-frequency trading
faces tougher Bank of England scrutiny,'' Financial Times (May 15,
2015), available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f7d4e438-fb20-11e4-9aed-00144feab7de.html#axzz3aUzgwb2N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in July 2015, the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct
Authority issued a consultation paper addressing strengthening
accountability in
[[Page 78834]]
banking.\88\ The proposed rule specifically set out to capture
individuals responsible for the deployment of trading algorithms in its
Certification Regime.\89\ Pursuant to the proposal, individuals
responsible for: (1) Approving the deployment of a trading algorithm or
a material part of one; (2) approving the deployment of a material
amendment to a trading algorithm or a material part of one, or the
combination of trading algorithms; and (3) monitoring or deciding
whether or not the use or deployment of a trading algorithm is or
remains compliant with the firm's obligations would be captured and
subject to the Certification Regime.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Financial Conduct Authority (``FCA''), CP15/22
Strengthening accountability in banking: Final rules (including
feedback on CP14/31 and CP15/5) and consultation on extending the
Certification Regime to wholesale market activities, at 46 (July
2015), available at https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/consultation-papers/cp15-22.
\89\ Id.
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. The October 15 Joint Staff Report
As discussed above in section I(B), on July 13, 2015, five
regulatory agencies issued the October 15 Joint Staff Report on the
unusually high level of volatility and rapid round-trip in prices that
occurred on October 15, 2014 in the market for U.S. Treasury
securities, futures and other closely related financial markets.\91\ In
addition to discussing the events of October 15, the report includes an
Appendix C that summarizes many of the risks of automated trading.
These risks include the following: Operational risks (ranging from
malfunctioning and incorrectly deployed algorithms to algorithms
reacting to inaccurate or unexpected data); market liquidity risks
(arising from abrupt changes in trading strategies even when a firm
executes its strategy perfectly); market integrity risks (automated
trading can provide new tools to engage in unlawful conduct);
transmission risks (shocks based on erroneous orders impacting multiple
markets); clearing and settlement risks (as more firms gain access to
trading platforms, trades may not be subject to sufficient settlement
risk mitigation techniques); and risks to effective risk management
(the speed of trade execution may make critical risk mitigation devices
less effective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See October 15 Joint Staff Report, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Industry and Regulatory Best Practices and Recommendations
Widely recognized organizations and governmental entities or
agencies have issued ``best practices'' for automated trading,
including the National Futures Association (``NFA''), the FIA, ESMA,
and the International Organization of Securities Commissions
(``IOSCO''), among others.
1. NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Supervision
NFA, a registered futures association under Section 17 of the Act,
has provided guidance regarding ATSs to industry participants since
2002. Specifically, NFA Interpretive Notice 9046 addresses the
``Supervision of the Use of Automated Order-Routing Systems'' in the
context of NFA's overarching supervision requirements in Compliance
Rule 2-9 (Supervision).\92\ The Commission believes that Compliance
Rule 2-9 and Interpretive Notice 9046 are especially relevant because
of their wide applicability as NFA membership rules, binding on FCMs,
IBs, CPOs, CTAs, and other NFA members. In addition, these provisions
and interpretations have been in place since at least 2006, such that
NFA members--and by extension many AT Persons--will have been subject
to regulatory requirements concerning algorithmic trading for many
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ NFA, ``9046--Compliance Rule 2-9: Supervision of the Use of
Automated Order-Routing Systems,'' (Dec. 12, 2006), available at
https://www.nfa.futures.org/nfamanual/NFAManual.aspx?RuleID=9046&Section=9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Rule 2-9 requires each NFA member to ``diligently
supervise its employees and agents in the conduct of their commodity
futures activities for or on behalf of the Member.'' Interpretive
Notice 9046, first issued in 2002 and revised in 2006, states that
NFA's board of directors ``firmly believes that supervisory standards
do not change with the medium used. How those standards are applied,
however, may be affected by technology.'' To fulfill their supervisory
responsibilities, NFA members ``must adopt and enforce written
procedures to examine the security, capacity, and credit and risk-
management controls provided by the firm's automated order-routing
systems (AORSs).'' Interpretive Notice 9046 applies to systems ``that
are within a Member's control, including AORSs that are provided to the
Member by an application service provider or an independent software
vendor.'' NFA acknowledges that NFA members will not control an AORS
chosen by an NFA customer, such as direct access systems provided by
exchanges. In such circumstances, the NFA member must nevertheless
adopt procedures ``reasonably expected to address the trading,
clearing, and other risks attendant to [their] customer
relationship[s].''
Among other requirements, Interpretive Notice 9046 addresses the
following standards for automated systems:
Pre-Execution Controls (including both credit and ``fat-
finger'' protections): ``An AORS should allow the Member to set limits
for each customer based on commodity, quantity, and type of order or
based on margin requirements. It should allow the Member to impose
limits pre-execution and to automatically block any orders that exceed
those limits.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Interpretive Notice 9046 does not require NFA members to
``impose pre-execution controls on all customers, however. The
Member should review the customer's sophistication, credit-
worthiness, objectives, and trading practices and strategies when
determining whether to impose controls pre-execution or post-
execution and deciding what levels to use when setting limits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Execution Controls: ``For customers subject to post-
execution controls, the Member should have the ability to monitor
trading promptly. The AORS should generate alerts when limits are
exceeded through that system. The system should also allow the Member
to block subsequent orders, either in their entirety or by kind (e.g.,
to block orders that create a new position or increase an existing
position but not orders that liquidate some or all of an existing
position).'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ The Interpretive Notice adds that ``[t]his ability can be
provided by the AORS or through other risk-management systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Access Systems: ``When authorizing [customer] use
of a direct access system that does not allow the Member to monitor
trading promptly, the Member should utilize pre-execution controls, if
available, to set pre-execution limits for each customer, regardless of
the nature of the customer.''
Review: ``Members should use AORSs in conjunction with
their credit-review/risk-management systems and should evaluate the
controls imposed on each customer as part of their regular credit and
risk-control procedures.''
A number of the controls summarized above are in keeping with the
Commission's proposed requirements for AT Persons, including proposed
Sec. 1.80, which requires pre-trade risk controls and other measures
reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event, including
but not limited to maximum order message and execution frequencies per
unit time; order price parameters and maximum order sizes; and certain
order cancellation capabilities. The Commission notes once again its
intent in much of Regulation AT to build on
[[Page 78835]]
existing regulatory requirements and industry practices so that its
proposed regulations facilitate an ongoing transition to effective risk
controls in algorithmic trading. The Commission believes that the
existence of related regulatory standards enforced by NFA since 2002
and updated in 2006 would help minimize any potential disruptions or
burdens that would otherwise be associated with a number of the
Commission's proposed rules for AT Persons. The Commission also
believes that NFA's prior experience in this area will assist in
complying with the requirements of proposed Sec. 170.19, discussed in
detail in section IV(F) below.
2. FIA Reports on Automated Trading
On March 23, 2015, FIA released the ``FIA Guide to the Development
and Operation of Automated Trading Systems'' (the ``FIA Guide''), which
provides recommendations concerning appropriate risk controls at the
trader, broker and exchange levels.\95\ Risk controls recommended by
FIA include maximum order size limits, maximum intraday position
limits, market data reasonability checks, price tolerance limits,
repeated automated execution limits, exchange dynamic price collars,
exchange market pauses, exchange message programs, message throttles,
self-trade prevention tools, kill switches, cancel-on-disconnect
service and exchange-provided order management tools. FIA also
recommended audit trail procedures that identify automated trading
system operators; certain post-trade measures to monitor for potential
credit events or unintended trading; measures related to co-location
services; and disaster recovery and business continuity procedures.
Finally, FIA recommended measures related to automated trading system
development and support, including general principles related to
testing; policies and procedures related to security; systems
monitoring procedures; and documentation procedures. Consistent with
the approach the Commission intends to pursue in Regulation AT, the FIA
Guide states that, ``[c]are should be taken to avoid implementing
overly prescriptive standards or rules that impose a one-size-fits-all
approach to all entities.'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ FIA, ``FIA Guide to the Development and Operation of
Automated Trade Systems'' (Mar. 23, 2015) [hereinafter ``FIA
Guide''], available at https://fia.org/sites/default/files/FIA%20Guide%20to%20the%20Development%20and%20Operation%20of%20Automated%20Trading%20Systems.pdf.
\96\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission encourages industry participants to consider FIA's
recommendations. In the event that the FIA Guide recommends best
practices that are not proposed in Regulation AT, the Commission
encourages industry participants to consider implementing the FIA best
practices if they are appropriate to their business and are reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. FIA's recommendations
may also serve as a useful starting point for an RFA considering
potential measures in response to proposed Sec. 170.19, discussed in
section IV(F) below.
FIA has issued several additional reports related to the
appropriate best practices that should be implemented with respect to
automated trading. In April 2010, FIA issued a report addressing the
risks of direct market access and providing recommendations for risk
controls to be implemented by exchanges and applied across all trading
firms.\97\ In November 2010, FIA's Principal Traders Group (``FIA
PTG'') released a report setting out recommended risk controls for
trading firms that have direct access to exchange matching engines,\98\
as well as a global survey of futures exchanges to determine what
controls were in place to manage the risks in providing trading firms
with direct market access.\99\ In March 2012, FIA PTG and FIA European
Principal Traders Association issued recommendations to assist trading
firms in establishing internal procedures, processes and controls for
the development, testing and deployment of trading software.\100\
Finally, in September 2013, FIA released recommendations for increasing
the usefulness of drop copy systems in exchange-traded markets.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ FIA, ``Market Access Risk Management Recommendations,''
(Apr. 2010), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/Market_Access-6.pdf.
\98\ FIA PTG, ``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading
Firms,'' (Nov. 2010), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/Trading_Best_Pratices.pdf.
\99\ Sutphen, Leslie, ``Exchange Survey Finds Wide Range of Risk
Controls in Place,'' (Jan. 2011), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/RC-survey.pdf.
\100\ FIA PTG & EPTA, ``Software Development and Change
Management Recommendations,'' (Mar. 14, 2012), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/Software_Change_Management.pdf.
\101\ FIA, ``Drop Copy Recommendations,'' (Sept. 2013),
available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/FIA-Drop_Copy(FINAL).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. IOSCO Reports on Electronic Trading
IOSCO is an international body of securities regulators. IOSCO
develops, implements and promotes adherence to internationally
recognized standards for securities regulation. Its membership
regulates more than 95% of the world's securities markets in more than
115 jurisdictions.\102\ In October 2011, IOSCO released recommendations
to promote the integrity and efficiency of markets in order to mitigate
risks posed by the latest technological developments.\103\ Among other
things, IOSCO recommended that regulators ensure that trading venues
have in place suitable trading control mechanisms such as trading
halts, volatility interruptions, and limit-up/limit-down controls to
deal with volatile market conditions, as well as trading systems that
have the ability to adjust to changes in message traffic (including
sudden increases).\104\ In addition, IOSCO recommended that all order
flow of trading participants, regardless of whether they access the
market directly, be subject to appropriate controls, including
automated pre-trade controls. IOSCO also recommended that regulators
should identify any risks arising from currently unregulated direct
participants of trading venues and take steps to address them.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See IOSCO's public Web site, available at https://www.iosco.org/about/?subsection=about_iosco.
\103\ Technical Committee of the IOSCO, ``Regulatory Issues
Raised by the Impact of Technological Changes on Market Integrity
and Efficiency: Final Report,'' (Oct. 2011), available at http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD361.pdf.
\104\ See id.
\105\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, in April 2015, IOSCO released a consultation report
entitled ``Mechanisms for Trading Venues to Effectively Manage
Electronic Trading Risks and Plans for Business Continuity.'' \106\ The
report compiles the results of a survey that IOSCO sent to trading
venues across more than 30 different jurisdictions. Based on the
information compiled, the report proposes best practices that should be
considered by trading venues when developing and implementing risk
mitigation mechanisms. These practices are intended to promote the
integrity, resiliency and reliability of trading systems and business
continuity plans. With respect to managing risks originating from
market participant technology, the report explains that most trading
venues have policies, procedures and tools to detect and address the
operational risks associated with electronic trading. These tools
[[Page 78836]]
include, among others, pre-trade risk controls (such as price and
volume controls or filters and order entry controls), the ability to
block, suspend or disconnect a user (e.g., a kill switch), measures to
halt trading in the event of sudden price movements, and throttles that
constrain the number or frequency of messages from any given
participant.\107\ IOSCO also explained that many trading venue
participants use pre-trade risk controls such as order volume, price
per security, credit, notional value of order, order value, capital,
position checks, price deviation thresholds, and regulatory integrity
checks.\108\ Finally, IOSCO addressed direct market access by referring
to a previous report it issued in 2010, called ``Principles for Direct
Electronic Access to Markets.'' In that report, IOSCO recommended that
intermediaries (including clearing firms) have adequate operational and
technical capability to appropriately manage the risks posed by
DEA.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ IOSCO, ``Mechanisms for Trading Venues to Effectively
Manage Electronic Trading Risks and Plans for Business Continuity:
Consultation Report,'' (Apr. 2015) [hereinafter ``IOSCO 2015
Consultation Report''], available at http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD483.pdf.
\107\ See id. at 20-21.
\108\ See id.
\109\ See id. at 22-23. IOSCO uses the term DEA or ``direct
electronic access'' to mean an arrangement where a client of an
intermediary obtains access to the market through the intermediary's
infrastructure or access without using the intermediary's systems.
See id. at 20 n.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CFTC TAC Subcommittee
In 2011, the Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee (``TAC
Subcommittee'') of the CFTC's TAC issued recommendations for pre-trade
controls for trading firms, clearing firms and exchanges which use, or
provide, direct market access.\110\ The TAC Subcommittee recommended
the following risk controls for trading firms: Quantity limits on
individual orders; price collars; execution throttles; message
throttles; and a kill switch that would cancel all existing orders and
prevent the firm from placing new orders. The TAC Subcommittee further
recommended that clearing firms trading on their own behalf should
comply with those risk controls. In addition, clearing firms should
confirm that their client firms are implementing such controls, approve
the parameters used by the trading firm, and have access to the kill
switch. Exchanges should implement, and require trading firms to use,
pre-trade quantity limits on individual orders; intra-day position
limits; price collars; and message throttles. The TAC Subcommittee also
recommended that exchanges implement clear and consistent error trade
policies, order cancellation policies that allow for automatic
cancellation of orders on disconnect, and the ability for clearing
firms to view their firm's orders and to cancel working orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. FIX Risk Management Working Group
Additional organizations have released best practices documents,
including FIX Protocol Ltd.'s (``FIX'') Americas Risk Management
Working Group. FIX is a non-profit, industry standards association that
owns, maintains and continuously develops the Financial Information
eXchange (FIX) Protocol in response to market requirements. In 2012,
FIX released risk control guidelines for algorithmic trading orders and
direct market access orders.\111\ FIX identified typical order
scenarios that brokers attempt to detect, which include the following:
An order for an exceedingly large quantity; an order that will
adversely impact the market for a given security; an order with
incomplete or conflicting instructions; an order that is potentially
duplicative or unintentionally repeating; an order where adverse or
favorable price moves impact the order while it is working; and an
order that may be stale or may have been replaced by the client or a
system.\112\ FIX explained that the absence of appropriate risk
controls can result in market dislocation, failure to settle/deliver,
conflict between the client's intent and order execution, and trading
the wrong product.\113\ FIX provides a recommended matrix of risk
controls, which includes maximum order quantity, average daily volume
checks, price limit checks, favorable/adverse price move checks,
position limits, credit checks, and stale, runaway, and duplicate order
checks.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See FPL Americas Risk Management Working Group,
``Recommended Risk Control Guidelines,'' (2012), available at http://www.fixtradingcommunity.org/mod/file/view.php?file_guid=32127.
\112\ See id. at 5. Other scenarios include an order where the
symbology cannot be resolved to a single security and large accrued
long or short positions that may result in settlement and/or
delivery risk if the client cannot settle the trade.
\113\ See id.
\114\ See id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) Briefing Note
In April 2015, the Senior Supervisors Group (``SSG''), composed of
the staff of banking and other financial regulatory agencies from ten
countries and the European Union, issued an ``Algorithmic Trading
Briefing Note.'' \115\ The Note focused on how large financial
institutions currently monitor and control for the risks associated
with algorithmic trading during the trading day. The Note identified
several risks that SSG believes are common to algorithmic trading
across jurisdiction and asset class: (i) Systemic risk may be
amplified; (ii) algorithmic trading desks may face a significant amount
of risk intraday without transparency and robust controls; (iii)
internal controls may not have kept pace with speed and market
complexity; and (iv) without adequate controls, losses can accumulate
and spread rapidly.\116\ The Note provided a list of principles for
supervisors to consider when evaluating controls over algorithmic
trading at banks: (a) Controls must keep pace with technological
complexity and trading speeds; (b) governance and management oversight
can limit exposure to losses and improve transparency; (c) testing
needs to be conducted during all phases of a trading product's
lifespan, namely during development, rollout to production, and ongoing
maintenance; and (d) when assessing control depth and suitability,
management should ensure sufficient involvement of control functions
(including compliance, technology, legal, and controllers), as well as
business-unit management.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Senior Supervisors Group, ``Algorithmic Trading
Briefing Note,'' (Apr. 2015) [hereinafter ``SSG 2015 Note''],
available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/banking/2015/SSG-algorithmic-trading-2015.pdf. The SSG includes staff from the
following organizations: Canadian Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, the European Central Bank Banking
Supervision, the French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority,
the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, the Bank of
Italy, the Japanese Financial Services Agency, the Netherlands Bank,
the Bank of Spain, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority,
the United Kingdom's Prudential Regulatory Authority, and, in the
United States, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve.
\116\ See id. at 2-3.
\117\ See id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Treasury Market Practices Group Best Practices
In June 2015, the Treasury Market Practices Group, a group
sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and comprised of
legal, compliance and business representatives from institutions
related to U.S. Treasury market primary and secondary trading, released
a white paper on Automated Trading \118\ and an updated Best Practices
document for trading in U.S. cash Treasury securities markets.\119\ The
[[Page 78837]]
Best Practice updates, among other things, expanded the scope of
recommended risk controls that address the risks of automated trading
(automated trading, for purposes of the Best Practices document, means
the subset of electronic trading that relies on computer algorithms for
decision-making and execution of order submissions), including the
documentation of internal policies and procedures, additional
transparency in exchange or trading platform market data, error trade
rules and exchange provided services, expanded design and testing
environments at firms and exchanges, and updated risk controls that
align with the speed of trading technology. The white paper notes that
these updates were issued in a period when cash Treasury securities
markets, like many other asset classes, have experienced a strong
increase in automated trading on electronic platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See Treasury Market Practices Group, ``Automatic Trading
in Treasury Markets,'' (June 2015), available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/tmpg/TPMG_June%202015_automated%20trading_white%20paper.pdf.
\119\ See Treasury Market Practices Group, ``Best Practices for
Treasury, Agency Debt, and Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities
Markets,'' (June 2015), available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/tmpg/TPMG_June%202015_Best%20Practices.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Recent Disruptive Events in Automated Trading Environments
The Concept Release discussed malfunctions in automated trading
systems, in both derivatives and securities markets, that illustrate
the technological and operational vulnerabilities inherent to automated
trading environments.\120\ As an example, the Flash Crash of May 2010
involved an automated trading system with a design flaw that impacted
both the derivatives and securities markets. According to the CFTC/SEC
joint report on the Flash Crash, an automated execution algorithm did
not take price or time variables into account. Given the parameters of
the program, the algorithm continued to send orders even as prices
moved far beyond traditional daily ranges.\121\ In another example, in
2012 a securities trading firm, Knight Capital Group, made a coding
error in an automated equity router, and then incorrectly deployed new
code in the same router.\122\ Because of these coding errors, the
firm's automated trading system inadvertently built up unintended
positions in the equity market, eventually resulting in losses of more
than $460 million for the firm.\123\ The malfunction impacted the
broader market, creating swings in the share prices of almost 150
companies; these price swings were high enough to trigger pauses in the
trading of five stocks.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56548-49.
\121\ See U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Findings Regarding the Market
Events of May 6, 2010,'' (September 30, 2010) [hereinafter, the
``Flash Crash Report''], available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@otherif/documents/ifdocs/staff-findings050610.pdf.
\122\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
\123\ See id.
\124\ See Strasburg, Jenny and Bunge, Jacob, ``Loss Swamps
Trading Firm,'' Wall St. J. (Aug. 2, 2012), available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443866404577564772083961412.html and Valetkevitch,
Caroline and Mikolajczak, Chuck, ``Error by Knight Rips Through
Stock Market,'' Reuters (Aug. 1, 2012), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-nyse-tradinghalts-idUSBRE8701BN20120801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign markets have also experienced disruptive events in recent
years. For example, in May 2012 in Mexico, a ``fat finger'' error by a
market participant resulted in the execution of 1.13 million shares
(representing U.S. $3.78 billion).\125\ In February 2015, there was a
five minute delay in opening futures and options on the Eurex exchange
in Germany because a market participant's system was transmitting
duplicate orders.\126\ In February 2014, trading in three-year Korean
treasury bonds was halted for almost two hours at the Korea Exchange
due to a system malfunction resulting from an improper order from a
brokerage house.\127\ On October 26, 2011, the Bombay Stock Exchange
had to cancel all derivatives trading due to unusually high volumes and
price volatility as a result of a flawed algorithm used by a member
firm.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 1
n.6.
\126\ See id. and ``Technical Failure Delays Eurex Trading in
Futures, Options,'' Bloomberg (Feb. 17, 2015), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/eurex-futures-options-opening-delayed-after-technical-problem.
\127\ See ``Treasuries trading system disrupted,'' Korea Times
(Feb. 14, 2014), available at https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2014/09/488_151619.html.
\128\ See ``Sebi probes Muhurat trading mishap on BSE,''
Business Standard (Nov. 12, 2011), available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/sebi-probes-muhurat-trading-mishap-on-bse-111111200083_1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs was recently fined $7 million by the SEC for
violating its Market Access Rule and causing a disruptive trading
event.\129\ On August 20, 2013, a configuration error in one of
Goldman's options order routers erroneously sent thousands of limit
orders to the options exchanges prior to the start of regular market
trading.\130\ By the time the creation of additional orders was
disabled, and efforts to cancel unintended orders were taken,
approximately 1.5 million unintended orders (representing 150 million
underlying shares) had been executed on the market.\131\ The existing
risk management controls and supervisory procedures in place at Goldman
failed to stop the erroneous orders, and human error and failure to
follow best practices exacerbated the errors.\132\ While some erroneous
orders were able to be cancelled, Goldman's loss ultimately totaled $38
million.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See In re Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 3-16665 (SEC June 30,
2014) (order instituting administrative and cease-and-desist
proceedings).
\130\ Id. at 2.
\131\ Id.
\132\ Id. at 3.
\133\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disruptive events illustrate the importance of effective risk
controls. The risk controls contemplated in Regulation AT are intended
to limit the extent of market disruption caused by ATSs or trading
platform malfunctions. For example, a pre-trade risk control such as a
message throttle will prevent submission of orders that exceed a
predetermined frequency per unit time. Such a control could be operated
by the market participant generating orders, the clearing firm
guaranteeing its trades, or the trading platform on which orders would
be executed, and would limit the impact of an algorithmic trading
system not operating as intended. As another example, monitoring and
supervision standards for algorithmic trading may help ensure that
human supervisors intervene quickly when automated systems experience
unexpected or degraded performance, and that supervision staff have the
both the authority and knowledge to take appropriate steps in this
scenario.
IV. Overview of Regulation AT
A. Concept Release/Regulation AT Terminology
The Concept Release used the term ``automated trading system''
(abbreviated ``ATS'') to refer to the algorithms used to automate the
generation and execution of a trading strategy.\134\ In discussing
comments to the Concept Release, the Commission will continue to use
the term automated trading system. However, for greater precision, the
proposed rules and preamble for Regulation AT instead refer to
``algorithmic trading system'' (also abbreviated ``ATS''). This change
is intended only as a change in in nomenclature. ATSs as described
herein should not be confused with alternative trading systems in
equities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56542, 56544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Commenter Preference for Principles-Based Regulations
As an initial matter, the Commission notes a preference expressed
in comments to the Concept Release for principles-based, as opposed to
prescriptive, regulations. Fifteen
[[Page 78838]]
commenters advocated a limited or ``principles-based'' approach to any
regulation arising from the Concept Release.\135\ Commenters indicated
that prescriptive requirements will become obsolete, stifle innovation,
discourage self-reporting of technological failures, may not account
for the unique characteristics of market participants, and would result
in participants designing around such measures.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ The Futures Industry Association (``FIA'') Comment Letter
(Dec. 11, 2013) at 2, 12; CME Group (``CME'') Comment Letter (Dec.
11, 2013) at 3, 41-42; Gelber Group, LLC (``Gelber'') Comment Letter
(Dec. 9, 2013) at 1-2; KCG Holdings, Inc. (``KCG'') Comment Letter
(Dec. 11, 2013) at 3; The Alternative Investment Management
Association (``AIMA'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 1; The
Minneapolis Grain Exchange (``MGEX'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013)
at 1; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11,
2013) at 2; Managed Funds Association (``MFA'') Comment Letter (Dec.
11, 2013) at 2; Holly Bell (Bell'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013)
at 3; Virtu Financial LLC (``VFL'') Comment Letter (Jan. 10, 2014)
at 2-3; Chris Barnard Comment Letter (Jan. 29, 2014) at 2;
Susquehanna International Group (``SIG'') Comment Letter at 2;
IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. (``ICE'') Comment Letter (Feb.
14, 2014) at 1-2; 3Red Trading LLC (``3Red'') Comment Letter (Feb.
14, 2014) at 2; OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'') Comment Letter
(Feb. 14, 2015) at 5.
\136\ FIA at 2, 12; CME at 3-4, 7; Gelber at 1-2; Tellefsen and
Company, L.L.C. (``TCL'') Comment Letter (Oct. 31, 2013) at 5, 18;
AIMA at 1, 2; CFE at 2; VFL at 3; Bell at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, FIA \137\ and CME Group, Inc. (``CME'')
suggested that the best way to achieve standardization of risk controls
is through implementing ``best practices'' developed through working
groups of DCMs, FCMs, and other market participants.\138\ Similarly,
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (``ICE'') indicated that ``exchanges are
able to better implement and update risk controls on a market-by-market
basis than through a Commission rulemaking,'' and should be allowed
flexibility in designing exchange risk controls.\139\ Susquehanna
International Group (``SIG'') stated that the Commission should ``allow
the exchanges to work with firms on tailoring the rules for
implementation in ways that best consider the technical intricacies
between firms and exchanges.'' \140\ Virtu Financial LLC (``VFL'')
suggested that ``mandating risk controls and supervisory systems that
are `reasonably designed' or `provide reasonable assurance' of
protection would allow participants to tailor these controls to the
specific risks associated with their business.'' \141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ The Commission notes that six entities submitted letters
in support of FIA's comment letter: RGM Advisors, LLC, Allston
Trading LLC, Geneva Trading USA, LLC, Tibra Trading America LLC, DRW
Trading Group and IMC Financial Markets.
\138\ FIA at 63; CME at 41.
\139\ ICE at 1-2.
\140\ SIG at 2.
\141\ VFL at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, five commenters indicated that the Commission already
has robust regulations in place to address the risks of automated
trading.\142\ Such comments cited the DCM and SEF Core Principles;
\143\ Commission regulations 1.73, 23.609, 38.255, and 38.607; \144\
and CEA and Commission market manipulation and disruptive trading
practices rules.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ CME at 3; FIA at 5; MFA at 6; Gelber at 2, 5, 20; Bell at
2, 4.
\143\ Gelber at 21; CFE at 1; MFA at 6.
\144\ MFA at 4; CFE at 1.
\145\ Gelber at 2, 5, 20; CFE at 3; CME at 3; MFA at 6; Bell at
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to a limited or principles-based approach to
regulation, several commenters supported a more prescriptive approach
to a rulemaking addressing the risks of automated trading.\146\ These
commenters include the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
(``IATP''), Better Markets, and Americans for Financial Reform
(``AFR''). For example, IATP stated that unless the Commission receives
documentation that the risk controls of firms and exchanges are
consistent and effective, the Commission should assume that regulatory
standardization will be beneficial for each risk control and at each
phase of the trade lifecycle.\147\ In addition, several academic
commenters discussed concerns with automated, high speed trading and
advocated specific changes to the trade matching or order submission
process to increase market liquidity and efficiency.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (``IATP'')
Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 4; Better Markets Inc. (``Better
Markets'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 1; Americans for
Financial Reform (``AFR'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 6.
\147\ IATP at 4.
\148\ Eric Budish et al. Comment Letter (Feb. 14, 2014) at 1;
Brian F. Mannix Comment Letter (Dec.10, 2013) at 2; Elaine Wah et
al. Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, consistent with comments received, the
Commission has taken a balanced approach to the regulations it believes
are necessary to manage the risks of algorithmic trading. For example,
the Commission proposes a principles-based approach to its risk
controls requirements, in that it would require particular controls but
allow the relevant entity--a trading firm, clearing member FCM, or
DCM--discretion in the design of such control and the parameters that
would be used.
C. Multi-Layered Approach to Pre-Trade Risk Controls and Other Measures
In response to the Commission's questions in the Concept Release
about the appropriate location for risk controls and other measures,
commenters generally supported a multi-layered approach to risk
controls, with each level--trading firm, clearing firm, and exchange--
implementing risk controls that are adjusted depending on
circumstance.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ CME at 8-9; FIA at 61; Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(``Chicago Fed'') Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2; AIMA at 7;
KCG at 2; VFL at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, FIA commented that ``[i]ntroducing redundant risk
controls at more than one focal point in the trading lifecycle may
increase the integrity of the marketplace when careful consideration is
given to their differences in roles, implementations and
configurations.'' \150\ However, FIA also stated that ``we caution
against a mandated proliferation of redundant risk controls because the
existence of similar but not identically implemented risk controls may
do more harm than good. Each new implementation of a control will
increase complexity and may cause misunderstanding between traders and
risk managers as a consequence of conflicting risk limits.'' \151\ As
an example of a control that may be appropriately implemented at
multiple levels, FIA stated that maximum order size limits may be
implemented at both market participant and FCM levels without
redundancy because they reflect the different responsibilities of each
participant.\152\ FIA further explained that if an FCM has implemented
customer-specific controls within its infrastructure, it would be
redundant to use the same controls at the DCM level, though as an
additional protection, it is permissible to set higher limits at the
DCM that apply across all customers.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ FIA at 61.
\151\ See id.
\152\ FIA at 62.
\153\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CME cited the TAC Subcommittee's ``Recommendations on Pre-Trade
Practices for Trading Firms, Clearing Firms and Exchanges involved in
Direct Market Access,'' and commented that ``each level of the
`electronic trading `supply chain' (trading firms, clearing firms, and
exchanges) must share in the effort to preserve market integrity
through the implementation of effective risk controls, no matter if
that participant has direct market access or is routing to the exchange
via its clearing member firm''.\154\ Specifically
[[Page 78839]]
with respect to kill switch functionality, CME indicated that kill
switch functionality deployed at multiple levels should not be
considered redundant.\155\ CME further suggested that while multi-
layered kill switch functionality is not necessary for effective risk
control, it is nevertheless beneficial as it adds additional measures
of protection.\156\ CME made a general point that registrants should
establish controls appropriate to the nature of their business that are
reasonably designed to control access, effectively monitor trading, and
prevent errors as well as other inappropriate activity.\157\ CME
indicated that, regardless of whether orders are entered manually
through an electronic system or entered through an automated trading
system, such principles are equally important, because the method of
order entry does not lessen the impact of a particular order on the
market.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ CME at 7-8.
\155\ CME at 22.
\156\ See id.
\157\ CME at 43-44.
\158\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters supported a multi-layered approach to risk
controls. AIMA indicated that risk controls should be ``broadly
similar'' and applied at the trading firm, clearing firm, and exchange
levels.\159\ KCG stated that ``risk management is most effective when
it is multi-layered and overlapping.'' \160\ VFL stated that a
``multilayered system of risk controls is a key ingredient to protect
the market from disruptive events.'' \161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ AIMA at 7.
\160\ KCG at 2.
\161\ VFL at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees with the comments above that it should adopt
a multi-layered approach to regulations intended to mitigate the risks
of automated trading. As explained below, the Commission proposes to
impose requirements at multiple stages of the lifecycle of an order.
The Commission acknowledges FIA's comment that the different role of
entities at various stages in the trade lifecycle must be carefully
evaluated. While Regulation AT requires the same types of pre-trade and
other risk controls to be implemented by different entities, the
Commission notes that the proposed regulations allow for discretion in
the appropriate design and parameters of each risk control.
Accordingly, a trading firm, clearing member FCM, and DCM may each
choose to design and calibrate the same control in different ways,
depending on how the control is used by each entity to manage risks.
The Commission notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require pre-trade risk controls at both investment firms and
trading venues.\162\ ESMA acknowledged commenter disagreement with such
redundancy and stated, ``ESMA believes that at least two lines of
defence are appropriate in this complex business and thus continues to
require the pre-trade risk controls conducted by both investment firms
and trading venues.'' \163\ ESMA's regulatory standards further provide
that where a client is granted market access either through an
intermediary's systems, or directly without using the intermediary's
systems, the direct electronic access provider must apply the required
pre-trade risk controls.\164\ Regulation AT requires pre-trade and
other risk controls at both the AT Person and clearing member FCM level
(as well as the DCM level) based on its understanding that the risks--
and the resulting calibration levels of the controls--may be different
given those entities' distinct priorities and understanding of the
risks to themselves and their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report, supra
note 80 at 201.
\163\ See id.
\164\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1,
supra note 80 at 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a summary of each element of Regulation AT. For each
element, the Commission addresses relevant Concept Release comments,
summarizes the proposed regulation, and asks questions concerning the
proposed regulation.
D. Codification of Defined Terms Used Throughout Regulation AT
1. ``Algorithmic Trading''--Sec. 1.3(zzzz)
a. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment concerning whether the
Commission should define ATS or algorithm for purposes of any ATS
identification system. Commenters disagreed on whether the Commission
should adopt a definition of ``ATS.'' FIA and CME opposed a regulatory
definition, arguing that industry already has a definition of automated
trading system.\165\ FIA and CME indicated that the definition of ATS
is self-evident and has been in use for a long time, and that ATS, or
automated orders, are orders that are generated and/or routed without
human intervention. This includes orders generated by a computer system
as well as orders that are routed using functionality that manages
order submission by automated means (i.e., execution algorithms).\166\
Another commenter, Gelber Group, LLC (``Gelber''), stated that the
Commission should adopt a ``strong but appropriately flexible
definition'' of ATS aligned with existing exchange definitions.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ FIA at 41-42; CME at 29. CME defines ``ATS'' as ``a
trading method in which a computer makes decisions and enters orders
without a person entering those orders. This is a programmatic way
of representing the trader.'' See CME Glossary, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/education/glossary.html. ICE defines ``ATS'' as
``any system that automates the generation and submission of orders
to ICE.'' See ICE Notice, Revision to Authorized Trader Requirements
(Jan. 4, 2011) at 3, available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/otc/advisory_notices/ICE%20Advisory%20Notice%20for%20Authorized%20Trader%20Registration%20010411.pdf.
\166\ FIA at 41; CME at 29.
\167\ Gelber at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's evaluation of this issue is also informed by the
work of the TAC Subcommittee. In particular, the TAC Subcommittee
described ``automated trading'' as follows: ``[Automated trading]
covers systems employed in the decision-making, routing and/or
execution of an investment or trading decision, which utilizes a range
of technologies including software, hardware, and network components to
facilitate efficient access to the financial markets via electronic
trading platforms.'' \168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ CFTC Technology Advisory Committee Subcommittee on
Automated and High-Frequency Trading, Presentation to the TAC (Oct.
12, 2012), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/tac103012_wg1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Description of Regulation
While the Commission does not define the term ``ATS'' in this NPRM,
the Commission does propose a new Sec. 1.3(zzzz) that defines the
related activity of ``Algorithmic Trading.'' This proposed term means
trading in any commodity interest as defined in Regulation 1.3(yy)
\169\ on or subject to the rules of a DCM, where: (1) One or more
computer algorithms or systems determines whether to initiate, modify,
or cancel an order, or otherwise makes determinations with respect to
an order, including but not limited to: the product to be traded; the
venue where the order will be placed; the type of order to be placed;
the timing of the order; whether to place the order; the sequencing of
the order in relation to other orders; the price of the order; the
quantity of the
[[Page 78840]]
order; the partition of the order into smaller components for
submission; the number of orders to be placed; or how to manage the
order after submission; and (2) such order, modification or order
cancellation is electronically submitted for processing on or subject
to the rules of a DCM; provided, however, that Algorithmic Trading does
not include an order, modification, or order cancellation whose every
parameter or attribute is manually entered into a front-end system
\170\ by a natural person, with no further discretion by any computer
system or algorithm, prior to its electronic submission for processing
on or subject to the rules of a DCM.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Regulation 1.3(yy) provides that the term ``commodity
interest'' means (1) any contract for the purchase or sale of a
commodity for future delivery; (2) any contract, agreement or
transaction subject to a Commission regulation under section 4c or
19 of the Act; and (3) Any contract, agreement or transaction
subject to Commission jurisdiction under section 2(c)(2) of the Act;
and (4) Any swap as defined in the Act, by the Commission, or
jointly by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange
Commission. See 17 CFR 1.3(yy).
\170\ The reference to a ``front-end system'' may include a
system provided by an independent software vendor (``ISV''), a
broker or an exchange, or developed internally.
\171\ The Commission notes that if a customer submits an order
to its clearing FCM, which then submits the order to a DCM, such
order would still be considered ``electronically submitted for
processing on or subject to the rules of a designated contract
market,'' notwithstanding the fact that the order is routed through
the intervening clearing FCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``Algorithmic Trading'' is a critical underpinning of
other elements of this NPRM. Specifically, the Commission proposes a
number of requirements related to Algorithmic Trading, including that
trading firms (i.e., AT Persons, as defined in section IV(D) below),
clearing member FCMs, and DCMs implement certain pre-trade risk
controls for Algorithmic Trading; that trading firms implement certain
standards for the development, testing, monitoring, and compliance of
ATSs; and that trading firms and clearing members FCMs submit
compliance reports describing the new pre-trade risk controls. In
addition, the term ``Algorithmic Trading'' is employed in the proposed
definition of ``AT Person,'' a term that identifies those persons or
entities subject to the Commission's proposed new pre-trade risk
control requirements, among other requirements.
The Commission notes that its definition of Algorithmic Trading is
similar to the definition of algorithmic trading adopted by the
European Commission under MiFID II.\172\ However, the definition of
algorithmic trading under MiFID II does not include systems that only
make decisions as to the routing of orders to one or more trading
venues.\173\ Similarly, for purposes of a proposal relating to
registration of persons who develop algorithmic trading strategies,
FINRA's definition of ``algorithmic trading strategy'' does not include
an order router alone.\174\ In contrast to MiFID II and FINRA, the
Commission intends that the definition of Algorithmic Trading includes
systems that make determinations regarding any aspect of the routing of
an order, i.e., systems that only make decisions as to the routing of
orders to one or more trading venues. The Commission believes that
automated order routers have the potential to disrupt the market to a
similar extent as other types of automated systems, and therefore
should not be treated differently under the proposed regulations. For
example, the SEC determined that Knight Capital made errors related to
the coding and testing of an automated equity router, which caused the
firm to acquire several billion dollars in unwanted positions and
sustain a loss of more than $460 million, in addition to causing
substantial market disruption.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ See ESMA Technical Advice Final Report, supra note 78 at
318. Article 4(1)(39) of MiFID II defines algorithmic trading as
``trading in financial instruments where a computer algorithm
automatically determines individual parameters of orders such as
whether to initiate the order, the timing, price or quantity of the
order or how to manage the order after its submission, with limited
or no human intervention, and does not include any system that is
only used for the purpose of routing orders to one or more trading
venues or for the processing of orders involving no determination of
any trading parameters or for the confirmation of orders or the
post-trade processing of executed transactions.'' See MiFID II,
supra note 70. The ESMA Technical Advice Final Report states at 323,
``There is limited or no human intervention (and therefore
algorithmic trading) when the system at least makes independent
decisions at any stage of order-execution processes, either on
initiating, routing or executing orders. It is noted that the
reference to `orders' encompasses `quotes' as well.''
\173\ See ESMA Technical Advice Final Report, supra note 78 at
324.
\174\ See FINRA, Regulation Notice 15-06, ``Registration of
Associated Persons Who Develop Algorithmic Trading Strategies,''
(Mar. 2015), available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_doc_file_ref/Notice_Regulatory_15-06.pdf. In the Notice,
FINRA defines an ``algorithmic trading strategy'' as ``any program
that generates and routes (or sends for routing) orders (and order-
related messages, such as cancellations) in securities on an
automated basis.'' Id. at 3.
\175\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has taken this approach to automated order routers
after considering existing industry definitions of ``automated trading
systems.'' For example, CME defines ``ATS'' as ``a trading method in
which a computer makes decisions and enters orders without a person
entering those orders. This is a programmatic way of representing the
trader.'' \176\ Similarly, ICE defines ``ATS'' as ``any system that
automates the generation and submission of orders to ICE.'' \177\ The
Commission anticipates that entities using automated order routers will
be using similar or related automated technology to determine other
parameters of an order. In addition to the consideration that order
routing systems have the potential to disrupt the market, the
Commission believes that, given the interconnectedness of trading firm
systems, carving out a particular subset of automated systems from the
definition of Algorithmic Trading, e.g., order routing systems, would
introduce unnecessary complexity and reduce the effectiveness of the
safeguards provided in its proposed regulations.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ See CME Glossary, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/education/glossary.html.
\177\ See ICE Notice, Revision to Authorized Trader Requirements
(Jan. 4, 2011) at 3, available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/otc/advisory_notices/ICE%20Advisory%20Notice%20for%20Authorized%20Trader%20Registration%20010411.pdf.
\178\ The Commission notes that Forex Capital Markets, LLC
(``FXCM'') commented in response to the Concept Release that
automatic order routing systems be excluded from any definition of
``high-frequency trading,'' arguing that such systems are already
subject to extensive regulatory oversight and control. See FXCM 1-2.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission determined to include
such systems within the definition of Algorithmic Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that even if a computer algorithm or system
makes one or more determinations with respect to an order (such as
product, timing, price or quantity), the submission of the order would
not constitute Algorithmic Trading if every parameter or attribute of
the order is manually entered into a front-end system by a natural
person, with no further discretion by any computer system or algorithm,
prior to its electronic submission for processing on or subject to the
rules of a DCM. However, if a natural person does not manually enter an
order as described in the preceding sentence, but nonetheless
intervenes in the order in some other and more limited manner, the
submission of the order would still represent Algorithmic Trading if
the other elements of the definition are met. The Commission believes
that the risks of Algorithmic Trading continue to exist in trading
where there is some limited natural person intervention at particular
stages of order submission or execution, and Regulation AT requirements
should apply to such trading to the same extent that it does to trading
that is entirely automated. In sum, the only circumstance in which
natural person intervention by definition would cause trading to not
represent Algorithmic Trading is if the proviso in clause (2) of the
definition of Algorithmic Trading were met.
Finally, the Commission clarifies that there are certain automated
functions that do not fall within the proposed definition of
Algorithmic Trading. For example, the use of automated programs that
incorporate electronic indicators or
[[Page 78841]]
other technical analysis features to notify a trader regarding
specified market activity (e.g., a product reaches a particular price)
would not in itself represent Algorithmic Trading, unless the same
program makes the determinations described in clause (1) of the
definition, and clause (2) is also met. Similarly, if an entity (such
as an introducing broker) uses certain electronic systems as part of
its business practices, but does not submit orders to a trading
platform, that entity's use of electronic systems would not of itself
be considered Algorithmic Trading. Finally, the application of risk
filters to an order that is otherwise entered through entirely manual
means (i.e., an order whose every parameter or attribute is manually
entered into a front-end system by a natural person, with no further
discretion by any computer system or algorithm) \179\ would not be
considered Algorithmic Trading solely due to the use of risk filters.
For example, existing Sec. Sec. 1.11 and 1.73 require FCMs and
clearing member FCMs, respectively, to establish certain automated
financial or risk-based controls, including limits based on position
size, order size and margin requirements or capital, credit or volume
thresholds. The application of such automated controls would not, on
their own, cause an order to fall within the definition of Algorithmic
Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See the discussion of front-end systems supra note 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards address the distinction between ``investment decision
algorithms'' (which make automated trading decisions by determining
which assets to purchase or sell) and ``order execution algorithms''
(which optimize order execution processes by automatic generation and
submission of orders or quotes to one or several trading venues once
the investment decision is made). ESMA's standards provide that pure
investment decision algorithms which generate orders that are only to
be executed by non-automated means and with human intervention are
excluded from ESMA testing requirements.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1, supra note 80 at 201-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Request for Comments
1. Is the Commission's definition of ``Algorithmic Trading''
generally consistent with what algorithmic trading is understood to
mean in the industry? If not, please explain how it is inconsistent and
how the definition should be modified. In your answer, please explain
whether the definition inappropriately includes or excludes a
particular type or aspect of trading.
2. Should the Commission adopt a definition of ``Algorithmic
Trading'' that is more closely aligned with any definition used by
another regulatory organization?
3. For purposes of the Commission's definition of Algorithmic
Trading, is it necessary for the Commission to define ``computer
algorithms or systems''? If so, please explain what should be included
in such a definition.
4. Should the Commission's definition of ``Algorithmic Trading''
include systems that only make determinations as to the routing of
orders to different venues (which is contemplated in the proposed
definition)? With respect to the definition of ``Algorithmic Trading,''
should the Commission differentiate between different types of
algorithms, such as alpha-generating algorithms and order routing
algorithms?
5. Is the Commission's understanding correct that most entities
using automated order routers will be using similar or related
automated technology to determine other parameters of an order?
6. The Commission posits a scenario in which an AT Person submits
orders through Algorithmic Trading, and a non-clearing FCM or other
entity acts only as a conduit for these AT Person orders. If the non-
clearing FCM or other entity does not make any determinations with
respect to such orders, the conduit entity would not be engaged in
Algorithmic Trading, as that definition is currently proposed. Should
the definition of Algorithmic Trading be modified to capture a conduit
entity such as a non-clearing FCM in this scenario, thereby making the
entity an AT Person subject to Regulation AT? In other words, should
non-clearing FCMs be required to manage the risks of AT Person
customers? How would non-clearing FCMs do so if the non-clearing FCMs
do not have risk controls comparable to the risk controls specified in
proposed Sec. 1.82?
7. The Commission, recognizing that natural person traders who
manually enter orders also have the potential to cause market
disruptions, is considering expanding the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are generated using algorithmic
methods (e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or sell signal at a
particular time), but are then manually entered into a front-end system
by a natural person, who determines all aspects of the routing of the
orders. Such order entry would not represent Algorithmic Trading under
the currently proposed definition. The Commission requests comment on
this proposed expansion of the definition of Algorithmic Trading, which
the Commission may implement in the final rulemaking for Regulation AT.
The Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits of this
proposal, in addition to any other comments regarding the effectiveness
of this proposal in terms of risk reduction.
2. ``Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue''--Sec. 1.3(tttt)
a. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to define three new, related terms:
``Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue,'' ``Algorithmic Trading
Disruption,'' and ``Algorithmic Trading Event'' (which encompasses
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues or Algorithmic Trading
Disruptions). As a general matter, the proposed regulations contained
in Regulation AT are intended to address the risks of automated
trading. Malfunctioning or incorrectly deployed algorithms deploying
erroneous messages to trading venues can significantly impact markets
and market participants. The speed at which trading occurs can magnify
the harm caused by a malfunctioning system, for example, in driving
unwarranted price changes. The proposed definitions work in conjunction
with proposed regulations requiring certain risk controls and other
measures and are intended to describe the types of market disruptions,
regulatory violations, or other events that Regulation AT is designed
to prevent or mitigate.
The three proposed terms Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue,
Algorithmic Trading Disruption, and Algorithmic Trading Event have
analogues under Reg SCI's definitions of ``Systems compliance issue,''
``Systems disruption,'' and ``SCI event.'' \181\ The term ``SCI
event,'' under Reg SCI, encompasses systems compliance issues and
systems disruptions. Similar to Regulation AT, Reg SCI requires that an
SCI entity's policies and procedures must include monitoring of systems
to identify potential SCI events, and that SCI entities must establish
escalation procedures to quickly inform responsible SCI personnel of
potential SCI events.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ See Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437.
\182\ Id. at 72437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue'' is defined in
proposed Sec. 1.3(tttt), and means ``an event at an AT Person that has
caused any Algorithmic Trading of such entity to operate in a manner
that does not
[[Page 78842]]
comply with the CEA or the rules and regulations thereunder, the rules
of any designated contract market to which such AT Person submits
orders through Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any registered futures
association of which such AT Person is a member, the AT Person's own
internal requirements, or the requirements of the AT Person's clearing
member, in each case as applicable.''
The term is relevant to Regulation AT's pre-trade risk and other
control requirements for AT Persons as provided in proposed Sec. 1.80,
which requires the specified controls and measures to be reasonably
designed to prevent or mitigate an ``Algorithmic Trading Event.'' The
term Algorithmic Trading Event, as discussed below, means either an
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue or an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption. The defined term Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue is
also relevant to Regulation AT's proposed testing requirements on AT
Persons. Specifically, proposed Sec. 1.81(c) requires each AT Person
to establish procedures requiring its staff to review Algorithmic
Trading systems in order to detect potential Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issues. Regulation Sec. 1.81(c) also would require a plan
of internal coordination and communication between compliance staff of
the AT Person and staff of the AT Person responsible for Algorithmic
Trading designed to detect and prevent Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issues. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.20 requires a DCM to establish and
maintain pre-trade and other risk controls reasonably designed to
prevent the occurrence of an Algorithmic Trading Disruption (or similar
disruption) or an Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue. The proposed
definition of Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue was not discussed in
the Concept Release.
b. Request for Comments
8. Should the definition of Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue be
modified to include other potential compliance failures involving an AT
Person that may have a significant detrimental impact on such AT
Person, the relevant DCM, or other market participants?
3. ``Algorithmic Trading Disruption''--Sec. 1.3(uuuu)
a. Description of Regulation
Regulation AT proposes a defined term ``Algorithmic Trading
Disruption.'' The term is defined in new Sec. 1.3(uuuu), and means
``an event originating with an AT Person that disrupts, or materially
degrades, (1) the Algorithmic Trading of such AT Person, (2) the
operation of the designated contract market on which such AT Person is
trading or (3) the ability of other market participants to trade on the
designated contract market on which such AT Person is trading.'' \183\
The Commission notes that it interprets clause (3) of the definition
broadly (``an event originating with an AT Person that disrupts, or
materially degrades . . . the ability of other market participants to
trade on the designated contract market on which such AT Person is
trading.'') Among other events that would meet the Commission's
understanding of ``disrupts, or materially degrades,'' the Commission
interprets clause (3) as including an event originating with an AT
Person that prohibits other market participants from trading on the
designated contract market on which such AT Person is trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ The Commission notes that, under this definition, an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption may be the result of intentional or
unintentional acts by an AT Person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term Algorithmic Trading Disruption is relevant to Regulation
AT's pre-trade risk and other control requirements for AT Persons and
FCMs that are clearing members for a DCO, as provided in proposed
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.82(a), respectively. The controls and measures
required by proposed Sec. 1.80 must be reasonably designed to prevent
or mitigate an ``Algorithmic Trading Event,'' The term ``Algorithmic
Trading Event,'' as discussed below, means either an ``Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issue'' or an ``Algorithmic Trading Disruption.''
The controls and measures required of clearing member FCMs in proposed
Sec. 1.82(a), in contrast to those required of AT Persons in proposed
Sec. 1.80, must be reasonably designed to prevent or mitigate only the
narrower Algorithmic Trading Disruption. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.20
requires a designated contract market to establish and maintain pre-
trade and other risk controls reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption. The proposed definition of Algorithmic
Trading Disruption was not discussed in the Concept Release.
b. Request for Comments
9. Should the definition of Algorithmic Trading Disruption be
modified to include other types of disruptive events that may originate
with an AT Person?
10. Should the definition be expanded to include other types of
disruptive downstream consequences that may result from an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption originating with an AT Person, and which may
negatively impact the relevant designated contract market, other market
participants, or other persons? Alternatively, should the scope of the
definition be reduced, and if so, why?
11. In addition, should the reference to ``materially degrades'' in
the definition of Algorithmic Trading Disruption be expanded or
otherwise modified to encompass other types of disruptions that may
impact the relevant designated contract market, other market
participants, or other persons? Please provide examples of real-world
events originating with AT Persons (as defined under Regulation AT)
that resulted in disruptions that may not be captured by the reference
to ``materially degrades'' in the definition.
4. ``Algorithmic Trading Event''--Sec. 1.3(vvvv)
Regulation AT proposes a new definition in Sec. 1.3(vvvv)
(Algorithmic Trading Event) that means either an Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue or an Algorithmic Trading Disruption. As noted above,
the term Algorithmic Trading Event is used in proposed Sec. 1.80
requiring AT Persons to implement risk controls that are reasonably
designed to prevent or mitigate an ``Algorithmic Trading Event.'' The
proposed definition is also used in rules under proposed Sec. 1.81(a)
that require AT Persons to conduct regular back-testing of Algorithmic
Trading using historical transaction, order, and message data to
identify circumstances that may contribute to future Algorithmic
Trading Events. The definition is also used in rules under proposed
Sec. 1.81(b) that require AT Persons to conduct continuous real-time
monitoring of Algorithmic Trading to identify potential Algorithmic
Trading Events, and in rules under proposed Sec. 1.81(d) that require
AT Persons to establish training procedures for communicating and
escalating instances of Algorithmic Trading Events to the appropriate
personnel. The proposed definition was not discussed in the Concept
Release.
5. ``AT Order Message''--Sec. 1.3(wwww)
a. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing to define an ``AT Order Message'' (new
Sec. 1.3(wwww)) as each new order or quote submitted through
Algorithmic Trading to a DCM by an AT Person and each change or
deletion submitted through Algorithmic Trading by an AT
[[Page 78843]]
Person \184\ with respect to such an order or quote. This term is used
in the proposed regulations requiring AT Persons, clearing member FCMs
and DCMs to implement pre-trade risk controls and other measures with
respect to AT Order Messages. The proposed controls include a maximum
AT Order Message frequency per unit time, which is also known as a
message throttle requirement.\185\ The Commission notes that its
definition of AT Order Message is consistent with ESMA's definition of
message in its HFT analysis.\186\ The proposed language does not impose
specific requirements concerning the design of the AT Order Message
throttle or the particular thresholds that must be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ The definition of AT Person is discussed in section
IV.D.6.
\185\ The regulation are proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80 (for AT
Persons), 1.82 (for FCMs), 38.255(b) and (c) (for DCMs permitting
direct electronic access), and 40.20 (for DCMs).
\186\ Specifically, ESMA considered one message to mean ``each
content that needs independent processing,'' and further explained
that ``messages to be counted for these purposes are each new order
or quote, each successful change to an order or quote and each
successful deletion of an order or quote.'' See ESMA Technical
Advice Final Report, supra note 78 at 320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that defining AT Order Message is necessary
in proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.82, 38.255(b) and (c), and 40.20(a)(1)
to specify the type of messages that should be subject to frequency
controls. The Commission intends that required maximum message
frequency controls would apply to new orders, order cancellations, and
changes to important order terms that have the potential to impact the
market.\187\ Notwithstanding the foregoing, while the definition of AT
Order Message would only apply to order-related messages, the
Commission recognizes that certain message types outside of the
definition of AT Order Message may cause market disruptions by
affecting the operation of a DCM's electronic matching platform. A DCM
has the discretion to implement controls throttling excessive heartbeat
\188\ or administrative-type messages if it believes that such controls
are necessary to prevent fraud or manipulation or otherwise ensure the
proper functioning of its electronic matching platform and market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Order terms that have the potential to impact the market
might include, but are not limited to, changes to price, quantity,
and order type.
\188\ By ``heartbeat'' messages, the Commission means signals
sent at regular intervals to ensure that the connection between the
trading firm and the DCM's electronic matching platform is in a
normal state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, the Commission believes that requiring maximum
order message frequencies at the trading firm, clearing member FCM and
DCM levels serves important policy goals. Order entry frequencies that
are much larger than intended could result in an accumulation or
reduction of positions at speeds that outpace or overload associated
risk management systems. Large quantities of unintended orders could
also impact the market by increasing engine matching times or order
submission latencies.
b. Request for Comments
12. Please comment on the proposed scope of the Commission's
definition of AT Order Message. Is the proposed definition too
expansive, in that it would limit the submission of messages that do
not have the potential to disrupt the market? Alternatively, is the
scope of the AT Order Message too limited, in that it could allow
messages not related to orders (i.e., heartbeat messages or requests
for mass quotes) to intentionally or unintentionally flood the DCM's
systems and slow down the matching engine? Please explain how this
definition would be more appropriately limited or expanded.
6. ``AT Person''--Sec. 1.3(xxxx)
a. Description of Regulation
The Concept Release did not specifically address whether
regulations in the area of algorithmic trading should include a defined
term ``AT Person.'' However, the Commission determined that such a
defined term is necessary in order to identify which entities are
subject to the proposed regulations addressing trading firms'
management of the risks of algorithmic trading. These regulations
include, for example, pre-trade and other risk controls on the orders
initiated by the trading firm; development, testing and supervision
standards; and the requirement to submit compliance reports regarding
the new risk controls.
The proposed definition under new Sec. 1.3(xxxx) lists those
particular persons or entities that may be considered an AT Person:
Persons registered or required to be registered as FCMs, floor brokers,
SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs, or IBs that engage in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM, or persons registered or required to be
registered as floor traders as defined in Sec. 1.3(x)(3).\189\
Regulation Sec. 1.3(x)(3) is a proposed revision to the Commission's
existing definition of floor trader, and is discussed in detail below
(see section IV(E) below on Registration of Certain Persons Not
Otherwise Registered with the Commission). Such persons or entities
would be AT Persons if they engage in Algorithmic Trading on or subject
to the rules of a DCM. See section IV(H) below for a more detailed
discussion of which persons would be designated as AT Persons for
purposes of proposed Sec. 1.80 and other regulations, and which
persons would not be AT Persons, but would nonetheless be subject to
proposed Sec. 1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ As a result, any person who is required to be registered
as one of these registration categories and who is engaged in
Algorithmic Trading will be subject to all requirements of an AT
Person under this regulation, regardless of whether such person has
actually registered with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Request for Comments
13. The Commission notes that the FIA Guide recommends certain pre-
trade risk controls and contemplates three levels at which these
controls can be placed: Automated trader, broker, and exchange. FIA
defines ``automated trader'' as any trading entity that uses an
automated system, including hedge funds, buy-side firms, trading firms,
and brokers who deploy automated algorithms, and defines ``broker'' as
FCMs, other clearing firms, executing brokers and other financial
intermediaries that provide access to an exchange.
a. Should the Commission's definition of ``AT Person'' explicitly
include or exclude any of the classes of parties included in FIA's term
``automated trader''? Please explain. Are there any types of entities
not present in this list that should be included in the ``AT Person''
definition?
b. Should Regulation AT use the term ``broker,'' as understood by
FIA? If so, please explain. Is there another term that would be more
appropriate in defining the scope of AT Persons?
14. Algorithmic Trading carries technological and personnel costs,
and the Commission expects that such trading will be performed by
entities, not natural persons. Is this a reasonable assumption? For
purposes of quantifying the number of AT Persons that will be subject
to the regulations, do you believe that any AT Person (a definition
that encompasses the following persons if engaged in Algorithmic
Trading: FCMs, floor brokers, swap dealers, major swap participants,
commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors, introducing
brokers, and newly registered floor traders using Direct Electronic
Access) will be a natural person or a sole proprietorship with no
employees other than the sole proprietor?
15. The Commission recognizes that a CPO could use Algorithmic
Trading to enter orders on behalf of a commodity pool which it
operates. In these
[[Page 78844]]
circumstances, should the Commission consider the CPO that operates the
commodity pool or the underlying commodity pool itself as ``engaged in
Algorithmic Trading'' pursuant to the definition of AT Person? \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ The Commission notes that CPOs are separate legal entities
from the underlying commodity pools which they operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Commission notes that pursuant to Sec. 1.57(b) of the
Commission's regulations IBs may not carry proprietary accounts.
However, certain customer relationships may cause an IB to fall under
the definition of AT Person. The Commission requests comment on the
types of IB customer relationships that could cause IBs to fall under
the definition of AT Persons. What activities are currently being
conducted by IBs that could cause an IB to be considered engaging in
Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the rules of a DCM and would
therefore cause the IB to be considered an AT Person?
17. Should the definition of AT Person be limited to persons using
DEA? In other words, should the definition capture persons registered
or required to be registered as FCMs, floor brokers, SDs, MSPs, CPOs,
CTAs, or IBs that engage in Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the
rules of a DCM, or persons registered or required to be registered as
floor traders as defined in Sec. 1.3(x)(3), in each case if such
persons are using DEA? The Commission requests comment on the costs and
benefits of this approach, including comments on whether this more
limited definition of AT Persons would adequately mitigate the risks
associated with algorithmic trading.
7. ``Direct Electronic Access''--Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
a. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release asked whether there are specific risk controls
that should apply in the context of direct market access, and whether
the implementation of risk controls should be modified in the context
of direct market access.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ See section II(B) above for a discussion of direct market
access in the Concept Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters agreed that any potential risk controls should
also apply to those with direct access to the market.\192\ For example,
FIA described market participants' access to markets as consisting of
two broad categories: ``Direct ATS Participants,'' characterized by use
of an ATS directly connected to a DCM without using an FCM's
infrastructure to route orders, and ``Indirect ATS Participants,''
characterized by use of an ATS that routes orders through an FCM's
infrastructure.\193\ FIA stated that all types of market access create
risks; therefore, the same principles should apply to all types of
market access.\194\ FIA also explained that since market participants
may now access a DCM directly without passing through an FCM's
infrastructure, ``the only consistent opportunity for risk control is
at the DCM and the market participant.'' \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7-8; VFL at 2; AIMA at 1.
\193\ FIA at 8-9.
\194\ FIA at 12, 15.
\195\ FIA at 8-9; 61-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional commenters made similar points. CME stated that all
entities--whether they have direct market access or not--must ``share
in the effort to preserve market integrity.'' \196\ ICE explained that
it treats every order and trade equally regardless of connection method
or participant type.\197\ KCG Holdings, Inc. (``KCG'') commented that
``any pre-trade risk control requirements [must] be applied so as to
not permit market participants to avoid their application based on the
manner in which the participant accesses the market.'' \198\ VFL
commented that ``the privilege of direct exchange access should bring
with it the obligation to deploy a system designed to protect the
integrity of the marketplace.'' \199\ VFL explained that all exchange
members should be required to employ pre- and post-trade risk controls,
and all non-members should be required to access exchanges only through
a member's risk control layer.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ CME at 7-8.
\197\ ICE at 2.
\198\ KCG at 2.
\199\ VFL at 2.
\200\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Description of Regulation
Consistent with the comments discussed above, the Commission
proposes a new Sec. 1.3(yyyy) that defines ``Direct Electronic
Access'' (``DEA'') and, through other proposed rules, requires that AT
Order Messages originating with an AT Person and submitted by AT
Persons through such DEA be subjected to the same types of pre-trade
and other risk controls that such orders would pass through if they
flowed through the infrastructure of an FCM before entering the market.
The Commission notes that the Concept Release used the term
``direct market access,'' or ``DMA,'' and such term is commonly used in
industry. The Commission intends that ``Direct Electronic Access'' be
consistent with the term ``direct market access'' as it is used in
Commission-regulated markets. The Commission determined to employ the
term Direct Electronic Access, as opposed to direct market access, in
the interest of regulatory consistency. The term ``Direct Electronic
Access'' by FCM customers is used in existing Regulation 38.607, where
it is described as ``allowing customers of futures commission merchants
to enter orders directly into a designated contract market's trade
matching system for execution.'' \201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ In addition, in the context of foreign boards of trade,
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the CEA defines ``direct access'' as ``an
explicit grant of authority by a foreign board of trade to an
identified member or other participant located in the United States
to enter trades directly into the trade matching system of the
foreign board of trade.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposes that the term ``Direct Electronic Access''
means an arrangement where a person electronically transmits an order
to a DCM, without the order first being routed through a separate
person who is a member of a DCO to which the DCM submits transactions
for clearing. By ``routed,'' the Commission means the process by which
an order physically goes from a customer to a designated contract
market.\202\ As indicated below, the Commission requests comment on its
definition of DEA and whether there are particular scenarios where it
would be unclear whether a customer is trading through DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ The Commission notes that the operative element of DEA is
submission of an order to a DCM without the order first being routed
through a separate person who is a member of a DCO to which the DCM
submits transactions for clearing. Other factors, such as co-
location, or use of FCM-provided software, are not on their own
determinative of whether a customer is submitting orders through
DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA is relevant to several of the proposed regulations. As
explained below, DEA is used as a filter to help define a new category
of market participants required to register as floor traders and be
subject to the requirements of Regulation AT (see proposed Sec.
1.3(x)(3), discussed below). In addition, the term DEA is relevant to
revised Sec. 38.255, which would require DCMs to have in place systems
and controls reasonably designed to facilitate FCM's management of the
risks that may arise from Algorithmic Trading, and proposed Sec. 1.82,
which requires FCMs to implement such DCM-provided controls for DEA
orders. This approach recognizes that when DEA is used, clearing FCMs
do not have the ability to apply market risk controls to orders they
receive for clearing before these orders reach the DCM. This approach
of enabling clearing FCMs to implement DCM-based controls is
[[Page 78845]]
similar to how the Commission addresses financial risk management by
FCMs, as reflected in existing DCM regulation Sec. 38.607.
The Commission's proposed definition of DEA differs from SEC, ESMA
and IOSCO terminology. The SEC characterizes ``direct market access''
as an arrangement whereby a broker-dealer permits customers to enter
orders into a trading center but such orders flow through the broker-
dealer's trading systems prior to reaching the trading center.\203\
``Sponsored access'' generally refers to an arrangement whereby a
broker-dealer permits customers to enter orders into a trading center
that bypass the broker-dealer's trading system and are routed directly
to a trading center, in some cases supported by a service bureau or
other third-party technology provider.\204\ ``Unfiltered'' or ``naked''
access is a subset of sponsored access, where pre-trade filters or
controls are not applied to orders before such orders are submitted to
an exchange or ATS.\205\ Similarly, ESMA and IOSCO refer to ``direct
electronic access'' as including direct market access and sponsored
access; ``direct market access,'' as an arrangement where a member of a
trading venue provides a connecting system to a person to transmit
orders; and ``sponsored access'' as an arrangement where such an
infrastructure is not used by a person.\206\ While the Commission's
proposed terminology differs from that used by other regulatory
organizations, the Commission believes that its defined term DEA is
consistent with existing Commission regulations. References to ``DEA''
and ``Direct Electronic Access'' throughout this preamble shall refer
to the term proposed in Sec. 1.3(yyyy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ See Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers With
Market Access, 75 FR 69792, 69793 (Nov. 15, 2010).
\204\ See id.
\205\ See id.
\206\ ESMA Technical Advice Final Report supra note 78 at 340;
IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 20 n.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Request for Comments
18. Please explain whether the Commission's proposed definition of
DEA will encompass all types of access commonly understood in
Commission-regulated markets as ``direct market access.'' In light of
the proposed regulations concerning pre-trade and other risk controls
and standards for the development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic trading systems, do you believe that the proposed
definition of Direct Electronic Access is too limited (or,
alternatively, too expansive)? If so, please explain why and how the
definition should be revised.
19. Should the Commission define ``routed'' in its definition of
DEA? If so, how? Are there specific examples of trading or routing
arrangements where it would be unclear whether trading was performed
through DEA?
20. Should the Commission use the term ``direct market access''
instead of DEA, and if so why?
21. Should the Commission define sub-categories of DEA, such as
sponsored market access?
22. The Commission's proposed definition of DEA in Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
differs from definitions of direct electronic access in Sec. 38.607
and direct access for FBOTs in Sec. 48.2(c). The Commission believes
that the more technical definition in proposed 1.3(yyyy) is appropriate
for Regulation AT. The Commission solicits comment regarding proposed
1.3(yyyy), whether all definitions of ``direct'' access should be
harmonized across the Commission's rules, and if so how. Do you believe
that two definitions would create confusion with respect to Commission
requirements as to direct electronic access? With respect to Sec. Sec.
1.80, 1.82 and 38.255(b) and (c) provisions imposing risk control
requirements on AT Persons, FCM and DCMs, should the Commission use the
existing definition of direct electronic access provided in Sec.
38.607?
E. Registration of Certain Persons Not Otherwise Registered With
Commission--Sec. 1.3(x)
The Commission proposes to amend the definition of ``Floor trader''
in Commission regulation 1.3(x), in order to facilitate the
registration of proprietary traders using DEA for Algorithmic Trading
on a DCM. Such persons would be required to register as Floor traders
pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3), assuming that they were not
already registered or required to register with the Commission in
another capacity. The remainder of this section presents Concept
Release comments on this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy justification for the proposal,
and a request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment on whether all firms
operating ATSs to trade solely for their own account should be required
to register with the Commission. As discussed in greater detail below,
a registration requirement for firms operating ATSs and not otherwise
registered with the Commission would enhance the Commission's oversight
capabilities and allow for wider implementation of some or all of the
pre-trade controls and risk management tools discussed in this NPRM and
currently used in the market today. In particular, registration will
help ensure that all market participants that actively trade on
Commission-regulated markets implement appropriate controls, including
those trading firms that access the market directly and use algorithmic
trading systems that could malfunction and create systemic risk to all
market participants.
In the Concept Release, the Commission requested specific comment
on whether firms operating ATSs to trade solely for their own account
would meet the definition of ``floor trader'' in Section 1a(23) of the
Act, and whether registering such firms as floor traders would
effectuate the purposes of the Act. The ``floor trader'' definition in
CEA 1a(23) states that, in general, the term ``floor trader'' means any
person who, in or surrounding any pit, ring, post or other place
provided by a contract market for the meeting of persons similarly
engaged, purchases, or sells solely for such person's own account.\207\
Given the evolution of futures trading over recent years, electronic
trading platforms have now become a primary ``other place'' in which
proprietary market making and trading generally, takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ CEA Section 1a(23)(A) provides that the term ``floor
trader,'' in general, means any person (i) who, in or surrounding
any pit, ring, post, or other place provided by a contract market
for the meeting of persons similarly engaged, purchases, or sells
solely for such person's own account (I) any commodity for future
delivery, security futures product, or swap; or (II) any commodity
option authorized under section 4c; or (ii) who is registered with
the Commission as a floor trader. A further definition of the term
``floor trader'' is provided for by Section 1a(23)(B), which states
that the Commission, by rule or regulation, may include within, or
exclude from, the term ``floor trader'' any person in or surrounding
any pit, ring, post, or other place provided by a contract market
for the meeting of persons similarly engaged who trades solely for
such person's own account if the Commission determines that the rule
or regulation will effectuate the purposes of the Act. 7 U.S.C.
1a(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven commenters (including FIA, CME, MFA and the Chicago Fed)
opposed registration for reasons including: DCMs already use Operator
IDs; the DCM audit trail already satisfies the goals of registration;
implementing the Commission's final rule on ownership and control
reporting (``OCR'') will provide additional information on trading
identities; and the Commission already has access to trade data (i.e.,
Regulation 1.40 and part 38's mandate that DCMs require market
participants to submit to a DCM's
[[Page 78846]]
jurisdiction).\208\ In response to the Concept Release question seeking
information concerning whether firms operating ATSs would meet the
definition of ``floor trader'' under the CEA, CME and Gelber stated
that the term floor trader is an anachronism that is irrelevant to
automated trading environments.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ FIA at 43-46; CME at 32-34; Gelber at 22-24; KCG at 18;
MFA at 3; AIMA at 2, 24; Chicago Fed at 3.
\209\ CME at 34; Gelber at 22-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, Better Markets, AFR, and TCL supported ATS
registration.\210\ AFR stated that ``[t]he enhancement of investigative
authority is extraordinarily important given that the Commission staff
would often need to involve itself in the workings of the ATSs to
anticipate problems and to detect and investigate problems that have
occurred. HFT firms should have the highest priority.'' \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Better Markets at 13; AFR at 8-9; TCL at 17.
\211\ AFR at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, AIMA and VFL supported registration for participants with
direct market access.\212\ VFL commented that if an exchange provides a
participant the ability to connect directly, then that participant
enjoys all of the rights of a member and should be regulated at the
federal and exchange level.\213\ Finally, while Chicago Fed opposed a
requirement that ATSs register with the Commission, it suggested that
participants with direct market access must register with the
exchange.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ AIMA at 24; VFL at 3.
\213\ VFL at 3.
\214\ Chicago Fed at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to require the registration of proprietary
traders using DEA for Algorithmic Trading on a DCM. As discussed in
greater detail in section 3 below, registration of entities with DEA as
floor traders would mean that such firms must implement the pre-trade
controls and risk management tools that Regulation AT requires of AT
Persons. If the Commission were to only require those firms that are
already registered with the Commission to implement such controls, some
market participants conducting Algorithmic Trading on Commission-
regulated markets would not be subject to the Commission's risk control
requirements.
In order to achieve registration of proprietary traders using DEA
for Algorithmic Trading on a DCM, the Commission proposes amending the
definition of ``Floor trader'' in Commission regulation 1.3(x). The
amended definition would expressly include any person who purchases or
sells futures or swaps solely for such person's own account in a place
provided by a contract market for the meeting of persons similarly
engaged, where such place is accessed by such person in whole or in
part through DEA (as defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(yyyy)) for
Algorithmic Trading, and such person is not otherwise registered with
the Commission as a futures commission merchant, swap dealer, floor
broker, major swap participant, commodity pool operator, commodity
trading advisor, or introducing broker. The Commission notes, however,
that persons otherwise registered or required to register with the
Commission in another capacity (e.g., as a swap dealer) would not be
exempt from such registration simply by registering as a Floor trader
pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3).
CEA 1a(23) states that the term ``floor trader'' means any person
who, in or surrounding any pit, ring, post or other place provided by a
contract market for the meeting of persons similarly engaged,
purchases, or sells solely for such person's own account.\215\ The term
was added to the Act in the Futures Trading Practice Act of 1992 (the
``1992 Act'').\216\ The 1992 Act also amended Section 4e of the Act to
require registration of floor traders, and tasked the Commission with
issuing rules to implement the requirement within 180 days of the date
of enactment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ See supra note 207.
\216\ Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-546,
106 Stat. 3590, 3625-28 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, pursuant to the 1992 Act, the Commission finalized rules
regarding registration of floor traders.\217\ The Commission
established a definition for the term ``floor trader'' in Regulation
1.3(x). The Commission noted in the preamble to that final rule that
``certain persons trading through electronic systems come within the
[floor trader] definition.'' \218\ Given the prevalence of pit trading
in 1992 and the short time frame to implement floor trader
registration, the Commission determined to require registration for
floor traders operating ``on the trading floor of an exchange'' and
``to defer consideration of the application of floor trader
registration requirements to persons using electronic trading systems
and to reconsider the subject at a later date.'' \219\ The Commission
expressly stated that, ``[i]n order to preserve flexibility in this
area, the definition of floor trader in Rule 1.3(x) states that it
shall include any person required to register as [a floor trader] by
rule or regulation of the Commission pertaining to the operation of an
electronic trading system.'' \220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Registration of Floor Traders; Mandatory Ethics Training
for Registrants; Suspension of Registrants Charged with Felonies, 58
FR 19575 (1993) (hereinafter ``Registration of Floor Traders
Rule'').
\218\ Id. at 19576.
\219\ Id.
\220\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act'').\221\ Title VII
of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA definition of ``floor trader.''
\222\ This amendment maintained the language from the 1992 Act defining
a floor trader as a person ``who, in or surrounding any pit, ring,
post, or other place provided by a contract market . . . for the
meeting of persons similarly engaged, purchases, or sells solely for
such person's own account'' any commodity for future delivery. However,
the amended definition also applied to trading in swaps, and provided
that the definition includes ``anyone who is registered with the
Commission as a floor trader.'' Finally, the amendment allows for the
Commission by regulation to include within the definition or exclude
from the definition anyone who meets the statutory definition.
Subsequently, the Commission amended the definition of floor trader in
Rule 1.3(x) to precisely mirror the language contained in section
1a(23)(A) of the Act.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
\222\ See supra note 207.
\223\ See Final Rule, Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate
Swaps, 77 FR 66288, 66317 (Nov. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Policy Discussion
In order to enhance the Commission's oversight capabilities as they
relate to entities with DEA and allow for wider implementation of some
or all of the pre-trade controls and risk management tools discussed in
this NPRM and currently used in the market today, the Commission
proposes amending Regulation 1.3(x) to expressly include such firms
within the definition of ``floor trader.'' The Commission emphasizes
that the ``floor trader'' definition is not being expanded to capture
all proprietary traders engaged in Algorithmic Trading; rather, the
revised floor trader definition is limited to firms using DEA to engage
in Algorithmic Trading. Historically, pursuant to the Commission's
preamble discussion in the Registration of Floor Traders Rule and the
original formulation of Regulation 1.3(x) discussed above, the
Commission has
[[Page 78847]]
only required registration of floor traders conducting business on the
physical trading floor of an exchange. However, the Act contemplates
floor traders in ``other places'' besides the trading floor, and the
Commission has previously noted that the Act's definition applies to
persons using electronic trading systems.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Registration of Floor Traders Rule, 58 FR at 19576.
Further, the Commission notes that it is not the first to observe
the degree to which the tangible technological infrastructure
provided by DCMs for trading, including for example electronic trade
matching platforms or co-location or proximity hosting facilities,
can constitute a ``place.'' Futures Industry magazine, a publication
of FIA, noted the following in a 2007 article describing co-location
and proximity hosting: ``[t]he pit is back. Just a few years since
the concept of a commodity exchange as a tangible `place' had begun
to seem hopelessly old-fashioned, many traders now want to be at the
heart of the action once more. At Eurex, customers that until
recently were scattered all over the globe are moving closer to the
exchange, `forming a physical community like a pit again,' says
Matthias Kluber, head of networks and infrastructure operations at
Deutsche B[ouml]rse Systems, which builds and operates the Eurex
trading and clearing systems.'' See Bennet Voyles, Co-Location
Catches On, Futures Industry (July/Aug. 2007) at 28, available at:
https://secure.fia.org/downloads/Jul-Aug_Colocatiion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration of entities with DEA as floor traders would enhance
the pre-trade controls and risk management tools discussed elsewhere in
this NPRM by making such entities subject to the various regulations
governing AT Persons under the NPRM. For example, the pre-trade risk
controls listed in proposed Sec. 1.80--maximum AT Order Message
frequencies per unit time, maximum execution frequencies per unit time,
order price parameters and maximum order size limits--must be
established and used by all AT Persons. If the Commission were to only
require those firms that are already registered with the Commission to
implement such controls, it would be ignoring a significant number of
market participants that actively trade on Commission-regulated
markets, each of which has ATSs that could malfunction and create
systemic risk to all market participants. Registration as floor traders
would also require entities using DEA, as AT Persons, to maintain
certain books and records, thus enhancing the Commission's ability to
gather information.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately one hundred
proprietary trading firms engaged in Algorithmic Trading in Commission-
regulated markets. Some of these firms may already be registered with
the Commission in some capacity. In the event that one of these firms
engaged in Algorithmic Trading is already registered with the
Commission, the firm would be considered an AT Person under clause (1)
of the proposed definition of AT Person, and would not be required to
also register as a floor trader. The proposed requirement under revised
Sec. 1.3(x) is intended to require firms not otherwise registered to
become registered with the Commission. Given that a technological
malfunction in a single trading firm's systems can significantly impact
other markets and market participants, the proposed registration
requirement is critical to ensuring that all such firms are subject to
appropriate risk control, testing, and other requirements of Regulation
AT.
4. Request for Comments
23. Should firms operating Algorithmic Trading systems in CFTC-
regulated markets, but not otherwise registered with the Commission, be
required to register with the CFTC? If not, what alternatives are
available to fully effectuate the purpose and design of Regulation AT?
24. Should all firms deploying Algorithmic Trading systems be
required to register with the Commission? Are there additional
characteristics of AT Persons that should be taken into consideration
for registration purposes? For example, should the Commission limit
registration to trading firms meeting certain trading volume, order or
message levels? In other words, should there be a minimum volume, order
or message test in order to meet the definition of ``floor trader,'' or
otherwise to meet the definition of AT Person? If so, what should be
measured and what specific thresholds should be used?
25. In the alternative, should the Commission broaden the
registration requirements in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3)(ii) so that all
persons trading on a contract market through DEA are required to
register, instead of only those who are engaged in Algorithmic Trading?
26. Please supply any information or data that would help the
Commission in deciding whether firms may or may not meet the definition
of ``floor trader'' in Section 1a(23) of the Act.
27. Do you believe that the registration of such firms as ``floor
traders'' would help effectuate the purposes of the CEA to deter and
detect price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity?
If you believe that registration of such firms will not help effectuate
the purposes of the CEA, or that the same purposes can be achieved by
other means, please explain.
F. RFA Standards for Automated Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems--Sec. 170.19
To fully effectuate the design and intent of Regulation AT, the
Commission is proposing a new Sec. 170.19 requiring RFAs to adopt
certain membership rules--as deemed appropriate by the RFA--relevant to
algorithmic trading for each category of member in the RFA. RFAs would
have discretion as to the rules they issue and the categories of
members to which their rules apply. Further, to ensure that all AT
Persons are subject to rules of an RFA regarding algorithmic trading,
the Commission is also proposing a new Sec. 170.18 requiring AT
Persons to become members of at least one RFA. Proposed Sec. 170.18 is
discussed in detail in section G below. Taken together, Sec. Sec.
170.18 and 170.19 would allow RFAs to supplement elements of Regulation
AT as markets and trading technologies evolve over time, and allow
frontline regulators to drive future incremental enhancements to the
Commission's basic regulatory structure for algorithmic trading by AT
Persons.
1. Policy Discussion
In developing Regulation AT, the Commission sought to balance
meaningful regulatory baselines against the need for standards
sufficiently flexible to keep pace with changing industry practices and
technologies. The Commission's determination to balance both interests
is particularly reflected in its treatment of AT Persons and in
proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, which address: (1) Pre-trade
risk controls and other measures for ATSs; (2) standards for the
development, testing, monitoring, and compliance of ATSs; (3)
designation and training of algorithmic trading staff; and (4) clearing
FCM risk management. A number of the proposed sections and subsections
in these rules include well-established risk control and other
practices among market participants. The proposed pre-trade risk
controls in Sec. 1.80(a), for example, are generally limited to risk
controls identified as best practices by FIA in 2015, and the text of
the rules is intentionally flexible so that AT Persons may determine
for themselves how required pre-trade risk controls and other measures
should be designed and calibrated. Other proposed rules addressing AT
Persons offer flexibility in that they require AT Persons to implement
specific programs, but provide latitude regarding how such programs are
to be designed. Thus, proposed Sec. 1.81(a)(1)(vi) requires AT Persons
to maintain a source code
[[Page 78848]]
repository to manage source code access, persistence, copies of
production code, and changes to production code, but does not impose a
prescriptive standard for how the source code repository must be
structured or maintained. Similarly, proposed Sec. Sec.
1.81(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) require regular back testing of
Algorithmic Trading and stress testing of ATSs, but impose no specific
testing protocols and do not specify a minimum testing frequency. The
Commission also notes the existence of numerous other pre and post-
trade risk controls and measures available to AT Persons but not
incorporated as requirements in Regulation AT. Some, such as drop-copy
reporting, were raised in the Concept Release, and others were
addressed in responsive public comments.
The Commission has determined to focus in Regulation AT on areas
where the safety and soundness of derivatives markets would benefit
from a core set of pre-trade risk controls and other measures
applicable to all AT Persons. As noted above, the Commission believes
that effective rules for AT Persons are best structured as clear
regulatory requirements combined with embedded flexibility to adapt to
changing markets and technologies. Accordingly, the Commission's
proposed rules in Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 address only a subset
of potentially responsive risk controls and other measures. Each AT
Person shall also determine what additional safeguards would be
reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event given its
trading strategies, technologies, or the markets in which it
participates. The proposed rules also provide a degree of flexibility
regarding the design, implementation, or calibration of those pre-trade
risk control or other measures that are specifically required in
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, again allowing each AT Person to adapt
the rules to its own trading and technology.
Given the structure of proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 as
regulatory baselines with a degree of embedded flexibility, the
Commission has determined to provide RFAs with a discretionary role in
augmenting the requirements of Regulation AT for AT Persons.\225\ RFAs
serve a vital regulatory function as frontline regulators of their
members, which would include all AT Persons pursuant to proposed Sec.
170.18. RFAs promulgate binding membership rules and can supplement
Commission rules as appropriate. RFAs can also operate examination
programs to monitor members' compliance with association rules, and can
sanction members for non-compliance. The Commission believes that RFAs
are well-positioned to address rules in areas experiencing rapid
evolution in market practices and technologies, including particularly
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82. Proposed Sec. 170.19 is described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ The Commission notes an exception in proposed Sec. 1.83,
which requires the submission of annual reports from AT Persons and
their clearing FCMs to DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Proposed Sec. 170.19 would require RFAs to (1) establish and
maintain a program (2) for the prevention of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, the protection of the public interest,
and perfecting the mechanisms of trading on DCMs (3) by adopting rules
for each category of member, as deemed appropriate by the RFA,
requiring: (i) Pre-trade risk controls and other measures for ATSs
(Sec. 170.19(a)(1)); (ii) standards for the development, testing,
monitoring, and compliance of ATSs (Sec. 170.19(a)(2)); (iii)
designation and training of algorithmic trading staff (Sec.
170.19(a)(3)); and (iv) operational risk management standards for
clearing member FCMs with respect to customer orders originating with
ATSs (Sec. 170.19(a)(4)). With respect to rules (prong 3 above), the
areas RFAs must address pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19 are similar
to those that AT Persons and clearing FCMs must address in proposed
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82. RFAs, however, would be required in
Sec. 170.19 to consider whether additional rules or granularity are
appropriate as baseline SRO requirements and binding membership rules
for one or more categories of RFA members.\226\ The Commission notes
that Sec. 170.19 would require that RFAs consider the need for
additional rules, and issue such rules where appropriate. However,
Sec. 170.19 would not require RFAs to issue any rules pursuant to
Sec. 170.19 where the RFA believes they are unnecessary. Rather, the
proposed regulation leaves discretion to the RFAs to determine what
rules would prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
protect the public interest, and perfect the mechanisms of trading on
DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ In this regard, the Commission distinguishes an RFA's
obligation to establish memberships rules--i.e., mandatory
requirements for all persons in the relevant membership category--
from steps that a single AT Person or clearing member FCM may
voluntary take to augment its pre-trade risk controls or other
measures based on its unique trading or technology and its
obligations pursuant to proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When evaluating potential membership rules regarding algorithmic
trading, proposed Sec. 170.19 would also require RFAs to consider how
such rules could help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, protect
the public interest, and perfect the mechanisms of trading on DCMs
(prong 2 above). The Commission believes that these are important
elements in the requirements proposed to be codified in Sec. 170.19.
RFAs should be cognizant, for example, of the overarching requirement
in proposed Sec. 1.80 that AT Persons take steps reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event, defined in proposed Sec.
1.3(vvvv) to include both Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues and
Algorithmic Trading Disruptions. Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues
include events at an AT Person that cause its algorithmic trading to
operate in a manner that does not comply with the CEA, Commission
regulations, or the rules of a DCM. Algorithmic Trading Disruptions
include events originating with an AT Person that disrupt or materially
degrade the operation of a DCM or the ability of other market
participants to trade on the DCM. In short, an AT Person's algorithmic
trading should neither disrupt the market nor violate law. RFAs should
consider these factors when determining whether and what further rules
they may promulgate over time pursuant to Sec. 170.19.
Proposed Sec. 170.19 would require an RFA to ``establish and
maintain a program'' (prong 1 above) for the prevention of fraud and
manipulation, protection of the public interest, and perfecting the
mechanisms of trading on DCMs. The Commission anticipates that an RFA
would include in its routine examinations of members pursuant to such
program a verification that such members are complying with any rules
that the RFA may determine to issue pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19.
The Commission intends for proposed Sec. 170.19 to provide RFAs with a
wide measure of latitude in both the rules they may elect to adopt and
in the members to whom they apply such rules. It is the Commission's
further intent that RFAs consider the need for rules pursuant to
proposed Sec. 170.19, and that they adopt such rules where the RFA
considers it necessary. However, the determination as to both the
necessity of rules and their application to specific categories of
members remains with the RFA.
Finally, the Commission notes that while proposed Sec. 170.19
would require RFAs to issue rules as they deem appropriate, RFAs would
remain free to take other steps when potential rules regarding
algorithmic trading are not yet ripe. As both membership and self-
[[Page 78849]]
regulatory organizations, RFAs are uniquely positioned to gain insights
from members through examination programs and coordination with other
self-regulatory or standard-setting bodies. In addition to rulemaking
when necessary, RFAs could leverage these resources to issue guidance
or best practices, hold periodic discussions with relevant
stakeholders, and otherwise provide leadership as risks, risk control
technologies, market practices evolve over time. The Commission also
affirms that proposed Sec. 170.19 is not intended to create
conflicting obligations between an RFA's role in establishing
algorithmic trading standards for its members and a DCM's role as a
self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the requirements of proposed
Sec. 170.19 specifically address pre-trade risk controls for ATSs,
standards for the designing, testing, monitoring, and supervision of
ATSs, and the designation and training of algorithmic trading staff.
The Commission believes that these areas are appropriate for potential
future standards issued by an RFA in an evolving technological and
market environment, and that such standards will be best implemented as
uniform requirements of an RFA for its relevant members as opposed to
potentially varying approaches by individual DCMs.
3. Request for Comments
28. The Commission requests comment on the scope of
responsibilities assigned to RFAs under proposed Sec. 170.19. Should
RFAs be responsible for fewer or additional areas regarding AT Persons,
ATSs, and algorithmic trading than specified in proposed Sec. 170.19,
prongs (1), (2), (3), and (4) (Sec. 170.19(a)(1)-(a)(4))? Regulation
170.19 requires RFAs to consider the need for rules in the areas listed
in prongs (1)-(4) (Sec. 170.19(a)(1)-(a)(4)). Should RFAs be
responsible for considering whether to adopt rules in fewer or
additional areas?
29. The Commission requests comment on the latitude afforded to
RFAs in proposed Sec. 170.19. Should RFAs have more or less latitude
to issue rules than specified in proposed Sec. 170.19?
30. The Commission requests comment on RFAs' obligation in proposed
Sec. 170.19 to establish and maintain a program for the prevention of
fraud and manipulation, protection of the public interest, and
perfecting the mechanisms of trading, including through rules it may
determine to adopt pursuant to Sec. 170.19. The proposed rules
anticipate that an RFA's program will include examination and
enforcement components. Is this the appropriate approach?
31. The Commission requests comment on whether proposed Sec.
170.19 may result in duplicative obligations on AT Persons or any other
market participant. In particular, please comment on potential
duplication, if any, between algorithmic trading requirements that an
RFA may impose upon its members pursuant to Sec. 170.19, and similar
requirements that may be imposed by a DCM in its role as a self-
regulatory organization. What amendments would be appropriate in any
final rules arising from this NPRM to clarify that unintended overlap
between the role of an RFA and a DCM in this context?
G. AT Persons Must Become Members of an RFA--Sec. 170.18
1. Policy Discussion
An RFA is an association of persons registered with the Commission
as such pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.\227\ Subject to Commission
oversight, RFAs serve a vital self-regulatory role by functioning as
frontline regulators of their members, including in large measure most
Commission registrants who will qualify as AT Persons pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1.3(xxxx).\228\ Entities that are not members of an RFA,
however, are not bound by the rules of the RFA.\229\ As such, the
Commission previously adopted Sec. Sec. 170.15 and 170.16 to require
each registered FCM, and each registered SD and MSP, respectively, to
be an RFA member, subject to an exception for certain notice registered
securities brokers or dealers.\230\ The Commission also recently
adopted Sec. 170.17 to require that all registered IBs and CPOs, and
most registered CTAs, to become RFA members.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ 7 U.S.C. 21.
\228\ RFA members also remain subject to oversight by the
Commission.
\229\ Those Commission registrants that are not RFA members are
nevertheless subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission.
See 7 U.S.C 21(e), which specifies that any person registered under
the CEA, who is not an RFA member, ``in addition to the other
requirements and obligations of [the CEA] and the regulations
thereunder shall be subject to such other rules and regulations as
the Commission may find necessary to protect the public interest and
promote just and equitable principles of trade.''
\230\ 17 CFR 170.15 and 170.16.
\231\ See Membership in a Registered Futures Association, 80 FR
55022 (Sept. 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, and 170.17 require many, but
not all, Commission registrants who may be considered AT Persons
pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.3(xxxx) to become RFA members. In
particular, floor brokers and floor traders, who have historically been
overseen by the DCMs on which they operate, are not required by
Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to become members of an RFA. In
order to ensure that all AT Persons will be subject to any rules
promulgated by an RFA pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19, including
floor brokers and floor traders, the Commission is proposing a new
Sec. 170.18. This provision would require that all AT Persons that are
not otherwise required to be a member of a RFA pursuant to Sec. Sec.
170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 be a member of an RFA.
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing a new Sec. 170.18 to require all
Commission registrants that are AT Persons to be members of an RFA. The
membership requirements proposed by Sec. 170.18 will ensure that all
AT Persons would be subject to membership rules promulgated by an RFA,
including those membership rules promulgated pursuant to proposed Sec.
170.19 to address algorithmic trading. Specifically, proposed Sec.
170.18 requires that each registrant that is an AT Person that is not
otherwise required to be a member of an RFA pursuant to Sec. Sec.
170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 must become and remain a member of at least
one RFA that provides for the membership of such registrant, unless no
such futures association is so registered.
3. Request for Comments
32. The Commission requests comment on whether the regulatory
framework established by Regulation AT would require all AT Persons to
be members of an RFA in order to be effective. Alternatively, could the
goals of Regulation AT be realized without requiring all AT Persons to
be members of an RFA?
H. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls for AT Persons--Sec. 1.80
The Commission proposes as a fundamental element of Regulation AT a
new Sec. 1.80 of its regulations, requiring AT Persons to implement
pre-trade risk controls, order cancellation systems, and other measures
reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. Such
controls include, but are not limited to, maximum AT Order Message
frequency and maximum execution frequency per unit time; order price
parameters and maximum order size limits; order cancellation and
Algorithmic Trading disconnect systems; and connectivity monitoring
systems for AT Persons with DEA. In
[[Page 78850]]
addition, proposed Sec. 1.80 requires AT Persons to: Notify applicable
clearing member FCMs and DCMs that the AT Person will engage in
Algorithmic Trading; and calibrate or otherwise implement DCM-provided
self-trade prevention tools.\232\ It would also require AT Persons to
periodically review the sufficiency and effectiveness of their
compliance with Sec. 1.80. The remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy justification for the proposal,
and a request for comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of the term
``self-trade'' and proposed regulations with respect to self-trade
prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Concept Release Comments on Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
The Concept Release requested comment on various pre-trade and
other types of risk controls, including message and execution
throttles, maximum order sizes, price collars, and order management
controls, such as connectivity monitoring services, automatic
cancellation of orders on disconnect and kill switches. The Concept
Release contemplated that such controls would apply at the trading
firm, clearing member and trading platform levels. As discussed below,
the Commission has determined to require that AT Persons, FCMs, and
DCMs \233\ implement such pre-trade and other risk controls. Relevant
comments to the Concept Release are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ The pre-trade and other risk controls for DCMs in proposed
Sec. 40.20 are discussed below in a separate section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Message and Execution Throttles
The Concept Release described message throttles as establishing
maximum message rates per unit in time and execution throttles as
establishing limits on the maximum number of orders that an ATS can
execute in a given direction per unit in time. The Concept Release also
sought comment on a particular form of execution throttle, the repeated
automated execution throttle, which would disable a trading system
after a configurable number of repeated executions until a human re-
enables the system.\234\ The Concept Release stated that the throttles
would be calibrated to address the potential for unintended message
flow or executions from a malfunctioning ATS.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Concept Release, 78 FR at 56571.
\235\ Concept Release, 78 FR at 56569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters indicated that message and execution throttles are
widely used in the industry. FIA PTG surveyed its members and found
that almost all firms that responded used message and execution
throttles.\236\ Commenters noted certain benefits to messaging and
execution throttles, including that they may mitigate the risk and
impact of disruptive events, alert market participants to potential
problems with their automated order entry systems, and help ensure a
level playing field for all market participants.\237\ Commenters also
noted that message or execution limits have potential negative effects
because they can block risk-reducing orders.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ FIA at 59-60.
\237\ FIA at 12, 15-17, 65; CME at 8-9; Gelber 7; AFR at 6-7;
KCG at 3-5; Better Markets at 6-7.
\238\ KCG at 3-5; MFA at 7, 13. See also Bell at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters addressing this topic did not support regulations
mandating throttle thresholds because appropriate limits will vary per
market participant, depending on each participant's unique systems and
trading strategy.\239\ MFA strongly advised against required use of the
repeated automated execution throttle, stating that it is best for
market participants to determine which controls are most appropriate
for their ATSs.\240\ IATP commented on the difficulty in setting
standardized throttle thresholds, and alternatively suggested
standardizing a graduated levy on order cancellations.\241\ Finally,
Chicago Fed commented that regulators should assess the methodology
that trading firms use to set throttle limits, the reasonableness of
those limits, and the procedures followed when they are breached.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ FIA at 12; CME at 8-9; MFA at 7, 13; Gelber at 5-7; AIMA
at 8; KCG at 3-4.
\240\ MFA at 7, 13.
\241\ IATP at 3-5.
\242\ Chicago Fed at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the appropriate design of throttles, CME and AIMA commented
that throttles implemented by market participants should be based on
the specific attributes of an entity or account, including the nature
of a firm's trading strategies, the market it trades in, and the speed
of its systems.\243\ AIMA indicated that applying throttles on a per-
algorithm basis would distort the output of the ATS because an
algorithm interacts with many other algorithms within the same
ATS.\244\ In contrast, AFR indicated that in order to detect a
malfunctioning algorithm, the threshold should be based on the
algorithm's trading strategy.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ CME at 8-9; AIMA at 8.
\244\ AIMA at 9.
\245\ AFR at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that maximum order size controls are already
used in the industry. According to FIA PTG's survey, all responding
trading firms use maximum order size limits.\246\ AIMA indicated that
many market participants use maximum order sizes limits,\247\ and
Gelber, a trading firm, stated that it uses this risk control.\248\
KCG, Gelber and 3Red commented that market participants should use
exchange-provided maximum order size controls.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ FIA at 59-60.
\247\ AIMA at 13.
\248\ Gelber at 10.
\249\ KCG at 8; Gelber at 10; 3Red at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to implementing maximum order size limits, FIA and CME
indicated that this control should be applied per product or
contract.\250\ KCG suggested that exchange-provided maximum order size
controls should provide flexibility to the market participant in
setting different levels for users within a firm, for example, based on
trader ID or customer.\251\ Alternatively, the market participant
should rely on tighter internal controls.\252\ CME and KCG opposed
standardization of maximum order size protections, stating that
implementation of this control depends on individual customers and the
market,\253\ while FIX and IATP supported uniformity with respect to
these controls.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ FIA at 18-19; CME at 15.
\251\ KCG at 8.
\252\ See id.
\253\ CME at 15-16; KCG at 8.
\254\ FIX at 3; IATP at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Price Collars
The Concept Release requested comment on price collars, a control
in which trading platforms would assign a range of acceptable order and
execution prices for each product and all market participants would
establish similar limits to ensure that orders outside of a particular
price range are not transmitted to the trading platform. While most
comments addressing this topic focused on price collars implemented by
exchanges, FIA indicated that its FIA PTG survey reflected that almost
all responding trading firms used either price collars or trading
pauses.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ FIA at 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Connectivity Indications and Cancel on Disconnect
The Concept Release requested comment regarding ``system
heartbeats'' that would indicate proper connectivity between a trading
firm's automated
[[Page 78851]]
trading system and the trading platform, and ``auto-cancel on
disconnect,'' an exchange tool allowing trading firms to determine
whether their orders will be left in the market upon disconnection. Two
exchanges stated that they provide an optional cancel-on-disconnect
functionality.\256\ FIA characterized cancel-on-disconnect as a
``widely adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk control'' and indicated that
it is increasingly common for FCMs to employ cancel-on-disconnect for
their connections to the DCM.\257\ Several commenters indicated that
they support exchanges offering system heartbeats and/or cancel-on-
disconnect to their market participants.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ CME at Appendix A-4; CFE at 9-10.
\257\ FIA at 14.
\258\ FIA at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Order Cancellation Systems
The Concept Release also addressed selective working order
cancellation, a tool that enables an exchange to immediately cancel
one, multiple, or all resting orders from a market participant as
necessary in an emergency situation. Such a tool will mitigate impact
to the market of a malfunctioning Algorithmic Trading system because it
will limit additional erroneous orders from being submitted to a
trading platform and executed. The Concept Release also considered
order cancellation mechanisms that would immediately cancel all working
orders and prevent submission (by the market participant), transmittal
(by the clearing member), or acceptance (by the trading platform) of
any new orders from a market participant or a particular trader or ATS
of such market participant.
In response to the Concept Release, numerous commenters addressed
kill switches, discussing industry use; opposition to prescriptive
requirements; the importance of flexibility in design; potential
triggers; and content of kill switch procedures. For purposes of this
discussion, the term ``kill switch'' means generally any order
cancellation tools that cancels or prevents submission of orders.
Commenters generally indicated that kill switches could be beneficial,
but also stressed the complexity involved in their design and use.
Several commenters described order cancellation mechanisms
currently employed in the industry. One exchange commented that it has
two kill switch tools: A kill switch used by the exchange, clearing
firm, or trading firm to remove an entity from the market completely;
and an order management tool that enables clearing firms and end-users
to cancel orders at a more granular level.\259\ Another exchange
explained that it can cancel orders and quotes in an emergency and it
also provides a kill switch to clearing members that cancels all orders
and quotes from a market participant.\260\ While commenters noted the
importance of placing kill switches at the DCM level,\261\ several
commenters stated that kill switches should be implemented by market
participants and clearing firms in addition to exchanges.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ CME at 23-24.
\260\ CFE at 11.
\261\ FIA at 29-33; Citadel LLC (``Citadel'') Comment Letter
(December 11, 2013) at 3; AIMA at 3, 18; MFA at 12-13; KCG at 13.
\262\ FIA at 30; Citadel at 3; CME at 22; Chicago Fed at 2; MFA
at 12-13; Gelber at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stressed the importance of flexibility in the design of
kill switches \263\ and generally opposed prescriptive requirements
regarding their design and implementation.\264\ Reasons included
challenges concerning setting the correct level of granularity (i.e.,
whether the control should apply to one participant and not others at
the same firm); the possibility that kill switches may prevent a firm
from being able to enter risk-reducing orders; prescriptive
requirements will become outdated; that time is of the essence, and
therefore exchanges and firms need to be free from time-consuming
processes concerning the use of the kill switch; the standardization of
kill switches, if poorly calibrated or too widely applied, could result
in increased costs and disruption of legitimate trading operations; and
a concern over adding more layers of complexity into an already complex
market.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ FIA at 29-33; TCL at 8; AIMA at 18; MFA at 12; KCG at 13-
14.
\264\ FIA at 29-33; CME at 23; Gelber at 14-15; AIMA at 19.
\265\ FIA at 29-33; CME at 23; Gelber at 14-15; AIMA at 19; TCL
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical concern raised by commenters was how order cancellation
mechanisms should address risk-reducing activity.\266\ Gelber and KCG
suggested that kill switches enable a firm to mitigate risk through
manual order entry, and that allowing the market participant to set
trigger thresholds will help ensure that orders entered for the purpose
of reducing risk are not cancelled.\267\ In contrast, CME stated that a
kill switch should exist solely to completely remove an entity from the
market, and that other tools can be used to enter risk reducing orders.
CME argued that allowing entry of risk reducing orders as an exception
to the kill switch process introduces too much uncertainty and
complexity.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ FIA at 29-33; TCL at 8; Gelber at 14-15; CME at 24; KCG at
13; SIG at 8.
\267\ Gelber at 14-15; KCG at 13.
\268\ CME at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, commenters discussed procedures concerning activation of a
kill switch. For example, FIA and Gelber suggested that a kill switch
have both automated and manual triggers.\269\ KCG suggested that if the
total risk of a portfolio exceeds certain thresholds, firm systems
should automatically send only risk reducing orders and supervisors
should be able to stop trading entirely.\270\ TCL commented that an
exchange or ATS operator will not implement a system that abdicates
control to an automated kill switch. TCL suggested that monitoring
systems identify irregular market activity and alert staff that have
access to a kill switch.\271\ Similarly, Chicago Fed recommended that a
human decide whether to use a kill switch based on internal and market
conditions.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ FIA at 29-33; Gelber at 14-15.
\270\ KCG at 14.
\271\ TCL at 8.
\272\ Chicago Fed at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Concept Release comments, including comments on kill
switch functionality, are discussed below with respect to Regulation AT
pre-trade risk and other control requirements on FCMs and DCMs.
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 1.80 of its regulations to
require that AT Persons implement pre-trade risk controls and other
measures for all AT Order Messages that are reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. Relevant controls and measures
required by Sec. 1.80 include, but are not limited to: Maximum AT
Order Message frequency and maximum execution frequency per unit time;
order price parameters and maximum order size limits; order
cancellation and ATS disconnect systems; and connectivity monitoring
systems. They also include several other specific requirements, such as
notification by AT Persons to applicable DCMs and clearing member FCMs
that they will engage in Algorithmic Trading; calibrating or otherwise
implementing DCM-provided self-trade prevention tools; and periodic
consideration of the sufficiency and effectiveness of the controls that
an AT Person has implemented. Consistent with comments received in
response to the Concept Release, proposed Sec. 1.80 provides market
participants latitude in the design and implementation of required
controls, and in fact requires
[[Page 78852]]
only a small number of specific controls that the Commission
understands are already widely implemented by likely AT Persons (e.g.,
proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80(a), 1.80(b) and 1.80(c)). In this regard,
proposed Sec. 1.80 provides each AT Person with the flexibility to
identify and implement any additional controls that such AT Person
believes are appropriate for its Algorithmic Trading. The Commission is
cognizant that prescriptive regulations in this area may fail to take
into account the unique characteristics of market participants and
trading strategies, or may become obsolete as technology evolves. The
Commission has attempted to provide appropriate flexibility to
accommodate such variety and evolution, while also establishing a
regulatory floor that reflects its evaluation of basic requirements for
all AT Persons.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ See section IV(H) below for a more detailed discussion of
which persons will be designated as AT Persons for purposes of
proposed Sec. 1.80 and other regulations, and which persons will
not be AT Persons, but will nonetheless be subject to proposed Sec.
1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Policy Discussion
Proposed Sec. 1.80 requires AT Persons to implement pre-trade risk
controls and other measures reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. This requirement is central to the purposes
of Sec. 1.80. As discussed below, the Commission believes that
proposed Sec. 1.80 would reduce the potential for market disruptions
arising from system malfunctions, other errors, or intentional
disruptive conduct. The Commission notes that the risks of such
disruptions are heightened by the increased use of high-speed
algorithmic trading, which makes the implementation of pre-trade risk
controls and other measures even more necessary. Without effective risk
controls, erroneous orders can significantly impact many market
participants in a short amount of time. The prevention of Algorithmic
Trading Events pursuant to Sec. 1.80 would help ensure the integrity
of Commission-regulated markets and provide market participants with
greater confidence that intentional, bona fide transactions are being
executed.
The pre-trade risk controls and other measures required by proposed
Sec. 1.80 include, but are not limited to, those described in clauses
(a)-(e) of Sec. 1.80. The Commission believes that each of these
enumerated controls and other measures will promote the goals of Sec.
1.80, as described above. Proposed Sec. 1.80(f) also promotes the
goals of Sec. 1.80, by requiring each AT Person to periodically review
its compliance with Sec. 1.80 to determine whether it has effectively
implemented sufficient measures reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. Each AT Person must take prompt action to
remedy any deficiencies it identifies.
a. Maximum AT Order Message and Execution Frequencies
Proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(1)(i) requires AT Persons to set pre-trade
risk controls that establish maximum AT Order Message and execution
frequencies per unit time. These controls are commonly referred to in
industry as message and execution throttles. These controls are
designed to prevent excessive messaging or trading which could disrupt,
slow down, or impede normal market activity. The Commission's proposed
regulation on maximum order message and execution frequencies is aimed
at preventing market disruptions caused by either inadvertent or
intentional submission of AT Order Messages. This proposed regulation
should not prevent DCMs from maintaining any and all additional
safeguards intended to prevent intentional activity such as quote
stuffing, or to apply such safeguards to message or data flows that are
broader than the proposed definition of AT Order Messages. As indicated
above, commenters to the Concept Release indicated that message and
execution throttles are already widely used in the industry.\274\
Commenters indicated that the benefits of these risk controls include
mitigating the risk and impact of disruptive events, alerting market
participants to potential problems with their automated trading
systems, helping to ensure a level playing field for all market
participants, and deterring predatory and disruptive activities.\275\
In light of these benefits, and the already extensive use of this risk
control, the Commission includes maximum AT Order Message and execution
frequencies in its proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ See FIA at 59-60 (FIA's surveys of member firms and FCMs)
and comment indicating that exchanges already use throttles (CME at
8-9; CFE at 5-6; TCL at 6; KCG at 4; MFA at 7; and AIMA at 8).
\275\ See FIA at 12, 15-17, 65; MFA at 7; CME at 8; Gelber at 5-
7; AFR at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require investment firms to establish a maximum messages
limit and repeated automated execution throttle.\276\ The execution
throttle should limit the number of times a strategy is applied only
where appropriate to the specific trading venue, strategy or
product.\277\ ESMA requires that the controls be calibrated as
appropriate for the investment firm's capital base, clearing
arrangements, trading strategy, risk tolerance and experience.\278\
ESMA further requires that firms take into account variables such as
length of time since engaged in algorithmic trading and reliance on
third-party vendors, and firms must re-calibrate in order to account
for the changing impact of the orders on the relevant market due to
different price and liquidity levels.\279\ In addition, the
calculations supporting each control should take into account all
orders sent to a trading venue.\280\ FIA has recently recommended that
automated traders implement message throttles and repeated automated
execution limits.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1,
supra note 80 at 214-15.
\277\ See id.; ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report,
supra note 80 at 200.
\278\ See id.
\279\ See id.
\280\ See id.
\281\ FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 10, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the appropriate thresholds of these controls, the Commission
agrees with Concept Release comments indicating that regulations should
not mandate specific thresholds because, among other things,
flexibility is necessary to respond to the dynamics of the market, and
appropriate limits will vary by participant.\282\ For example,
commenters suggested that message and execution throttles should be
based on the specific attributes of the trading firm or account,
including the nature of the firm's trading strategies, the market it
trades in, and the speed of its systems.\283\ Therefore, the proposed
rules do not prescribe particular limits or thresholds, aside from the
overarching requirement that the controls be reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event, and Sec. 1.80(a)(2)'s
requirement that the controls be set at the level of each AT Person, or
such other more granular level as the AT Person may determine,
including but not limited to, by product, account number or
designation, or one or more identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. While several commenters supported greater
Commission involvement in setting risk control parameters, the
Commission believes that it is not in the best position to determine
the appropriate message or execution rate for each trading firm,
trading strategy, product, and every other potentially relevant factor
that should be taken into account when establishing thresholds.
[[Page 78853]]
As discussed below, DCMs would receive information as to the specific
quantitative settings used by each AT Person as part of Commission-
required compliance reports pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.83. Pursuant
to this reporting process, DCMs would be able to identify AT Persons
that have message or execution throttle thresholds that appear
insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ See FIA at 12; CME at 9; Gelber at 5-7; AIMA at 8; KCG at
3-4; OneChicago at 5.
\283\ CME at 8-9; AIMA at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that several commenters cited potential
negative effects of controls establishing message or execution limits
(e.g., they can block risk-reducing orders and decrease liquidity). The
Commission believes that the overall benefits to maximum order message
and execution frequencies, as noted above, outweigh potential negative
effects. In addition, allowing market participants discretion in the
design and implementation of message and execution throttles, as well
as in establishing appropriate thresholds, would enable market
participants to address and limit the potential negative effects of
this risk control.
Finally, as noted above, proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(2) requires the
controls to be implemented at the AT Person-level. Consistent with
Sec. 1.80's overarching requirement that an AT Person shall implement
pre-trade risk controls and other measures reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event, each AT Person must evaluate
whether the controls should be set at a more granular level--for
example, by product, account number or designation, or one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated with an AT Order Message.
Where deemed appropriate by the AT Person, the controls should be set
at such more granular levels. In addition, proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(3)
requires that natural person monitors at the AT Person be promptly
alerted when the controls are breached. The purpose of this requirement
is to ensure that the AT Person would take any further action that is
necessary to prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic Trading Event.
b. Order Price Parameters and Maximum Order Size Limits
Proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(1)(ii) requires pre-trade risk controls that
limit the prices and quantities associated with individual order
messages. By requiring ``order price parameters,'' the Commission means
that AT Persons must establish price limits intended to prevent orders
with prices far from the prevailing market from entering the market. At
the trading firm or clearing member level, such controls may be called
``price tolerance limits'' that define a maximum amount that an order
price may deviate from a pre-determined price, such as the last trade
price, or the market open price.\284\ By requiring ``maximum order size
limits,'' the Commission means the risk control generally understood in
industry as ``fat-finger'' limits. Commenters to the Concept Release
indicated that maximum order size controls are already widely used by
trading firms and that this control is effective at reducing the
likelihood that an exchange would need to make use of its error trade
policy.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 10.
\285\ FIA at 18-19, 23; CME at 15; Gelber at 10; KCG at 8; 3Red
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require investment firms to establish price collars, maximum
order value limits and maximum order volume limits, appropriately
calibrated for their capital base, clearing arrangements, trading
strategy, risk tolerance and experience.\286\ IOSCO has also indicated
that many market participants already employ order price and volume
limits.\287\ In addition, FIA has recently recommended that automated
traders employ maximum order size and price tolerance limits.\288\
Finally, the Commission also notes that the SEC's Market Access Rule
requires controls that prevent entry of erroneous orders, by rejecting
orders that exceed appropriate price or size parameters, on an order-
by-order basis or over a short period of time, or that indicate
duplicative orders.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1, supra note 80 at 214-15.
\287\ See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 21.
\288\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 8, 10.
\289\ See SEC, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access, supra note 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the usefulness of price and order size parameters in
preventing the execution of erroneous trades, the Commission determined
to require that AT Persons establish such controls on all orders
submitted through Algorithmic Trading. The proposed regulations are
intended to be sufficiently flexible so that as required controls
improve or new types controls emerge, they may be incorporated into an
AT Person's pre-trade risk control program and satisfy the requirements
of proposed Sec. 1.80(a). Similarly, this regulation is intended to be
sufficiently flexible that exchanges, AT Persons, and clearing member
FCMs may set the specific thresholds that will be most effective in
preventing an Algorithmic Trading Event.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require that each order
pass through price parameter and maximum order size limit checks in
order to protect the natural price discovery process from disruptive
behavior such as unintentionally large orders. Consistent with the
Commission's approach to the other pre-trade risk controls, the
Commission will not impose thresholds, but will leave design of the
control and specific thresholds to the discretion of market
participants. Finally, the Commission notes that market participants
could comply with the pre-trade and other risk controls required by
Regulation AT in multiple ways: By internally developing such controls
from scratch, upgrading existing systems, or purchasing a risk
management solution from an outside vendor. The Commission understands
that market participants may also be able to purchase some risk
management solutions from DCMs. The Commission notes that
implementation of exchange-provided controls, such as a maximum order
size limit, would comply with Regulation AT's requirement that AT
Persons use that control. However, an AT Person's use of a DCM-provided
maximum order size limit would not constitute DCM compliance with
proposed regulations requiring that DCMs implement maximum order sizes
limits at the exchange level.
c. Order Management Controls
Proposed Sec. 1.80(b) requires that AT Persons implement certain
order management controls. The required controls must have the ability
to: (i) Immediately disengage Algorithmic Trading; (ii) cancel selected
or up to all resting orders when system or market conditions require
it; and (iii) prevent submission of any new AT Order Messages (i.e., a
``kill switch''). The parameters for the order cancellation systems
must be reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. In
addition, proposed Sec. 1.80(c) requires that AT Persons with Direct
Electronic Access (as defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(yyyy)) must
implement systems to indicate on an ongoing basis whether they have
proper connectivity with the trading platform and any systems used by a
DCM to provide the AT Person with market data. Proposed Sec.
1.80(b)(2) requires that prior to an AT Person's initial use of
Algorithmic Trading to submit a message or order to a DCM's trading
platform, such AT Person must notify the applicable DCM whether all of
its resting orders should be cancelled or suspended in the event of
disconnect with the trading platform.
[[Page 78854]]
The order cancellation systems requirements provided in proposed
Sec. 1.80(b) and (c) are intended to protect against erroneous trading
activity caused by an algorithmic trading system malfunction. As to
connectivity monitoring and cancel-on-disconnect, several commenters
supported exchanges offering such functionality to trading firms.\290\
Given the possibility of a technology failure that causes a market
participant's orders to be left in the market upon disconnect, leaving
the trader or trading firm unable to manage the orders, the Commission
believes that systems indicating proper connectivity and cancel-on-
disconnect are important risk management tools that should be required.
The Commission notes that commenters to the Concept Release indicated
cancel-on-disconnect functionality should be a flexible tool, allowing
market participants to determine whether orders should be left in the
market upon disconnection.\291\ FIA has explained that automated
traders must decide whether cancellation upon disconnect mitigates or
increases risk.\292\ Accordingly, the Commission does not require
cancellation or suspension of orders upon disconnect. Rather, it
requires AT Persons, prior to engaging in Algorithmic Trading, to
notify the DCM as to what action it should take in the event of
disconnect, which may depend on the facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ FIA at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed at 2.
\291\ CME at Appendix A-4; CFE at 9-10; MFA at 12.
\292\ FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to ``kill switch'' functionality, comments to the Concept
Release indicated that exchanges already provide kill switch
functionality for use by market participants or clearing members, and
additional commenters suggested that such functionality should be
implemented by market participants and clearing firms in addition to
exchanges.\293\ The Commission notes the challenges identified by
commenters around setting the correct level of granularity of an order
cancellation tool, and of the potential need for trading firms to
submit risk-reducing orders. The Commission believes that requiring
that order cancellation tools allow for submission of risk-reducing
orders may introduce too much uncertainty or complexity into the
market, or may be technically infeasible at this time. In light of such
considerations, the Commission's proposed regulations do not mandate
specific elements of kill switch design, such as the parameters or
procedures concerning when the control must be triggered, or require
that the functionality must allow for submission of risk-reducing
orders. Rather, Sec. 1.80(b)(1) would require that AT Persons have the
ability and authority to disengage Algorithmic Trading, cancel selected
resting orders, and prevent submission of new AT Order Messages, but
does not specify when such functionality should be triggered. The
Commission allows flexibility for AT Persons to design and implement
appropriate parameters and procedures that are appropriate for their
trading strategy or markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ FIA at 30; Citadel at 3; CME at 22-24; Chicago Fed at 2;
MFA at 12-13; Gelber at 14; CFE at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's approach to order cancellation systems is
consistent with current recommendations in the European regulatory
context. ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards require that
investment firms know which algorithm and which trader, trading desk
or, where applicable, client is responsible for each order, and have
the ability, as an emergency measure, to cancel unexecuted orders
submitted to individual trading venues originated by individual
traders, trading desks, or where applicable, clients. Investment firms
must also have the ability, as an emergency measure, to immediately
cancel all the firm's outstanding orders at all trading venues to which
it is connected.\294\ The Commission also notes that FIA recently
recommended that automated traders build their own kill switch
functionality into their trading systems where it is possible to
implement it on a sufficiently granular level to identify individual
trading systems.\295\ FIA also recommended that where an exchange
provides a kill switch, there should be a registration process and
entitlement system that requires automated traders or brokers to
specify which staff are authorized to use the functionality.\296\ The
Commission believes that FIA (in its recent Guide to the Development
and Operation of Automated Trading Systems), other industry
organizations, and commenters to the Concept Release provided
reasonable recommendations as to the design and implementation of order
cancellation systems. The Commission urges AT Persons and other market
participants to consider such recommendations in the implementation of
order cancellation and connectivity systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1, supra note 80 at 211-12.
\295\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 14.
\296\ See id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Notification of Algorithmic Trading
Proposed Sec. 1.80(d) requires that, prior to an AT Person's
initial use of Algorithmic Trading to submit a message or order to a
DCM, such AT Person must notify its clearing member FCM, as well as the
DCM on which the AT Person is trading, that it will engage in
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission intends that this requirement
ensure that clearing member FCMs and exchanges have sufficient advance
notice to implement and calibrate pre-trade and other risk controls to
manage risks arising from the AT Person's trading.
e. Self-Trade Prevention Tools
Proposed Sec. 1.80(e) requires that, to the extent that
implementation of a DCM's self-trade prevention tools requires
calibration or other action by an AT Person, such AT Person must
calibrate or take such other action as is necessary to apply such
tools. This proposed regulation is designed to operate in conjunction
with proposed Sec. 40.23, which requires DCMs to either apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention tools.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of proposed Sec.
40.23 and requests for comment in connection with the proposed
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Periodic Review for Sufficiency and Effectiveness
Finally, proposed Sec. 1.80(f) requires that each AT Person shall
periodically review its compliance with Sec. 1.80 to determine whether
it has effectively implemented sufficient measures reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. Proposed Sec. 1.80(f) would
also require that an AT Person take prompt action to remedy any
deficiencies it identifies. The Commission recognizes through proposed
Sec. 1.80(f) that trading practices, technologies for algorithmic
trading, and best practices in risk controls will necessarily evolve
over time. It believes that periodic review by AT Persons of their own
pre-trade risk controls and other measures will help to ensure
compliance with proposed Sec. 1.80 in an engaged and proactive manner.
g. Certain Measures Not Adopted in This NPRM
The Commission determined not to address in this NPRM some measures
that were discussed in the Concept Release and supported by Concept
Release commenters. For example, various commenters favored
standardization around drop copies and error trade policies. FIA
commented that drop copies should be available for
[[Page 78855]]
all trading venues and products whenever technologically practicable
and that trade reports and other information provided by drop copy
should be disseminated to the consumer in real-time or as near real-
time as practicable.\298\ As to error trade policies, FIA suggested
that they be clear and deterministic enough for all participants to
understand, promote a marketplace where all trades stand as executed,
protect participants who are counterparties to error trades, and not be
subject to discretion.\299\ KCG, MFA, Citadel and SIG also made similar
comments.\300\ The Commission believes that standardization of drop
copy reports and error trade policies, as well as other measures
addressed in the Concept Release, merit further consideration within
the Commission as well as in industry. However, the Commission
determined to include particular risk controls in Regulation AT, and
not others, based on its understanding of the critical importance of
controls required in proposed Sec. 1.80 in preventing and mitigating
market disruptions, as well as their current widespread industry use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ FIA at 13.
\299\ See id.
\300\ KCG at 10-11; MFA at 2, 10-12; Citadel at 3, 4-5; SIG at
8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted above, the Commission has taken a principles-
based approach to its requirements relating to risk controls and other
measures. Proposed Sec. 1.80 provides market participants discretion
in the design and implementation of controls, and requires only a small
number of specific controls that the Commission understands are already
widely implemented. Proposed Sec. 1.80 provides AT Persons with
flexibility to identify and implement any additional controls
appropriate for their Algorithmic Trading. The Commission is aware that
prescriptive regulations in this area may not take into account the
unique characteristics of each market participant, and may become
obsolete. The proposed regulation reflects the Commission's intent to
accommodate the diverse and evolving nature of market participants'
businesses and technology, while establishing basic regulatory
requirements of essential risk controls and related measures that each
market participant engaged in Algorithmic Trading should have.
4. Request for Comments
33. Are any pre-trade and other risk controls required by Sec.
1.80 ineffective, not already widely used by AT Persons, or likely to
become obsolete?
34. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically enumerated in proposed Sec. 1.80?
35. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required in Sec. 1.80 sufficiently address the possibility of
technological advances in trading, and the development of new, more
effective controls that should be implemented by AT Persons?
36. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the regulation's
requirements relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
37. The Commission notes that Sec. 1.80(d) requires that prior to
initial use of Algorithmic Trading, an AT Person must notify its
clearing member FCM and the DCM that it will engage in Algorithmic
Trading. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the content of that
notification requirement is sufficient, or whether clearing member FCMs
and DCMs should also be notified of additional information. For
example, should AT Persons be required to notify their clearing member
FCMs of particular changes to their Algorithmic Trading systems that
would affect the risk controls applied by the clearing member FCM?
38. Is Sec. 1.80(f)'s requirement that each AT Person periodically
review its compliance with Sec. 1.80 appropriate? Should there be more
prescriptive and granular requirements to ensure that each AT Person
periodically reviews its pre-trade and other risk controls and takes
appropriate steps to update or recalibrate them in order to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event? Alternatively, is Sec. 1.80(f) necessary?
Does the Commission need to explicitly require AT Persons to conduct a
periodic review of their compliance with Sec. 1.80?
39. AT Persons that are registered FCMs are required by existing
Commission regulation 1.11 to have formal ``Risk Management Programs,''
including, pursuant to Sec. 1.11(e)(3)(ii), ``automated financial risk
management controls reasonably designed to prevent the placing of
erroneous orders'' and ``policies and procedures governing the use,
supervision, maintenance, testing, and inspection of automated trading
programs.'' As described in Sec. 1.11, an FCM's Risk Management
Program must include a risk management unit independent of the business
unit; quarterly risk exposure reports to senior management and the
governing body of the FCM, with copies to the Commission; and other
substantive requirements. The Commission requests public comment
regarding whether one or more of the proposed requirements applicable
to FCMs in Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) (as described
below) should be incorporated within an FCM's Risk Management Program
and be subject to the requirements of such program as described in
Sec. 1.11. In this regard, any final rules arising from this NPRM
could place all requirements applicable to FCMs in Sec. Sec. 1.80,
1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) within the operational risk measures
required in Sec. 1.11(e)(3)(ii). Such incorporation could help improve
the interaction between an FCM's operational risk efforts and its pre-
trade risk controls; development, monitoring, and compliance efforts;
and reporting and recordkeeping requirements, pursuant to Sec. Sec.
1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c). It could also help ensure that an
FCM's Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) processes benefit
from the same internal rigor and independence required by the Risk
Management Program in Sec. 1.11.
40. The Commission proposes to adopt a multi-layered approach to
regulations intended to mitigate the risks of automated trading,
including pre-trade risk controls and other procedures applicable to AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs. Please comment on whether an
alternative approach, for example one which does not impose
requirements at each of these three levels, would more effectively
mitigate the risks of automated trading and promote the other
regulatory goals of Regulation AT.
I. Standards for Development, Testing, Monitoring, and Compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems--Sec. 1.81
The Commission proposes regulations under Sec. 1.81 requiring AT
Persons to establish policies and procedures that accomplish a number
of objectives with respect to the development, testing, monitoring, and
compliance of Algorithmic Trading. The proposed regulations are
intended to standardize a set of principles in order to reduce the
operational risk of such systems. The remainder of this section
presents Concept Release comments on this topic, a description of the
proposed regulation, a discussion of the policy justification for the
proposal, and a request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment on testing procedures for
ATSs. The Concept Release contemplated, among other things, that market
participants operating ATSs must test each ATS internally and on each
trading platform on which it will
[[Page 78856]]
operate, and trading platforms must provide test environments that
simulate the production environment. In particular, the Concept Release
asked for comment on when it is most beneficial for firms to test an
ATS after it has been modified, and how the Commission and market
participants should distinguish between major modifications and minor
modifications.
Commenters support ATS testing and discussed current and best
practices, but disagreed as to whether regulatory measures are
appropriate to standardize these practices. Most commenters (including
FIA, CME, CFE, and MFA) oppose standardized ATS testing
procedures.\301\ FIA indicated that it is impractical to implement
prescriptive standardized procedures for development, testing and
change management given the diversity of technologies and business
operations at DCMs. FIA pointed to the testing recommendations outlined
in its March 2012 ``Software Development and Change Management
Recommendations'' as best practices for trading firms, which could also
apply to all participants. FIA described different types of testing and
supports DCMs providing robust test environments and market
participants using such environments.\302\ CME cited the FIA PTG's
``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading Firms'' as an
appropriate principles-based approach to management, oversight, and
testing of electronic trading systems.\303\ CME noted that exchange
systems vary widely, and each exchange should develop and test in a
manner that comports with industry best practices.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ FIA at 34-38; CME at 26; CFE at 2-3; AIMA at 3, 20-21; TCL
at 15; KCG at 15-16; MFA at 2, 12-13; OneChicago at 2-3.
\302\ FIA at 34-38.
\303\ CME at 25.
\304\ CME at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIG indicated that DCMs should provide test environments and stated
that ATS testing procedures should be standardized ``where possible.''
\305\ Gelber stated that standardizing development, testing and change
management might be helpful, but it is more important that these
procedures are clear and comprehensive at each exchange than that they
are standardized.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ SIG at 9.
\306\ Gelber at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both FIA and CME noted the difficulty of establishing objective
criteria to determine what constitutes a ``major'' or ``minor''
modification of an ATS.\307\ CFE noted that DCMs are already subject to
DCM Core Principle 20 and Commission regulation 38.1051(h), which
require DCMs to conduct periodic, objective testing and review of their
automated systems to ensure that they are reliable, secure, and have
adequate scalable capacity.\308\ In addition, KCG argued that a
``testing process that creates too many frictions can discourage making
changes that improve a system.'' \309\ Similarly, TCL stated that the
testing procedures suggested in the Concept Release are overly broad
and could force ATS operators to take a narrow view of what constitutes
a change.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ FIA at 34-38; CME at 25-26.
\308\ CFE at 2-3.
\309\ KCG at 15-16.
\310\ TCL at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, several commenters support regulatory involvement in
this area. Chicago Fed noted that many industries have standards-
setting bodies, but because there is no corollary for the development
of ATSs within an ``HFT environment,'' market participants and the TAC
should work together to formulate such standards and guidelines that
will help mitigate the impact of operational risks.\311\ IATP stated
that out of all of the safeguards addressed in the Concept Release, ATS
testing has the greatest potential to reduce market disruptions. IATP
recommended that the Commission review and select from current best
practices.\312\ MFA recommended that industry engage in more robust
testing, and that trading platforms should offer testing where a firm's
software interacts with other types of software.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Chicago Fed at 3.
\312\ IATP at 7.
\313\ MFA, Presentation Before the CFTC Technology Advisory
Committee Meeting on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for
Automated Trading Environments (Feb. 10, 2014) at 13, available at:
http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/tac021014_mfa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIMA opposes standardization, and suggested alternatively that
``CFTC principles'' create a legal requirement for a certain standard
of testing and change management. AIMA cited as an example the
Department of Energy Software Engineering Methodology.\314\ While MFA
also opposes standardization, it stated that ``rules or industry
practice should encourage more robust and more routine testing at the
trading platform level.'' \315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ AIMA at 3, 20-21.
\315\ MFA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as to current ATS testing practices, MFA indicated that
``many, if not all, exchanges provide market participants a test
facility to test trading software and algorithms, as well as offer test
symbols to trade.'' \316\ CME and CFE described their own testing
practices. CME indicated that market participants routinely test in
their own testing environments using historical data to test trading
strategies against a range of market conditions, and that exchanges
commonly make their own historical data available for testing purposes.
CME explained that it requires all systems interfacing with CME Globex
to be certified on the order entry and/or market data interfaces prior
to deployment.\317\ CFE provides a user testing environment that
simulates the production environment.\318\ TCL described FIA industry-
wide testing of backup systems.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ MFA at 13.
\317\ CME at 25-26.
\318\ CFE at 12.
\319\ TCL at 11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIX stated that it has a working group that is developing best
practices related to testing and is working to increase the
availability of test financial instruments.\320\ Similarly, IIT
commented that a working group named AT 9000, which is affiliated with
the International Organization for Standardization, is developing a
quality management system for automated trading. The goals of AT 9000
are to help automated trading industry organizations satisfy their
responsibility for trading safety, to satisfy regulatory requirements,
and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of automated
trading.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ FIX Trading Community (``FIX'') Comment Letter (December
11, 2013) at 4-5.
\321\ Illinois Institute of Technology (``IIT'') Comment Letter
(February 11, 2014) at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concept Release also requested comment on ATS development and
change development. Among other things, the Concept Release
contemplated that trading platforms and market participants operating
ATSs must maintain a development environment that is adequately
isolated from the production trading environment, and that market
participants must have policies and procedures concerning approval and
verification of changes to their trading systems. In particular, the
Concept Release asked for comment on what challenges or benefits may
result from the implementation of standardized development and change
management procedures.
FIA described the core components of a change management as
including authorization (effective pre-deployment review of the
proposed change) and auditability (procedures for communicating
requirements, changes and functionality related to proprietary software
and technical infrastructure). FIA indicated that prescriptive
[[Page 78857]]
development and change management standards are impractical given the
diversity of market participants, but principles such as authorization
and auditability can serve as ``building blocks'' that market
participants can use to tailor a change management process to fit their
needs.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ FIA at 4, 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, TCL indicated that exchanges and ATSs should have formal
processes for change management, which include a production
installation authorization process in which no one may change the
production systems after it has been submitted for authorization,
followed by a formal signoff.\323\ KCG recommended that policies for
deploying new software include staged deployment (deploying new
software in phases, with explicit rollback procedures), and validation
(manual and automated evaluation of whether a change is
successful).\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ TCL at 15.
\324\ KCG at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Concept Release requested comment on ATS
monitoring and supervision. In particular, the Concept Release
requested comment on the extent to which human monitors have been
trained in how to respond to unexpected problems, and been given the
requisite authority to intervene at these times. The Concept Release
suggested that market participants operating ATSs must ensure that
their ATSs are subject to continuous real-time monitoring and
supervision by trained and qualified staff at all times while engaged
in trading. Two commenters addressed ATS monitoring and supervision,
but did not specifically express support or opposition to regulatory
action. KCG recommended that a monitoring process identify ``smoke
signals'' (unusual or abnormal behaviors), investigate the cause of the
smoke signals, and, if the smoke signal is an error, the monitoring
alerts should be adjusted to take that information into account.\325\
MFA commented that there should be at least one designated individual
who is available and authorized to suspend a firm's trading program.
MFA also suggested that FCMs should have ``plan-of-action'' protocols
that include scenarios where trading is suspended based on specific
types of events.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ KCG at 17-18.
\326\ MFA at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes regulations requiring AT Persons to
establish policies and procedures that accomplish a number of
objectives with respect to the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading. The proposed regulations are intended to
standardize a set of principles in order to reduce the operational risk
of such systems. The proposed regulations require each AT Person to:
Implement written policies and procedures for the development and
testing of ATSs (Sec. 1.81(a)); implement written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each of its ATSs is
subject to continuous real-time monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while such ATS is engaged in trading
(Sec. 1.81(b)); implement written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that ATSs operate in a manner that complies with the
CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder, and ensure that staff are
familiar with the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder, the
rules of any DCM to which such AT Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any RFA of which such AT Person is a
member, the AT Person's own internal requirements, and the requirements
of the AT Person's clearing member FCM, in each case as applicable
(Sec. 1.81(c)); and implement written policies and procedures to
designate and train staff responsible for Algorithmic Trading (Sec.
1.81(d)). The proposed rules are described in greater detail below.
As a complement to the proposed design and testing requirements,
Regulation AT proposes a new requirement that DCMs (under proposed
Sec. 40.21, discussed in section IV(O) below) provide a test
environment that will enable market participants to simulate production
trading and conduct exchange-based conformance testing of their
Algorithmic Trading systems.
Development and Testing of Algorithmic Trading Systems. Regulation
AT proposes a new requirement (Sec. 1.81(a)(1)) that each AT Person
must implement written policies and procedures for the development and
testing of its Algorithmic Trading systems. Such policies and
procedures must at a minimum include the following: (i) Maintaining a
development environment that is adequately isolated from the production
trading environment (the development environment may include computers,
networks, and databases, and should be used by software engineers while
developing, modifying, and testing source code); (ii) testing of all
Algorithmic Trading code and related systems and any changes to such
code and systems prior to their implementation, including testing to
identify circumstances that may contribute to future Algorithmic
Trading Events (such testing must be conducted both internally with the
AT Person and on each designated contract market on which Algorithmic
Trading will occur); (iii) regular back-testing of Algorithmic Trading
using historical transaction, order, and message data to identify
circumstances that may contribute to future Algorithmic Trading Events;
(iv) regular stress tests of Algorithmic Trading systems to verify
their ability to operate in the manner intended under a variety of
market conditions; (v) procedures for documenting the strategy and
design of proprietary Algorithmic Trading software used by an AT
Person, as well as any changes to such software if such changes are
implemented in a production environment; and (vi) maintaining a source
code repository to manage source code access, persistence, copies of
all code used in the production environment, and changes to such code
(such source code repository must include an audit trail of material
changes to source code that would allow AT Persons to determine, for
each such material change: Who made it; when they made it; and the
coding purpose of the change. The source code must also be maintained
in accordance with Commission regulation Sec. 1.31).
Monitoring of Algorithmic Trading Systems. Regulation AT proposes a
new requirement (Sec. 1.81(b)) that each AT Person must implement
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each
of its ATSs is subject to continuous real-time monitoring by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while such ATS is engaged in trading.
Such policies and procedures must at a minimum include the following:
(i) Continuous real-time monitoring of Algorithmic Trading to identify
potential Algorithmic Trading Events; (ii) automated alerts when an
ATS's AT Order Message behavior breaches design parameters, upon loss
of network connectivity or data feeds, or when market conditions
approach the boundaries within which an ATS is intended to operate, to
the extent applicable; \327\ (iii) monitoring staff of the AT Person
shall have the ability and authority to disengage an Algorithmic
Trading system and to cancel resting orders when system or market
conditions require it, including the ability to contact staff of the
applicable designated contract market and clearing firm, as applicable,
to seek information
[[Page 78858]]
and cancel orders; and (iv) procedures that will enable AT Persons to
track which monitoring staff is responsible for an Algorithmic Trading
system during trading hours. The Commission believes that staff persons
who are responsible for monitoring the trading of other AT Person staff
should typically not be actively engaged in trading at the same time,
because it would be difficult to adequately and consistently monitor
trading of other AT Person staff while engaged in trading
activities.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ For example, if an ATS is designed to operate within
certain ranges of volatility, liquidity, or order or trade prices,
automated alerts may be triggered when volatility or a moving
average approaches the pre-determined ranges.
\328\ The Commission notes that the supervision requirement of
proposed Sec. 1.81(b) is analogous to the supervision requirements
for Commission registrants under the customer protection rules of
Commission regulation 166.3. The Commission further notes that
ESMA's draft regulatory standards for MiFID II provide that real-
time monitoring should be performed by a risk function that is
independent from the trader, to ensure an appropriate segregation
between the trading desk and supporting functions. See ESMA
September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report, supra note 80 at 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance of Algorithmic Trading Systems. Regulation AT proposes a
new requirement (Sec. 1.81(c)) that each AT Person shall implement
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each
of its Algorithmic Trading systems operates in a manner that complies
with the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder. AT Persons must
also implement procedures requiring staff of the AT Person to review
Algorithmic Trading systems in order to detect potential Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issues. Such staff must include staff of the AT
Person familiar with the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder,
the rules of any DCM to which such AT Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any RFA of which such AT Person is a
member, the AT Person's own internal requirements, and the requirements
of the AT Person's clearing member FCM, in each case as applicable. The
procedures should also include a plan of internal coordination and
communication between compliance staff of the AT Person and staff of
the AT Person responsible for Algorithmic Trading regarding Algorithmic
Trading design, changes, testing, and controls, which plan should be
designed to detect and prevent Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
Designation and Training of Algorithmic Trading Staff. Regulation
AT proposes a new requirement (Sec. 1.81(d)) that each AT Person must
implement written policies and procedures to designate and train its
staff responsible for Algorithmic Trading. Such policies and procedures
must at a minimum include the following: (i) Procedures for designating
and training all staff involved in designing, testing and monitoring
Algorithmic Trading, and documenting training events (training must, at
a minimum, cover design and testing standards, Algorithmic Trading
Event communication procedures, and requirements for notifying staff of
the applicable designated contract market when Algorithmic Trading
Events occur); (ii) training policies reasonably designed to ensure
that natural person monitors are adequately trained for each
Algorithmic Trading system or strategy (or material change to such
system or strategy) for which such monitors are responsible; and (iii)
escalation procedures to inform senior staff as soon as Algorithmic
Trading Events are identified. The training described in clause (ii)
above must include, at a minimum, the trading strategy for the
Algorithmic Trading system, as well as the automated and non-automated
risk controls that are applicable to the Algorithmic Trading system or
strategy. Adequate training should ensure that monitors are effectively
educated regarding the typical behavior of each Algorithmic Trading
system or strategy (or material change to such system or strategy) that
they are responsible for overseeing in production. It should also allow
monitors to understand when risk controls may be triggered, and how to
respond once they are. As result of the training they receive, monitors
should be capable of making rapid, appropriate decisions in real time
to help contain or mitigate ATS issues.
3. Policy Discussion
Consistent with the comments received, the Commission is taking a
principles-based approach in this area, which is intended to provide
discretion to AT Persons, particularly with respect to the development
and testing of Algorithmic Trading systems. The Commission acknowledges
that prescriptive regulations in this area may fail to take into
account the unique characteristics of various market participants'
trading strategies, and may become obsolete as technology and
development standards evolve. For example, the Commission recognizes
that software development practices continue to evolve, and therefore
is not imposing very granular coding or testing requirements. The
Commission believes that this principles-based approach is consistent
with other regulatory initiatives and best practice guides issued in
this area, as further discussed below.
Guidelines, Best Practices and Regulatory Standards on Testing and
Development
As noted above, the ESMA guidelines recommended that investment
firms should make use of clearly delineated development and testing
methodologies prior to deploying an electronic trading system or a
trading algorithm, and should monitor their electronic trading systems,
including trading algorithms, in real-time.\329\ The MiFID II Directive
requires a regulated market to have in place effective systems,
procedures and arrangements, including requiring members or
participants to carry out appropriate testing of algorithms and
providing environments to facilitate such testing. The Directive seeks
to reduce the likelihood that algorithmic trading systems may create or
contribute to disorderly trading conditions, and to promote effective
resolution of any disorderly trading conditions that do arise from
algorithmic trading systems.\330\ With respect to MiFID II, ESMA's 2015
Final Draft Regulatory Standards include requirements relating to the
role of compliance and monitoring staff, testing (including conformance
testing, stress testing, and testing environments), annual review and
validation of systems, change management procedures, and real-time
market monitoring procedures.\331\ These standards include, among other
things, that a firm must have clear lines of accountability for the
development, deployment and updates of algorithms, and effective
procedures for communication of information; compliance staff must have
a general understanding of how trading systems and algorithms operate,
and be in continuous contact with persons with detailed technical
knowledge of trading systems and algorithms; testing must ensure that
systems conform with the rules and systems of the trading venue, risk
controls work as intended, and systems will not contribute to
disorderly trading and can continue to work effectively in stressed
market conditions; firms must run an annual validation process, which
includes preparation of a validation report; firms must keep records of
material changes made to software, including when a change was made,
who made it, who approved it, and the nature of the change; and
monitoring systems must have real-time alerts that assist staff in
identifying when an algorithm is not behaving as expected, and firms
must
[[Page 78859]]
have a process for remedial action when alerts occur, including a
process for an orderly withdrawal from the market.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ See ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 10.
\330\ See MiFID II, Article 48(6).
\331\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1,
supra note 80 at 205-16.
\332\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the U.S. securities markets, the SEC's Reg SCI
requires SCI entities to implement a program to review and keep current
systems development and testing methodology for SCI systems, and to
implement standards that result in SCI systems being designed,
developed, tested, maintained, operated, and surveilled in a manner
that facilitates the successful collection, processing, and
dissemination of market data.\333\ In addition, FINRA Notice 15-09,
published in March 2015, offered guidance on effective supervision and
control practices for market participants that use algorithmic trading
strategies in the equities market. The FINRA notice provided guidance
in five general areas: General risk assessment and response; software/
code development and implementation; software testing and system
validation; trading systems; and compliance.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ See Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437.
\334\ See FINRA Notice 15-09, supra note 59 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further notes that the FIA Guide provides an
overview of development and testing procedures, including software
development, source code management and implementation, exchange-based
conformance testing, and post-deployment verification, while noting
that ``market participants and exchanges should have the flexibility
necessary to establish procedures that are appropriate and proportional
to their operations.'' \335\ The IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report notes
that ``many regulatory authorities have introduced specific
requirements and guidelines regarding the introduction of new systems
and changes to existing systems,'' and recommends that trading venues
should consider establishing policies and procedures related to the
development, modification, testing and implementation of critical
systems, and establishing a governance model for the management of
critical systems.\336\ The IOSCO report also notes that most trading
venues have procedures and tools designed to address the operational
risk associated with electronic trading, including monitoring of
trading in real-time (or near real-time), and monitoring of the trading
venue's system performance in real-time.\337\ Finally, the Senior
Supervisors Group Algorithmic Trading Briefing Note, published in April
2015, recommended that market participants using algorithmic trading
conduct testing during all phases of a trading product's lifestyle,
namely during development, rollout to production, and ongoing
maintenance.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 23-30.
\336\ See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 14,
19.
\337\ Id. at 21.
\338\ See SSG 2015 Note, supra note 115 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules proposed under Sec. 1.81 are intended to be consistent
with these regulatory initiatives and best practices. The Commission
believes that most market participants and DCMs have implemented
controls regarding the design, testing, and supervision of Algorithmic
Trading systems, in light of the numerous best practices and regulatory
requirements promulgated in this area. The proposed regulations are
intended to standardize a set of principles relating to the design,
testing, and supervision of Algorithmic Trading systems in order to
reduce the operational risk of such systems. In their response to the
Concept Release, IATP noted that, out of all the safeguards discussing
in the Release, they believed ATS testing had the greatest potential to
reduce market disruptions.\339\ By standardizing principles in this
area, Regulation AT is intended to reduce the risk of disorderly
trading, including the risk that orders will be unintentionally sent
into the marketplace by a poorly designed or insufficiently supervised
algorithm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ IATP at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the regulations proposed under Sec. 1.81 may reduce
the risk of market disruptions such as the 2012 incident involving
Knight Capital. The SEC later concluded that, among other failures,
Knight Capital did not have adequate controls and procedures for code
deployment and testing for its order router, did not have sufficient
controls and written procedures to guide employees' responses to
significant technological and compliance incidents, and did not have an
adequate written description of its risk management controls.\340\ As
discussed above, proposed Sec. 1.81 requires written policies and
procedures relating to the following: Testing of all Algorithmic
Trading code and relates systems and any changes to such code and
systems prior to their implementation; regular stress tests of
Algorithmic Trading systems to verify their ability to operate in the
manner intended under a variety of market conditions; a plan of
internal coordination and communication between compliance staff of the
AT Person and staff of the AT Person responsible for Algorithmic
Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading design, changes, testing, and
controls; and procedures for documenting the strategy and design of
proprietary Algorithmic Trading software used by an AT Person, among
other controls. The standardization of such written policies and
procedures may make disruptive events like the Knight Capital incident
less likely in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Request for Comments
41. The Commission understands that the requirements for
developing, testing, and supervising algorithmic systems proposed in
Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) are already widely used throughout the industry. Are
any specific requirements proposed in this section not widely used by
persons that would be designated as AT Persons under Regulation AT, and
if not, why not? If any requirements described in Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) are
not widely used, please provide an estimate of the cost that would be
incurred by an AT Person to implement such requirements.
42. Are there any aspects of Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) that are unnecessary
for purposes of reducing the risks from Algorithmic Trading, and should
not be mandated by regulation? If so, please explain.
43. Are the procedures described above for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading sufficient to ensure that algorithmic
systems are thoroughly tested before being used in production, and will
operate in the manner intended in the production environment?
44. Are there any additional procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading that should be required under Regulation
AT?
45. Are any of the required procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading likely to become obsolete in the near
future as development and testing standards evolve?
46. Are the procedures for designating and training Algorithmic
Trading staff of AT Persons sufficient to ensure that such staff will
be knowledgeable in the strategy and operation of Algorithmic Trading,
and capable of identifying Algorithmic Trading Events and promptly
escalating them to appropriate staff members?
47. Is it typical that persons responsible for monitoring
algorithmic trading do not simultaneously engage in trading activity?
48. Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83 would impose certain
requirements on all AT Persons regardless of the size, sophistication,
or other attributes of their business. The Commission requests public
comment regarding
[[Page 78860]]
whether these requirements should vary in some manner depending on the
AT Person. If commenters believe proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and
1.83 should vary, please describe how and according to what criteria.
J. Risk Management by Clearing Member FCMs--Sec. 1.82
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 1.82 to require clearing member
FCMs to implement pre-trade risk and order management controls with
respect to AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person.
Specifically, such clearing member FCMs must make use of pre-trade risk
controls reasonably designed to prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption, including at a minimum, those pre-trade risk
controls described in Sec. 1.80(a)(1). The remainder of this section
presents Concept Release comments on this topic, a description of the
proposed regulation, a discussion of the policy justification for the
proposal, and a request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release inquired about clearing members' use of the
same pre-trade and other risk controls discussed above in section IV(H)
with respect to AT Persons.
a. Message and Execution Throttles
FIA indicated that message and execution throttles are already
widely used by clearing members. FIA PTG surveyed its members and found
that all responding FCMs used message and execution throttles, either
internally or at the exchange level.\341\ FIA also indicated that most
DCMs provide tools to allow FCMs to set pre-trade controls for their
customers, which are a prerequisite for an FCM to provide direct access
to a market participant without routing orders through the FCM's
infrastructure.\342\ FIA explained that FCMs encourage DCMs to provide
pre-trade risk controls that can be set at various levels, whether at
session level, customer level or account level.\343\ CFE commented that
it provides an execution throttle to clearing members.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ FIA at 59-60.
\342\ FIA at 13.
\343\ FIA at 13.
\344\ CFE at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIA stated that DCM message rate limits should be supplemented at
the market participant or FCM level.\345\ FIA explained that where an
FCM facilitates market access, it has the ability to impose the FCM's
own message rate limits. These limits should be documented and
discussed with market participants to ensure that they are appropriate
for the participants' type of activity.\346\ FIA further stated that
FCMs that choose to implement message rate limits within their
infrastructure should be transparent to their customers regarding the
reason for the control and the maximum message rate that can be
supported by the FCM.\347\ In the case of direct access, FIA explained
that the FCM should rely on DCM-provided message rate limits and any
controls implemented by the market participants themselves.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\345\ FIA at 12, 16.
\346\ FIA at 16.
\347\ FIA at 12.
\348\ FIA at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional commenters indicated that FCMs should implement
messaging or execution limits.\349\ For example, Gelber stated that
``in many cases, FCMs receive fills from the exchanges and have no
control over the amount of messaging coming from a customer controlled-
and-run applications. Therefore, FCMs need to have the ability to
coordinate throttle rates through the account identifier at the
exchange.'' \350\ Gelber indicated that such limits should take into
account financial risk and FCMs' understanding of their clients'
business.\351\ MFA stated that clearing members, as the gateways to the
markets, should have financial and regulatory risk management controls
to reduce risks associated with market access.\352\ Similarly, CME
supported allowing clearing members to provide direct market access to
their customers as long as the clearing member has appropriately vetted
the client and implemented appropriate risk management controls.\353\
CME stated that clearing firms should decide the exact nature of the
throttles to impose across their customer base, taking into
consideration financial risk to the extent possible and their
understanding of their clients' businesses.\354\ Finally, SIG commented
that clearing firms should have the ability to throttle orders at the
exchange level in connection with credit limits set by the clearing
firm, and that exchanges should make this same protection available to
executing brokers executing for customers for whom they do not
clear.\355\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ KCG at 3; Gelber at 6; MFA at 4-5; CME at 7-9; AIMA at 7;
Chicago Fed at 2; SIG at 3. The Commission notes that the same
concern discussed in the AT Person context that message or execution
limits have potential negative effects because they can block risk-
reducing orders would also apply to message or execution limits
applied by an FCM. To that end, the Commission notes that FIA
commented that a FCM should never reject an order cancellation
request due to message rate limits. See FIA at 16.
\350\ Gelber at 6.
\351\ Gelber at 5-7.
\352\ MFA at 4-5.
\353\ CME at 7.
\354\ CME at 9.
\355\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that clearing members already use maximum
order sizes. FIA explained that FIA PTG conducted a survey and all
responding FCMs used this control.\356\ CME commented that it allows
clearing members to use its technology to set maximum order sizes for
specific customers or accounts.\357\ CFE stated that it allows clearing
members to set maximum order size limits by product, and then set
maximum order and quote size limits by the ``log-in'' of trading
privilege holders.\358\ FIX indicated that it is becoming increasingly
common for futures and equities exchanges to provide tools that allow
an FCM the ability to set checks for each client that accesses the
exchange directly.\359\ AIMA suggested that many market participants
already use maximum order sizes when trading through their brokers, but
may have less access to this control in the case of direct market
access.\360\ MFA commented that some FCMs already offer their customers
this control, which can be set at the following levels: Each direct
market access order, each individual algorithmic order, net sell and
buy order limits, and total contract limits.\361\ MFA suggested that
all FCMs offer this maximum order size control at the trader-
level.\362\ Similarly, KCG believes that exchange-provided maximum
order size controls should allow the market participant flexibility in
setting different maximum order size levels for different users within
a firm, such as based on trader ID or customer.\363\ Chicago Fed
supports a requirement that clearing firms must use this control at the
account level.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\356\ FIA at 59-60.
\357\ CME at 15.
\358\ CFE at 7.
\359\ FIX at 3.
\360\ AIMA at 13.
\361\ MFA at 9.
\362\ See id.
\363\ KCG at 8.
\364\ Chicago Fed at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Price Collars
Most comments addressing this control focused on price collars
implemented by exchanges. However, the FIA FCM Survey reflected that
almost all responding FCMs used price collars, administered either
internally or at the exchange level.\365\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\365\ FIA at 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78861]]
d. Order Management Controls
As noted above, the Concept Release requested comment regarding
``system heartbeats'' and ``auto-cancel on disconnect,'' and commenters
that addressed this topic indicated that exchanges provide these tools.
In addition, FIA indicated that it is increasingly common for FCMs to
employ cancel-on-disconnect for their connections to the DCM.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\366\ FIA at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters addressed the implementation of ``kill switch''
functionality by FCMs. Two exchanges commented that their kill switch
functionality allows clearing firms to cancel orders \367\ and several
commenters stated that kill switches should be implemented by market
participants and clearing firms in addition to exchanges.\368\ Barclays
commented that if a kill switch is located at the FCM level, then the
Commission should provide ``clear regulatory guidance'' about when the
FCM should alter or cancel orders, given that altering or cancelling
orders could expose the FCM to significant financial or legal
liability.\369\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ CME at 23-24; CFE at 11.
\368\ Citadel at 3; CME at 22; Chicago Fed at 2.
\369\ Barclays Capital Inc. (``Barclays'') Comment Letter
(December 10, 2013) at 1. Similarly, FIA commented that where FCMs
rely on DCM-provided controls, and such controls fail to operate
according to the instructions of the FCM, FCMs should be deemed to
have met their regulatory obligations. FIA at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIA explained that if a DCM cannot provide the appropriate level of
granularity in the function of its kill switch, the focus of this
functionality should be at the FCM level.\370\ FIA recommended that a
kill switch implemented by an FCM should be able to be invoked ``at the
finest resolution possible'' and should include both manual and
automated methods for triggering the kill switch.\371\ FIA stressed
that a kill switch should be used as a ``final measure'' only when
other processes have not been successful, and that policies and
procedures for when an FCM will invoke a kill switch should be clearly
communicated to the market participant.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\370\ FIA at 30.
\371\ Id. at 31.
\372\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 1.82 to require clearing member
FCMs to implement pre-trade risk controls and order management controls
with respect to AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person.
Specifically, such clearing member FCMs must make use of pre-trade risk
controls reasonably designed to prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption, including at a minimum, those pre-trade risk
controls described in Sec. 1.80(a)(1). (Proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(1)
requires AT Persons to implement, at a minimum, maximum AT Order
Message frequency per unit time and maximum execution frequency per
unit time, order price parameters and maximum order size limits.) The
Commission notes that proposed Sec. 1.82 requires clearing member FCMs
to address ``Algorithmic Trading Disruptions,'' rather than the broader
``Algorithmic Trading Events'' that AT Persons are required to address
under proposed Sec. 1.80. As discussed in section IV(D) above, an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption is defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(uuuu)
as an event originating with an AT Person that disrupts, or materially
degrades, (1) the Algorithmic Trading of such AT Person, (2) the
operation of the DCM on which such AT Person is trading or (3) the
ability of other market participants to trade on the DCM on which such
AT Person is trading. In contrast to an Algorithmic Trading Event
(defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(vvvv)), an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption does not specifically incorporate violations of the CEA or
the rules thereunder. The Commission anticipates that some Algorithmic
Trading Disruptions may be the result of violations of the CEA or
Commission regulations, and some Algorithmic Trading Disruptions may
not. Proposed Sec. 1.82 requires clearing member FCMs to make use of
pre-trade risk controls reasonably designed to prevent or mitigate an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption, regardless of whether such disruptions
were the result of a violation of the CEA or Commission regulations. It
otherwise does not require clearing member FCMs to ensure that their
customers' order flow does not violate the CEA or Commission
regulations. However, nothing in proposed Sec. 1.82 relieves FCMs of
their obligations under all other applicable Commission regulations.
Proposed Sec. 1.82 also requires that pre-trade risk controls must
be set at the level of each AT Person, or such other more granular
level as the clearing FCM may determine, including but not limited to:
By product, account number or designation, or one or more identifiers
of natural persons associated with an AT Order Message. In addition,
Sec. 1.82 would require the clearing member FCM to have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that natural person monitors
at the FCM are promptly alerted when pre-trade risk control parameters
established pursuant to this section are breached, and make use of the
order cancellation systems described in Sec. 1.80(b)(1). (The order
cancellation systems are the same controls that proposed Sec.
1.80(b)(1) requires AT Persons to implement, i.e., systems that have
the ability to immediately disengage Algorithmic Trading, cancel
selected or up to all resting orders when system or market conditions
require it, and prevent the submission of new orders.)
Pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.82(b) and (c), the location of the
pre-trade and other risk controls calibrated by the clearing member FCM
varies, according to whether an AT Person's orders are placed through
DEA or intermediated by its clearing FCM.
DEA Orders--Controls Reside at DCM. Proposed Sec. 1.82(b)
addresses AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person and submitted
through DEA. In the case of DEA, pre-trade and other risk controls
would be established by and located at the DCM, and be controlled or
calibrated by the clearing FCM. This approach recognizes that clearing
FCMs do not have the ability to apply market risk controls to
customers' DEA orders before they reach a DCM. With respect to
financial risk, existing Sec. 38.607 requires DCMs to establish
controls facilitating FCMs' management of financial risk, and existing
Sec. 1.73 provides requirements with respect to clearing FCMs'
implementation of such controls.\373\ Consistent with that structure,
proposed amendments to Sec. 38.255 establish a similar structure in
which DCMs must establish pre-trade and other risk controls addressing
the risks of Algorithmic Trading for use by FCMs. Proposed Sec.
1.82(b), accordingly, requires FCMs to implement such controls residing
at the DCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ The Commission notes that Sec. 23.609 imposes the same
risk-based limit requirements on SDs and MSPs as Sec. 1.73 does on
clearing FCMs. SDs and MSPs do not carry customer accounts;
accordingly, any firm that has customer accounts must be a
registered FCM and implement the controls required by new Sec.
1.82. Furthermore, any SD or MSP that engages in Algorithmic Trading
for its own account will have to comply with the AT Person
requirements of proposed Sec. 1.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-DEA Orders--FCM Implements and Calibrates Controls. Proposed
Sec. 1.82(c) addresses the scenario in which AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person are not submitted to a trading platform
through DEA, but instead are routed through a clearing member FCM. In
the case of such intermediated orders, the controls would not reside at
the DCM. Instead, the clearing member FCM itself would have the
obligation to implement and
[[Page 78862]]
calibrate pre-trade risk and other controls with respect to such
orders.
The Commission notes that while the controls implemented by the FCM
are the same types of controls that would be implemented by AT Persons
pursuant to Sec. 1.80 (and by DCMs pursuant to Sec. 40.20, discussed
below), each entity would be responsible for ensuring the appropriate
calibration of the control. Accordingly, an FCM's setting of a maximum
order size limit, for example, may be different from the setting used
by an AT Person, depending on each entity's assessment of the potential
for an Algorithmic Trading Event or an Algorithmic Trading Disruption,
as applicable. The Commission will not mandate exactly when
intervention by an FCM to modify or cancel orders is necessary; rather,
the Commission believes that each FCM is best positioned to determine
appropriate parameters that will prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption. Furthermore, the Commission will not specify a
mandate which, if complied with by an FCM, would absolve the FCM of
liability (as requested by Barclays).\374\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\374\ See Barclays at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission agrees with comments to the Concept Release that
suggested that all types of market access create risks; therefore, the
same principles should apply to all types of market access. When an
order does not pass through a clearing member FCM's infrastructure
before entering the market, it is critical that DCMs provide clearing
member FCMs with the ability to subject such orders to controls that
prevent or mitigate the impact of unintended or disruptive trading. In
addition, where orders pass through a clearing member FCM's
infrastructure before entering the market, that clearing member FCMs
should subject such orders to similar controls. The Commission believes
that an order should pass through the same pre-trade risk controls
regardless of trading strategy or means of market access, and that all
market participants have a responsibility to implement risk controls
appropriate to their role in the lifecycle of an order.
As discussed above, commenters indicated that the required controls
(i.e., message and execution throttles and price and size parameters)
are already widely used by clearing members, either internally or as
provided by the DCM. The Commission also notes that IOSCO and ESMA have
stressed the importance of adequate risk controls where a user is
granted access to the market via an intermediary's systems or directly,
without using the intermediary's systems. IOSCO has recommended that
intermediaries (including clearing firms) have adequate operational and
technical capabilities to manage appropriately the risks posed by such
access.\375\ ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards require that
the intermediary providing access apply pre-trade risk controls on the
order flow of their clients.\376\ ESMA's regulatory standards provide
that the direct electronic access provider may use its own proprietary
controls, controls purchased from a third-party, or controls offered by
a trading venue, but in each of those circumstances the provider
remains responsible for the effectiveness of those controls and is
solely entitled to set or modify any parameters and limits.\377\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 22-23.
\376\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1, supra note 80 at 218. ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards further require, among other things, that direct
electronic access providers have the ability to stop order flow of
their clients, carry out a review of the internal risk controls
systems of the client, and have the ability to identify the
different trading desks and traders of its clients. The direct
electronic access provider must also perform due diligence on its
clients covering, among other things, the type of strategies the
client will use, the operational set-up, systems and controls of the
client, its historical trading pattern and behavior, an assessment
of the level of expected trading and order volume, and the ability
of the client to meet its financial obligations. See id. at 219-20.
\377\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Discussion of Persons Subject to Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.82
The following discussion is intended to provide detailed examples
of which persons will be subject to proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80
(applicable to all AT Persons when acting as such) and 1.82 (applicable
only to clearing FCMs). Proposed Sec. 1.80 would apply to AT Persons--
i.e., any FCM, floor broker, SD, MSP, CPO, CTA, IB or floor trader as
defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) when engaged in Algorithmic Trading
on or subject to the rules of a DCM. In contrast, proposed Sec. 1.82
would apply to clearing FCMs when acting as clearing members for their
customers with respect to an AT Order Message.
An entity could be subject to both Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.82 in
certain circumstances. For example, in the event that a clearing FCM
engages in both Algorithmic Trading for its own account and acts a
clearing member with respect to its customers' AT Order Messages, such
clearing FCM would be subject to both proposed Sec. 1.80 (as an AT
Person with respect to its own Algorithmic Trading) and to proposed
Sec. 1.82 (as a clearing member). The Commission is providing further
clarity regarding who would be AT Persons for purposes of Sec. 1.80
and other regulations, including some detailed order flow scenarios
that demonstrate the application of Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.82, below.
Question One: In the scenario in which a non-clearing FCM trading
for a proprietary account submits orders to a separate clearing FCM,
could the clearing FCM ever engage in Algorithmic Trading and be an AT
Person?
If an FCM trading for a proprietary account submits an order to a
separate clearing FCM, the separate clearing FCM could be an AT Person
if it uses computer algorithms or systems to determine any of the
elements of the definition of Algorithmic Trading (e.g., determinations
regarding order routing). If the clearing FCM is not making any of
these determinations, the clearing FCM is not an AT Person.
If an FCM trading for a proprietary account submits an order to a
separate non-clearing FCM who then submits it to an additional separate
clearing FCM, the clearing FCM is not engaged in Algorithmic Trading,
provided that it is not determining any of the elements of the
definition of Algorithmic Trading.
Question Two: Is it correct to say that all FCMs using Algorithmic
Trading to engage in proprietary trading are AT Persons?
Yes. A non-clearing or clearing FCM that uses Algorithmic Trading
to engage in proprietary trading is an AT Person.
Question Three: Is it correct to say that an FCM accepting orders
from its customer may be an AT Person, if its computer algorithms or
systems determine any of the elements of the definition of Algorithmic
Trading?
Yes. A non-clearing or clearing FCM that accepts customer orders,
and that uses computer algorithms or systems to determine any of the
elements of the definition of Algorithmic Trading (e.g., determinations
regarding order routing), would be an AT Person with respect to the
customer's orders.
Below are some detailed order flow scenarios that demonstrate the
application of Sec. Sec. 1.80 (which applies to AT Persons) and 1.82.
Example 1: Order flow prior to execution by DCM: (i) Customer to
(ii) non-clearing FCM to (iii) separate clearing FCM. Customer is
not registered with the Commission; uses algorithms but not DEA.
Neither the non-clearing FCM nor the clearing FCM make any of the
determinations regarding the order described in the definition of
Algorithmic Trading.
Who is an AT Person?
[[Page 78863]]
(i) The customer is not an AT Person, because it is not registered
and does not use DEA.
(ii) The non-clearing FCM is not an AT Person, because it doesn't
make any determinations regarding the order and therefore doesn't
engage in Algorithmic Trading.
(iii) The clearing FCM is not an AT Person, for the same reason as
(ii). The clearing member FCM is also not subject to 1.82, because the
customer in (i) originating orders isn't an AT Person.
Example 2: Order flow prior to execution by DCM: (i) Customer to
(ii) non-clearing FCM to (iii) separate clearing FCM. Customer is
not registered with the Commission; uses algorithms but not DEA.
Non-clearing FCM's computer algorithms or systems make some of the
determinations regarding the order described in the definition of
Algorithmic Trading.
Who is an AT Person?
(i) The customer is not an AT Person, because it is not registered
and does not use DEA.
(ii) The non-clearing FCM is an AT Person, because it engages in
Algorithmic Trading regarding the customer's order.
(iii) The clearing FCM is not an AT Person, assuming it doesn't
make any determinations regarding order and therefore doesn't engage in
Algorithmic Trading. The clearing FCM is also not subject to 1.82,
because the customer originating orders isn't an AT Person (even though
the non-clearing FCM in the order flow is an AT Person).
Example 3: Order flow prior to execution by DCM: (i) Customer
to (ii) a clearing FCM. Customer is not registered with the
Commission; uses algorithms but not DEA. Clearing FCM just clears
trades, and does not make any of the determinations regarding the
order described in the definition of Algorithmic Trading.
Who is an AT Person?
(i) The customer is not an AT Person, because it is not registered
and does not use DEA.
(ii) The clearing FCM is not an AT Person, because it doesn't make
any determinations regarding the order and therefore doesn't engage in
Algorithmic Trading. The clearing FCM is also not subject to 1.82,
because the customer originating orders isn't an AT Person.
Example 4: Order flow prior to execution by DCM: (i) FCM trading
for its proprietary account to (ii) a separate clearing FCM. The FCM
trading for a proprietary account uses Algorithmic Trading; clearing
member FCM does not make any of the determinations described in the
definition of Algorithmic Trading.
Who is an AT Person?
(i) The FCM trading for the proprietary account is an AT Person,
because it engages in Algorithmic Trading.
(ii) The clearing FCM is not an AT Person, because it doesn't make
any determinations regarding the order and therefore doesn't engage in
Algorithmic Trading. But the clearing FCM is subject to Sec. 1.82,
because the FCM originating the orders is an AT Person.
5. Request for Comments
49. Are any pre-trade or other risk controls required by Sec. 1.82
ineffective, not already widely used by clearing member FCMs, or likely
to become obsolete?
50. Are there any aspects of proposed Sec. 1.82 that pose an undue
burden for clearing member FCMs and are unnecessary for purposes of
reducing the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading? If so, please
explain (1) the burden; (2) why it is not necessary to reduce the risks
associated with Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the case of DEA.
What alternatives are available consistent with the purposes of
Regulation AT?
51. Please describe the technological development that would be
required by clearing member FCMs to comply with the requirement to
implement and calibrate the pre-trade and other risk controls required
by Sec. 1.82(c) for non-DEA orders. To what extent have clearing
member FCMs already developed the technology required by this
provision, for example in connection with existing requirements under
Sec. 1.11, and Sec. Sec. 1.73 and 38.607 for clearing FCMs to manage
financial risks?
52. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.82?
53. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required in Sec. 1.82 sufficiently address the possibility of
technological advances in trading and development of new, more
effective controls that should be implemented by FCMs?
54. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the requirements of
Sec. 1.82 relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
55. Proposed Sec. 1.82 does not require FCMs to have connectivity
monitoring such as ``system heartbeats'' or automatic cancel-on-
disconnect functions. Do you believe that Sec. 1.82 should require
FCMs to have such functionality?
56. Proposed Sec. 1.82 requires clearing FCMs to implement
controls with respect to AT Order Messages originating with an AT
Person. The Commission is considering modifying proposed Sec. 1.82 to
require clearing FCMs to implement controls with respect to all orders,
including orders that are manually submitted or are entered through
algorithmic methods that nonetheless do not meet the definition of
Algorithmic Trading. Such a requirement would correspond to the
requirement under proposed Sec. 40.20(d) that DCMs implement risk
controls for orders that do not originate from Algorithmic Trading. If
the Commission were to incorporate such amendments in any final rules
arising from this NPRM, its intent would be to further reduce risk by
ensuring that all orders, regardless of source, are screened for risk
at both the clearing member FCM and the DCM level. Risk controls at the
point of order origination would continue to be limited to AT Persons.
The Commission requests comment on this proposed amendment to Sec.
1.82, which the Commission may implement in the final rulemaking for
Regulation AT. The Commission requests comment on the costs and
benefits to clearing FCMs of this proposal, in addition to any other
comments regarding the effectiveness of this proposal in terms of risk
reduction.
K. Compliance Reports Submitted by AT Persons and Clearing FCMs to
DCMs; Related Recordkeeping Requirements--Sec. 1.83
The Commission is proposing new Sec. 1.83(a) and (b) of its
regulations to require that AT Persons and clearing member FCMs provide
the DCMs on which they operate with information regarding their
compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1). Specifically, the
proposed rules would require AT Persons prepare, certify, and submit
annual reports regarding their controls for: (1) Maximum AT Order
Message frequency; (2) maximum execution frequency; (3) order price
parameters; and (4) maximum order sizes. The proposed rules would
require each FCM that is a clearing member for an AT Person to prepare,
certify, and submit annual reports regarding its program for
establishing and maintaining those same controls for its AT Persons (in
the aggregate). As described in section IV(H) and (J) above, the use of
such pre-trade risk controls would be mandatory for both AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80(a)(1) and 1.82(a)(1),
respectively.
The reports proposed by Sec. 1.83, together with the DCM review
program proposed by Sec. 40.22, will enable DCMs to have a clearer
understanding of the pre-trade risk controls of all AT Persons
[[Page 78864]]
that are engaged in Algorithmic Trading on such DCM. Furthermore,
because AT Persons and clearing member FCMs will have great flexibility
in how they implement their pre-trade risk controls pursuant to
proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80(a)(1) and 1.82(a)(1), the annual reporting
obligations in proposed Sec. 1.83 and DCM review provisions in Sec.
40.22 will help ensure that such controls are being implemented and are
reasonably designed and calibrated.
As a complement to the compliance report program described above,
proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs for AT Persons to keep and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and
1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs).
The remainder of this section presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion of
the policy justification for the proposal, and a request for comments
on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment on whether it would be
appropriate to require periodic self-certifications by all market
participants operating ATSs and by clearing firms that provide clearing
services to those market participants.\378\ In the Concept Release, the
Commission set forth potential areas that a self-certification for
market participants might cover. The Commission stated that a
certification might attest that: ``(1) The ATS contains structural
safeguards to provide reasonable assurance that the trading system will
not be disruptive to fair and equitable trading; (2) the market
participant's ATSs have been designed to avoid violations of the CEA,
Commission regulations, or exchange rules related to fraud, disruptive
trading practices, manipulation and trade practice violations; and (3)
such systems have been sufficiently tested and documented in a manner
that is appropriate to the intended design and use of that system.''
\379\ The Concept Release also requested comment on a number of
different aspects of a self-certification program. These included: (1)
Whether the chief executive officer or chief compliance officer, or
similar ranking official of each market participant should attest to
the certification; (2) how often should a market participant make the
self-certification; (3) which entities should receive the
certification; and (4) should DCMs, SEFs, or clearing member FCMs be
required to audit the certifications of market participants.\380\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56559.
\379\ Id.
\380\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters were mixed in their support of a certification
requirement for market participants operating ATSs and for clearing
firms that provide clearing services to those market participants. Some
commenters, such as AFR, supported certifications.\381\ Others, such as
AIMA, FIA, and CME, oppose a certification requirement set by the
Commission.\382\ AIMA argued that a certification requirement ``could
merely create extra administrative costs for firms and the CFTC.''
\383\ FIA and CME stated that it should be left to individual DCMs to
define certification policies for their market participants.\384\ FIA
commented that instead of formal certification, market access should
depend on attestation that the highest quality standards are maintained
and appropriate risk controls and escalation procedures are in
place.\385\ CME argued that ``[g]iven the breadth of risk profiles
across the spectrum of clients, it would be unduly burdensome and cost-
prohibitive for the exchanges or the Commission to mandate specific
risk management parameters and the continuous auditing or formal
certification thereof.'' \386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\381\ AFR at 8.
\382\ AIMA at 21; FIA at 4; CME at 27.
\383\ AIMA at 21.
\384\ FIA at 4; CME at 27.
\385\ FIA at 40.
\386\ CME at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to what information might be included in the
certifications, Gelber argued that ``[a] market participant should
certify that each of its ATS employs pre-trade risk controls, post-
trade reports and system safeguards.'' \387\ FIA and CME also commented
that if the Commission were to impose a certification requirement, the
standards for such requirement should be principles-based.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ Gelber at 17.
\388\ FIA at 4; CME at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters support requiring senior management to make the
certification. FIA argued that if a certification requirement is
imposed, this certification should be the responsibility of senior
management at the market participant, DCM or FCM.\389\ Gelber commented
that the certification should be from a chief technology officer or
equivalent, and attested to by another c-level executive officer.\390\
AFR commented that certifications ``should be made by the CEO, as well
as both the CCO and CRO to make certain that responsibility for the
underlying systems and algorithms is taken by those officers having
direct responsibility.'' \391\ CME commented that any attestation
should lie with the supervisors with business line responsibility for,
and knowledge of, the systems at issue. CME also stated that the
certifications ``should be tendered to each level of the supply chain
with supervisory authority.'' \392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ FIA at 39.
\390\ Gelber at 17.
\391\ AFR at 8.
\392\ CME at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the frequency of the certifications, Gelber
commented that market participants should certify twice per year and
whenever there has been a material change to a program that they
employ.\393\ TCL stated that ATSs should be required to make the
certification annually, or whenever a major functional change to their
business environment is implemented.\394\ With respect to the auditing
of the certifications, FIA argued that audit responsibilities should
only be determined after standards are in place.\395\ Alternatively,
Gelber argued that exchanges should require firms to maintain
certifications and produce them upon request. Gelber stated that it
should be at the exchanges' discretion as to whether they audit such
certifications.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ Gelber at 17.
\394\ TLC at 15.
\395\ FIA at 40.
\396\ Gelber at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Compliance Report Program. Proposed Sec. 1.83(a) and (b) would
require that AT Persons and clearing member FCMs, respectively, provide
the DCMs on which they operate with information regarding their
compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1). Specifically, the
proposed rules would to require AT Persons to prepare, certify, and
submit annual reports regarding their controls for: (1) Maximum AT
Order Message frequency; (2) maximum execution frequency; (3) order
price parameters; and (4) maximum order sizes. The proposed rules would
require each FCM that is a clearing member for one or more AT Persons
to prepare, certify, and submit annual reports regarding its program
for establishing and maintaining those same controls for its AT Persons
in the aggregate. As described in section IV(H) and (J) above, the use
of such pre-trade risk controls would be mandatory for AT Persons
pursuant to Sec. 1.80(a)(1), and mandatory for clearing member FCMs
pursuant to Sec. 1.82(a)(1).
[[Page 78865]]
The Commission is also proposing a new Sec. 40.22 (discussed in
more detail below) to require that each DCM that receives a report
described in Sec. 1.83 establish a program for effective review and
evaluation of the reports. The reports proposed by Sec. 1.83 and the
review program proposed by Sec. 40.22 would enable DCMs to have a
clearer understanding of the pre-trade risk controls and compliance
procedures of all AT Persons that are engaged in Algorithmic Trading on
such DCM. The proposed reports and review program will also give DCMs a
better understanding of the program for establishing and maintaining
the pre-trade risk controls used by any FCM of an AT Person that is
engaged in Algorithmic Trading on such DCM.
The Commission notes that the SEC's Market Access Rule, as
discussed in greater detail above, has a similar certification
requirement for certain broker-dealers.\397\ The Market Access Rule
requires that certain broker-dealers maintain a system for regularly
reviewing the effectiveness of the risk management controls and
supervisory procedures required by the Market Access Rule. It also
requires that the Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent officer) of a
broker-dealer subject to the Market Access Rule certify, on an annual
basis, that the risk management controls and supervisory procedures
established by the broker-dealer comply with the Market Access Rule,
and that the broker-dealer conducted the required review of the risk
management controls and supervisory procedures. The certification
required by the Market Access Rule must be preserved by the broker-
dealer as part of its books and records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\397\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require an annual self-assessment and validation process in
which investment firms must review their algorithmic trading systems
and trading algorithms, and overall compliance with Article 17 of
Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II's requirements on firms that engage in
Algorithmic Trading).\398\ ESMA sets out elements that investment firms
should consider in its self-assessment, which include elements relating
to the nature of its business (e.g., level of automation, types of
strategies it employs, latency sensitivity), the scale of its business
(e.g., number of algorithms, number of trading desks, messaging volume
capabilities), and the complexity of its business (e.g., diversity of
trading systems and connectivity methods, and the speed of trading).
The validation report must be approved by the firm's senior management
and the firm must remedy any deficiencies identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1,
supra note 80 at 210, 224-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not identical to the certification required of broker-dealers
in the Market Access Rule or ESMA's annual self-assessment process for
investment firms, the compliance report program proposed by Sec. 1.83
and Sec. 40.22 is similarly designed to ensure that market
participants have effective risk controls in place and that these risk
controls are regularly reviewed. Specifically, proposed Sec. 1.83(a)
would require each AT Person to annually prepare a report, and submit
such report by June 30 to each DCM on which such AT Person engaged in
Algorithmic Trading, that covers from May 1 of the previous year to
April 30 of the year such report is submitted. Together with the annual
report, each AT Person would be required to submit copies of the
written policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec. 1.81(a)
and (c). The report must include descriptions of the AT Person's pre-
trade risk controls required by proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(1), and the
parameters and specific quantitative settings used for the risk
controls. The report would also be required to include a certification
by the chief executive officer or chief compliance officer of the AT
Person that, to the best of his or her knowledge and reasonable belief,
the information contained in the report is accurate and complete.
Proposed Sec. 1.83(b) would require each FCM that is a clearing
member for an AT Person to annually prepare a report, and submit such
report by June 30 to each DCM on which such AT Person engaged in
Algorithmic Trading, that covers from May 1 of the previous year to
April 30 of the year such report is submitted. The report must include
a description of the FCM's program for establishing and maintaining the
pre-trade controls required by proposed Sec. 1.82(a)(1) for its AT
Persons (in the aggregate) at the DCM. The requirements of proposed
Sec. 1.83(b) apply to the pre-trade risk controls implemented by the
FCM for AT Persons using DEA, as well as for AT Persons that do not use
DEA. The report would also be required to include a certification by
the chief executive officer or chief compliance officer of the FCM
that, to the best of his or her knowledge and reasonable belief, the
information contained in the report is accurate and complete. Related
to these reporting requirements in proposed Sec. 1.80(a) and (b),
proposed Sec. 40.22(c) \399\ would require DCMs to establish a program
for effective periodic review and evaluation of AT Person and clearing
member FCM reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\399\ See section IV(P) below for a discussion of DCMs'
obligations under proposed Sec. 40.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Requirements. As a complement to the compliance
report review program, proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) would require AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs for AT Persons to keep and provide
upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their compliance with
proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for
clearing member FCMs). Related to these provisions, the Commission is
also proposing a new Sec. 40.22(d) (discussed in more detail below) to
require DCMs to implement rules that require each AT Person to keep and
provide to the DCM books and records regarding such AT Person's
compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.81,
and require each clearing member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM
books and records regarding such clearing member FCM's compliance with
all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82. Finally, proposed Sec.
40.22(e) would require DCMs to review and evaluate, as necessary, books
and records maintained by AT Persons and clearing member FCMs regarding
their compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and
Sec. 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs).
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission is proposing Sec. 1.83 because it believes that
Regulation AT must include a mechanism to ensure that AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs are complying with the requirement to implement
certain pre-trade risk controls. Moreover, an assessment of such
compliance requires an adequate level of expertise and knowledge of
markets and market participants' technological systems and trading
strategies. In this regard, the Commission notes that reports proposed
by Sec. 1.83 will enable DCMs to have a better understanding of the
pre-trade risk controls of all AT Persons engaged in Algorithmic
Trading. Furthermore, because the Commission's pre-trade risk control
requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80(a)(1) and 1.82(a)(1) offer
substantial flexibility, the annual reporting obligations in proposed
Sec. 1.83 will help ensure that such controls are reasonably designed
and calibrated. The Commission believes that a review program requiring
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to provide information concerning
compliance
[[Page 78866]]
with Sec. Sec. 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1), and requiring DCMs to review
such information, is the most effective method to ensure that all
market participants are implementing measures that are reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event or Algorithmic Trading
Disruption.
The recordkeeping requirements proposed under Sec. 1.83(c) and (d)
and Sec. 40.22(d) and (e) complement the compliance report program.
These provisions will enable DCMs to review the compliance of AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs with their various obligations under
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, by inspecting the books and records of
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs as necessary. For example, a DCM
may find it necessary to conduct such a review if: It becomes aware if
an AT Person's kill switch is frequently activated, or otherwise
performs in an unusual manner; if a DCM becomes aware that an AT
Person's algorithm frequently performs in a manner inconsistent with
its design, which may raise questions about the design or monitoring of
the AT Person's algorithms; if a DCM identifies frequent trade practice
violations at an AT Person, which are related to an algorithm of the AT
Person; or if an AT Person represents significant volume in a
particular product, thereby requiring heightened scrutiny, among other
reasons.
4. Request for Comments
57. The Commission welcomes comment on the type of information that
should be included in the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83.
Should different or additional descriptions be included in the reports,
which will be evaluated by DCMs under proposed Sec. 40.22?
58. How often should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should the report be submitted more or
less frequently than annually?
59. When should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should the reports be submitted on a
date other than June 30 of each year?
60. Should a representative of the AT Person or clearing member FCM
other than the chief executive officer or the chief compliance officer
be responsible for certifying the reports required by proposed Sec.
1.83? Should only the chief executive officer be permitted to certify
the report? Alternatively, should only the chief compliance officer be
permitted to certify the report?
61. Are there any aspects of proposed Sec. 1.83(b) that pose an
undue burden for clearing member FCMs and are unnecessary for purposes
of reducing the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading? If so,
please explain (1) the burden; (2) why it is not necessary to reduce
the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the case
of DEA. What alternatives are available consistent with the purposes of
Regulation AT, including in particular Regulation AT's intent that
Sec. 1.83 reports benefit from the third-party SRO review performed by
DCMs with respect to such reports?
62. Should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be sent to
any entity other than each DCM on which the AT Person operates, such as
the Commission or an RFA? For example, should the Commission require
that AT Persons that are members of a RFA send compliance reports to
RFA upon NFA's request?
63. Proposed Sec. 1.83(c) includes recordkeeping requirements
imposed on AT Persons, and proposed Sec. 1.83(d) includes
recordkeeping requirements imposed on clearing member FCMs. Should the
recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 1.83(c) be distributed throughout
the sections of the Commission's regulations that contain recordkeeping
requirements for various categories of Commission registrants that will
be classified as AT Persons? Should Sec. 1.83(d) be transferred to
section 1.35 of the Commission's regulations, which contains
recordkeeping requirements for clearing member FCMs?
L. Risk Controls for Trading: Direct Electronic Access Provided by
DCMs--Sec. 38.255(b) and (c)
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 38.255 (Risk controls for
trading) by adding new Sec. 38.255(b) requiring DCMs to implement
systems and controls reasonably designed to facilitate a clearing FCM's
management of Algorithmic Trading risks arising from its DEA customers.
The Commission also proposes to amend Sec. 38.255 by adding new
paragraph (c), which would require that DCMs who permit DEA also
mandate the use of Sec. 38.255(b) risk controls by all clearing member
FCMs with respect to the Algorithmic Trading of their DEA customers.
The Commission notes that the risk controls and requirements described
in proposed Sec. 38.255(b) and (c), while provided by and residing at
the DCM, are fundamentally intended to facilitate a clearing member
FCM's management of the risks posed by the clearing member FCM's DEA
customers. In this regard, proposed Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) should be
read in conjunction with proposed Sec. 1.82(b), which would require
clearing member FCMs to make use of the systems provided by DCMs
pursuant to Sec. 38.255(b). The remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy justification for the proposal,
and a request for comments on the proposal.\400\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\400\ The proposed amendments would also re-designate the
existing requirements in Sec. 38.255 as Sec. 38.255(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Concept Release Comments
As noted above in section IV(D)(7), in the Commission's discussion
of its proposed definition of Direct Electronic Access, several
commenters agreed that any potential risk controls should also apply to
those with direct access to the markets.\401\ FIA stated, for example,
that all types of market access create risks.\402\ Similarly, CME
stated that all entities--whether they have direct market access or
not--must ``share in the effort to preserve market integrity.'' \403\
In addition, commenters indicated that exchanges already provide
certain pre-trade risk controls for use by clearing firms. Please see
the discussion at section IV(H)(1) above for a discussion of Concept
Release comments with respect to clearing firms' use of exchange-
provided pre-trade and other risk controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\401\ FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7-8; VFL at 2; AIMA at 1.
\402\ FIA at 12, 15.
\403\ CME at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 38.255 (Risk controls for
trading) to require DCMs to have in place systems and controls designed
to facilitate a clearing member FCM's management of the risks that may
arise from Algorithmic Trading by its AT Person customers using DEA (as
defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(yyyy)). The DCM regulations already
address financial risk using a similar structure. Existing Sec. 38.607
provides that, in the context of direct electronic access, a DCM must
have in place systems and controls designed to facilitate an FCM's
management of ``financial risk.'' The DCM must also require FCMs to use
such controls.
The pre-trade risk controls and order cancellation systems that
DCMs must provide to clearing member FCMs are the same as those that
proposed Sec. 1.80(a) requires AT Persons to implement, i.e., maximum
AT Order Message frequency per unit time and maximum execution
frequency per unit time, and order price parameters and maximum order
size limits. The order
[[Page 78867]]
cancellation systems that DCMs must establish for implementation by the
clearing member FCM are the same controls that proposed Sec.
1.80(b)(1) requires AT Persons to implement, i.e., systems that have
the ability to immediately disengage Algorithmic Trading, cancel
selected or up to all resting orders when system or market conditions
require it, and prevent the submission of new orders.
The proposed regulation text is articulated broadly enough to allow
DCMs the flexibility to design controls for use by clearing member FCMs
that are appropriate to their markets and market participants. Proposed
Sec. 38.255(b)(1)(ii) provides that the pre-trade risk controls
established by the DCMs must enable the clearing member FCM to set the
controls at the level of each AT Person, product, account number or
designation, and one or more identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. DCM rules should permit clearing member FCMs
to choose the level at which they place the control, as long as
clearing member FCMs use at least one of the levels. Similarly,
proposed Sec. 38.255(b)(2) provides that the DCM-provided order
cancellation systems should enable the clearing member FCM to apply
such systems to orders from each AT Person, product, account number or
designation, or one or more identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. A DCM that permits DEA must require FCMs to
use the Sec. 38.255(b) controls with respect to all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person that are submitted through DEA.
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission believes that its proposed amendments to Sec.
38.255, and corresponding proposed Sec. 1.82 applicable to clearing
member FCMs, is consistent with those comments to the Concept Release
that suggested that pre-trade risk controls should apply to those with
direct market access.\404\ As FIA explained, all types of market access
create risks; therefore, the same principles should apply to all types
of market access.\405\ In addition, the Commission's approach to
controls that should exist in the context of DEA is consistent with
recommendations of or steps taken by other regulatory organizations.
For example, IOSCO has recommended that intermediaries (including
clearing firms) should have adequate operational and technical
capabilities to manage appropriately the risks posed by direct
electronic access.\406\ In addition, as discussed above, ESMA's 2015
Final Draft Regulatory Standards require direct electronic access
providers to apply pre-trade controls on the order flow of their
clients consistent with the controls that ESMA requires for investment
firms.\407\ ESMA's standards further provide, among other things, that
trading venues must have public rules pursuant to which direct
electronic access providers provide their service, and in the case of
sponsored access (where a client transmits orders directly to a trading
platform without such orders passing through an intermediary's
infrastructure), the trading venue must require such firms to implement
the same pre-trade risk controls as the trading venue's members.\408\
The Commission believes that requiring DCMs to establish pre-trade risk
controls and order management controls for use by clearing member FCMs
with respect to their direct access customers will ensure that all
orders, regardless of access method, are subjected to the same tools
that mitigate the risks posed by Algorithmic Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7-8; VFL at 2; AIMA at 1.
\405\ FIA at 12, 15.
\406\ IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 22-23.
\407\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1, supra note 80 at 218.
\408\ See id. at 269-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Request for Comments
64. Are there any pre-trade and other risk controls required by
Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) that will be ineffective, not already widely
provided by DCMs for use by FCMs, or likely to become obsolete?
65. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that DCMs
should be specifically required to provide to FCMs pursuant to proposed
Sec. 38.255(b) and (c)?
66. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required pursuant to Sec. 38.255(b) sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in trading? For example, do they
appropriately address the potential for the future development of
additional effective controls that should be provided by DCMs and
implemented by FCMs?
67. The Commission welcomes comment on whether Sec. 38.255(b)'s
requirements relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
68. Proposed Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) do not require DCMs to provide
to FCMs connectivity monitoring systems such as ``system heartbeats''
or automatic cancel-on-disconnect functions. Should Sec. 38.255
require such functionality?
M. Disclosure and Transparency in DCM Trade Matching Systems--Sec.
38.401(a)
Regulation AT proposes to amend Sec. 38.401(a) of the Commission's
regulations to enhance public transparency regarding the design and
operation of a DCM's electronic matching platform. Currently, Sec.
38.401(a) requires DCMs to have procedures, arrangements, and resources
for disclosing to the Commission, market participants, and the public
accurate information on the rules and specifications of their
electronic matching platforms or trade execution facilities. The
proposed amendments to Sec. 38.401(a) would clarify that such existing
obligations include disclosure of any attributes of an electronic
matching platform or trade execution facility that materially impact
market participant orders, but which are not readily apparent to a
market participant. The proposed amendments recognize that the
structure, architecture, mechanics, characteristics, attributes, or
other elements of an electronic matching platform or trade execution
facility--elements that are under the design control of the DCM--may
affect how market participant orders are received or executed. The
Commission believes that each market participant should have ready
access to information that explains the existence and operation of any
attribute within an electronic matching platform or trade execution
facility that will impact how a market participant experiences the
market. The remainder of this section presents Concept Release comments
on this topic, a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion
of the policy justification for the proposal, and a request for
comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
As noted above, the proposed amendments to Sec. 38.401(a) focus in
large measure on attributes of an electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility that impact the timing and sequencing of specific
events on the exchange. While the Concept Release did not directly
address proposed Sec. 38.401(a), it did ask for public comment on
latencies in the transmission of various types of messages between
exchanges, firms and vendors wherein differences in latency could
provide opportunities for informational advantage.\409\ It pointed to
press reports that one exchange sent confirmations to the traders
involved in
[[Page 78868]]
an executed transaction before the DCM posted the transaction on its
market data feed to the marketplace as a whole.\410\ The Commission
asked for comments on: (a) Whether the extent of latency in message
transmission can have an adverse impact on market quality or fairness;
and (b) whether exchanges, vendors and firms should be required to
audit their systems and processes on a periodic basis to identify and
resolve such latencies.\411\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\409\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56546.
\410\ Scott Patterson, Jenny Strasburg, & Liam Pleven, ``High-
Speed Traders Exploit Loophole,'' Wall St. J. (May 1, 2013),
available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323798104578455032466082920.
\411\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concept Release also asked for public comment on the
advisability of requiring each trading platform to provide market
quality indicators on a periodic basis for each product traded on its
platform.\412\ The Concept Release also asked for comments on what
types of market quality data would be helpful to market participants
and promote market efficiency through transparency and market
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\412\ Id. at 56561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters supported increased transparency by the
exchanges in the operation of their electronic matching platforms.
AIMA, for example, would welcome new requirements for transparency by
exchanges on issues of latency, noting that market participants without
DMA are currently not able to calculate many measures of latency and
market quality that are available to those with DMA.\413\ Bell noted
that the disclosure of latencies in CME's electronic matching platform
removed the informational advantage held by those market participants
who knew of the latency compared to those who did not.\414\ However,
Bell also cautioned that the threat of sanctions against an exchange
for the existence of a latency arbitrage opportunity in an electronic
matching platform could discourage that exchange from publicly
disclosing such information. FIA noted that real-time access to
additional information regarding the order book creates a more
transparent marketplace, which ultimately breeds confidence among
market participants.\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ AIMA at 7.
\414\ Bell at 3.
\415\ FIA at 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CME and FIA noted that latency is a natural component of market
structure because of the time it takes computer systems to process
information as well as the communications systems involved in
transmitting order message information.\416\ Even if no latencies
existed within an exchange's infrastructure, market participants may
still face latencies in clearing and executing firms' systems.\417\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ CME at 6-7; FIA at 47-48.
\417\ CME at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters addressed the specific issue of whether
participants in a trade should receive confirmations of that trade
before, or at least not after, the trade is reflected in market data
sent to all market participants (``confirmation-first latency'').\418\
FIA commented that the confirmation-first latency on one exchange was
not hidden, and that it could be measured and understood by anyone with
the proper market access.\419\ FIA stated that it is imperative that
the market data broadcast to all market participants not be sent before
the participants to a trade know that the trade was executed (``market
data-first latency'').\420\ FIA also stated that market data-first
latency would cause liquidity providing participants to be unaware of
their positions and therefore hamper their ability to hedge risk
effectively. The commenter believed that this would cause market makers
to widen the spreads they offer. OneChicago suggested that
confirmation-first latency should not be considered an unfair
advantage.\421\ SIG suggested that confirmation-first latency would
encourage liquidity by allowing an executing trader to hedge a position
before quickly responding momentum traders exhausted available
liquidity in the market.\422\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ FIA at 47-48; SIG at 2; OneChicago at 1. The Commission is
using the term ``confirmation-first latency'' for ease of reference;
it was not used in the comment letters.
\419\ FIA at 48.
\420\ Id. The Commission is using the term ``market data-first
latency'' for ease of reference; it was not used in the comment
letters.
\421\ OneChicago at 1.
\422\ SIG at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Current Sec. 38.401(a) requires DCMs to have procedures,
arrangements, and resources for disclosing to the Commission, market
participants, and the public accurate information on, inter alia, the
rules and specifications concerning the operation of the DCM's
electronic matching platform or trade execution facility. Current Sec.
38.401(b) requires DCMs to provide such information that ``it believes,
to the best of its knowledge, is accurate and complete, and must not
omit material information.'' Current Sec. 38.401(c) requires DCMs to
make publicly available on their Web sites any new product listings,
rules, rule amendments, or other changes to previously-disclosed
information, concurrent with filing such submissions with the
Commission. The proposed amendments to Sec. 38.401 build on these
disclosure, accuracy, and timing requirements, and extend the
disclosure requirements to cover certain attributes of the operation of
electronic matching platforms.
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) to require
DCMs to disclose to the Commission, market participants and the public
accurate information pertaining to rules or specifications pertaining
to the operation of the electronic matching platform or trade execution
facility, including but not limited to those pertaining to the
operation of its electronic matching platform that materially affect
the time, priority, price, or quantity of execution, or the ability to
cancel, modify, or limit display of market participant orders.
The Commission also proposes to amend Sec. 38.401(a)(1) by adding
a new requirement (Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iv)) that DCMs must disclose to
all market participants any known attributes of the electronic matching
platform, other than those already disclosed in rules or specifications
under section (a)(1)(iii), that materially affect the time, priority,
price, or quantity of execution of market participant orders, the
ability to cancel, modify, or limit display of market participant
orders, or the dissemination of real-time market data to market
participants, including but not limited to latencies or other
variability in the electronic matching platform and the transmission of
message acknowledgements, order confirmations, or trade confirmations,
or dissemination of market data. The Commission notes, however, that
proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) are not intended to require
the disclosure of trade secrets by any DCM.
Finally, the Commission also proposes to amend Sec. 38.401(c) by
adding a new requirement (Sec. 38.401(c)(3)) that a DCM, in making
available on its Web site information pursuant to paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of Sec. 38.401(c), must place such information
and submissions on its Web site within a reasonable time, but no later
than 10 business days, following the identification of or changes to
such attributes. Such information shall be disclosed prominently and
clearly in plain English. The Commission emphasizes that the disclosure
of information prominently and clearly by a DCM precludes such DCM from
placing information required by this
[[Page 78869]]
rule behind registration, log in, user name, password or other walls on
the DCM's Web site.
a. What Must Be Disclosed Under the Proposed Regulations
The proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) would apply to all
known attributes of an electronic matching platform that materially
affect the time, priority, price, or quantity of execution of market
participant order messages, or the ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of, market participant order messages. The Commission proposes
a ``materiality'' threshold to such obligations so that the disclosure
requirements would not capture aspects of exchange systems that do not
have a discernible effect on how orders are entered or executed.\423\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ In evaluating what attributes of a platform would be
material, the Commission would look to the substantial case law on
the issue of materiality. See, e.g., R&W Tech. Servs., Ltd. v. CFTC,
205 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 2000) (``A statement or omitted fact is
`material' if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
investor would consider the information important in making a
decision to invest.''); see also CFTC v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 310
F.3d 1321, 1332 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding misrepresentations
material where ``an objectively reasonable investor's decision-
making process would be substantially affected'' by them and the
misrepresentations would ``as a matter of law, alter the total mix
of relevant information available to the potential . . .
investor.''). Materiality in the context of attributes of an
electronic matching platform would include those attributes whose
existence or degree a reasonable market participant would consider
when making a decision on whether, when or how to place orders on an
exchange's platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ``attribute'' for purposes of proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iv)
would mean any aspect of the structure, architecture, mechanics,
characteristics, or other elements of the design or operation of an
electronic matching platform that materially affects how market
participant orders are received and executed, and how information on
such orders and executed trades are communicated to other market
participants. ``Attributes'' would include, but are not limited to,
aspects of the platform that may provide an advantage or disadvantage
to a category of market participants.\424\ ``Attributes'' would also
include aspects of the platform that affect orders from all market
participants regardless of access method or membership status, such as
latencies within the matching engine and any data feeds.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\424\ For purposes of this discussion, ``categories of market
participants'' may be based on access method, colocation,
involvement in a market maker incentive program, or membership
status, among other things. DCMs are currently required to submit as
rule changes under Part 40 any changes to these programs. As
discussed more fully below, the proposed transparency requirement
would only require disclosure of attributes not already disclosed
through submissions under Part 40, 17 CFR 40.1, et seq. (2014).
\425\ As an illustration of attributes that should be disclosed
to market participants (and acknowledging the more complex order
types and modes of execution in the equities market), the Commission
notes two recent SEC enforcement actions against the operators of
alternative trading systems for selective disclosure or non-
disclosure regarding how certain order types operate under different
market conditions. See In the Matter of UBS Securities LLC., No. 3-
16338 (SEC, Jan. 15, 2015); In the Matter of EDGA Exchange, Inc.,
No. 3-16332 (SEC, Jan. 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's proposals under Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv)
apply to ``electronic matching platforms,'' which comprise all systems
under the control or operation of the DCM that interact with market
participant order messages and are involved in market data
dissemination. Such systems are not limited to matching engines, but
would apply more broadly to the network architecture that accepts and
processes order messages, and disseminates market data and messages to
market participants. To the extent that they impact order entry and
execution, the electronic matching platform would also include pre-
trade risk management systems and controls such as self-trade
prevention tools.\426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ The Commission notes that the proposed disclosure
requirements in large part would address IOSCO's recommendation
relating to sound practices on controls surrounding the development
of new or changes to critical systems at trading venues. IOSCO,
after reviewing current member state regulations, recommended
``[e]stablishing and implementing communication protocols that
govern the sharing of information regarding the introduction of new,
or changes to, critical systems[,]'' including information on the
timing of such new systems or changes to provide market participants
sufficient lead time to make changes or adjustments to their own
systems. See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 13-
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's proposals under Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv)
are intended to apply to various aspects of how an electronic platform
operates, beyond the technical process of how any order is actually
matched. The proposed regulations explicitly require the disclosure of
information relating to latencies in the matching of orders and
transmission of that information to market participants. In addition,
if they have a material impact on market participants, exchanges must
disclose information on exchange functions such as self-trade
prevention, implied spread markets, and priority assignment of orders
in a central limit order book, where applicable. Exchanges also must
disclose how available order types would be executed (or not) under
different market conditions, where applicable. The Commission is
mindful that DCMs should only be required to describe attributes of
their own systems. However, such systems would include platform systems
or components that are monitored, leased from, or otherwise operated by
an affiliate or third party.\427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\427\ The Commission is mindful that some DCMs use electronic
matching platforms leased from or otherwise provided by other DCMs
or non-DCM entities. However, each DCM would be required under this
provision to provide information on any electronic matching platform
it uses, regardless of whether that platform is owned or leased by
the DCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has also proposed under amended Sec. 38.401(a)(2)
that a DCM must provide a description of known attributes of its
electronic trading platform under paragraph (a)(1)(iv). However, this
may not relieve an exchange of the obligation to disclose information
if the exchange should have known of an attribute. The Commission notes
that DCMs must regularly test and review their automated systems,\428\
monitor trading on their facilities, and identify any market or system
anomalies.\429\ The Commission cautions, however, that compliance with
Regulation AT's disclosure requirements may not absolve a DCM of other
statutory or regulatory obligations. For instance, DCMs must promote
fair and equitable trading and protect markets and market participants
from abusive practices.\430\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ Both DCMs and SEFs are obligated to ``conduct regular,
periodic, objective testing and review of their automated systems to
ensure that they are reliable, secure, and have adequate scalable
capacity.'' Regulations Sec. Sec. 37.1401(g) and 38.1051(h), 17 CFR
37.1401(g) and 38.1051(h) (2014).
\429\ See regulation 37.203(e), 17 CFR 37.203(e) (2014), for
real-time market monitoring obligations of SEFs. See regulation
38.157, 17 CFR 38.157 (2014), for real-time monitoring obligations
of DCMs.
\430\ DCM Core Principle 12, Section 5(d)(12) of the Act, 7
U.S.C. 7(d)(12) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. How Information Should Be Disclosed
The Commission proposes under Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iv) that DCMs be
required to disclose any known attributes of their electronic matching
platform, other than those already disclosed pursuant to Sec.
38.401(a)(1)(iii). This description should, at a minimum, identify what
the attribute is and how it may affect market participant orders. To
the extent such information is necessary for market participants to
understand the significance of an attribute, the description may need
to provide statistics or examples. As with all information provided to
market participants under current regulation 38.401, the description
must include information that the DCM believes, to the best of its
knowledge, to be accurate and complete, and not omit material
[[Page 78870]]
information.\431\ Cost estimates for the Commission amendments to Sec.
38.401 are provided in this NPRM's cost-benefit considerations below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\431\ See regulation 38.401(b), 17 CFR 38.401(b) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposes under Sec. 38.401(c)(3) that DCMs be
required to disclose information on the attributes of their platforms
``prominently and clearly'' on their Web sites. The Commission also
proposes under Sec. 38.401(c)(3) that information regarding attributes
of the electronic matching platforms be provided in ``plain English.''
Because market participants may have different degrees of technical
understanding, the Commission aims to make information on the
electronic matching platforms accessible to market participants
regardless of their technical proficiency or sophistication. Providing
highly complex information on the platforms may allow more technically-
proficient market participants to understand the operations of the
platform, but may be inaccessible to other market participants.
c. When Information Should Be Disclosed
The Commission's proposals on DCM transparency are intended to
account for two situations: (1) Where the DCM makes a change to the
platform, resulting in an impact on the execution of market participant
orders, and (2) where the DCM becomes aware of an existing attribute
within the platform that affects the execution of such orders. Under
the first situation, as clarified in the proposed amendment to the
definition of ``rule'' under Sec. 40.1(i), information submitted to
the Commission under Sec. Sec. 40.5(a) or 40.6(a) would be public
information, except to the extent that confidential treatment is
granted pursuant to Sec. 40.8. Furthermore, a DCM would be required to
post the relevant submission on its Web site concurrent with the
provision of such submission to the Commission pursuant to current
Sec. 38.401(c). Under the second situation, the Commission's proposals
would require the DCM to make the relevant information available
``within a reasonable time, but no later than 10 days'' following the
identification or change to the attribute. DCMs must also ensure that
information can be accessed by visitors to the Web site without the
need to register, log in, provide a user name, or obtain a password.
d. Changes in Definition of ``Rule''
The Commission also proposes amending the definition of ``rule''
under Sec. 40.1(i), which is relevant to regulations common to all
registered entities.\432\ The proposed change to the definition of
``rule'' would track language in the transparency requirements under
proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iv) (which applies only to DCMs). The
proposed change to the definition would make clear that ``trading
protocols'' includes ``any operation of an electronic matching platform
that materially affects the time, priority, price, or quantity of
execution of market participant orders, the ability to cancel, modify,
or limit display of market participant orders, or the dissemination of
real-time market data to market participants.'' As with any other rule
change, changes to a registered entity's trading protocols must be
submitted to the Commission pursuant to existing Sec. Sec. 40.5 or
40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\432\ Part 40 of the Regulations applies to all registered
entities, which include DCMs, SEFs, derivative clearing
organizations (``DCOs''), swap data repositories (``SDRs''), and
certain electronic trading facilities and boards of trade registered
under Section 5c of the Act. As discussed below in the cost benefit
consideration section (sections V(E)(9) and (11)), none of the
proposed amendments to Sec. 40.1(i) should create new costs for any
registered entity, because the amendments merely clarify and codify
the Commission's interpretation of the definition of ``rule.'' See,
e.g., the Final Rule for Provisions Common to Registered Entities,
published in the Federal Register in 2011, in which the Commission
stated with respect to market maker and trading incentive programs,
``The Commission continues to view such programs as `agreements * *
* corresponding' to a `trading protocol' within the Sec. 40.1
definition of `rule' and, as such, all market maker and trading
incentive programs must be submitted to the Commission in accordance
with procedures established in part 40.'' Final Rule, Provisions
Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44778 (July 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that this proposed amendment to the definition
of ``rule'' also adds a reference to market maker and trading incentive
programs. This change clarifies and codifies the Commission's current
interpretation of the definition of ``rule'' under Sec. 40.1(i), in
which registered entities are required to submit new rules and rule
amendments to the Commission when changes are made to, among other
things, matching algorithms, market maker or trading incentive program
agreements, and available order types. This proposed change to Sec.
40.1(i), which reflects the Commission's understanding of ``rule'',
should be distinguished from the proposed regulations regarding market
maker and trading incentive programs under Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28,
which represent new requirements that apply only to DCMs.
3. Policy Discussion
With the proposed transparency requirements, the Commission aims to
increase the relevant information available to market participants that
may influence their choice of trading venue. The Commission believes
that such will foster competition among exchanges by incentivizing them
to provide the most efficient and fairest venue for trading. Should an
exchange intentionally or unintentionally structure its trading systems
to potentially or actually advantage one category of market participant
over others, the potentially disadvantaged market participants may opt
to trade on another venue.
One Concept Release commenter noted that market participants, if
they have direct market access, could calculate market quality metrics
including latencies and therefore would be aware of many of the
attributes of a platform that affect order execution. The requirements
proposed under Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) give all market
participants an equal footing in terms of understanding how the
platform operates independent of access methods and services such as
colocation.
4. Request for Comments
69. The Commission has proposed that certain components of an
exchange's market architecture should be considered part of the
``electronic matching platform'' for purposes of the DCM transparency
provision. Are there any additional systems that should fall within the
meaning of ``electronic matching platforms'' for purposes of proposed
Sec. 38.401(a)?
70. The Commission has specifically identified, as ``attributes''
that must be disclosed, latencies within a platform and how a self-
trade prevention tool determines whether to cancel an order. Are there
any other attributes that would materially affect the execution of
market participant orders and therefore should be made known to all
market participants? Should the Commission revise the final rule so
that it only applies to latencies within a platform and how a self-
trade prevention tool determines whether to cancel an order?
71. What information should be disclosed as part of the description
of relevant attributes of the platform? For instance, with latencies
within a platform, should statistics on latencies be required? If so,
what statistics would help market participants assess any impact on
their orders? Would a narrative description of attributes be
preferable, including a description of how the attributes might affect
market participant orders under different market conditions, such as
during times of increased messaging activity?
[[Page 78871]]
72. The Commission notes that proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) are not intended to require the disclosure of a DCM's trade
secrets. The Commission requests comments on whether the proposed rules
might inadvertently require such disclosure, and if so, how they might
be amended to address this concern. Furthermore, the Commission
anticipates that the mechanisms and standards for requesting
confidential treatment already codified in existing Sec. 40.8 could be
used by DCMs to identify and request confidential treatment for
information otherwise required to be disclosed pursuant to proposed
Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), for example by incorporating Sec.
40.8's mechanisms and standards into any final rules arising from this
NPRM. If commenters believe that the mechanisms and standards in Sec.
40.8 are inappropriate for this purpose, please describe any other
mechanism that should be included in any final rules to facilitate DCM
requests for confidential treatment of information otherwise required
to be disclosed pursuant to proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
73. The Commission notes that DCMs are required, as part of
voluntary submissions of new rules or rule amendments under Sec.
40.5(a) and self-certification of rules and rule amendment under Sec.
40.6(a), to provide inter alia an explanation and analysis of the
operation, purpose and effect of the proposed rule or rule amendment.
Would the information required under Sec. Sec. 40.5(a) or 40.6(a)
provide market participants and the public with sufficient information
regarding material attributes of an electronic matching platform?
74. The Commission recognizes that DCMs are required to have system
safeguards to ensure information security, business continuity and
disaster recovery under DCM Core Principle 20. The Commission
understands that some attributes of an electronic matching platform
designed to implement those safeguards should be maintained as
confidential to prevent cybersecurity or other threats. Does existing
Sec. 40.8, 17 CFR 40.8 (2014) provide sufficient basis for DCMs to
publicly disclose the relevant attributes of their platforms while
maintaining as confidential information concerning system safeguards?
75. With respect to material attributes affecting market
participant orders caused by temporary or emergency situations, such as
network outages or the temporary suspension of certain market
functionality, what is the best way for DCMs to alert market
participants? How are DCMs currently handling these situations?
76. The Commission proposes that DCMs provide a description of the
relevant material attributes in a single document ``disclosed
prominently and clearly'' on the exchange's Web site. The Commission
also proposes that this document be written in ``plain English'' to
allow market participants, even those not technically proficient, to
understand the attributes described. Would these requirements be
practical and help market participants locate and understand the
information provided?
77. The Commission proposes requiring DCMs to disclose information
on the relevant attributes: (a) When filing a rule change submission
with the Commission for changes to the electronic matching platform; or
(b) within a ``reasonable time, but no later than ten days'' following
the identification of such attribute. Do the proposed timeframes
provide sufficient time for DCMs to disclose the relevant information?
Do the proposed timeframes offer sufficient notice of changes or
discovered attributes to market participants to allow them to adjust
any systems or strategies, including any algorithmic trading systems?
78. The Commission proposes requiring disclosure of newly
identified attributes within 10 days of discovery. Does this provide
DCMs sufficient time to analyze the attribute and provide a
description? Should DCMs be required to provide notice of the existence
of the attribute and supplement as further analysis is performed?
N. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls at DCMs--Sec. 40.20
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 40.20 to require DCMs to
establish pre-trade and other risk controls specifically designed to
address the risks that may arise from Algorithmic Trading. The
Commission is also proposing to codify in Sec. 40.20 basic pre-trade
risk control requirements and order cancellation capabilities for
orders that do not originate from Algorithmic Trading. In this regard,
the Commission recognizes that natural person traders manually entering
orders also have the potential to cause market disruptions. While the
majority of the pre-trade and other risk controls in Regulation AT
address Algorithmic Trading, the Commission believes it is also
important to promote a basic degree of risk control for all trading
regardless of source.
The pre-trade and other risk controls required of DCMs pursuant to
proposed Sec. 40.20 reflect Regulation AT's layered approach to risk
mitigation in automated trading. In particular, the measures required
of DCMs in Sec. 40.20 are similar to those required of AT Persons in
proposed Sec. 1.80(a)(1) and (b)(1), and also similar to those
required of clearing member FCMs in Sec. 1.82(a). The Commission
intends to offer AT Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs the
flexibility to design and calibrate such controls according to their
own distinct priorities and understanding of the risks to themselves,
their customers, and the broader market. In this regard, while certain
proposed rules may appear duplicative on their face, Regulation AT is
designed to address the diverse needs of market participants trading
across multiple markets, by spreading the requirement to impose risk
controls across AT Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs and
encouraging them to each independently calibrate such controls.
The remainder of this section presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion of
the policy justification for the proposal, and a request for comments
on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment on various pre-trade and
other types of risk controls, including message and execution
throttles, maximum order sizes, price collars, and order management
controls, such as connectivity monitoring services, automatic
cancellation of orders on disconnect and kill switches. The Concept
Release contemplated that such controls would apply at the trading
firm, clearing member and trading platform levels. As explained above,
proposed Sec. 1.80 requires AT Persons to implement certain pre-trade
risk controls and order management controls. By reference to the
proposed Sec. 1.80 regulations, proposed Sec. 40.20 will require DCMs
to establish similar pre-trade and other risk controls specifically
designed to address the risks that may arise from Algorithmic Trading,
and to establish similar controls for orders entered manually. Relevant
comments to the Concept Release addressing pre-trade and other risk
controls for DCMs are discussed below.
a. Message and Execution Throttles
As discussed above, the Concept Release described message throttles
as establishing maximum message rates per unit of time and execution
throttles as establishing limits on the maximum number of orders that
an ATS can execute in a given direction per unit in time. The Concept
Release also sought
[[Page 78872]]
comment on a particular form of execution throttle, the repeated
automated execution throttle, which would disable a trading system
after a configurable number of repeated executions until a human re-
enables the system.\433\ The Concept Release stated that the throttles
would be calibrated to address the potential for unintended message
flow or executions from a malfunctioning ATS.\434\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\433\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56571.
\434\ Concept Release, 78 FR 56569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters indicated that DCMs are already implementing messaging
rate limits. Two exchanges described their own message rate limits
\435\ and four commenters stated generally that many exchanges have
messaging rate limits in place.\436\ Commenters generally discussed
throttles at the exchange as being ``messaging'' limits. KCG explained
that many participants' trading strategies include trading activity on
multiple markets, and thus the responsibility for establishing limits
on executions must reside with the market participant and its clearing
firm.\437\ Benefits of exchange-based messaging limits noted by
commenters include identifying potentially malfunctioning ATSs,
preventing a platform overload that would impact the processing of
messages across all market participants, ensuring a level playing field
for all market participants, mitigating risk to the DCO, and deterring
predatory and disruptive activities that require high message
traffic.\438\ SIG cautioned that exchanges should not impose ``speed-
bump'' throttles on order messaging as a means to ``slow down trading
for its own sake.'' \439\ FIA suggested that a DCM should never reject
an order cancellation request due to message rate limits.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\435\ CME at 8-9; CME at Appendix A, 3-4, 6; CFE at 5-6.
\436\ TCL at 6; KCG at 4; MFA at 7; AIMA at 8.
\437\ KCG at 5.
\438\ FIA at 12, 15-17, 65; MFA at 7; CME at 8; Gelber at 5-7;
AFR at 6-7; SIG at 3.
\439\ SIG at 3.
\440\ FIA at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters indicated that exchanges should have flexibility in
setting messaging limits because exchanges are in the best position to
respond to the dynamics of the market, monitor the activity of all
participants, and determine the impact of messaging.\441\ Commenters
indicated that throttle limits implemented by DCMs should be based on
the unique characteristics of each product; the capacity and
performance of a DCM's network and matching engine and the matching
algorithm; and the market participant's role (i.e., liquidity providers
may be excluded from limits).\442\ FIA noted that a DCM's message rate
limit should not adjust to market conditions because participants must
always know what the limit is.\443\ Chicago Fed commented that
regulators should assess the methodology that trading venues use to set
throttle limits, the reasonableness of those limits, and the procedures
followed when they are breached.\444\ Finally, IATP commented on the
difficulty in setting standardized throttle thresholds, and
alternatively suggested standardizing a graduated levy on order
cancellations.\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ FIA at 12, 15-17; CME at 8-9; MFA at 13; Gelber at 5-7;
KCG at 3-4; AIMA at 8; OneChicago at 5.
\442\ FIA at 15; CME at 8-9; Gelber at 5-7; KCG at 4; AIMA at 8.
\443\ FIA at 12, 16.
\444\ Chicago Fed at 2.
\445\ IATP at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that exchanges already implement maximum order
size limits. Two exchanges, CME and CFE, stated that they apply order
size limits on each of their products.\446\ AIMA also stated that
maximum order sizes are normally applied per product at the DCM or FCM
level to all customers.\447\ Chicago Fed commented that exchanges
should implement maximum order size limits.\448\ MFA also recommended
that maximum order size controls be implemented at the FCM and/or
exchange level, and apply to both manual and automated traders.\449\
FIA commented that while it ``has been a proponent of standardization
of pre-trade risk controls across DCMs we understand that each DCM
needs to have discretion on how these controls are implemented.'' \450\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ CME at 15, Appendix A-1; CFE at 7.
\447\ AIMA at 13.
\448\ Chicago Fed at 2; MFA at 2, 9; Gelber at 10; KCG at 8.
\449\ MFA at 9.
\450\ FIA at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Price Collars
The Concept Release requested comment on price collars, a control
in which trading platforms would assign a range of acceptable order and
execution prices for each product and all market participants would
establish similar limits to ensure that orders outside of a particular
price range are not transmitted to the trading platform. Commenters
indicated that exchanges already implement price collars. CME and CFE
described their own price collar mechanisms.\451\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\451\ CME at 13-14; 16-17, CME at Appendix A-6; CFE at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIA indicated that price collars are a ``widely adopted'' DCM-
hosted risk control and are effective at preventing orders from
disrupting the market and affecting the price discovery process.\452\
FIA further explained that they have been proven to minimize erroneous
trading by controlling the range of execution prices and can ensure the
integrity of trades cleared through the DCO by dramatically reducing
the chance that a trade may be deemed erroneous and subsequently
adjusted or busted.\453\ FIA recommended that price collars be used on
all contracts, set by the DCM based on estimates of volatility and
market conditions.\454\ FIA cautioned that price collars should not be
mandated at the same levels across all products.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\452\ FIA at 18.
\453\ FIA at 18.
\454\ Id. at 13-14.
\455\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters made similar points. KCG stated that ``the futures
markets' price collars work well,'' and reduce the potential for
erroneous trades.\456\ KCG supports requiring exchanges to establish
price collars on all contracts, but believes that exchanges should have
discretion in setting the price collars.\457\ Gelber stated that
exchanges should establish price collars and that this control protects
DCOs and market participants from volatile markets.\458\ MFA stated
that price collars in the futures markets have been effective in
maintaining fair and orderly markets, and have fewer unintended
consequences than trading pauses.\459\ SIG also stated that the markets
benefit from price collars.\460\ Finally, Chicago Fed and AFR
recommended that trading venues implement price collars.\461\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ KCG at 7-8.
\457\ See id.
\458\ Gelber at 9.
\459\ MFA at 8-9.
\460\ SIG at 8-9.
\461\ Chicago Fed at 3; AFR at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the above comments, AIMA acknowledged that price
collars may be beneficial, but explained that price collars have
potentially negative consequences in that they may impede the efficient
price discovery process.\462\ In particular, AIMA suggested that market
participants should be encouraged to place bids and offers far above or
below the current market price.\463\ Among other things, AIMA
[[Page 78873]]
suggested that brief trading pauses were preferable to price collars,
and that if a collar or pause is activated, market participants should
be notified as soon as possible.\464\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\462\ AIMA at 12-13.
\463\ See id.
\464\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Connectivity Indications and Cancel on Disconnect
As noted above, the Concept Release requested comment regarding
``system heartbeats'' that would indicate proper connectivity between a
trading firm's automated trading system and the trading platform, and
``auto-cancel on disconnect,'' an exchange tool that allows trading
firms to determine whether their orders will be left in the market upon
disconnection. Two exchanges stated that they provide an optional
cancel-on-disconnect functionality \465\ and FIA characterized cancel-
on-disconnect as a ``widely adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk
control.'' \466\ Several commenters indicated that they support
exchanges offering system heartbeats and/or cancel-on-disconnect to
their market participants.\467\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ CME at Appendix A-4; CFE at 9-10.
\466\ FIA at 14.
\467\ FIA at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Order Cancellation Systems
As discussed above, the Concept Release addressed selective working
order cancellation, a tool in which an exchange can immediately cancel
one, multiple, or all resting orders from a market participant as
necessary in an emergency situation and well as order cancellation
mechanisms that would immediately cancel all working orders and prevent
submission (by the market participant), transmittal (by the clearing
member), or acceptance (by the trading platform) of any new orders from
a market participant or a particular trader or ATS of such market
participant. The Commission notes that comments to the Concept Release
generally discussing the design and implementation of kill switches are
addressed above with respect to order cancellation systems requirements
on AT Persons.
Specifically as to exchanges, the Commission notes that one
exchange indicated that it has two kill switch tools: A kill switch
used by the exchange, clearing firm, or trading firm to remove an
entity from the market completely; and an order management tool that
enables clearing firms and end-users to cancel orders at a more
granular level.\468\ Another exchange explained that it can cancel
orders and quotes in an emergency and also provides a kill switch to
clearing members that cancels all orders and quotes from a market
participant.\469\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ CME at 23-24.
\469\ CFE at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters noted the importance of placing kill switches at
the DCM level.\470\ For example, Citadel noted that ``kill switches can
operate at a number of levels--at the market participant, at the
clearing firm, or at the trading platform. While all are advisable,
their use at the trading platform level is of paramount importance.
Trading platforms sit at the center of trading and are therefore best
positioned to efficiently and consistently monitor activity across a
wide variety of market participants.'' \471\ While commenters generally
opposed prescriptive kill switch requirements and indicated the
challenges of standardization, several noted that there could be some
benefits to standardized kill switch processes across exchanges.\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\470\ FIA at 29-33; Citadel at 3; AIMA at 3, 18; MFA at 12-13;
KCG at 13.
\471\ Citadel at 3.
\472\ FIA at 29-33; CME at 23; AIMA at 18; SIG at 8; Gelber at
14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also stressed the importance of clear, transparent
procedures governing use of the kill switch.\473\ FIA stated that ``a
failure to communicate policies that govern the use of kill switches,
any potential changes to such policies, or the utilization of a kill
switch in a live trading environment without prior notification can
introduce significant risk to a market participant's trading operation
as well as the wider marketplace.'' \474\ MFA commented that trading
platforms should have clear and objective policies detailing the
circumstances that warrant use of a kill switch.\475\ In contrast, CME
stressed that the kill switch tool must be free of restrictive policies
and procedures, because time is of the essence in use of the kill
switch. However, CME stated that if policies do govern an exchange's
use of a kill switch, such policies should define a hierarchy of
authority for who can send kill instructions.\476\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ FIA at 29; MFA at 12; Citadel at 3.
\474\ FIA at 29.
\475\ MFA at 12.
\476\ CME at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding activation of the kill switch, FIA cautioned that this
tool should only be used as a ``final safeguard'' that should be a
redundant control as long as appropriate risk controls are implemented
at the FCM and DCM levels.\477\ FIA suggested that a kill switch have
both automated and manual triggers, but a DCM should contact the market
participant before activating the kill switch.\478\ FIA also suggested
that a DCM be allowed to terminate market access without contacting the
participant if necessary to protect market integrity or the financial
integrity of participants.\479\ Citadel commented that exchange systems
should employ robust and reliable systems that automatically identify
potentially erroneous activity, and this activity could trigger
automatic notifications to the participant; review by exchange staff;
automatic blocks of further activity; and, under appropriate
circumstances, a confidential notification to other trading platforms
that a firm's trading is halted.\480\ KCG stressed that market
participants should establish thresholds for kill switches,\481\ and
Gelber cautioned that exchanges should apply kill switches on an ATS,
not firm-wide, level.\482\ SIG suggested that exchanges set kill
switches at the gateway level, firm level, or an account level.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\477\ FIA at 29-33; Gelber at 14-15.
\478\ FIA at 29-33.
\479\ FIA at 29-33.
\480\ Citadel at 3-4.
\481\ KCG at 13.
\482\ Gelber at 14.
\483\ SIG at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An issue related to pre-trade and other risk controls implemented
by DCMs is the testing of exchange systems. The Concept Release did not
directly explore the testing of DCM automated systems. Moreover,
commenters did not raise the issue. Nevertheless, the Commission notes
that there have been incidents following automated system changes that
might have been prevented or mitigated by additional testing. For
example, in early 2015, certain European futures exchanges experienced
outages in their trading platforms following updates to their automated
systems.\484\ In September 2010, 30,000 test orders were accidentally
submitted to the CME Globex system (due to human error), resulting in
numerous executed trades.\485\ In April 2014, the Globex system halted,
forcing traders to execute futures trades on the trading floor.\486\
[[Page 78874]]
The Commission further notes that IOSCO published in April 2015 a
consultation report recommending that exchanges consider ``establishing
policies and procedures related to the development, modification,
testing and implementation of new, or changes to, critical systems.''
\487\ Existing Sec. 38.1051(h) requires DCMs to ``conduct regular,
periodic, and objective testing of its automated systems to ensure that
they are reliable, secure, and have adequate scalable capacity'' and
Sec. 38.1051(a)(5) requires exchanges to address risk analysis and
oversight for ``systems development and quality assurance.'' While the
Commission is not proposing any amendments to Sec. 38.1051 in this
NPRM, the Commission requests comment on whether the existing rule
provides the Commission with adequate authority to require DCMs to
adequately test planned changes to their matching engines and other
automated systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\484\ See ``Euronext Derivatives Trading Resumes Following One-
Hour Halt,'' Bloomberg (March 30, 2015), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-30/euronext-derivatives-trading-halted-because-of-technical-issue.
\485\ See ``CME Test Orders Went Live,'' Wall St. J. (September
15, 2010), available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703376504575491971336921954.
\486\ See ``Technical Glitch Hits CME Trading,'' Wall St. J.
(April 8, 2014), available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304819004579489683245107384. The Commission notes
that moving to the floor will no longer be available as a backup as
the CME was planning to close most futures trading pits in July
2015.
\487\ See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Existing Sec. 38.255 requires DCMs to establish risk control
mechanisms to prevent and reduce the potential risk of price
distortions and market disruptions, including market restrictions that
pause or halt trading. The Commission proposes a new Sec. 40.20 to
require DCMs to establish pre-trade and other risk controls
specifically designed to address the risks that may arise from
Algorithmic Trading, and to establish similar controls for orders
entered manually.
The controls required by Sec. 40.20 are consistent with the
controls that Regulation AT would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs to implement. By reference to the pre-trade and other risk
controls required of AT Persons pursuant to Sec. 1.80(a)(1), proposed
Sec. 40.20 would require message and execution throttles and controls
establishing price and size parameters. Proposed Sec. 40.20 would also
require DCMs to implement the above risk controls for orders that do
not originate from Algorithmic Trading.
The proposed regulation, by reference to Sec. 1.80(b) and (c),
would also require DCMs to establish certain order cancellation and
connectivity monitoring systems. The cancellation systems must have the
ability to: (i) Immediately disengage Algorithmic Trading; (ii) cancel
selected or up to all resting orders when system or market conditions
require it; (iii) prevent acceptance or submission of any new orders;
and (iv) cancel or suspend all resting orders from AT Persons in the
event of disconnect with the trading platform. The connectivity
monitoring systems established by the DCM must enable the systems of AT
Persons with DEA to indicate to the AT Persons on an intermittent or
continuous basis whether they have proper connectivity with the trading
platform, including any systems used by a DCM to provide the AT Person
with market data.
Finally, the Commission is amending the Acceptable Practices for
Core Principle 4 in part 38 of the DCM regulations. The existing
Acceptable Practices provide that the DCM may choose from risk
controls, including pre-trade limits on order size, price collars or
bands around the current price, message throttles and daily price
limits, to comply with Core Principle 4. Such controls are now
required. Accordingly, the Acceptable Practices will be revised to
correspond to the new requirements set forth in Sec. 40.20.
3. Policy Discussion
Consistent with its multi-layered approach to regulations intended
to mitigate the risks of automated trading, the Commission proposes in
Sec. 40.20 to require that DCMs establish and implement certain pre-
trade risk controls and order management controls that are broadly
similar to those that would be required of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs. The Commission's determination to require DCM-implemented
controls is consistent with several Concept Release comments that
indicated that pre-trade risk and order management controls should be
placed at the exchange level, with one commenter explaining that
exchanges sit at the center of trading, and are therefore best
positioned to monitor activity across a wide variety of
participants.\488\ The Commission notes that its approach is consistent
with ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards, in that ESMA
requires pre-trade risk controls at both the investment firm and
trading venue level.\489\ In addition, with respect to kill switch
functionality, ESMA's 2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards set out two
different obligations: Trading venues must have their own kill
functionality, and separately, investment firms must have the ability
to cancel unexecuted orders.\490\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\488\ FIA at 29-33; Citadel at 3; AIMA at 3, 18; MFA at 12-13;
KCG at 13.
\489\ ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report, supra
note 80 at 201-02.
\490\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the controls required in proposed
Sec. 40.20 are in many cases largely consistent with controls already
used by DCMs. As discussed above, commenters to the Concept Release
addressing this topic generally indicated that exchanges already use
message rate limits, maximum order size limits, and price limits.
Comments to the Concept Release indicated that order cancellation
systems and connectivity monitoring systems are already used by DCMs as
well. Although some commenters did indicate that execution throttles
are more appropriate for trading firms than for DCMs, the Commission
believes that pre-trade risk controls and other measures serve
different functions and may be designed or calibrated distinctly at
each entity in the life-cycle of an AT Order Message. As noted above,
proposed Sec. 40.20 and other elements of Regulation AT reflect the
proposed rules' layered approach to risk mitigation in automated
trading. In this regard, Regulation AT is designed to address the
diverse needs of market participants trading across multiple markets,
by spreading the requirement to impose risk controls across AT Persons,
clearing member FCMs and DCMs and encouraging them to each make
independent use of such controls.
The Commission notes that IOSCO has recently explained that most
trading venues have tools used to mitigate the operational risks of
electronic trading, and such tools include price and volume controls,
messaging throttles, and kill switches.\491\ In addition, ESMA's 2015
Final Draft Regulatory Standards require that trading venues have price
collars that automatically block or cancel orders that do not meet set
price parameters with respect to different financial instruments, on an
order-by-order basis; and maximum order value and maximum order volume
limits.\492\ ESMA's regulatory standards also require throttles
limiting the number of orders each member may submit per second.\493\
Trading venues must also determine a maximum ratio of unexecuted orders
to transactions at a level they deem appropriate, consistent with a
calculation methodology provided by ESMA.\494\ ESMA standards further
require a kill functionality to cancel unexecuted orders upon request
of a market participant that is technically unable to delete its own
[[Page 78875]]
orders, when the order book is corrupted by erroneous duplicated
orders, or following a suspension initiated by the market operator or
the competent authority.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\491\ IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 21.
\492\ See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex
1 at 269.
\493\ See id. at 266.
\494\ See id. at 285-88.
\495\ See id. at 266-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's proposed rules do not impose a ``one-size-fits-
all'' standard on DCMs for compliance. Rather, the DCM's pre-trade risk
controls must be set at the level of each AT Person, and exchanges must
evaluate whether the controls should be set at a more granular level,
including by product or one or more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message, and then take appropriate action
to set the controls at that more granular level. The Commission expects
that it will often be beneficial to set controls at a more granular
level. As noted above, while some commenters to the Concept Release
indicated that Commission involvement in setting thresholds for these
controls might be useful, the Commission agrees with those commenters
indicating that exchanges need discretion to determine how these
controls are implemented. The Commission believes that it is not in the
best position to determine the appropriate control parameters for each
trading strategy, product, capacity of exchange matching engine, and
every other potentially relevant factor that should be taken into
account by a DCM when establishing thresholds. The proposed rules do
not prescribe particular limits or thresholds. Rather, they require
that the DCM set the controls at levels intended to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event.
The Commission believes that allowing DCMs discretion in the design
and implementation of risk controls is particularly important in the
area of order cancellation functions. FIA has stated that
``[a]ctivation of a kill switch is based on a decision that such action
protects market integrity or the financial integrity of the
counterparties involved,'' and should ``only be invoked based on a
qualitative decision taken as a last resort when other actions have
failed or may not be feasible.'' \496\ Furthermore, FIA has explained
that the conditions under which a kill switch may be used by an
exchange should be clearly communicated to the counterparties.\497\
Similarly, MFA commented that trading platforms should have clear and
objective policies detailing when a kill switch will be used.\498\ CME
indicated that restrictive policies governing use of a kill switch
could be detrimental, given the speed with which a kill switch may need
to be implemented.\499\ The Commission believes that exchanges should
have clear and public policies governing use of a kill switch, but
understands that the specifics of such policies may different depending
on the nature of an exchange's market and market participants.
Therefore, the Commission has determined that its proposed rules in
this area should provide exchanges with the discretion to design
policies and procedures appropriate to their market. The Commission
stresses that exchanges should clearly communicate such policies and
procedures to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\496\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 14.
\497\ See id.
\498\ MFA at 12.
\499\ CME at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that Sec. 40.20(d) would require a DCM to
implement the pre-trade and other risk control mechanisms described in
Sec. 40.20(a) and (b)(1)(i) (meaning, message and execution throttles
and order and price parameters and order cancellation systems) for
orders that do not originate from Algorithmic Trading, after making any
adjustments to such controls that the DCM determines are appropriate
for such orders. The Commission recognizes that certain activity that
such controls are designed to address can be caused by manual order
entry in addition to Algorithmic Trading. For example, fat-finger
errors are a commonly-cited example of an unintentional error that can
have a significant disruptive effect, which can be caused by, and may
even be more likely to occur in the context of, manual order entry.
4. Request for Comments
79. The Commission proposes to require DCMs to set pre-trade risk
controls at the level of the AT Person, and allows discretion to set
controls at a more granular level. Should the Commission eliminate this
discretion, and require that the controls be set at a specific, more
granular, level? If so, please explain the more appropriate level at
which pre-trade risk controls should be set by a DCM.
80. The Commission requests public comment on the pre-trade and
other risk controls required of DCMs in proposed Sec. 40.20. Are any
of the risk controls required in the proposed rules unhelpful to
operational or other risk mitigation, or to market stability, when
implemented at the DCM level?
81. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically enumerated in proposed Sec. 40.20?
82. The Commission proposes, with respect to its kill switch
requirements, to allow DCMs the discretion to design a kill switch that
allows a market participant to submit risk-reducing orders. The
Commission also does not mandate particular procedures for alerts or
notifications concerning kill switch triggers. Does the proposed rule
allow for sufficient flexibility in the design of kill switch
mechanisms and the policies and procedures concerning their
implementation? Should the Commission consider more prescriptive rules
in this area?
83. Does existing Sec. 38.1051 provide the Commission with
adequate authority to require DCMs to adequately test planned changes
to their matching engines and other automated systems?
O. DCM Test Environments for AT Persons--Sec. 40.21
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 40.21 to require DCMs to
provide a test environment that will enable AT Persons to simulate
production trading.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release contemplated that trading platforms must
provide to their market participants test environments that simulate
the production environment. FIA supports DCMs providing robust test
environments and market participants using such environments.\500\ SIG
also indicated that DCMs should provide test environments.\501\ MFA
indicated that many, if not all, exchanges currently provide market
participants a test facility to test trading software and
algorithms.\502\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ FIA at 34-38.
\501\ SIG at 9.
\502\ MFA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Regulation AT proposes a new requirement that DCMs (under proposed
Sec. 40.21) provide a test environment that will enable AT Persons to
simulate production trading. The required test environment should
provide access to historical transaction, order and message data. The
test environment should also enable AT Persons to conduct conformance
testing of their Algorithmic Trading systems to verify compliance with
the requirements of proposed Sec. 1.80(a)-(c) (which address pre-trade
risk controls and other measures), Sec. 1.81(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and Sec.
1.81(c)(1) (which address the testing and compliance of algorithmic
trading systems). The Commission anticipates that AT Persons would use
the DCM test environment in connection with the
[[Page 78876]]
testing of their Algorithmic Trading systems, to identify issues that
may arise in a production environment that may not have been identified
through testing in the AT Person's development environment.
3. Request for Comments
84. Should the test environment provided by DCMs under proposed
Sec. 40.21 offer any other functionality or data inputs that will
promote the effective design and testing of Algorithmic Trading by AT
Persons?
P. DCM Review of Compliance Reports by AT Persons and Clearing FCMs;
DCM Rules Requiring Certain Books and Records; and DCM Review of Such
Books and Records as Necessary--Sec. 40.22
The Commission proposes a new Sec. 40.22 that complements the
requirement under Sec. 1.83 for AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to
submit compliance reports to DCMs. Sections 40.22(a) and (b) would
require a DCM to require each AT Person that trades on the DCM, and
each FCM that is a clearing member for such AT Person, to submit the
reports described in Sec. 1.83(a) and (b) annually. Further, Sec.
40.22(c) would require each DCM to establish a program for effective
review of such reports and remediation of any deficiencies found. DCMs
would have considerable latitude, however, in the design of their
review programs. Proposed Sec. 40.22(d) would require DCMs to
implement rules that require each AT Person to keep and provide to the
DCM books and records regarding such AT Person's compliance with all
requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.81, and require each
clearing member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM books and records
regarding such clearing member FCM's compliance with all requirements
pursuant to Sec. 1.82. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.22(e) would require
DCMs to review and evaluate, as necessary, books and records maintained
by AT Persons and clearing member FCMs regarding their compliance with
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). This proposed provision also provides DCMs with
considerable latitude in the implementation of their review function.
The remainder of this section presents Concept Release comments on this
topic, a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion of the
policy justification for the proposal, and a request for comments on
the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
As noted in the discussion of proposed Sec. 1.83 above, the
Concept Release requested comment on whether it would be appropriate to
require periodic self-certifications by all market participants
operating ATSs and by clearing firms that provide clearing services to
those market participants.\503\ Comments addressing this topic are
addressed in section IV(I)(1) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\503\ Concept Release, 78 FR at 56559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Description of Regulation
Proposed Sec. 40.22 complements the requirement under Sec. 1.83
for AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to submit compliance reports to
DCMs. Proposed Sec. 40.22(a) requires a DCM to implement rules that
require each AT Person that trades on the DCM, and each FCM that is a
clearing member of a DCO for such AT Person, to submit the reports
described in Sec. 1.83(a) and (b), respectively. Under proposed Sec.
40.22(b), a DCM must require the submission of such reports by June
30th of each year. Proposed Sec. 40.22(c) requires a DCM to establish
a program for effective periodic review and evaluation of reports
described in paragraph (a) of Sec. 40.22, and of the measures
described therein. An effective program must include measures by the
DCM reasonably designed to identify and remediate any insufficient
mechanisms, policies and procedures described in such reports,
including identification and remediation of any inadequate quantitative
settings or calibrations of pre-trade risk controls required of AT
Persons pursuant to Sec. 1.80(a).
In addition, as an additional complement to the compliance report
review program described above, proposed Sec. 40.22(d) requires DCMs
to implement rules requiring each AT Person to keep and provide to the
DCM books and records regarding their compliance with all requirements
pursuant to Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.81, and requires each clearing
member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM market books and records
regarding their compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec.
1.82. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.22(e) requires DCMs to review and
evaluate, as necessary, books and records required to be kept pursuant
to proposed Sec. 40.22(d), and the measures described therein. A DCM
could find it necessary to conduct such a review if: It becomes aware
if an AT Person's kill switch is frequently activated, or otherwise
performs in an unusual manner; if a DCM becomes aware that an AT
Person's algorithm frequently performs in a manner inconsistent with
its design, which may raise questions about the design or monitoring of
the AT Person's algorithms; if a DCM identifies frequent trade practice
violations at an AT Person, which are related to an algorithm of the AT
Person; or if an AT Person represents significant volume in a
particular product, thereby requiring heightened scrutiny, among other
reasons. An appropriate review pursuant to Sec. 40.22(e) should
include measures by the DCM reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies, and procedures
described in such books and records.
3. Policy Discussion
In proposing this regulation, the Commission disagrees with
comments to the Concept Release opposing such a review requirement and
suggesting that it would merely create extra administrative costs.\504\
The Commission acknowledges that the review program required by Sec.
40.22 would impose costs on DCMs, but believes that Regulation AT must
include a mechanism to ensure that AT Persons and clearing member FCMs
are complying with the requirement to implement certain pre-trade and
other risk controls. Moreover, an assessment of such compliance
requires an adequate level of expertise and knowledge of markets and
market participants' technological systems and trading strategies. The
Commission believes that a review program requiring AT Persons to
describe the pre-trade risk controls required by Sec. 1.80(a) and
clearing member FCMs to describe their program for establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls required by 1.82(a)(1), and
requiring DCMs to review such information, is the most effective method
to ensure that all market participants are implementing measures that
are reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event or
Algorithmic Trading Disruption. The requirements of proposed Sec.
40.22(d) and (e) will enable DCMs to perform a more intensive review,
as necessary, of AT Persons' compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81,
and clearing member FCMs' compliance with Sec. 1.82, by among other
factors, helping to ensure that necessary books and records are
maintained and available to a DCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\504\ See, e.g., AIMA at 21; FIA at 4; CME at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes, in particular, that DCMs are best positioned
to assess the measures taken by market participants on their exchange,
and identify outliers that may not have implemented adequate measures
or
[[Page 78877]]
particular parameters as compared to other market participants. The
Commission believes that it is in the interest of the DCM, as well as
all market participants trading on the DCM, to ensure that no market
participants are conducting Algorithmic Trading without adequate
protections in place.
Some commenters indicated that any certification requirements
should be principles-based.\505\ The Commission agrees that a DCM
should have discretion in the design and implementation of its review
program. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 40.22 provides a general framework
for the DCM's review program: e.g., a DCM must require the submission
of reports by June 30 of each year; and the DCM must establish a
program for effective periodic review and evaluation of the reports,
including measures by the DCM reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies and procedures
described in such reports. Beyond the specific requirements set forth
in proposed Sec. 40.22, however, each DCM may tailor its review
program in the manner it believes will be most effective to understand
the measures its market participants have taken to address the risks of
Algorithmic Trading, and evaluate whether they are sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\505\ See, e.g., FIA at 4, CME at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Request for Comments
85. In lieu of a DCM's affirmative obligation in proposed Sec.
40.22 to review AT Person and clearing member FCM compliance reports,
should DCMs instead be permitted to rely on the CEO or CCO
representations required by proposed Sec. 1.83(a)(2)? If so, what
events in the Algorithmic Trading of an AT Person should trigger review
obligations by the DCM?
86. Should Sec. 40.22(c) provide more specific requirements
regarding a DCM's establishment of a program for effective periodic
review and evaluation of AT Person and clearing member FCM reports? For
example, Sec. 40.22(c) could require review at specific intervals
(e.g., once every two years). Alternatively, Sec. 40.22(c) could
provide greater discretion to DCMs in establishing their programs for
the review of reports. Please comment on the appropriateness of these
alternative approaches.
87. Should Sec. 40.22(e) provide more specific requirements
regarding the triggers for a DCM to review and evaluate the books and
records of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs required to be kept
pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d)? For example, Sec. 40.22(e) could require
review at specific intervals (e.g., once every two years), or it could
require review in response to specific events related to the
Algorithmic Trading of AT Persons. Please comment on the
appropriateness of these alternative approaches.
88. Does Sec. 40.22 leave enough discretion to the DCM in
determining how to design and implement an effective compliance review
program regarding Algorithmic Trading? Alternatively, is there any
aspect of this regulation that should be more specific or prescriptive?
89. Should Sec. 40.22 specifically authorize a DCM to establish
further standards for the organization, method of submission, or other
attributes of the reports described in Sec. 40.22(a)?
Q. Self-Trade Prevention Tools--Sec. 40.23
The Commission understands that self-trade activity has grown as
trading has migrated to an electronic trading environment. The
Commission has determined to propose rules in this area, which would
address both intentional and unintentional self-trading activity, with
the goal of benefiting market participants and enhancing the price
discovery process. Specifically, the Commission is proposing Sec.
40.23(a) to require DCMs to implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading, excluding certain ``permitted self-trades''
described below. Proposed Sec. 40.23(a) defines self-trading as the
matching of orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership
\506\ or are under common control. As discussed below, a trade that
results from the matching of opposing orders both generated by a firm
or a single or commonly owned account does not shift risk between
different market participants. There is a possibility that such trades
may inaccurately signal the level of liquidity in the market and may
result in a non-bona fide price. Risk controls that identify and limit
self-trading may result in more accurate indications of the level of
market interest on both sides of the market and help ensure arms-length
transactions that promote effective price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\506\ The Commission is requesting public comment in the
questions below regarding whether it should define ``common
beneficial ownership'' in any final rules arising from this NPRM,
and if so, how the term should be defined. The Commission notes in
its request for public comment that its aggregation rules in Sec.
150.4 are a potential model for defining common beneficial ownership
in any final rules. The Commission is also requesting public comment
regarding whether the definition of common beneficial ownership for
purposes of Sec. 40.23 should be left to the individual discretion
of each DCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that there could be legitimate reasons
for self-trades, and hence is proposing to provide DCMs and market
participants the appropriate flexibility in implementation of the self-
trade prevention tools. DCMs have begun offering self-trade prevention
tools to market participants in recent years, and a large fraction of
market participants have started using these tools. Analysis of self-
match use at DCMs has found that the majority of orders in many liquid
contracts already make use of this tool. While acknowledging the
growing use of such tools, the Commission is interested in
strengthening regulatory standards to increase transparency and ensure
more effective limitation of unintentional self-trades. By
standardizing self-trade prevention use across firms, it should be
easier for the marketplace as a whole to differentiate permitted self-
trading. The Commission's proposed rules on self-trade prevention are
also intended as a complement to the prohibition under the CEA
regulations regarding wash trades.\507\ Wash trading has been defined
as ``entering into, or purporting to enter into, transactions to give
the appearance that purchases and sales have been made, without
incurring market risk or changing the trader's market position.'' \508\
Therefore, intentional self-trades could constitute wash trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\507\ See Section 4c(a) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(2)(A), and
Commission regulation 1.38(a).
\508\ See CFTC Glossary, available at: http://www.cftc.gov/ConsumerProtection/EducationCenter/CFTCGlossary/index.htm#W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a Commission analysis of the amount of self-trading in the
marketplace, a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion of
the policy justification for the proposal, and a request for comments
on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested comment on self-trading controls. The
Concept Release considered whether trading platforms should provide,
and market participants apply, technologies to identify and limit the
transmission of orders from their systems to a trading platform that
would result in self-trades. Numerous commenters addressed self-trading
controls, including the extent of their use by industry; the types of
trades that self-trade controls should prevent; and the appropriate
design of self-trade controls. Commenters disagreed as to whether there
should be regulation in this area, but most either oppose regulation or
express concern about how it would be implemented, for reasons similar
to those stated by FIA: ``To
[[Page 78878]]
require the adoption of DCM-based self-match prevention as a `one-size-
fits-all' approach may result in unnecessary financial exposure caused
by the inherent blocking of legitimate transactions. . . . The options
for this type of functionality must be flexible enough so that market
participants can choose the method that best suits their business and
preserves legitimate trading.'' \509\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\509\ FIA at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters indicated that exchange-provided self-trading controls
are widely used by market participants.\510\ The FIA PTG Survey
reflected that 25 of 26 responding firms use such controls.\511\ Both
CME and ICE provide self-trade prevention controls, a capability which
was introduced, and refined, in recent years.\512\ CME's self-trade
control is optional rather than required. It allows market participants
to prevent buy and sell orders for the same account, or accounts with
common beneficial ownership, from matching with each other. CME noted
that its self-trade control can be applied by market participants at
the executing firm level or at more granular levels, including at an
individual user level.\513\ CME stated that more than 100 firms have
registered for this control since it was launched in June 2013.\514\
ICE noted that its self-trade prevention tool is mandatory for
proprietary traders with DEA.\515\ Another exchange, CFE, commented
that it will be employing self-trade prevention functionality in the
near future.\516\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\510\ FIA at 26; Gelber at 7-9.
\511\ FIA at 26, 59-60.
\512\ FIA at 25-27; MFA at 8; Gelber at 7-9; FAIMA at 10; IATP
at 5.
\513\ CME at 12.
\514\ Id. at 11-12.
\515\ ICE at 2.
\516\ CFE at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FIA believes that DCMs should offer self-trading controls,
FIA and four other commenters (including CME) oppose self-trading
regulation at this time.\517\ Reasons articulated by FIA and other
commenters included: The technology supporting this risk control is not
sufficiently developed, although industry is already working to improve
it and is in the best position to do so; regulating self-trading
controls would lock in standards or technology that will become
obsolete; self-trade controls may cause an accumulation of either
resting orders or new orders, depending on how the controls are
calibrated, which does not advance the regulatory goal of protecting
the marketplace; and there are ways to prevent self-trades without
using a self-trade prevention tool (i.e., trading firms may choose to
simply modify their trading strategies).\518\ OneChicago commented that
self-trading controls should be implemented and calibrated at the
clearing firm level, not at the DCM level.\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\517\ FIA at 25-27; CME at 10-12; Gelber at 7-9; MFA 5, 8; AIMA
at 11-12.
\518\ FIA at 25-27; CME at 11-12; AIMA at 11-12; Gelber at 7.
\519\ OneChicago at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, IATP and AFR support the Commission requiring
exchanges and market participants to use self-trading controls.\520\
SIG believes that exchanges should offer self-trade prevention
functionality, with parameters set by firms.\521\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\520\ IATP at 5; AFR at 7.
\521\ SIG at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to cost considerations, CME stated that self-trade controls
require significant investments in technology and resources by
exchanges and trading firms.\522\ MFA noted that it is more cost-
effective for exchanges, rather than market participants, to develop
self-trade controls.\523\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\522\ CME at 10.
\523\ MFA at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, comments addressed the specific functionality of self-
trade controls currently used by exchanges and firms. For example, five
comments addressed the type of trades that such controls should
prevent.\524\ FIA explained that self-trading controls should only
address trades submitted by the same trading desk that are matched
despite best efforts to avoid self-trading. This is different from wash
trades, which are intentional self-trades that Commission and DCM rules
already effectively address, and bona fide self-trades, which are buy
and sell orders for accounts with common beneficial ownership that are
independently initiated for legitimate business purposes, but which
coincidentally cross.\525\ FIA and Gelber stated that CME's November
19, 2013 advisory notice on wash trades \526\ provides an accurate
description of when self-matching is acceptable.\527\ SIG stated that
exchanges should focus on trades that would create material, not
immaterial, market misperceptions.\528\ Finally, KCG stated that it
does not believe the CFTC needs to prohibit all self-trading, but that
``market participants must be able to demonstrate, through information
barriers or other effective policies and procedures, that any self-
trading is between unrelated strategies and not designed with a
manipulative intent.'' \529\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\524\ FIA at 25; Gelber at 9; KCG at 7; AIMA at 11; SIG at 9.
\525\ FIA at 25.
\526\ See the CME Group Advisory Notice RA 1308-5 (Nov. 19,
2013), available at http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/files/cme-group-ra1308-5.pdf. The FAQ in the Advisory Notice discusses various
types of acceptable self-matching that would not violate CME Rule
534 (``Wash Trades Prohibited'').
\527\ FIA at 25; Gelber at 9.
\528\ SIG at 9.
\529\ KCG at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also addressed the appropriate level at which self-trade
controls should be calibrated.\530\ Several stressed that DCMs should
allow market participants to tailor this control to their own
needs.\531\ FIA commented that self-trade controls should be offered at
varying levels of granularity (i.e., firm level, group level, trader ID
level, customer account level and strategy level), and certain levels
can be combined.\532\ AIMA stated that self-trade controls set at the
firm trader ID level could be ``gamed'' by traders creating a shell
company under a different ID.\533\ SIG suggested that the controls be
customizable at the ``aggregation unit level'' and ``user-defined tag
level.'' \534\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\530\ FIA at 25-27; Gelber at 7-9; CME at 12; AIMA at 10-12; SIG
at 9.
\531\ FIA 25-27; Gelber at 7-9; CME at 12; SIG at 9.
\532\ FIA at 27.
\533\ AIMA at 10-12.
\534\ SIG at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six comments addressed whether exchanges should require market
participants to use the exchanges' self-trading controls.\535\ CME
noted that it is optional for market participants to use its self-trade
tools, and FIA supported this approach.\536\ In contrast, AIMA
suggested mandatory confidential flagging of self-trades to the market
participant, but only optional cancellations of orders.\537\ Gelber and
KCG support mandatory use at the ``trader ID'' level.\538\ Gelber noted
that ICE's controls are mandatory for some market participants.\539\
Finally, IATP suggested requiring exchanges to provide self-trading
controls and apply them to all participants and all products, arguing
that requiring such controls for some but not others creates arbitrage
opportunities.\540\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\535\ FIA at 25-27; CME at 13, Appendix A-4; Gelber at 7-9; KCG
at 7; AIMA at 2, 10-11; IATP at 5.
\536\ CME at 13, Appendix A-4; FIA at 25-27.
\537\ AIMA at 2, 10-11.
\538\ Gelber at 7-9; KCG at 7.
\539\ Gelber at 7-9.
\540\ IATP at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments also addressed order cancellation options in order to
prevent self-trading, which can include cancel resting, cancel new,
cancel both, and decrement order quantity (canceling the smaller order
and reducing the larger
[[Page 78879]]
order by the size of the smaller order).\541\ As described below, the
Commission's proposed self-trade prevention requirements do not mandate
a particular technological approach, nor do they specify which order or
set of orders should be canceled in order to prevent a self-trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\541\ FIA at 26; CME at 11. FIA, Gelber and SIG support the DCM
offering cancellation options to the market participant. FIA at 26;
Gelber at 7-9; SIG at 9. In its comment letter, CME stated that its
self-match prevention system was, at the time of the comment letter,
structured to cancel the resting order, retaining orders based on
more current market information. (CME has more recently expanded the
number of cancellation choices.) The benefit of the opposite
approach, canceling the taking order, is that it favors the priority
of orders resting in the order book. CME at 11. Similarly, MFA
stated that it disagrees with the approach of canceling the resting
order, because it causes a participant to lose its resting orders
even if the orders have been working in the queue. MFA noted that
other exchanges, such as NYSE Euronext, offer options such as
cancelling the taking order and decrementing order quantity. MFA at
8. AFR supports cancellation of the taking order, reasoning that the
taking order is more likely to be the erroneous order. AFR at 7.
Finally, AIMA favors rejection of both the resting order and the
taking order. AIMA at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Analysis of Amount of Self-Trading in the Marketplace
The pervasive growth of algorithmic trading by firms deploying
large numbers of strategies has likely increased the incidence of self-
trading activity. In order to estimate the percentage of self-trading
in the marketplace, the Commission recently reviewed twelve months of
trade data received from several large DCMs, focusing primarily on the
most active products. Among other findings, the Commission learned that
intra-firm self-trades, including both proprietary and customer trades,
can comprise a meaningful percentage of daily trading activity in
individual futures contracts.\542\ For example, in February 2015 intra-
firm self-trades in one examined futures contract were almost 10
percent of all trades in that contract, increasing to almost 15 percent
on individual days. Self-trade rates for a few other contracts were
around 5 percent of total activity. The Commission found similar
patterns at individual firm levels, with cumulative self-trade volumes
at times in the millions of contracts for some market participants over
the course of the 12-month sample period. The average size of a firm's
self-trades ranged from approximately two contracts per trade to over
two thousand contracts per trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\542\ Self-trading identified in the Commission's analysis could
include trading between accounts controlled by separate independent
decision makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing new requirements under Sec. 40.23 that
would require DCMs to apply, or provide and require the use of, tools
reasonably designed to prevent self-trading. Proposed Sec. 40.23
defines self-trading for purposes of this regulation as the matching of
orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership or are under
common control. These requirements are intended to prevent self-
trading, while still allowing what FIA has characterized as ``bona fide
and desirable self-match trades,'' i.e. buy and sell orders for
accounts with common beneficial ownership that are independently
initiated for legitimate business purposes, but which coincidentally
cross.\543\ While the proposed rules contain exceptions for bona fide
self-match trades (described in Sec. 40.23(b)), they are intended to
address all unintentional self-trading, and do not include a de minimis
exception for a certain percentage of unintentional self-trading. In
addition, the proposed rules would provide for an important new element
of transparency around bona fide self-match trades to furnish all
market participants with greater information regarding the markets on
which they trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\543\ FIA at 25. See also FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13, which
describes bona fide and allowable self-match trades as ``buy and
sell orders for accounts with common beneficial ownership that are
independently initiated for legitimate and separate business
purposes by independent decision makers and which coincidentally
cross with each other in the competitive market.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Sec. 40.23(a). Regulation 40.23(a) would require a
DCM to implement rules reasonably designed to prevent self-trading by
market participants, except as specified in paragraph (b). The
regulation defines ``self-trading,'' for purposes of Sec. 40.23, as
the matching of orders for accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common control. Regulation 40.23(a) would
require that a DCM shall either apply, or provide and require the use
of, self-trade prevention tools that are reasonably designed to prevent
self-trading and are applicable to all orders on its electronic trade
matching platform. If a DCM does not implement and apply self-trade
prevention tools, then it must provide such tools to its market
participants and require all market participants to use the tools. For
purposes of complying with the requirements of proposed Sec. 40.23, a
DCM could either determine for itself which accounts should be
prohibited from trading with each other, or require market participants
to identify to the DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading
with each other. The proposed regulations allow DCMs to exercise
discretion in the design and implementation of self-trade prevention
tools, in response to Concept Release commenter concerns that the
technology supporting this control is still being developed, and overly
prescriptive regulations in this area may lock in standards or
technology that will become obsolete.
Description of Sec. 40.23(b). The requirements of proposed Sec.
40.23(a) are subject to the proviso in Sec. 40.23(b) that a DCM may,
in its discretion, implement rules that permit a self-trade resulting
from the matching of orders for accounts with common beneficial
ownership where such orders are initiated by independent decision
makers. A DCM could, through its rules, further define for its market
participants ``independent decision makers.'' This exception is closely
based on FIA's comment letter description of how a bona fide self-trade
that should be permitted to occur.\544\ The Commission considered FIA's
concept of permissible self-trading to be a reasonable one, which would
be easily understood by exchanges and market participants. In addition
to the foregoing exception relating to common beneficial ownership,
Sec. 40.23(b) allows a DCM to permit a self-trade resulting from the
matching of orders for accounts under common control where such orders
comply with the DCM's cross-trade, minimum exposure requirements or
similar rules, and are for accounts that are not under common
beneficial ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\544\ See FIA at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Sec. 40.23(c). Under proposed Sec. 40.23(c), a DCM
must require market participants to receive approval from the DCM to
forego self-trade prevention tools with respect to specific accounts
under common beneficial ownership or control, on the basis that they
meet the criteria of paragraph (b). The DCM must require that such
approval request be provided to it by a compliance officer or senior
officer of the market participant. The Commission emphasizes that the
approval request to not apply self-trade prevention tools to certain
orders should not be made by an individual trader or other non-
management or more junior employee of the trading firm. Market
participants must withdraw or amend an approval request if any change
occurs that would cause the information provided in such approval
request to be no longer accurate or complete. The Commission notes that
any approval request submitted to the DCM would be subject to section
9(a)(4)
[[Page 78880]]
of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 13(a)(4) (2012), which prohibits, inter alia,
making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to a registered
entity.
Description of Sec. 40.23(d). Finally, proposed Sec. 40.23(d)
would require that for each product and expiration month traded on a
DCM in the previous quarter, the DCM must prominently display on its
Web site the following information: (i) The percentage of trades in
such product including all expiration months that represent self-
trading approved (pursuant to paragraph (c) of Sec. 40.23) by the DCM,
expressed as a percentage of all trades in such product and expiration
month; (ii) the percentage of volume of trading in such product
including all expiration months that represents self-trading approved
(pursuant to paragraph (c) of Sec. 40.23) by the DCM, expressed as a
percentage of all volume in such product and expiration month; and
(iii) the ratio of orders in such product and expiration month whose
matching was prevented by the self-trade prevention tools described in
paragraph (a) of Sec. 40.23, expressed as a ratio of all trades in
such product and expiration month. The Commission emphasizes that the
``prominent display'' of information by a DCM precludes such DCM from
placing information required by this rule behind registration, log in,
user name, password or other walls on the DCM's Web site.
4. Policy Discussion
The Commission understands that for various reasons, firms might
operate multiple algorithms, each following a different trading
strategy, but transacting in the same instrument/futures contract. This
can cause buy and sell orders for the same instrument to be generated
at the same instant by different algorithms, which in turn can get
matched with each other as self-trades. Certain firms might choose to
prevent these self-trades from occurring, or limit the extent of self-
trades. They could choose to do this by building tools that scan all
orders being generated from within the firm and stop those that could
potentially result in self-trades. But there are challenges in building
efficient firm-level solutions, especially in modern low latency
markets. In response, DCMs have implemented self-trade prevention tools
to help firms manage and limit the extent of self-trades that would
otherwise be generated by these algorithms. These trading system-level
solutions appear to be more efficient in helping firms manage their
self-trade activity.
The Commission has included self-trade prevention requirements in
Regulation AT to ensure that there are regulatory standards to more
effectively and fairly limit unintentional self-trading across
Commission-regulated markets, aiding in the risk management and trading
efficiency of individual firms.
In addition, while existing Commission regulations address market
manipulation and wash sales, these types of violative behavior require
some level of intent. Therefore, the Commission has determined to
propose regulations in the area of self-trading that address both
matching of orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership
or are under common control, independent of intent.
The proposed regulations are intended to take into account Concept
Release comments advising that the Commission should not be overly
prescriptive in requiring specific types of self-trade prevention
tools, or specific settings or controls in connection with such tools,
because such tools are still technologically evolving. Furthermore, the
Commission agrees with comments stating that exchanges are in the
position, from a technology standpoint, to develop these types of
controls. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require the use of
self-trade prevention tools in proposed Sec. 40.23, but allow
exchanges and market participants the discretion to tailor the design
of such tools and how to most effectively calibrate them in order to
prevent unintentional self-matching. The Commission believes that the
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.23 are generally consistent with how
exchange-provided self-trade prevention tools currently operate, as
indicated by comment letters.\545\ The proposed regulations would also
require DCMs to publish statistics on their Web site regarding self-
trading that they have both authorized and prevented on their platform.
The Commission is proposing this Web site reporting requirement because
it understands that the design of self-trade prevention tools may vary
among DCMs. These statistics will serve a critical purpose in
disclosing to market participants the extent of self-trading that
occurs in each product. The Commission believes that such transparency
is a key element of the proposed rules as it will help furnish all
market participants with better information regarding the markets in
which they trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\545\ See, e.g., CME at 11-12; ICE at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some commenters to the Concept Release were not supportive of
Commission action in this area, the commenters also indicated that
self-trade prevention tools are already widely implemented in
industry.\546\ Moreover, FINRA Rules already address self-trade
prevention. In June 2014, FINRA published a regulatory notice stating
that the SEC had approved new supplementary material to FINRA Rule 5210
(Publications of Transactions and Quotations) to address transactions
in a security resulting from the unintentional interaction of orders
originating from the same firm that involve no change in the beneficial
ownership of the security (self-trades).\547\ Effective August 25,
2014, firms must have policies and procedures in place that are
reasonably designed to review their trading activity for, and prevent,
a pattern or practice of self-trades resulting from orders originating
from a single algorithm or trading desk, or related algorithms or
trading desks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\546\ See, e.g., FIA at 26; Gelber at 7-9; CME at 11-12; ICE at
2.
\547\ See FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 14-28: Self Trades; SEC
Approves FINRA Rule Concerning Self-Trades '' (June 2014), available
at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/p540972.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FIA Guide sets forth guidelines for self-trade
prevention, and recommends that exchanges should offer participants a
selection of self-trade tools to allow market participants to tailor
self-trade prevention to their individual needs by offering various
options (e.g., cancel resting, cancel new, cancel both, and decrement
order size) and various levels of granularity (e.g., firm level, group
level, trader ID level, customer account level and strategy
level).\548\ The FIA Guide recommends that the use of such self-trade
tools by market participants should remain optional.\549\ The new
Regulation AT requirements, by contrast, would make use of exchange-
provided self-trade prevention tools mandatory by market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\548\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13.
\549\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Request for Comments
90. The Commission seeks to require self-trade prevention tools
that screen out unintentional self-trading, while permitting bona-fide
self-matched trades that are undertaken for legitimate business
purposes. Under the regulations proposed above, DCMs shall implement
rules reasonably designed to prevent self-trading (``the matching of
orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership or are under
common control''), but DCMs may in their discretion implement rules
that permit ``the matching of orders for
[[Page 78881]]
accounts with common beneficial ownership where such orders are
initiated by independent decision makers.''
a. Do these standards accomplish the goal of preventing only
unintentional self-trading, or would other standards be more effective
in accomplishing this goal? For example, should the Commission consider
adopting in any final rules arising from this NPRM an alternative
requirement modeled on FINRA Rule 5210 and require market participants
to implement policies and procedures to review their trading activity
for, and a prevent a pattern of, self-trades?
b. While the regulations contain exceptions for bona fide self-
match trades (described in Sec. 40.23(b)), the regulations are
intended to prevent all unintentional self-trading, and do not include
a de minimis exception for a certain percentage of unintentional self-
trading. Should the regulations permit a certain de minimis amount of
unintentional self-trading, and if so, what amount should be permitted
(e.g., as a percentage of monthly trading volume)?
c. The following terms are used in proposed Sec. 40.23(a) and (b):
(1) Self-trading, (2) common beneficial ownership, (3) independent
decision makers, and (4) common control. Do any of these terms require
further definition? If so, how should they be defined? Should any
alternatives be used and, if so, how should such substitute terms be
defined?
d. With respect to ``common beneficial ownership,'' the Commission
requests comment on the minimum degree of ownership in an account that
should trigger a determination that such account is under common
beneficial ownership. For example, should an account be deemed to be
under common beneficial ownership between two unrelated persons if each
person directly or indirectly has a 10% or more ownership or equity
interest in such account? The Commission refers commenters to the
aggregation rules in part 150 of its regulations, including
specifically Sec. 150.4, and requests comment on a potential
Commission definition of common beneficial ownership that is modeled on
Sec. 150.4.
e. The Commission also requests comment on whether ``common
beneficial ownership'' should be defined in any final rules arising
from this NPRM, or whether such definition should be left to each DCM
with respect to its program for implementing proposed Sec. 40.23.
91. Are there any other types of self-trading that should be
permitted in addition to the exceptions permitted in Sec. 40.23(b)(1)
and (2)? If so, please describe such other types of acceptable self-
trading and explain why they should be permitted.
92. Proposed Sec. 40.23 provides that DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools by requiring market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account identification process, the Commission's
principal goal is to prevent unintentional self-trading; the Commission
does not have a specific interest in regulating the manner by which
market participants identify to DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other, so long as this goal is met.
Should any other identification methods be permitted in Sec. 40.23?
For example, please comment on whether the opposite approach is
preferable: market participants would identify to DCMs the accounts
that should be permitted to trade with each other (as opposed to those
accounts that should be prevented from trading with each other).
93. The Commission believes that its requirements concerning self-
trade prevention tools must strike the appropriate balance between
flexibility (allowing market participants with diverse trading
operations and strategies the discretion in implementation so as
effectively prevent only unintentional self-trades) and simplicity (a
variety of design and implementation options may render this control
too complex to be effective).\550\ Does the Commission allow sufficient
discretion to exchanges and market participants in the design and
implementation of self-trade prevention tools? Is there any area where
the Commission should be more prescriptive? The Commission is
particularly interested in whether there is a particular level at which
it should require implementation of self-trade prevention tools, i.e.,
if the tools must prevent matching of orders from the same trading
firm, the same trader, the same trading algorithm, or some other level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\550\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13 (discussing balance
between flexibility and complexity with respect to self-trade
prevention tools).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. Proposed Sec. 40.23(a) would require DCMs to either apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention tools. Please
comment whether Sec. 40.23(a) should, in addition, permit market
participants to use their own self-trade prevention tools to meet the
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.23(a), and if so, what additional
regulations would ensure that DCMs are able to: Ensure that such tools
are comparable to DCM-provided tools; monitor the performance of such
tools; and otherwise review such tools and ensure that they are
sufficiently rigorous to meet the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
95. Is it appropriate to require implementation of self-trade
prevention tools with respect to all orders? Should such controls be
mandatory for only a particular subset of orders, i.e., orders from AT
Persons or orders submitted through DEA?
96. Please comment on the requirement that DCMs disclose self-trade
statistics. Is the data required to be disclosed appropriate? Is there
any other category of self-trade data that DCMs should be required to
disclose?
97. Should DCMs be required to disclose the amount of unintentional
self-trading that occurs each month, alongside the self-trade
statistics required to be published under proposed Sec. 40.23(d)?
98. As noted above, the Commission understands that there is some
potential for self-trade prevention tools to be used for wrongful
activity that may include disruptive trading or other violations of the
Act or Commission regulations on DCMs. Are there ways to design self-
trade prevention tools so that they do not facilitate disruptive
trading (such as spoofing) or other violations of the Act or Commission
regulations on DCMs? Are additional regulations warranted to ensure
that such tools are not used to facilitate such activities?
R. DCM Market Maker and Trading Incentive Programs--Sec. Sec. 40.25-
40.28
Proposed Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 would require DCMs to provide
additional public information regarding their market maker and trading
incentive programs, restrict certain types of payments by DCMs in
connection with such programs, and require DCMs to perform surveillance
of such programs to prevent abusive practices. The remainder of this
section presents a description of the proposed regulation, a discussion
of the policy justification for the proposal, and a request for
comments on the proposal.
1. Policy Discussion
Although not discussed in the Concept Release, the Commission has
determined to address in Regulation AT certain aspects of DCM market
maker and trading incentive programs that it believes are particularly
relevant in the
[[Page 78882]]
context of automated trading.\551\ Formal market making and incentive
programs were not common in the days of pit trading. In the modern
trading environment, DCM trading incentive programs (which may also be
called a liquidity provider program) typically compensate one or more
market participants with financial or non-financial incentives or
benefits for meeting certain volume thresholds or providing liquidity.
A market maker program (which may also be called, for example, a market
specialist, designated market maker, lead market maker, or liquidity
provider program) is a more focused offering that involves a
contractual agreement between the DCM and a market participant. It
typically compensates one or more market participants with financial or
non-financial incentives or benefits for fulfilling certain affirmative
obligations in a particular product or products, such as maintaining
two way prices and volumes or a pre-determined minimum bid/ask spread
for a specified period of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\551\ The Commission notes that ESMA's 2015 Final Draft
Regulatory Standards address market maker schemes. The standards
address the circumstances under which an investment firm must enter
into a market making agreement with a trading venue, and the content
that should be included in such an agreement. See ESMA September
2015 Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 279-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of such programs self-certified to the Commission has
risen sharply in recent years, as has the complexity of the programs
and size of the incentives. In 2010, 56 market maker and incentive
programs were self-certified by DCMs; in 2013, DCMs had self-certified
341 programs, an increase by over 600 percent compared to the number of
programs self-certified by DCMs in 2010. In 2012, nearly every contract
at one DCM was part of a market maker or incentive program, including
highly liquid contracts.
The Commission understands that DCMs have launched market making
and other incentive programs to encourage liquidity provisioning and
order flow to their electronic trading platforms. While the Commission
does not object to such goals, the Commission's proposed regulations in
Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 reflect its concern that market maker and
trading incentive programs could have the potential to spur market
participants to trade in ways designed to collect program benefits,
independently of any contribution they may be making to liquidity or
price discovery. Such practices may potentially also lead to abusive
trading practices in violation of DCM and Commission rules. Notably for
purposes of Regulation AT, market participants using ATSs can magnify
these concerns in several respects. First, the automation and speed of
ATSs can allow market participants to quickly reach market-maker or
trading incentive program thresholds, depending on the liquidity of a
market and threshold levels. Second, the trading strategies pursued
through ATSs can sometimes result in a large number of trades between
the same ATS or between two or more ATSs owned or controlled by the
same market participants. In this regard, the Commission is also
proposing new Sec. 40.23 to help prevent self-trading on DCMs, and
provide market participants with greater transparency around DCM depth
and liquidity when self-trading does occur.\552\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\552\ See Section IV(Q) above for a discussion of self-trading
and proposed Sec. 40.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 will further the Commission's
policy objectives in three key areas: (1) Transparency; (2) market
integrity; and (3) effective self-regulation by all DCMs. The proposed
regulations would further transparency through proposed Sec. Sec.
40.25 and 40.26, which would require greater disclosure of information
to the public and to the Commission regarding market maker and trading
incentive programs. Together with proposed amendments to the definition
of ``rule'' in Sec. 40.1(i) to explicitly include market maker and
trading incentive programs, the proposed regulations would also help
eliminate any potential ambiguity that may exist regarding the
Commission's authority over such programs.\553\ Proposed Sec. 40.25
will enhance the types of information that DCMs should expect to
provide the Commission when requesting approval or self-certifying
market-maker or trading incentive programs, and will also require that
information regarding market-maker and trading incentive programs be
easily located on a DCM's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\553\ In the Final Rule for Provisions Common to Registered
Entities, the Commission stated with respect to market maker and
trading incentive programs, ``The Commission continues to view such
programs as ``agreements * * * corresponding'' to a ``trading
protocol'' within the Sec. 40.1 definition of ``rule'' and, as
such, all market maker and trading incentive programs must be
submitted to the Commission in accordance with procedures
established in part 40.'' In this Final Rule, the Commission also
stated, specifically with respect to DCMs, that ``[a] DCM's rules
implementing market maker and trading incentive programs fall within
the Commission's oversight authority. Indeed, a number of core
principles touch upon trading issues that may be implicated by the
design of such programs. Core Principle 9, for example, establishes
the Commission's framework for regulating the execution of
transactions, requiring DCMs . . . to provide a competitive, open,
and efficient market and mechanism for execution. The newly-amended
Core Principle 12 also requires DCMs to establish and enforce rules
to protect markets and market participants from abusive practices
and to promote fair and equitable trading on designated contract
markets. In addition, market maker and trading incentive programs
frequently touch upon Core Principle 19, which requires that DCMs
avoid adopting any rules or taking any actions that result in
unreasonable restraints of trade.'' Final Rule, Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44777-8 (July 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that in June 2012 it adopted core principles
and final rules modernizing the regulatory regime applicable to all
DCMs (``DCM Final Rules''). The DCM Final Rules emphasized DCMs'
obligations as the front-line regulators of their markets, including
extensive trade practice and market surveillance responsibilities. In
addition, the Commission codified new requirements that a DCM offer its
``members [and] persons with trading privileges . . . with impartial
access to its markets and services,'' including: (1) ``Access criteria
that are impartial, transparent and applied in a non-discriminatory
manner'' and (2) ``comparable fee structures . . . for equal access to,
or services from'' the DCM. Taken together, proposed Sec. Sec. 40.25-
40.28 will facilitate the Commission's oversight of DCMs' market maker
and trading incentive programs, and will also help the Commission
ensure that market maker and trading incentive programs are in
compliance with Commission rules regarding trade practice and market
surveillance and impartial access requirements.
Importantly, the proposed regulations would promote market
integrity by requiring in proposed Sec. 40.27(a) that DCMs implement
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent payment of
market maker or trading incentive program benefits for self-trades. In
this regard, the proposed regulations are designed to ensure that
market maker or trading incentive programs do not incentivize abusive,
manipulative, or disruptive trading practices, and also do not
encourage or facilitate behavior that distorts markets and give the
appearance of false market depth. Proposed Sec. 40.28 clarifies DCMs'
surveillance obligations regarding market maker or trading incentive
programs and their participants. Separately, the Commission believes
that proposed Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 will also provide DCMs and market
participants with greater certainty as to what types of trading
incentive and market maker programs are inappropriate. The proposed
regulations are described in detail below. The proposed rules will
[[Page 78883]]
work in conjunction with the proposed amendments to the definition of
``rule'' in proposed Sec. 40.1(i) to explicitly include market maker
and trading incentive programs.
In sum, the Commission's proposed amendments to Sec. 40.1(i) and
new Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 will increase transparency around DCM
market-maker and trading incentive programs, underline existing
regulatory expectations, and introduce basic safeguards in the conduct
of such programs. The proposed regulations would make clear that
market-maker and trading incentive programs are ``rules'' for purposes
of part 40, and establish information and disclosure requirements when
DCMs request Commission approval or self-certify new rules pursuant to
part 40. They would also make clear that DCMs' existing surveillance
responsibilities in part 38 apply equally to market-maker and trading
incentive programs. Finally, the proposed regulations would codify the
Commission's expectation that DCM market-maker and trading incentive
programs should not provide payments or incentives for market-maker or
trading activity between accounts under common ownership.
2. Description of Regulations
Proposed Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 would require DCMs to provide
additional public information regarding their market maker and trading
incentive programs. Proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would require that, when
submitting a rule regarding a market maker or trading incentive program
pursuant to Sec. 40.5 or Sec. 40.6, a DCM must, in addition to
information required by such sections, include specific additional
information in its public rule filing.\554\ Additional information to
be provided would include: (1) The name of the market maker program or
trading incentive program, the date on which it will begin, and the
date on which it will terminate (if applicable); (2) an explanation of
the specific purpose for the program; (3) a list of the product(s) the
trading of which is eligible for benefits under the market maker or
trading incentive program, and list of the potential service(s)
rendered by a market participant to which the market maker or trading
incentive program applies (e.g., trading at certain hours; trading
originating from certain geographic zones; trading originating with
certain types or categories or market participants; or the bid/ask
spread to be maintained by a market participant); (4) a description of
any eligibility criteria or categories of market participants defining
who may participate in the program; (5) for any market maker or trading
incentive program that is not open to all market participants, an
explanation of why the program is limited to the chosen eligibility
criteria or categories of market participants, and an explanation of
how such limitation complies with the impartial access and comparable
fee structure requirements of Sec. 38.151(b) for DCMs; (6) an
explanation of how persons eligible for the market maker or trading
incentive program may apply to participate, and how eligibility will be
evaluated by the DCM; (7) a description of any payments, incentives,
discounts, considerations, inducements or other benefits that program
participants may receive, including any non-financial incentives (non-
financial incentives may include, for example, enhanced trading
priorities or preferential access to market data, including order and
trade data); (8) a description of the obligations, benchmarks, or other
measures that a participant in a market maker or trading incentive
program must meet to receive the benefits described in paragraph (a)(7)
of this section; and (9) a description of any legal affiliation between
the DCM and any entity acting as a market maker or participating in a
market maker or trading incentive program.\555\ Proposed Sec. 40.25(b)
would require that, in addition to any public notice required pursuant
to part 40 (including without limitation the requirements of Sec.
40.5(a)(6) and Sec. 40.6(a)(2)), a DCM must ensure that the
information required by Sec. 40.25(a)(1)-(8) is easily located on its
public Web site during the lifetime of the market maker or trading
incentive program, that is, from the time that the DCM begins accepting
participants in the program through the time the program ceases
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\554\ The Commission is cognizant that a DCM may consider
certain information required by proposed Sec. 40.25(a) to be non-
public. In this regard, the Commission notes that Sec. 40.8 of its
existing regulations provides a mechanism for registered entities to
request confidential treatment when submitting rule filings pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 40.5 or 40.6. Among other requirements, a registered
entity must file a ``detailed written justification'' for its
confidential treatment request. Regulation 40.8 remains available to
DCMs for any Sec. 40.25(a) filings that may be required in the
future. See 17 CFR 40.8; see also 17 CFR 145.9.
\555\ Commission staff has historically required enhanced DCM
surveillance procedures when a DCM market maker is operated by an
affiliate of the DCM. Proposed Sec. 40.25(a)(9) will assist the
Commission in identifying potential conflicts of interest between a
DCM, its market makers, and participants in market maker or trading
incentive programs, and also assist the Commission in promoting
appropriate surveillance in such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 40.25(c) would require a DCM to notify the
Commission upon the termination of a market maker or trading incentive
program when such program terminates prior to the date previously
notified the Commission. Any extension or renewal of a market maker or
trading incentive program beyond its original termination date would
require a new rule filing pursuant to this part.
Proposed Sec. 40.26 would require that, upon request by the
Commission or the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, a DCM
must provide such information and data as may be requested regarding
participation in market maker or trading incentive programs offered by
the DCM, including but not limited to, individual program agreements,
names of program participants, benchmarks achieved by program
participants, and payments or other benefits conferred upon program
participants.
Proposed Sec. 40.27(a) would require a DCM to implement policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent payment of market maker
or trading incentive program benefits, including but not limited to
payments, discounts, or other considerations, for trades between
accounts that are: (1) Identified to the DCM as under common beneficial
ownership pursuant to the approval process described in Sec. 40.23(c);
or (2) otherwise known to the DCM as under common ownership.\556\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\556\ The Commission notes that proposed Sec. 40.27(a)
prohibits payments for trades between accounts (i) identified to the
DCM as under common beneficial ownership or (ii) known to the DCM as
under common ownership. This distinction reflects that the
Commission's belief that DCMs may not always have beneficial
ownership information unless it has been provided to them, pursuant
for example to proposed Sec. 40.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, proposed Sec. 40.28 would require that a DCM, consistent
with its obligations pursuant to subpart C of part 38, must review all
benefits accorded to participants in market maker and trading incentive
programs, including but not limited to payments, discounts, or other
considerations, to ensure that such benefits are not earned through
abusive practices. The Commission notes that such determination is not
intended as a substitute for DCMs' trade practice surveillance, market
surveillance, and other surveillance obligations with respect to all
trading.
3. Request for Comments
99. To what extent do market participants currently trade in ways
designed primarily to collect market maker or trading incentive program
benefits, rather than for risk management purposes?
[[Page 78884]]
100. To what extent do that market maker and trading incentive
programs currently provide benefits for self-trades? To what extent do
market participants collect such benefits for self-trades?
101. The Commission requests comment regarding whether the
information proposed to be collected in Sec. 40.25 would be sufficient
for it to determine whether a DCM's market-maker or trading incentive
program complies with the impartial access requirements of Sec.
38.151(b). If additional or different information would be helpful,
please identify such information.
102. The Commission requests comment regarding whether DCMs should
be required to maintain on their public Web sites the information
required by proposed Sec. 40.25(a) and (b) for an additional period
beyond the end of the market maker or trading incentive program. The
Commission may determine to include in any final rules arising from
this NPRM a requirement that such information remain publicly available
pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.25(b) for an additional period up to six
months following the end of a market maker or trading incentive
program.
103. The Commission requests comment regarding whether the text of
proposed Sec. 40.27(a) identifies with sufficient particularity the
types of trades that are not eligible for payments or benefits pursuant
to a DCM market-maker or trading incentive program. What amendments, if
any, are necessary to clearly identify trades that are not eligible?
104. Section 40.27(a) provides that DCMs shall implement policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent the payment of
market-maker or trading incentive program benefits for trades between
accounts under common ownership. Are there any other types of trades or
circumstances under which the Commission should also prohibit or limit
DCM market-maker or trading incentive program benefits?
105. The Commission is proposing in Sec. 40.27(a) certain
requirements regarding DCM payments associated with market maker and
trading incentive programs. Please address whether the proposed rules
will diminish DCMs' ability to compete or build liquidity by using
market maker or trading incentive programs. Does any DCM consider it
appropriate to provide market maker or trading incentive program
benefits for trades between accounts known to be under common
beneficial ownership?
106. In any final rules arising from this NPRM, should the
Commission also prohibit DCMs from providing trading incentive program
benefits where such benefits on a per-trade basis are greater than the
fees charged per trade by such DCMs and its affiliated DCO (if
applicable)? The Commission also specifically requests comment on the
extent, if any, to which one or more DCMs engage in this practice.
107. Proposed Sec. 40.25(b) imposes certain transparency
requirements with respect to both market maker and trading incentive
programs. The Commission requests public comment regarding:
a. The most appropriate place or manner for a DCM to disclose the
information required by proposed Sec. 40.25(b);
b. The benefits or any harm that may result from such transparency,
including any anti-competitive effect or pro-competitive effect among
DCMs or market participants;
c. Whether transparency as proposed in Sec. 40.25(b) is equally
appropriate for both market maker programs and trading incentive
programs, or are the proposed requirements more or less appropriate for
one type of program over the other?
d. Whether any of the enumerated items required to be posted on a
DCM's public Web site pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.25(b) could
reasonably be considered confidential information that should not be
available to the public, and if so, what process should be available
for a DCM to request from the Commission an exemption from the
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.25(b) for that specific enumerated
item?
V. Related Matters
A. Calculation of Number of Persons Subject to Regulations
AT Persons. The Related Matters discussion below includes a number
of hourly burden estimates and cost estimates for persons subject to
new or revised regulations under Regulation AT. In order to estimate
the number of AT Persons, the Commission used a sample of orders sent
to DCMs. This data includes new orders, modifications to orders, and
cancellations of the same. Of those available to the Commission, this
data set is the one most closely related to the requirements included
in the proposed rules. It includes the data elements potentially
generated by an algorithm, often routed through a clearing member, and
accepted by the matching engine for execution. The data set includes
identifiers for the firm that generated and/or routed the order to the
exchange, and indicators of whether the order is associated to an
automated system. Using this participant-identified data, the
Commission estimated the number of unique firms actively sending in
algorithmic orders to the DCMs, making them potentially subject to
requirements of AT Persons.
Some of the firms included in this count, although they use
automated systems, may not fully satisfy the requirements for an AT
Person, possibly making the current estimate higher than the actual
number of AT Persons. For example, firms identified in the data set as
submitting algorithmic orders may not be required to register with the
Commission under current or proposed rules and thus would not be AT
Persons (e.g., registration triggers under proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3)(ii)
include a DEA component in addition to an Algorithmic Trading
component). However, because the Commission does not historically
receive the complete order book audit trail, the estimate by necessity
only used a subset of all orders sent into the DCMs. To generate an
accurate estimate of automated order activity, the estimate included
many of the most active products on the DCMs, where participant
diversity would be greatest. This analysis resulted in approximately
350 potential AT Persons. To further address AT Persons that may not be
identified in its data set, the Commission increased its finding of
approximately 350 potential AT Persons by 20 percent, yielding a total
of 420 potential AT Persons subject to the rules proposed herein. The
Commission understands and acknowledges that this could lead to
estimates which are incomplete, and welcomes any comments which might
provide a more complete and/or more accurate count of AT Persons. This
estimate of 420 AT Persons is used for purposes of the calculations in
the Related Matters discussion below.
Floor Traders (A Component of AT Persons). As noted in section
IV(E) above, the Commission proposes to require the registration of
proprietary traders using DEA for Algorithmic Trading on a DCM. In
order to achieve registration, the Commission proposes amending the
definition of ``Floor trader'' in Commission Regulation 1.3(x). Newly
registered floor traders would be included in the definition of AT
Persons. In order to estimate the number of these firms, the Commission
made use of reference information for the connection methods used by
active futures trading firms. These data files include information
about the characteristics of the connection, including the location
where orders are
[[Page 78885]]
generated. In order to identify direct connections, the Commission
isolated those connections associated with co-location or other
services likely related to DEA. These filters generated an estimate of
approximately 100 potential firms that may need to register under
proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3). This calculation did not exclude those firms
which may already be registered with the Commission in some capacity.
As a result, the 100 estimate is potentially higher than the actual
number of floor traders that would register under the new provision.
Clearing member FCMs and DCMs. Finally, the Commission estimated
the number of clearing member FCMs and DCMs that would be subject to
proposed Regulation AT. The Commission arrived at an estimate of 57
clearing member FCMs, based on the financial data for FCMs reported on
the CFTC Web site. This data states that there were 57 FCMs in March
2015 that required ``Customer's Segregation of Funds.'' \557\ The
Commission arrived at an estimate of 15 DCMs, based on the list of
designated DCMs as of the date of this NPRM, as reported on the CFTC
Web site.\558\ This number does not include dormant or pending DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\557\ See CFTC, Financial Data for FCMs, available at http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/FinancialDataforFCMs/index.htm.
\558\ See CFTC, DCM Industry Filings, available at http://sirt.cftc.gov/SIRT/SIRT.aspx?Topic=TradingOrganizations&implicit=true&type=DCM&CustomColumnDisplay=TTTTTTTT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Request for Comments
108. The Commission requests comment on its calculation of the
number of AT Persons, newly registered floor traders, clearing member
FCMs, and DCMs that will be subject to Regulation AT.
B. Calculation of Hourly Wage Rates Used in Related Matters
The Related Matters discussion below estimates the cost of various
regulations proposed under Regulation AT. These costs incorporate
hourly wage rates derived from salary information compiled by the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'').
Specifically, the hourly wage rates are based on salaries and bonuses
across different professions that are listed in the SIFMA Report on
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 1.3 to
account for overhead and other benefits.\559\ The following professions
and hourly wages are referenced throughout the Related Matters:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\559\ The SIFMA Report on Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry (2013) (``2013 SIFMA Report''), available at
http://www.sifma.org/research/item.aspx?id=8589940603.
\560\ The hourly wage rate represents the total mean 2012
compensation with bonus divided by 1800 hours and multiplied by 1.3
to account for overhead and other benefits.
\561\ See 2013 SIFMA Report, supra note 559 at 273.
\562\ See id.at 136.
\563\ Id.
\564\ See id.at 395.
\565\ See id.at 113.
\566\ See id. at 104.
\567\ See id. at 119.
\568\ See id. at 279.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mean 2012
Description of role in compensation with Hourly wage rate
2013 SIFMA report profession and code related matters bonus--2013 SIFMA (rounded) \560\
report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Manager (1030)..................... Project Manager.............. \561\ 97,138 $70
Business Analyst (Intermediate) (602)...... Business Analyst............. \562\ 72,650 52
Business Analyst (Intermediate) (602)...... Tester....................... \563\ 72,650 52
Programmer Analyst (Senior) (1607)......... Developer.................... \564\ 103,851 75
Compliance Examiner (Senior) (409)......... Senior Compliance Examiner... \565\ 79,992 58
Compliance Specialist (Senior) (406)....... Senior Compliance Specialist. \566\ 78,250 57
Chief Compliance Officer (Mutual Funds/ Chief Compliance Officer..... \567\ 192,367 139
Investment Advisory Services) (413).
Compliance Attorney (1103)................. Compliance Attorney.......... \568\ 133,059 96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires that agencies
consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so,
provide a regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the impact.\569\ A
regulatory flexibility analysis or certification is typically required
for ``any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of
proposed rulemaking'' pursuant to the notice-and-comment provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b).\570\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\569\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\570\ 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604 and 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FCMs and DCMs
The Commission has previously determined that FCMs and clearing
members are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.\571\ The
Commission has also previously determined that DCMs are not small
entities for purposes of the RFA.\572\ Accordingly, the Chairman, on
behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that the rules proposed in Regulation AT imposing requirements on FCMs
and DCMs would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission invites public comment on this
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\571\ See 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982) (FCMs); and 76 FR 71626
at 71680 (November 18, 2011) and 76 FR 43851 at 43860 (July 22,
2011) (clearing members).
\572\ 76 FR 44776, 44789 (July 27, 2011) (``Provisions Common to
Registered Entities''); see 66 FR 45064, 45609 (Aug. 29, 2001); 47
FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. AT Persons
Regulation AT would also impose requirements on ``AT Persons,'' a
definition that includes: FCMs, floor brokers, SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs or
IBs, as well as ``floor traders'' as defined in proposed Sec.
1.3(x)(3), that engage in Algorithmic Trading.
The Commission has previously determined that FCMs, foreign
brokers, SDs, MSPs, CPOs, and natural persons are not small entities
for purposes of the RFA.\573\ As indicated above, the Commission
believes that it is likely that no natural persons will be AT
[[Page 78886]]
Persons, given the technological and personnel costs associated with
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission, pursuant to question #106 below,
asks whether this assumption is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\573\ See respectively and as indicated: 47 FR 18618, 18619
(April 30, 1982) (FCMs, CPOs); 72 FR 34417 at 34418 (June 22, 2007)
(foreign brokers); 76 FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 2011) (SDs);
77 FR 2613, 2620 (Jan. 19, 2012) (SDs and MSPs). See also 5 U.S.C.
601(6) (natural persons are not entities for purposes of the RFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has previously decided to evaluate, within the
context of a particular rule proposal, whether all or some floor
brokers, floor traders, CTAs, and IBs should be considered to be small
entities, and if so, to analyze the economic impact on them of any such
rule.\574\ In 2012, the Commission stated that it has not made a
determination regarding floor traders, since all registered traders at
the time were individuals, and individuals are not subject to the small
entity analysis under the RFA.\575\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\574\ See 47 FR 18618, 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982) (floor brokers);
and 58 FR 19575, 19588 (Apr. 15, 1993) (floor traders); 47 FR at
18619 (CTAs); 48 FR 35248, 35276-77 (Aug. 3, 1983) (IBs).
\575\ See Commission, Final Rule: Registration of
Intermediaries, 77 FR 51898, 51901 (Aug. 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission must address whether, in the context of
Regulation AT, floor brokers, floor traders, CTAs, and IBs that engage
in Algorithmic Trading should be considered small entities for purposes
of the RFA. As discussed below, the Commission believes that the
proposed rules regarding pre-trade and other risk controls, as well as
standards relating to the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading, are already being widely implemented in industry.
Accordingly, while Regulation AT would have a significant economic
impact on entities that are not currently implementing such measures,
based on its best understanding, the Commission believes that it would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. However, the Commission is not in a position to determine how
many of such entities would be affected, or the extent of such impact,
given the varying sizes, technological systems, and business strategies
of such entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission
offers for public comment this initial regulatory flexibility analysis
addressing the impact of Regulation AT on small entities:
i. A Description of the Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
The Commission is taking action because the increased use of
algorithmic trading and increasingly interconnected nature of markets
means that a technological malfunction or error can have widespread,
significant impact on many market participants. In this time of
technological change, the Commission believes that it is necessary to
enact new and amended regulations requiring risk controls, testing
standards and other measures that will safeguard the integrity of
markets.
ii. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposals
The objective of Regulation AT is to address the risks of
algorithmic trading through a series of pre-trade risk controls and
other measures that AT Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs must
implement. The legal authority for the proposed rules is Sections
4c(a)(6), 4s(b)(4) 1a(23), 3(b) and 8a(5) of the CEA.\576\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\576\ 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(6) (rulemaking authority with respect to
disruptive trading practices); 7 U.S.C. 6s(b)(4) (rulemaking
authority with respect to swap dealers and major swap participants);
7 U.S.C. 1a(23) (Definitions); 7 U.S.C. 5(b) (Findings and purpose);
7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (Rules and Regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The small entities to which the proposed amendments may apply are
those floor brokers, floor traders (as defined in proposed Sec.
1.3(x)(3)), CTAs and IBs that engage in Algorithmic Trading and fall
within the definition of a ``small entity'' under the RFA, including
size standards established by the Small Business Administration.\577\
Each of the categories of persons discussed below would fall within the
definition of ``AT Persons.'' As discussed in section V(A) above, the
Commission estimates that approximately 420 persons will be AT Persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\577\ 15 U.S.C. 601(3) (defining ``small business'' to have the
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' in the Small
Business Act); 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1) (defining ``small business
concern'' to include an agricultural enterprise with annual receipts
not in excess of $750,000); 13 CFR 121.201 (establishing size
standards for small business concerns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor brokers. The Commission's best understanding is that
at this time, all floor brokers are natural persons. Given the
technological and personnel costs associated with Algorithmic Trading,
the Commission's expectation is that only entities, not natural
persons, will meet the definition of ``AT Person.'' Accordingly, the
Commission estimates that no floor brokers will be ``small entities''
for purposes of the RFA.
Floor traders. The Commission estimates that there is a
maximum of 100 proprietary firms engaged in Algorithmic Trading that
will be considered ``floor traders'' under proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) of
Regulation AT. See section V(A) above for a discussion of how the
Commission generated this estimate.
CTAs. Based on NFA's registration directory, the
Commission estimates that there are approximately 2,464 CTAs.\578\ The
Commission notes that some registered CTAs are individuals, and not all
CTAs will be engaged in Algorithmic Trading. It is not feasible for the
Commission to estimate what portion of the 420 AT Persons will be CTAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\578\ See NFA Directories, available at: http://www.nfa.futures.org/NFA-registration/NFA-directories.HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBs. Based on NFA's registration directory, the Commission
estimates that there are approximately 1,375 IBs.\579\ The Commission
notes that some registered IBs are individuals, and not all IBs will be
engaged in Algorithmic Trading. It is not feasible for the Commission
to estimate what portion of the 420 AT Persons will be IBs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\579\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the above estimates of the maximum number of floor brokers,
floor traders (as defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3)), CTAs and IBs,
it is not feasible for the Commission to provide a more exact estimate
of the number of small entities to which Regulation AT will apply. The
Commission estimates that no floor brokers will be ``small entities''
for purposes of the RFA, and that a maximum of 100 proprietary firms
engaged in Algorithmic Trading will be considered ``floor traders''
under Sec. 1.3(x)(3) of the proposed rulemaking. The Commission
estimates that the information collection will apply to no more than a
total of 320 CTAs and IBs, and likely significantly less than 320.
Based on the numbers described above, the Commission does not believe
that a substantial number of small entities will be impacted by the
information collection. Further, the definition of AT Person is limited
to entities that conduct Algorithmic Trading and, the definition of new
floor traders under proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) is further limited to
those entities with Direct Electronic Access. The Commission believes
that entities with such capabilities are generally not small entities.
This NPRM asks specific questions on the issue of how the proposed
regulations may affect small entities, in particular, whether sole
proprietorships would be considered AT Persons and whether Regulation
AT requirements should vary depending on the size, sophistication or
other attributes of the AT Person.
[[Page 78887]]
iv. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rules, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirements and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
The following section discusses the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements that will be imposed
upon AT Persons under the proposed rules.
Sec. 1.3(x)(3)--New Registration of Floor Traders
Regulation AT would impose new registration requirements on certain
entities with Direct Electronic Access as a result of the proposed
amendment to the definition of ``Floor trader'' in Commission
Regulation 1.3(x). The Commission provides detailed estimates of the
costs associated with registration as a floor trader in section E
below. As discussed more fully below, the Commission estimates that new
registrants will incur a one-time cost of approximately $2,106 per
registrant ($1,050 in application fees plus $1,056 in preparation
costs). Accordingly, assuming (as discussed above) that there are 100
new registrants as Floor traders, the total one-time cost of
registration would be approximately $210,600.\580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\580\ Pursuant to part 3 of its regulations, the Commission has
delegated its registration functions to the National Futures
Association (NFA). Non-natural person floor trader entities register
with the Commission and apply for membership in NFA via CFTC Form 7-
R. Principals of non-natural person floor trader entities register
via Form 8-R. Based on a review of the principals associated with
registered FCMs, the Commission estimates that each non-natural
person floor trader entity will have approximately 10 principals and
therefore need to file approximately 10 Forms 8-R. In the event that
a natural person meets the definition of Floor Trader in proposed
Sec. 1.3(x)(3), and is therefore required to register with the
Commission and become a member of NFA, such person would only be
required to complete Form 8-R and would face substantially lower
costs than those estimated here. Because registration with the
Commission and membership in NFA make use of the same forms and
process, the Commission anticipates that the costs associated with
proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) and proposed Sec. 170.18 will be one and
the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 170.18--AT Persons Must Become Members of an RFA
Regulation AT would require all registrants that are AT Persons
that are not otherwise required to become members of an RFA pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to become members of an RFA. Taken
together, Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, and 170.17 require most
registrants who may be considered AT Persons to become RFA members. The
Commission estimates that the requirements of proposed Sec. 170.18
will result in requiring the 100 new floor traders that will be
registered pursuant Sec. 1.3(x)(3) to become members of an RFA. The
Commission estimates that the floor trader registrants will incur
initial and annual RFA membership dues of $5,625.\581\ Accordingly,
assuming (as discussed above) that there are 100 new floor trader
members, the total initial cost of RFA membership would be
approximately $562,500 and the annual cost would be approximately
$562,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\581\ The Commission notes that NFA is currently the only entity
registered as an RFA. The Commission estimates for RFA membership
dues are based on its analysis of NFA dues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.80--Pre-Trade Risk Controls
Based on Concept Release comments, best practices documents issued
by industry or regulatory organizations, as well as existing
regulations, the Commission believes that a significant number of
trading firms already implement the specifically-enumerated pre-trade
and other risk controls required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80. For
example, in its survey of member firms, PTG found the following: (i) 25
out of 26 responding firms use message and execution throttles; (ii)
all 26 responding firms use maximum order size limits, either using
their own technology, the exchange's technology, or some combination;
\582\ and (iii) 24 out of 26 responding firms use either price collars
or trading pauses.\583\ As to order management controls, two comments
to the Concept Release from exchanges stated that they provide an
optional cancel-on-disconnect functionality.\584\ Those exchanges also
indicated that they provide kill switch functionality to market
participants.\585\ In addition, the types of controls required by
proposed Sec. 1.80 have been included in best practices documents for
years, such those best practices documents issued by FIA PTG,\586\
ESMA,\587\ the CFTC TAC \588\ and the TMPG.\589\ Finally, many trading
firms that do securities trading in addition to futures trading may
already have these systems in place in order to comply with the SEC's
Market Access Rule, which requires brokers and dealers to have risk
controls that prevent the entry of erroneous orders, by rejecting
orders that exceed appropriate price or size parameters, on an order-
by-order basis or over a short period of time, or that indicate
duplicative orders.\590\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\582\ AIMA indicated that many market participants use maximum
order size limits, and Gelber, a trading firm, stated that it uses
this risk control. See AIMA at 13; Gelber at 10.
\583\ FIA at 59-60.
\584\ CME at Appendix A-4; CFE at 9-10. In addition, FIA
characterized cancel-on-disconnect as a ``widely adopted DCM-hosted
pre-trade risk control.'' See FIA at 14.
\585\ CME at 23-24; CFE at 11.
\586\ FIA PTG, ``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading
Firms,'' (Nov. 2010) at 4-5.
\587\ ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 14-15.
\588\ CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34 at 2-3.
\589\ TMPG, ``Best Practices for Treasury, Agency Debt, and
Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Markets'' (June 2015).
\590\ See SEC, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access, supra note 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that there may be some
trading firms within a given registration category that do not yet
implement the risk controls required by Regulation AT, or that may need
to upgrade their systems in order to comply with Regulation AT.
Accordingly, Regulation AT would impose technology and personnel costs
on this subset of trading firms; these costs would likely include both
initial risk control creation costs and ongoing maintenance costs.
The Commission provides detailed estimates of the implementation
costs of risk controls in section E below.\591\ The Commission
considered the possibility that a trading firm already implements the
controls required by proposed Sec. 1.80, but the controls may not
comply with every aspect of the regulation. In such a case, as
discussed in greater detail below, the Commission estimates that it
will cost an AT Person approximately $79,680 to upgrade its controls
(i.e., evaluate current systems, modify or create new code, and test
systems) in order to comply with Sec. 1.80. Accordingly, assuming (as
discussed above) that there are 420 AT Persons, the Commission
estimates that the total industry cost to implement Sec. 1.80 would be
approximately $33,465,600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\591\ The Commission notes that trading firms can choose not to
develop these controls internally, but rather may purchase a
solution from an outside vendor (or DCM or clearing member) in order
to comply with Sec. 1.80. The Commission has requested comments
providing estimates of such costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.81--Standards for Development, Testing and Monitoring
of Algorithmic Trading Systems
The Commission believes that most market participants and DCMs have
implemented controls regarding the design, testing, and supervision of
ATSs, in light of the numerous best practices and regulatory
requirements promulgated in this area. These efforts include the FIA
PTG's November 2010 ``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading
Firms,'' FIA's March 2012 ``Software Development and Change Management
Recommendations,'' ESMA and MiFID II guidelines and
[[Page 78888]]
directives on the development and testing of algorithmic systems, Reg
SCI requirements on the development, testing, and monitoring of SCI
systems, FINRA's March 2015 Notice 15-09 on effective supervision and
control practices for market participants that use algorithmic trading
strategies in the equities market, IOSCO's April 2015 Consultation
Report, summarizing best practices that should be considered by trading
venues when developing and implementing risk mitigation mechanisms, and
the Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) April 2015 Algorithmic Trading
Briefing Note, which described how large financial institutions
currently monitor and control for the risks associated with algorithmic
trading during the trading day.
Notwithstanding the standards described above, the Commission has
calculated a maximum cost to an AT Person that has not implemented any
of the design, testing, and supervision standards required by proposed
Sec. 1.81.
Development and Testing. The Commission estimates that an AT Person
that has not implemented any of the requirements of proposed Sec.
1.81(a) (development and testing of Algorithmic Trading Systems) would
incur a total cost of $349,865 to implement these requirements. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 1,707
hours (1,707 x $70 = $119,490); 2 Business Analysts, working for 853
hours (853 x $52 = $44,356); 3 Testers, working for a combined 2,347
hours (2,347 x $52 = $122,044); and 2 Developers, working for a
combined 853 hours (853 x $75 = $63,975).\592\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\592\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring. The Commission estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(b) (monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading Systems) would incur a total cost of $196,560 to
implement these requirements. This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 2,080 hours (2,080 x $57 =
$118,560); and 1 Business Analyst, working for 1,500 hours (1,500 x $52
= $78,000).
Compliance. The Commission estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(c) (compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems) would incur a total cost of $174,935 to
implement these requirements. This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Project Manager, working for 853 hours (853 x $70 = $59,710); 2
Business Analysts, working for a combined 427 hours (427 x $52 =
$22,204); 3 Testers, working for a combined 1,173 hours (1,173 x $52 =
$60,996); and 2 Developers, working for a combined 427 hours (427 x $75
= $32,025).
Designation and Training of Staff. The Commission estimates that an
AT Person that has not implemented any of the requirements of proposed
Sec. 1.81(d) (designation and training of Algorithmic Trading staff)
would incur a total cost of $101,600 to implement these requirements.
This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist,
working for 500 hours (500 x $57 = $28,500); 1 Project Manager, working
for 500 hours (500 x $70 = $35,000); 1 Developer, working for 300 hours
(300 x $75 = $22,500); and 1 Business Analyst, working for 300 hours
(300 x $52 = $15,600).
Notwithstanding these estimates, the Commission believes that
proposed Sec. 1.81 standardizes existing industry practices in this
area, but does not impose additional requirements that are not already
followed by the majority of market participants. As a result, the
Commission does not believe that Sec. 1.81 would impose additional
costs on AT Persons.
Sec. 1.83(a)--Compliance Reports Submitted by AT Persons
Proposed Sec. 1.83 would require AT Persons and FCMs that are
clearing members for AT Persons to annually submit reports regarding
their compliance with Sec. 1.80(a) and pursuant to Sec. 1.82(a)(1),
respectively, to each DCM on which they operate. The report prepared by
an AT Person pursuant to Sec. 1.83(a) would include a description of
the AT Person's pre-trade risk controls and the parameters and specific
quantitative settings used for such pre-trade risk controls. Together
with the annual report, each AT Person would be required to submit
copies of the written policies and procedures developed to comply with
Sec. 1.81(a) and (c). The report would also be required to include a
certification by the chief executive officer or chief compliance
officer of the AT Person that, to the best of his or her knowledge and
reasonable belief, the information contained in the report is accurate
and complete.
AT Person Compliance Reports. AT Persons will incur the cost of
annually preparing and submitting the reports to their DCMs. The
Commission estimates that an AT Person will incur a total annual cost
of $4,240 to draft the report required by proposed Sec. 1.83(a). This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist, working
for 50 hours (50 x $57 per hour = $2,850) and 1 Chief Compliance
Officer, working for 10 hours (10 x $139 per hour = $1,390) for a total
cost of $4,240 per year. The approximately 420 AT Persons to which
Sec. 1.83(a) would apply would therefore incur a total annual cost of
$1,780,800 (420 x $4,240) to prepare and submit the report required by
Sec. 1.83(a).
Sec. 1.83(c)--AT Person Recordkeeping Requirements
Proposed Sec. 1.83(c) would require each AT Person to keep, and
provide upon request to each DCM on which such AT Person engages in
Algorithmic Trading, books and records regarding such AT Person's
compliance with all requirements pursuant to proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80
and 1.81.
The Commission estimates that, on an initial basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft and update recordkeeping policies
and procedures and make technology improvements to recordkeeping
infrastructure. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 30 hours (30 x $96 = $2,880); and 1 Developer,
working for 30 hours (30 x $75 = $2,250). The 420 AT Persons would
therefore incur a total initial cost of $2,154,600 (420 x $5,130).
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure continued compliance with DCM
recordkeeping rules relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance, including the
updating of policies and procedures and technology infrastructure, and
in respond to DCM record requests. This cost is broken down as follows:
1 Compliance Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 x $96 = $1,920); and 1
Developer, working for 10 hours (10 x $75 = $750). The 420 AT Persons
would therefore incur a total annual cost of $1,121,400 (420 x $2,670).
Sec. 40.23(c)--Approval Requests Submitted by Market
Participants re: Self-Trading Controls
Market participants will incur costs in the event that they prepare
and submit the self-trading approval requests contemplated by proposed
Sec. 40.23(c). This provision, which is discussed in more detail in
section IV(Q) above, requires market participants to request approval
from the DCM that self-trade prevention tools not be applied with
respect to specific accounts under common beneficial ownership or
control. The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a market
participant will incur a cost of $3,810 to prepare and submit these
approval requests. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Business
Analyst, working for 30 hours (30 x $52 per hour = $1,560); and 1
[[Page 78889]]
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 x $75 per hour = $2,250).\593\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\593\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission cannot predict how many market participants would
likely submit the approval requests contemplated by proposed Sec.
40.23(c) on an annual basis. The Commission believes that not all
market participants trading on a DCM would submit such requests. In the
view of the Commission, for example, a limited subset of market
participants will own two or more accounts, but operate them through
``independent decision makers,'' as contemplated by proposed Sec.
40.23(b). Similarly, a limited subset of market participants will find
it advantageous to incur the costs associated with the self-trading
described by Sec. 40.23(b), such as trading costs and clearing fees.
In addition, the Commission believes that market participants
submitting orders through Algorithmic Trading are more likely than
traders submitting orders manually to inadvertently self-trade through
independent decision-makers. The Commission estimates that,
notwithstanding the fact that the DCM rules described in Sec. 40.23(c)
are directed to all market participants, the number of market
participants that will submit the approval requests described therein
are equivalent to the number of AT Persons calculated above (420).\594\
On this basis, the Commission estimates that market participants will
incur a total annual cost of $1,600,200 to submit the approval requests
contemplated by Sec. 40.23(c) ($3,810 per market participant x 420
market participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\594\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of person subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Rules
The Commission is unaware of any Federal rules that could
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposal.
vi. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
These may include, for example, (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.
A potential alternative to Regulation AT that would minimize any
significant impact on small entities would be to amend or propose new
rules requiring trading firms implement pre-trade and other risk
controls, but limit application of such requirements to entities that
would not be considered ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA.
However, the Commission does not believe that this is a viable
alternative. A principal basis for Regulation AT's risk control
requirements is that a technological malfunction or error can have a
significant, detrimental impact on other market participants across
Commission-regulated markets. Importantly, such a technological
malfunction or error can arise from any size of firm, including a very
small proprietary trading firm with few employees. In today's
interconnected markets, where a small error can cause a severe
disruption in minutes, it is equally important that small firms have
risk controls as large firms. The Commission believes that the risk
controls required by Regulation AT will help ensure that all entities--
not just large entities with the most technological and financial
resources--will have effective risk controls. The Commission is aware
that smaller firms may have different trading strategies and technology
than larger firms; accordingly, the proposed regulations allow all
trading firms, including small entities, the discretion to design
controls appropriate to their own business and to implement them in the
most cost-effective manner.
The Commission is also considering alternatives with respect to
proposed Sec. 1.83, which would require AT Persons to submit
compliance reports to DCMs on an annual basis. Such reports would need
to be submitted and certified annually by the chief executive officer
or the chief compliance officer of the AT Person. Proposed Sec. 40.22
would require DCMs to establish a program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of these reports. The Commission has proposed these
regulations, using the deadlines described above, because it believes
they represent an appropriate balancing of the transparency and risk
reduction provided by the reports against the burden placed on AT
Persons and DCMs of providing and reviewing the reports. The Commission
is considering the alternative of requiring AT Persons to submit such
reports more or less frequently than annually. The Commission is also
considering the alternatives of placing the responsibility for
certifying the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 only on the
chief executive officer, only on the chief compliance officer, or
permitting certification from other officers of the AT Person. The
Commission notes that it considered the alternative of requiring
additional information to be included in the Sec. 1.83 reports, such
as descriptions of how AT Persons comply with Sec. 1.81 requirements
and how clearing member FCMs comply with all Sec. 1.82 requirements.
In the interest of minimizing costs to AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs, the Commission determined at this time to require, pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d), that AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs instead retain and provide to DCMs books and records regarding
their compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81 and 1.82 requirements.
Proposed Sec. 40.22(d) includes a corresponding requirement that DCMs
implement rules requiring AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to keep
and provide such books and records.
Finally, the Commission is considering alternatives with respect to
proposed Sec. 40.23. This proposed regulation provides that DCMs may
comply with the requirement to apply, or provide and require the use
of, self-trade prevention tools by requiring market participants to
identify to the DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading
with each other. With respect to this account identification process,
the Commission's principal goal is to prevent unintentional self-
trading; the Commission does not have a specific interest in regulating
the manner by which market participants identify to DCMs the account
that should be prohibited from trading from each other, so long as this
goal is met. The Commission has considered whether other identification
methods should be made available to market participants
[[Page 78890]]
when submitting the approval requests described in Sec. 40.23. For
example, the Commission has requested comment on whether the opposite
approach is preferable: Market participants would identify to DCMs the
accounts that should be permitted to trade with each other (as opposed
to those accounts that should be prevented from trading with each
other).
3. Request for Comments
109. The Commission requests comment on each element of its RFA
analysis. In particular, the Commission specifically invites comment on
the accuracy of its estimates of potential firms that could be
considered ``small entities'' for RFA purposes.
110. The Commission also requests comment on whether any natural
persons will be designated as AT Persons under the proposed definition
of that term.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') \595\ imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies in connection with their conducting or
sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. This
proposed rulemaking would result in new collection of information
requirements within the meaning of the PRA. The Commission therefore is
submitting this proposal to the Office of Management (OMB) for review
in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The following
requirements of this rulemaking will result in new collection of
information requirements within the meaning of the PRA: Sec. 1.83(a)
would require AT Persons to submit reports to DCMs concerning
compliance with Sec. 1.80(a), as well as copies of the written
policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec. 1.81(a) and (c);
Sec. 1.83(b) would require clearing member FCMs to submit reports to
DCMs concerning compliance with Sec. 1.82(a)(1); Sec. 1.83(c) and (d)
would require AT Persons and clearing member FCMs, respectively, to
keep and provide upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their
compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec.
1.82 (for clearing member FCMs); Sec. 40.23(c) states that a DCM must
require market participants to request approval from the DCM that self-
trade prevention tools not be applied with respect to certain types of
accounts; Sec. 40.23(d) would require that DCMs display information
about percentage and ratio of self-trading. The title for this
collection of information is Regulation Automated Trading. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
control number. The OMB has not yet assigned this collection a control
number. As used below, ``burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\595\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Regulation AT requirements will amend existing
collections of information. Proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) (requiring certain
persons with DEA to prepare and submit forms to register with the
Commission) would amend existing collection of information
``Registration Under the Commodity Exchange Act,'' OMB Control Number
3038-0023. Proposed Sec. 38.401(a) and (c) (requiring DCMs to publicly
post information regarding certain aspects of their electronic matching
platforms) and Sec. 40.26 (permitting the Commission or the director
of DMO to require certain information from DCMs regarding their market-
maker or trading incentive programs) would amend existing collection of
information ``Core Principles and Other Requirements for DCMs,'' OMB
Control Number 3038-0052. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.25 (requiring DCMs
to provide the Commission with certain information regarding their
market-maker and trading incentive programs when submitting such
programs as rules pursuant to part 40) would amend existing collection
of information ``Part 40, Provisions Common to Registered Entities,''
OMB Control Number 3038-0093.
The collections of information under these proposed regulations are
necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Act. Section 8a(5) of the CEA provides the Commission with
authority to promulgate rules as reasonably necessary to effectuate any
of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act, and
Section 4c(a)(6) of the CEA provides rulemaking authority to prohibit
disruptive trading practices. As provided in Section 3(b) of the CEA,
it is the purpose of the CEA to deter and prevent price manipulation or
any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial
integrity of all transactions subject to this chapter and the avoidance
of systemic risk; to protect all market participants from fraudulent or
other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets; and to
promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of
trade, other markets and market participants.\596\ Proposed regulations
requiring registration with the Commission, submission of compliance
reports to DCMs, implementation of self-trade prevention tools and
increased disclosure of certain aspects of electronic matching
platforms and market maker and trading incentive programs, will help
prevent or mitigate technological malfunctions that will disrupt market
integrity, protect market participants from fraudulent or disruptive
practices, and promote fair competition among boards of trade, other
markets and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\596\ 7 U.S.C. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the proposed regulations are adopted, responses to the
collections of information would be mandatory. The Commission will
protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information
Act and 17 CFR part 145, ``Commission Records and Information.'' In
addition, Section 8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the Commission,
unless specifically authorized by the CEA, from making public ``data
and information that would separately disclose the business
transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or
names of customers.'' The Commission is also required to protect
certain information contained in a government system of records
according to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
1. Information Provided by Reporting Entities/Persons
The following is a brief description of the PRA responsibilities of
various entities under Regulation AT. In summary, Sec. 1.3(x)(3) would
require certain floor traders with DEA to prepare and submit forms to
register with the Commission; Sec. 1.83(a) and (b) would require AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs to submit reports to DCMs concerning
compliance with Sec. 1.80(a) and Sec. 1.82(a)(1), respectively; Sec.
1.83(c) and (d) would require AT Persons and clearing member FCMs,
respectively, to keep and provide upon request to DCMs books and
records regarding their compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs); Sec. 38.401(a)
and (c) would require DCMs to publicly post information regarding
certain aspects of their electronic matching platforms; Sec. 40.23(c)
states that a DCM must require market participants to request approval
from the DCM that self-trade prevention tools not be applied with
respect to certain types of accounts; Sec. 40.23(d) would require that
DCMs
[[Page 78891]]
display information about percentage and ratio of self-trading; Sec.
40.25 would require DCMs to provide the Commission with certain
information regarding their market-maker and trading incentive programs
when submitting such programs as rules pursuant to part 40; and Sec.
40.26 would permit the Commission or the director of DMO to require
certain information from DCMs regarding their market-maker or trading
incentive programs.
a. Sec. 1.3(x)(3)--Submissions by Newly Registered Floor Traders
The Commission estimates that the proposed rules requiring certain
floor traders with Direct Electronic Access to register will result in
11 hours of burden per affected entity, and 1100 burden hours in total.
The Commission estimates that each affected entity will require 1 hour
to prepare and submit one Form 7-R (for the entity) and 10 hours to
prepare and submit 10 Forms 8-R (one form for each principal of the
entity).\597\ The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\597\ CFTC Form 7-R is used to apply for registration with the
Commission as a non-natural person floor trader, and is also used
for such entities to apply for membership in NFA. Form 8-R is used
to identify principals of non-natural person floor trader entities.
As noted previously, the Commission estimates that each non-natural
person floor trader entity will have approximately 10 principals and
therefore need to file approximately 10 Forms 8-R. In the event that
a natural person meets the definition of Floor Trader in proposed
Sec. 1.3(x)(3) and is therefore required to register with the
Commission and become a member of NFA, such person would only be
required to complete Form 8-R and would face substantially lower
costs than those estimated here. Because registration with the
Commission and membership in NFA make use of the same forms and
process, the Commission anticipates that the costs associated with
proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) and proposed Sec. 170.18 will be one and
the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden: Complete Form 7-R and 8-R to register as a floor trader.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 100 new floor traders.
Estimated number of responses: 100.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 11 hours.
Frequency of collection: One-time initial registration fee.
Burden statement-all respondents: 100 respondents x 1 hour = 100
Burden Hours.
The Commission estimates that a new registrant will incur a one-
time cost of $96 to complete one Form 7-R and a one-time cost of $960
to complete 10 Forms 8-R. These costs represent the work of 1
Compliance Attorney per affected entity, working for 1 hour per form (a
total of 11 hours x $96 = $1,056).\598\ The 100 entities that will be
subject to the registration requirement under Sec. 1.3(x)(3) would
therefore incur a total one-time cost of $105,600 (100 x $1,506).\599\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\598\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\599\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Sec. 1.83(a)--Compliance Reports Submitted by AT Persons to DCMs
The Commission estimates that the proposed rules requiring AT
Persons to submit annual reports regarding their pre-trade risk
controls required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80(a) (as well as copies
of the written policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec.
1.81(a) and (c)) to each DCM on which they operate will result (on an
annual basis) in 60 hours of burden per AT Person, and 25,200 burden
hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Compliance reports submitted by AT Persons to DCMs.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420 AT Persons.
Estimated number of responses: 420.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 60 hours.
Frequency of collection: Annual.
Burden statement-all respondents: 420 respondents x 60 hours =
25,200 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $4,240 to submit the compliance reports required
by proposed Sec. 1.83(a). This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 50 hours (50 x $57 = $2,850);
and 1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for 10 hours (10 x $139 =
$1,390).\600\ The 420 AT Persons that will be subject to Sec. 1.83(a)
would therefore incur a total annual cost of $1,780,800 (420
x$4,240).\601\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\600\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\601\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Sec. 1.83(b)--Compliance Reports Submitted by Clearing Member FCMs
to DCMs
The Commission estimates that the proposed rules requiring clearing
member FCMs to submit annual reports (describing the clearing member
FCM's program for establishing and maintaining the pre-trade risk
controls required by proposed Sec. 1.82(a)(1) for its AT Person
customers in the aggregate) to each DCM on which they operate will
result (on an annual basis) in 110 hours of burden per clearing member,
and 6,270 burden hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
Burden: Compliance reports submitted by clearing member FCMs to
DCMs.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57 clearing member FCMs.
Estimated number of responses: 57.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 110 hours.
Frequency of collection: Annual.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57 respondents x 110 hours =
6,270 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a clearing
member FCM will incur a cost of $7,090 to submit the compliance reports
required by Sec. 1.83(b). This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 100 hours (100 x $57 =
$5,700); and 1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for 10 hours (10 x
$139 = $1,390).\602\ The 57 clearing member FCMs that will be subject
to Sec. 1.83(b) would therefore incur a total annual cost of $404,130
(57 x$7,090).\603\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\602\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\603\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Sec. 1.83(c)--AT Person Retention and Production of Books and
Records
Initial Costs. The Commission estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1.83(c) requiring AT Persons to keep and provide books
and records relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 compliance will result
in initial costs of 60 hours of burden per AT Person, and 25,200 burden
hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Rule requiring AT Persons to keep and produce records
relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420 AT Persons.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 60 hours.
Burden statement&all respondents: 420 respondents x 60 hours =
25,200 Burden Hours initial year.
The Commission estimates that, on an initial basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft and update recordkeeping policies
and procedures and make technology improvements to recordkeeping
infrastructure. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 30 hours (30 x $96 = $2,880); and 1 Developer,
working for 30 hours (30 x $75 = $2,250). The 420 AT Persons would
therefore incur a total initial cost of $2,154,600 (420 x $5,130).
Annual Costs. The Commission estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1.83(c) requiring AT Persons to keep and provide books
and records
[[Page 78892]]
relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 compliance will result in annual
costs of 30 hours of burden per AT Person, and 12,600 burden hours in
total. The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Rules requiring AT Persons to keep and produce records
relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420 AT Persons.
Estimated number of responses: 420.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 30 hours.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.Burden statement-all
respondents: 420 respondents x 30 hours = 12,600 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure continued compliance with the
Sec. 1.83(c) recordkeeping rules relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance,
including the updating of policies and procedures and technology
infrastructure, and to respond to DCM record requests. This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 20 hours (20
x $96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working for 10 hours (10 x $75 =
$750). The 420 AT Persons would therefore incur a total annual cost of
$1,121,400 (420 x $2,670).
e. Sec. 1.83(d)--Clearing Member FCM Retention and Production of Books
and Records
Initial Costs. The Commission estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1.83(d) requiring clearing member FCMs to keep and
provide books and records relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance will result
in initial costs of 60 hours of burden per clearing member FCM, and
3,420 burden hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
Burden: Rules requiring clearing member FCMs to keep and produce
records relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57 clearing member FCMs.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 60 hours.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57 respondents x 60 hours = 3,420
Burden Hours initial year.
The Commission estimates that, on an initial basis, a clearing
member FCM will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft and update
recordkeeping policies and procedures and make technology improvements
to recordkeeping infrastructure. This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 30 hours (30 x $96 = $2,880); and 1
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 x $75 = $2,250). The 57 clearing
member FCMs would therefore incur a total initial cost of $292,410 (57
x $5,130).
Annual Costs. The Commission estimates that that DCM rules pursuant
to proposed Sec. 1.83(d) requiring clearing member FCMs to keep and
provide books and records relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance will result
in annual costs of 30 hours of burden per clearing member FCM, and
1,710 burden hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
Burden: Rules requiring clearing member FCMs to keep and produce
records relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57 clearing member FCMs.
Estimated number of responses: 57.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 30 hours.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57 respondents x 30 hours = 1,710
Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a clearing
member FCM will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure continued compliance
with the Sec. 1.83(d) recordkeeping rules relating to Sec. 1.82
compliance, including the updating of policies and procedures and
technology infrastructure, and to respond to DCM record requests. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 20
hours (20 x $96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working for 10 hours (10 x
$75 = $750). The 57 clearing member FCMs would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $152,190 (57 x $2,670).
f. Sec. 38.401(a) and (c)--Public Dissemination of Information by DCMs
Pertaining to Electronic Matching Platforms
The proposed amendments to regulations 38.401(a) and 38.401(c)
require DCMs to publicly post information regarding certain aspects of
their electronic matching platforms. DCMs should already be performing
tests on their electronic matching platforms that would identify such
attributes; therefore the added burden under the proposed amendments
would be limited to drafting the description of such attributes and
making the description available on the DCM's Web site. The Commission
estimates that the proposed rules will result (on an annual basis) in
200 hours of burden per DCM, and 3,200 burden hours in total. This
estimate assumes that DCMs are already compliant with the requirements
to post the specifications of their electronic matching platform under
current regulation 38.401(a).
Burden: Public Dissemination of Information by DCMs--Electronic
Matching Platforms.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15 DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 200 hours per year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all affected entities: 15 affected entities x 200
hours = 3,000 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a DCM will incur
a cost of $19,200 to comply with amended Sec. 38.401(a) and (c). This
cost represents the work of 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 200
hours (200 x $96 = $19,200).\604\ The 15 DCMs that will be subject to
amended Sec. Sec. 38.401(a) and (c) would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $288,000 (15 x $19,200).\605\ The Commission anticipates
that this figure would decrease in subsequent years as the descriptions
provided would only need to be amended to reflect changes to the
electronic matching platform or the discovery of previously unknown
attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\604\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\605\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Sec. 40.23--Information Publicly Disseminated by DCMs Regarding
Self-Trade Prevention
Regulation AT proposes a new requirement (Sec. 40.23) that a DCM
shall implement rules reasonably designed to prevent self-trading by
market participants, except as specified in paragraph (b) of Sec.
40.23. Section 40.23(b) states that a DCM may, in its discretion,
implement rules that permit the matching of orders for accounts with
common beneficial ownership where such orders are initiated by
independent decision makers. A DCM may also permit under Sec. 40.23(b)
the matching of orders for accounts under common control where such
orders comply with the DCM's cross-trade, minimum exposure requirements
or similar rules, and are for accounts that are not under common
beneficial ownership. Section 40.23(c) states that a DCM must require
market participants to request approval from the DCM that self-trade
prevention tools not be applied with respect to specific accounts under
common beneficial ownership or control, on the basis that they meet the
criteria of paragraph (b).
Proposed Sec. 40.23(d) would require that for each product and
expiration month traded on a DCM in the previous quarter, the DCM must
prominently display on its Web site the following
[[Page 78893]]
information: (1) The percentage of trades in such product including all
expiration months that represent self-trading approved (pursuant to
paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 40.23) by the DCM, expressed as a percentage
of all trades in such product and expiration month; (2) the percentage
of volume of trading in such product including all expiration months
that represents self-trading approved (pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of
Sec. 40.23) by the DCM, expressed as a percentage of all volume in
such product and expiration month; and (3) the ratio of orders in such
product and expiration month whose matching was prevented by the self-
trade prevention tools described in paragraph (a) of Sec. 40.23,
expressed as a ratio of all trades in such product and expiration
month.
Market Participant Approval Requests. Market participants will
incur costs in the event that they prepare and submit the approval
requests contemplated by proposed Sec. 40.23(c). This provision
requires market participants to request approval from the DCM that
self-trade prevention tools not be applied with respect to specific
accounts under common beneficial ownership or control. The Commission
estimates that Sec. 40.23(c) will result (on an annual basis) in 60
hours of burden per market participant, and 185,340 burden hours in
total. The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Market Participant Submission of Self-Trade Approval
Requests.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420.\606\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\606\ See section V(E)(8)(b) below for a discussion of how this
estimate of affected entities was performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of responses: 1 per respondent per year. Market
participants may choose to submit approval requests more frequently,
but regardless of how frequently market participants submit approval
requests, the Commission estimates a total burden of 60 hours per
market participant per year.
Estimated total burden on each respondent: 60 hours per year.
Burden statement--all respondents: 420 respondents x 60 hours per
year = 25,200 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a market
participant will incur a cost of $3,810 to prepare and submit the
approval requests contemplated by 40.23(c). This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Business Analyst, working for 30 hours (30 x $52 per hour =
$1,560); and 1 Developer, working for 30 hours (30 x $75 per hour =
$2,250).\607\ The estimated 420 market participants that will be
subject to Sec. 40.23(c) would therefore incur a total annual cost of
$1,600,200 (420 x $3,810).\608\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\607\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\608\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCM Publication of Statistics Regarding Self-Trade Prevention. The
Commission estimates that the requirement under proposed Sec. 40.23(d)
that DCMs publish statistics regarding self-trade prevention will
result (on an annual basis) in 100 hours of burden per DCM, and 1,500
burden hours in total for all 15 DCMs. The estimated burden was
calculated as follows:
Burden: DCM Publication of Statistics Regarding Self-Trade
Prevention.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15 DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each affected entity: 100 hours per year
for DCMs to generate and publish statistics.
Frequency of collection: 4 DCM Web site updates per year (one per
quarter).
Burden statement-all affected entities: 15 respondents x 100 hours
of DCM time per year = 1,500 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a DCM will incur
a cost of $6,650 to publish the statistics required by proposed Sec.
40.23(d). This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance
Examiner, working for 50 hours (50 x $58 per hour = $2,900); and 1
Developer, working for 50 hours (50 x $75 per hour =$3,750).\609\ The
15 DCMs that will be subject to Sec. 40.23(d) would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $99,750 (15 x $6,650).\610\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\609\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\610\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Sec. 40.25--Information in Public Rule Filings Provided by DCMs
Regarding Market Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
Proposed Sec. 40.25 would require DCMs to provide the Commission
with certain information regarding their market-maker and trading
incentive programs when submitting such programs as rules pursuant to
part 40. Among other information, DCMs would be required to provide a
description of any categories of market participants or eligibility
criteria limiting who may participate in the program. They would also
be required to provide an explanation of the specific purpose for a
market-maker or trading incentive program; a list of all products or
services to which the program applies; a description of any payments,
incentives, discounts, considerations, inducements or other benefits
that program participants may receive; and other requirements. To
ensure public transparency in market-maker and trading incentive
programs, proposed Sec. 40.25 would require DCMs to ensure that the
information described above is easily located on their public Web
sites.
While proposed Sec. 40.25 may appear on its face to require
substantial new information from DCMs regarding their market-maker or
trading incentive programs, the proposed rule is largely similar to
existing rule filing requirements in part 40. For example, existing
Sec. Sec. 40.5 and 40.6 each require a DCM requesting approval or
self-certifying rules to provide the Commission with the rule text; the
proposed effective date or date of intended implementation; and an
``explanation and analysis of the operation, purpose, and effect'' of
the proposed rule. Existing Sec. Sec. 40.5 and 40.6 also require each
DCM to provide the Commission with an assessment of the rule's
``compliance with applicable provisions of the Act, including core
principles, and the Commission's regulations thereunder;'' and ``a
brief explanation of any substantive opposing views expressed to [the
DCM] by governing board or committee members, members of the entity or
market participants that were not incorporated into the rule . . . .''
Further, these existing provisions each require a DCM to certify that
the DCM posted on its public Web site a notice of pending rule or
certification and to also post a copy of the DCM's submission to the
Commission on the DCM's Web site.
The Commission believes proposed Sec. 40.25 adds important clarity
to existing rule filing requirements in part 40 when such filings
pertain to market-maker or trading incentive programs. However, the
Commission also believes that there is significant overlap between
proposed Sec. 40.25 and existing requirements for DCMs in Sec. Sec.
40.5 and 40.6. Proposed Sec. 40.25 does not create a new category of
rule filings, nor does it or require more frequent filings. For these
reasons, the Commission believes that any additional Paperwork
Reduction Act obligations in proposed Sec. 40.25 will be minor per
DCM.
Burden: Information regarding market maker and trading incentive
program rule filings pursuant to part 40.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15 DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each affected entity: 156 hours of DCM
time per year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
[[Page 78894]]
Burden statement-all affected entities: 15 respondents x 156 hours
of DCM time per year = 2,340 Burden Hours per year.
i. Sec. 40.26--Information Provided by DCMs to the Division of Market
Oversight Upon Request Regarding Market Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
Proposed Sec. 40.26 would permit the Commission or the director of
DMO to require certain information from DCMs regarding their market-
maker or trading incentive programs. The Commission believes that
proposed Sec. 40.26 will impose no additional Paperwork Reduction Act
burdens on DCMs. The proposed regulation permits the Commission or the
director of DMO to require information from a DCM regarding the DCM's
market-maker or trading incentive programs. It is a more targeted
iteration of existing Sec. 38.5, which requires a DCM to file with the
Commission such ``information related to its business as a designated
contract market'' as the Commission may require. Section 38.5 also
requires a DCM upon request by the Commission or the director of DMO to
file ``a written demonstration'' that the DCM ``is in compliance with
one or more core principles as specified in the request'' or
``satisfies its obligations under the Act,'' including ``supporting
data, information and documents.'' Proposed Sec. 40.26 does not alter
a DCM's existing obligations under Sec. 38.5, but rather makes clear
that Commission and DMO information requests may pertain specifically
to market-maker and trading incentive programs. It imposes no new
obligation to provide information, and does not increase the frequency
which information must be provided.
Burden: Information requests from the Commission or the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15 DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each affected entity: 0 hours of DCM time
per year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all affected entities: 15 respondents x 0 hours of
DCM time per year = 0 Burden Hours per year.
2. Information Collection Comments
The Commission invites the public to comment on any aspect of the
paperwork burdens discussed herein. Copies of the supporting statements
for the collections of information from the Commission to OMB are
available by visiting RegInfo.gov. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B),
the Commission solicits comments in order to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of
information; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be
collected; and (vi) minimize the burden of the proposed collections of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Those desiring to submit comments on the proposed information
collection requirements should submit them directly to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at (202) 395-6566, or
by email at [email protected]. Please provide the Commission
with a copy of submitted comments so that all comments can be
summarized and addressed in the final rule preamble. Refer to the
Addresses section of this notice of proposed rulemaking for comment
submission instructions to the Commission.
E. Cost Benefit Considerations
1. The Statutory Requirement for the Commission To Consider the Costs
and Benefits of Its Actions
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to ``consider the
costs and benefits'' of its actions before promulgating a regulation
under the CEA or issuing certain orders.\611\ Section 15(a) further
specifies that the costs and benefits must be evaluated in light of the
following 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 considers the costs and benefits
resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the
section 15(a) factors below. As a general matter, the Commission
considers the incremental costs and benefits of these proposed rules,
taking into account what it believes is industry practice given the
Commission's existing regulations and industry best practices, as
described below. Where reasonably feasible, the Commission has
endeavored to estimate quantifiable costs and benefits. The Commission
also identifies and describes costs and benefits qualitatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\611\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Concept Release Comments Regarding Costs and Benefits
In the Concept Release, the Commission sought comments on most of
the measures now addressed by Regulation AT. Six commenters made
general points on cost-benefit considerations. Specifically, FIA and
CME noted that the cost of implementing risk controls varies
widely.\612\ FIA stated that many of the risk controls addressed in the
Concept Release are already used in the futures industry and their
benefit is clearly understood.\613\ FIA further stated that the
implementation cost to individual firms varies widely based on the
systems they have and the market and products they trade.\614\
Similarly, CME indicated that as to risk controls, specific costs as to
development, implementation and ongoing operational figures will vary
widely across the futures industry supply chain.\615\ CME declined to
provide detailed analysis as to its own expenditures.\616\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\612\ FIA at 60; CME at 41.
\613\ FIA at 60.
\614\ See id.
\615\ CME at 41.
\616\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFE commented that if the Commission proposes risk control
requirements, it should perform a careful cost-benefit analysis and
allow DCMs at least two years to implement the controls.\617\ TCL
stated that most entities have the technology to address the ``spirit''
of the controls described in the Concept Release.\618\ AFR noted that
cost-benefit analysis should be based on costs and benefits to the
public as a whole, not on private benefits to individual actors.\619\
Finally, IATP stated that the Concept Release asked more frequently
about costs of risk controls as compared to benefits of increased
market stability, which can be more difficult to quantify.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\617\ CFE at 2.
\618\ TCL at 18.
\619\ AFR at 2.
\620\ IATP at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation AT--
Baseline Point
As a preliminary matter, the Commission notes that certain aspects
of Regulation AT, as discussed below, codify existing norms and best
practices of trading firms, clearing member FCMs
[[Page 78895]]
and DCMs. In that regard, in 2013, FIA surveyed FCMs and FIA PTG member
firms regarding their use of risk controls and self-trade controls and
found that all or most respondents currently use such controls.\621\
Comment letters to the Concept Release indicated that implementation of
pre-trade and other risk controls was already widespread. Moreover,
existing statutory schemes (e.g., the SEC's Market Access Rule and the
CFTC's requirements relating to financial risk) means that many
entities will already have systems in place relevant to the controls
proposed in Regulation AT. Accordingly, as discussed below, the
existing norms or best practices serve as the Commission's guide for
determining the status quo baseline against which to measure the
incremental costs and benefits of the proposed regulations. The
Commission recognizes, however, that some individual firms currently
may not be operating at industry best practice levels; for such firms
costs and benefits attributable to the proposed regulations will be
incremental to a lower status quo baseline. In many cases, the
Commission assumes that compliance with regulations will require an
upgrade to existing systems, rather than building risk control systems
from scratch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\621\ FIA at 3, 59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist the Commission and the public in assessing and
understanding the economic costs and benefits of the proposed rule, the
Commission has analyzed the costs of the proposed regulations that
impose additional requirements on trading firms, clearing member FCMs
and DCMs above and beyond the baseline. In many instances, full
quantification of the costs is not reasonably feasible because costs
depend on the size, structure, and practices of trading firms, clearing
member FCMs and DCMs. Within each category of entity, the size,
structure and practices of such entities will vary markedly. In
addition, the quantification may require information or data that the
Commission does not have or was not provided in response to the Concept
Release or other requests. The Commission notes that to the extent that
the regulations proposed in this rulemaking results in additional
costs, those costs will be realized by trading firms, clearing member
FCMs and exchanges in order to protect market participants and the
public. Finally, in general, full quantification of the benefits of the
proposed rule is also not reasonably feasible, due to the difficulty in
quantifying the benefits of a reduction in market disruptions and other
significant market events due to the risk controls and other measures
proposed in Regulation AT.
4. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation AT--Cross-
Border Effects
The Commission notes that the consideration of costs and benefits
below is based on the understanding that the markets function
internationally, with many transactions involving U.S. firms taking
place across international boundaries; with some Commission registrants
being organized outside of the United States; with leading industry
members typically conducting operations both within and outside the
United States; and with industry members commonly following
substantially similar business practices wherever located. Where the
Commission does not specifically refer to matters of location, the
below discussion of costs and benefits refers to the effects of the
proposed rules on all activity subject to the proposed and amended
regulations, whether by virtue of the activity's physical location in
the United States or by virtue of the activity's connection with or
effect on U.S. commerce under CEA Section 2(i).\622\ In particular, the
Commission notes that some AT Persons are located outside of the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\622\ 7 U.S.C. 2(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. General Request for Comment
111. Beyond specific questions interspersed throughout its
discussion, the Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of
its consideration of costs and benefits, including: (a) Identification,
quantification, and assessment of any costs and benefits not discussed
therein; (b) whether any of the proposed regulations may cause FCMs or
DCMs to raise their fees for their customers, or otherwise result in
increased costs for market participants and, if so, to what extent; (c)
whether any category of Commission registrants will be
disproportionately impacted by the proposed regulations, and if so
whether the burden of any regulations should be appropriately shifted
to other Commission registrants; (d) what, if any, costs would likely
arise from market participants engaging in regulatory arbitrage by
restructuring their trading activities to trade on platforms not
subject to the proposed regulations, or taking other steps to avoid
costs associated with the proposed regulations; (e) quantitative
estimates of the impact on transaction costs and liquidity of the
proposals contained herein; (f) the potential costs and benefits of the
alternatives that the Commission discussed in this release, and any
other alternatives appropriate under the CEA that commenters believe
would provide superior benefits relative to costs; (g) data and any
other information to assist or otherwise inform the Commission's
ability to quantify or qualitatively describe the benefits and costs of
the proposed rules; and (h) substantiating data, statistics, and any
other information to support positions posited by commenters with
respect to the Commission's consideration of costs and benefits.
6. The Commission's Cost-Benefit Consideration of Regulation AT--
Proposed Definitions
The Commission notes that Regulation AT proposes certain defined
terms, including ``AT Person,'' ``Algorithmic Trading,'' and ``Direct
Electronic Access'' (as an element of the revised definition of the
term ``Floor Trader''). While the defined terms themselves do not
impose costs, the Commission recognizes that the scope of such
definitions will impact the potential costs of other regulations. For
example, proposed Sec. 1.80 imposes risk control requirements on ``AT
Persons,'' and the defined term ``Algorithmic Trading'' is an element
of the term AT Person. The broader the definition of AT Person and
Algorithmic Trading, the greater the number of firms that would be
required to meet the requirements of Sec. 1.80.
The Commission believes its definition of AT Person is appropriate
and its inclusion of ``floor traders,'' consistent with the proposed
changes to Sec. 1.3(x), will mean that certain currently unregistered
market participants who actively trade on Commission-regulated markets
will be subject to risk control requirements that will prevent or
mitigate the risks of malfunctioning algorithmic trading systems.
Similarly, the proposed definition of Algorithmic Trading captures such
trading activity that has the potential, when there is a technological
malfunction, to harm market participants and disrupt markets at a speed
that is difficult to mitigate. The Commission asks questions concerning
the scope of the definition of Algorithmic Trading, for example whether
order routing systems should be included within such definition. The
Commission acknowledges that any change made to scope of AT Person and
Algorithmic Trading made in accordance with any comments received will
impact the cost of regulations that use those definitions.
[[Page 78896]]
7. Pre-Trade Risk Controls, Testing and Supervision of Automated
Systems, Requirement To Submit Compliance Reports, and Other Related
Algorithmic Trading Requirements
a. Summary of Proposed Rules
This section addresses the following proposed regulations: (i) The
requirement that AT Persons implement pre-trade risk controls and other
related measures (Sec. 1.80); (ii) standards for the development,
testing, and monitoring of Algorithmic Trading systems by AT Persons
(Sec. 1.81); (iii) registered futures association (``RFA'') standards
for algorithmic trading systems (``ATSs'') operated by their members
and clearing member FCMs with respect to customer orders originating
with ATSs (Sec. 170.19); (iv) the requirement that AT Persons must
become a member of a futures association (Sec. 170.18); (v) the
requirement that clearing member FCMs implement pre-trade risk controls
and other related measures (Sec. 1.82); (vi) the requirements of Sec.
1.83, including that: AT Persons submit compliance reports to DCMs
regarding their Sec. 1.80(a)-required risk controls, as well as copies
of the written policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec.
1.81(a) and (c) (Sec. 1.83(a)); clearing member FCMs submit compliance
reports to DCMs regarding their program for establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls required by Sec. 1.82(a)(1)
for AT Person customers (Sec. 1.83(b)); AT Persons keep and provide
upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their compliance with
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (Sec. 1.83(c)); and clearing member FCMs keep
and provide upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their
compliance with Sec. 1.82 (Sec. 1.83(d)); (vii) the requirement that
DCMs implement pre-trade risk controls and other related measures
(Sec. Sec. 38.255 and 40.20); (viii) the requirement that DCMs provide
test environments where AT Persons may test their ATSs (Sec. 40.21);
and (ix) the requirements of Sec. 40.22, including that DCMs:
implement rules requiring AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to submit
compliance reports each year (Sec. 40.22(a) and (b)), establish a
program for effective periodic review and evaluation of the reports
(Sec. 40.22(c)), implement rules that require each AT Person to keep
and provide to the DCM books and records regarding their compliance
with all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.81, and
require each clearing member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM market
books and records regarding their compliance with all requirements
pursuant to Sec. 1.82 (Sec. 40.22(d)), and require DCMs to review and
evaluate, as necessary, books and records required to be kept pursuant
to Sec. 40.22(d), and the measures described therein (Sec. 40.22(e)).
The pre-trade risk controls and other measures required by
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.82, 38.255, and 40.20 would require the following
enumerated pre-trade risk controls: Maximum AT Order Message and
execution frequencies, price parameters, and maximum order size limits.
The regulations would also require certain order management controls,
including kill switch and cancel-on-disconnect functionalities.
Proposed Sec. 170.19 would require an RFA to adopt certain membership
rules--as deemed appropriate by the RFA--relevant to ATSs and
algorithmic trading for each category of member in the RFA. Proposed
Sec. 170.18 would require all AT Persons to be registered as a member
of an RFA.
Proposed Sec. 1.81 would require AT Persons to establish policies
and procedures that accomplish a number of objectives relating to the
design, testing, and supervision of Algorithmic Trading. More
specifically, proposed Sec. 1.81 would require each AT Person to:
Implement written policies and procedures for the development and
testing of ATSs (Sec. 1.81(a)); implement written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each of its ATSs is
subject to continuous real-time monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while such ATS is engaged in trading
(Sec. 1.81(b)); implement written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that ATSs operate in a manner that complies with the
CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder, and ensure that staff are
familiar with the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder, the
rules of any DCM to which such AT Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any RFA of which such AT Person is a
member, the AT Person's own internal requirements, and the requirements
of the AT Person's clearing member FCM, in each case as applicable
(Sec. 1.81(c)); and implement written policies and procedures to
designate and train staff responsible for Algorithmic Trading (Sec.
1.81(d)). As a complement to the proposed design and testing
requirements, proposed Sec. 40.21 would require DCMs to provide a test
environment that will enable market participants to simulate production
trading and conduct exchange-based conformance testing of their
Algorithmic Trading systems.
Proposed Sec. 1.83(a) would require AT Persons to submit annual
reports to each DCM on which they operate regarding their pre-trade
risk controls as required by Sec. 1.80(a). Together with such annual
reports, each AT Person would also be required to submit copies of the
written policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec. 1.81(a)
and (c). Proposed Sec. 1.83(b) would require clearing member FCMs for
AT Persons to submit reports to DCMs describing their program for
establishing and maintaining the pre-trade risk controls required by
Sec. 1.82(a)(1). The Commission is also proposing a new Sec. 40.22(c)
to require that each DCM that receives a report described in Sec. 1.83
establishes a program for effective periodic review and evaluation of
the reports. In addition, proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) would require
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs for AT Persons to keep and provide
upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their compliance with
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). The Commission is also proposing a new Sec. 40.22(d) and
(e) to require that DCMs implement rules requiring AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs to keep and provide such books and records, and to
require DCMs to review and evaluate such books and records, and
identify and remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies and
procedures therein.
b. Costs and Benefits
i. Sec. 1.80 Costs--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (AT Persons)
Based on Concept Release comments, best practices documents issued
by industry or regulatory organizations, as well as existing
regulations, the Commission believes that a significant number of AT
Persons already implement the specifically-enumerated pre-trade and
other risk controls required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80.
Specifically, in its survey of member firms, PTG found the following:
(i) 25 out of 26 responding firms use message and execution throttles;
(ii) all 26 responding firms use maximum order size limits, either
using their own technology, the exchange's technology, or some
combination; \623\ and (iii) 24 out of 26 responding firms use either
price collars or trading pauses.\624\ As to order management controls,
two comments to the Concept Release from exchanges stated that they
provide an optional cancel-on-disconnect functionality.\625\
[[Page 78897]]
Those exchanges also indicated that they provide kill switch
functionality to market participants.\626\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\623\ AIMA indicated that many market participants use maximum
order size limits, and Gelber, a trading firm, stated that it uses
this risk control. See AIMA at 13; Gelber at 10.
\624\ FIA at 59-60.
\625\ CME Appendix at A-4; CFE at 9-10. In addition, FIA
characterized cancel-on-disconnect as a ``widely adopted DCM-hosted
pre-trade risk control.'' See FIA at 14.
\626\ CME at 23-24; CFE at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that these types of controls have been
included in industry best practices for years. For example, FIA PTG
recommended, among other things, that trading firms implement message
limits, a repeated automated execution throttle, fat-finger limits and
price collars, as well as ``heartbeats'' with the exchange, use of
exchange-provided cancel-on-disconnect functionality, and a kill button
that disables the system's ability to trade and cancels all resting
orders.\627\ In addition, ESMA guidelines from 2012 recommended, among
other things, that investment firms implement messaging traffic
controls and price or size parameters.\628\ The Commission also notes
that the SEC's Market Access Rule, adopted in November 2010, requires
brokers and dealers to have risk controls that prevent entry of
erroneous orders, by rejecting orders that exceed appropriate price or
size parameters, on an order-by-order basis or over a short period of
time, or that indicate duplicative orders.\629\ Given that many firms
are registered both with the SEC and the CFTC, it is likely that there
is overlap between the set of firms covered under the SEC's Market
Access Rule and this Proposed Rule. Finally, in 2011, the CFTC TAC
recommended, among other things, that trading firms implement message
and execution throttles, maximum quantity limits, price collars, and a
kill button.\630\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\627\ FIA PTG, ``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading
Firms,'' (Nov. 2010) at 4-5.
\628\ ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 14-15.
\629\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5(e); SEC, Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Risk Management Controls for Brokers or
Dealers with Market Access (Apr. 15, 2014), supra note 37.
\630\ CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34 at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also notes that, as discussed in detail above in
section II.E.1, NFA has provided guidance regarding ATSs to industry
participants since 2002. Such guidance includes NFA Interpretive Notice
9046, which addresses the ``Supervision of the Use of Automated Order-
Routing Systems'' in the context of NFA's overarching supervision
requirements in Compliance Rule 2-9 (Supervision). This rule and
interpretive notice are widely applicable to almost all registered
futures market participants and therefore apply to many AT Persons. In
particular, Compliance Rule 2-9 requires each NFA member to
``diligently supervise its employees and agents in the conduct of their
commodity futures activities for or on behalf of the Member.''
Interpretive Notice 9046, first issued in 2002 and revised in 2006,
provided, among other things, that an AORS should allow the Member to
set limits for each customer based on commodity, quantity, and type of
order or based on margin requirements, and should allow the Member to
impose limits pre-execution and to automatically block any orders that
exceed those limits. In addition, the interpretive notice provided that
when authorizing use of a direct access system, the Member should
utilize pre-execution controls, if available, to set pre-execution
limits for each customer, regardless of the nature of the customer.
Although proposed Sec. 1.80 is consistent with accepted industry
best practices of long standing and existing Commission and SEC
regulations to which many AT Persons now comply, Regulation AT's risk
control requirements will impose technology and personnel costs on AT
Persons. These costs include initial risk control creation costs and
possibly ongoing maintenance costs. Many AT Persons already have the
controls required by Regulation AT in place, and will only need to
upgrade such controls to ensure compliance. To the extent some AT
Persons may be outliers that do not currently implement risk controls
consistent with industry best practice--a number the Commission lacks
data to accurately identify and quantify--these firms would incur costs
greater than ``upgrade'' costs. The costs to any such outlier firms
would vary based on each firm's unique size, business model, technology
and existing risk controls. The Commission recognizes that some firms
will already have entirely compliant systems requiring no upgrade and,
at the other end of the spectrum, some firms may not be currently
implementing the Sec. 1.80 required risk controls at all. Accordingly,
the Commission estimates the ``upgrade'' costs for AT Persons to comply
with Regulation AT risk control requirements, and welcomes comment on
the accuracy of such estimates.
Aside from costs to individual AT Persons in creating and
maintaining the controls required by Regulation AT, in quantifying
costs of Sec. 1.80, the Commission considered that this regulation may
impose general costs to the marketplace as a whole. For example, while
the Commission expects that most AT Persons will only need to upgrade
systems in order to comply with Regulation AT, it is possible that
costs related to the implementation of new risk controls could lead to
adverse effects. For example, compliance costs may cause some AT
Persons to reduce, or cease, their activities in certain markets. This
may result in a decrease in market liquidity, which may cause the costs
of trading to increase. In order to mitigate these potential concerns,
the Commission has (as discussed further in the consideration of
alternatives) limited the compliance requirements to what it
preliminarily believes is the minimum level needed to protect market
participants and the public. In addition, as discussed in section (ii)
below, the Commission believes that the standardization of risk
controls may result in the provision of additional liquidity.
Other potential costs related to risk controls are similarly hard
to quantify. Kill switches aim to cease unintended message behavior,
and the potential losses and disruption associated with such behavior.
However, the mandatory triggering of a kill switch when not appropriate
to a particular firm could also prevent the firm's legitimate, risk-
reducing activity, and instead result in increased costs for such firm.
This distinction emphasizes the need to appropriately calibrate risk
controls on an individual basis, and the Commission has proposed rules
that accommodate that need. While the Commission attempts to quantify
costs to individual firms, the Commission is also aware of the broader
impact of the proposed rules on markets once firms apply the proposed
risk controls, including potential effects on liquidity. The Commission
welcomes comments on these and other potential market-wide effects of
the proposed regulations.
In addition to the potential costs to the market as a whole
discussed above, individual AT Persons may incur costs of risk control
implementation, in particular the cost of upgrading systems in order to
comply with the proposed regulations. Specifically, if a particular AT
Person's systems are not already compliant with Sec. 1.80, it will
need to comply with the pre-trade and other risk controls in one of
several ways: By internally developing such controls from scratch,
upgrading existing systems, or through purchasing a risk management
solution from an outside vendor. Each approach potentially has initial
costs and annual ongoing costs. Based on responses to the FIA survey,
industry best practice standards, and existing regulations both in
Commission-regulated markets as well as SEC-regulated markets, the
Commission believes that many AT Persons will be able to substantially
satisfy the risk control requirements of Regulation AT with their
existing systems and controls. For others, the
[[Page 78898]]
costs of upgrading and introducing the required systems would vary
considerably based on current controls and procedures, as well as
particular business models.\631\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\631\ For example, the needs of a particular AT Person will vary
based on its current systems and controls in place, the
comprehensiveness of its controls and procedures, the types of
trading strategies it uses, and the volume and speed of its trading
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than develop or upgrade its own systems, AT Persons may
choose to purchase a risk management solution from a third-party
vendor, a DCM, or a clearing member FCM. These costs could similarly
vary, depending on the AT Persons' current systems and controls in
place, the types of trading strategies it uses, the volume and speed of
its trading activity, and the pricing model utilized by the software
vendor. As one example, the Commission notes that CME provides a number
of risk management tools to its market participants and clearing firms.
These tools include: Cancel-on-disconnect, CME Globex credit controls,
a Risk Management Interface (RMI) (which allows clearing members to
manage risk), drop copy, FirmSoft (the ability to view and cancel
orders), a kill switch (a single step shutdown of trading activity) and
self-trade prevention.\632\ As another example, NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
offers risk management tools that include fat finger price checks,
maximum order quantity checks, daily accumulated quantity checks,
maximum order rate per second checks, disconnect safeguards, email
notifications when limits or warning levels are breached, and an
administration interface that allows emergency actions.\633\ Many of
these mirror, or complement, risk controls included within this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\632\ CME Group, ``Risk Management Tools Introduction,''
available at: http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/trading-cme-group-products/risk-management-tools.html.
\633\ NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., ``Pre-Trade Risk Management--
Genium INET,'' available at: http://www.nasdaqomx.com/nordicprm/geniuminet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission estimated the costs for AT Persons to comply with
proposed Sec. 1.80. In making its estimates, the Commission made
several assumptions. The Commission assumes that the effort to adjust
any one control (by ``control,'' in this context, the Commission means
the pre-trade risk controls, order cancellation systems, and
connectivity systems required by Sec. 1.80) would require assessment
and possible modifications to all controls.\634\ The required
programming changes could be applied using flexible and generalizable
methods and leveraged across all algorithms. The Commission recognizes
that execution speed is considered to be a significant factor in
algorithmic trading, and understands that controls have the potential
to impact execution speed; however, the Commission believes that
requiring a base set of risk controls will, rather than further
increasing speed disadvantages across market participants, partially
reduce them by ensuring that no firm avoids the use of a given control
to gain an advantage. Because each AT Person is unique and
technological systems across AT Persons will vary, the following
estimates reflect staff's best efforts, and the Commission welcomes
comments on their accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\634\ The Commission also assumes that the most difficult
control to implement will be message and execution throttles because
such throttles will need to be coordinated among many complex
algorithms running simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate--Upgrade of Controls. The Commission considered the
scenario where an AT Person already implements controls as required by
proposed Sec. 1.80, but the controls may not comply with every aspect
of the regulation. In such instance, an AT Person will need to evaluate
its current risk control systems to determine whether it is compliant
with new regulatory requirements; modify existing code or creating new
code to address any gaps between current risk control systems and new
regulatory requirements; and test current systems and new code to
verify correct operation and compliance. The Commission assumes that AT
Persons will generally already have some code in place for the basic
controls required by Sec. 1.80, or for something similar that can be
added to or modified, rather than need to build entire pre-trade
systems from scratch. For example, an AT Person may have an existing
library of ``code blocks,'' with a block being useful for multiple
related purposes.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that an AT Person would incur
a one-time cost of $79,680 to upgrade its systems to comply with
proposed Sec. 1.80. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project
Manager, working for 320 hours (320 x $70 per hour = $22,400); 1
Business Analyst, working for 320 hours (320 x $52 per hour = $16,640);
1 Tester, working for 320 hours (320 x $52 per hour = $16,640); and 1
Developer, working for 320 hours (320 x $75 per hour = $24,000). The
Commission estimates that if an AT Person already has at least some of
the controls required by Sec. 1.80, there will be no additional annual
costs to maintain the modifications required to bring the systems into
compliance with Sec. 1.80. Assuming (as discussed above) that there
are 420 AT Persons, the Commission estimates that the total one-time
industry cost to implement Sec. 1.80 would be approximately
$33,465,600.
The Commission notes that AT Persons could choose not to develop
these controls internally, but rather may purchase a solution from an
outside vendor (or DCM or clearing member FCM) in order to comply with
Sec. 1.80. The Commission welcomes comments providing estimates
concerning the cost for an AT Person to use an outside vendor to comply
with this proposed regulation.
SEC Estimates. The proposing release for the SEC's Market Access
Rule, which requires brokers and dealers to have risk controls in place
before providing their customers with access to the market, provided
compliance costs estimates.\635\ The Commission's upgrade estimates are
generally consistent with the cost estimates provided by the SEC. For
example, the SEC estimated that it would cost a broker-dealer
approximately $270,404 ($167,904 in technology personnel costs and
$102,500 in hardware and software costs) to build a risk control
management system from scratch and that it would cost a broker-dealer
$39,401 ($27,984 for technology personnel and $11,517 for hardware and
software) to substantially upgrade an existing risk control
system.\636\ The SEC estimated that the total annual ongoing cost to
maintain an in-house risk control management system would be $47,300
per broker-dealer ($26,800 for technology personnel and $20,500 for
hardware and software).\637\ Finally, with respect to outsourcing such
controls, the SEC estimated that a broker-dealer would pay
approximately $8,000 per month ($96,000 annually) for a startup
contract.\638\ To be conservative, the SEC estimated the same amount
for an annual ongoing cost.\639\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\635\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61379 (January 19,
2010), 75 FR 4007 (January 26, 2010) (File No. S7-03-10).
\636\ See id. at 4022.
\637\ See id.
\638\ See id.
\639\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that in addition to the general requirements
of proposed Sec. 1.80 to implement pre-trade risk controls, order
cancellation systems and connectivity systems, Sec. 1.80 imposes
additional requirements relating to such controls. Regulation Sec.
1.80(a)(2) provides requirements as to the level at which pre-trade
risk controls should be set and Sec. 1.80(a)(3) requires that natural
person monitors be promptly alerted when such parameters are breached.
The Commission assumes
[[Page 78899]]
that such requirements impose no additional costs or are part of the
costs described above. Establishing particular parameters of controls
is a necessary part of establishing and implementing any control. In
addition, as discussed below, the Commission assumes that it is already
industry practice to employ a natural person to test and monitor a
firm's algorithmic trading systems. Accordingly, requiring that natural
person monitors at the AT Person be alerted with pre-trade risk control
parameters are breached should not impose additional costs on AT
Persons.
Proposed Sec. 1.80(d) requires each AT Person, prior to its
initial use of Algorithmic Trading, to submit a message or order to a
DCM's trading platform, must notify its clearing member FCM and the DCM
on which it will be trading that it will engage in Algorithmic Trading.
Subject to consideration of relevant comments, the Commission
preliminarily believes that this requirement of this initial
notification to clearing firms and DCMs will impose minimal or no costs
on AT Persons. The Commission welcomes comment on the costs, if any, of
this notification requirement.
Proposed Sec. 1.80(e) requires AT Persons to implement a DCM's
self-trade prevention tools. The Commission's self-trade prevention
requirements are principally directed toward DCMs, in that Sec. 40.23
would require DCMs to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-
trade prevention tools. The Commission believes that DCMs would incur
the costs of developing or upgrading such tools as necessary to comply
with Sec. 40.23. To the extent that AT Persons are not already
complying with DCM-provided self-trade prevention tools already used in
industry, the Commission believes that the cost to an AT Person in
calibrating or otherwise applying such a tool would be a minimal,
involving provision of the relevant account or other necessary
information in the DCM in order to apply the tool. The Commission
welcomes comment on the costs, if any, to an AT Person in complying
with Sec. 1.80(e).
Finally, proposed Sec. 1.80(f) requires that each AT Person shall
periodically review its compliance with Sec. 1.80 to determine whether
it has effectively implemented sufficient measures reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. AT Persons must take prompt
action to document and remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures. The Commission believes that this periodic review is
necessary to comply with Sec. 1.83(a), which, as discussed below,
requires AT Persons to annually submit reports regarding their pre-
trade risk controls required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80(a) and
copies of the written policies and procedures developed to comply with
Sec. 1.81(a) and (c) to each DCM on which they operate. Accordingly,
the Commission believes that articulating such requirement explicitly
in the final subsection of this rule will not engender costs separate
from those previously discussed and considered.
The Commission emphasizes that costs for each AT Person will vary.
Finally, the Commission notes that, as indicated above, these estimates
may overstate the actual costs to the industry. Based on Concept
Release comments, best practices issued by industry and regulatory
organizations, as well as existing regulations, the Commission believes
that all or most AT Persons are already using the pre-trade and other
risk controls required by proposed Sec. 1.80. The Commission welcomes
public comment on the above analysis and estimates.
ii. Sec. 1.80 Benefits--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (AT Persons)
Proposed Sec. 1.80 should benefit market participants by
mitigating credit, market, and operational risks faced by trading
firms. Standardization of pre-trade and other risk controls is
particularly critical in the context of potential outlier trading firms
that have chosen not to implement appropriate risk controls in the
absence of regulation. As noted above (for example, with respect to the
Knight Capital incident), a technological malfunction at such a single
firm can have far-reaching impact across markets and market
participants. Credit, market and operational risks are mitigated
through ensuring that each order accurately reflects the intentions of
the participant and does not otherwise violate the CEA or Commission
regulations. The pre-trade and other risk controls required by proposed
Sec. 1.80 should improve both price efficiency and price transparency
in Commission-regulated markets by reducing the chances of large,
unintended orders moving prices away from appropriate market values.
Absent protections, unintended and erroneous trades resulting from a
malfunctioning trading system could potentially expose not just the
original market participant, but any participant exposed to the given
market, to unexpected financial burdens as a result of price moves.
These burdens may include the financial impact on market participants
with open positions impacted by price moves, or market participants
with market orders in the order book. In addition to these losses, and
potentially uncertain trading positions, sudden, large unintentional
market activity can disrupt the efficiency, competitiveness and
financial integrity of the futures markets. Because much of the impact
of such unintended trades is independent of connection method, it is in
the individual trading firm's interest, and the interest of Commission-
regulated markets as a whole, to have all types of algorithmic trading
orders, regardless of access method, be subjected to sound risk
controls.
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed regulation Sec.
1.80 standardizes existing industry practices in this area, and does
not impose additional requirements beyond existing best practices that
most market participants satisfy. Accordingly, the Commission notes
that many of the benefits of Sec. 1.80 are already being realized.
This proposed rule, however, may serve to limit a ``race to the
bottom'' in which certain entities sacrifice effective risk controls in
order to minimize costs or increase the speed of trading. The proposed
rules, by standardizing the risk controls required to be used by firms,
would help ensure that the benefits of these risk controls are more
evenly distributed across a wide set of market participants, and reduce
the likelihood that an outlier firm without sufficient risk controls
causes significant market disruption.
Incidents like the one involving Knight Capital highlight the
importance of using pre-trade and other risk control protections.
Specifically, an SEC investigation found that Knight Capital did not
have adequate safeguards in place to limit the risks posed by its
access to the markets, and, as a result, failed to prevent the entry of
millions of erroneous orders.\640\ Knight Capital also failed to
conduct adequate reviews of control effectiveness.\641\ The SEC charged
Knight Capital with multiple violations of the SEC's Market Access
Rule, which included failure to have adequate controls at a point
immediately prior to its submission of orders to the market, such as a
control to compare orders leaving the router with those entered.\642\
Knight also failed to adequately review its business activity in
connection with its market access to ensure the overall effectiveness
of its risk management controls and supervisory procedures.\643\
[[Page 78900]]
As a result of these failures, the SEC found that Knight put not only
themselves, but the markets in general, at risk. The Commission views
prevention of disruptive events like that involving Knight Capital as
an important benefit of Sec. 1.80 that impacts all market participants
and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\640\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
\641\ See id.
\642\ See id.
\643\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By requiring, and standardizing, certain risk controls implemented
by traders and trading firms, the Commission intends to foster a level
playing field across market participants, and avoid a situation where
firms with stronger risk control systems face speed disadvantages. The
Commission also recognizes that in the absence of a rule requiring
implementation of certain risk controls, some market participants may
be compelled by competitive and economic pressures to submit orders, or
allow the submission of orders, without appropriate controls to
safeguard against the risks of a malfunctioning algorithm. The race for
speed may reduce the incentive to add risk controls, and the absence of
risk controls can magnify the effect, and cost, of errors in the high
speed trading environment. In addition, the mitigation of significant
system risks should help ensure market integrity and provide the
investing public with greater confidence that all transactions, along
with the resulting price movements, are intentional and bona fide.
Regulation AT should promote investor confidence as well as enhance the
fair and efficient operation of the markets.
The Commission believes that market participants, in particular
those currently using risk controls, may face a number of disadvantages
due to the fact that risk controls for algorithmic trading are not
standardized, and that these disadvantages may discourage market
participants from providing liquidity. Market participants may be
concerned about their exposure to potential losses due to Algorithmic
Trading events and various market abuses in the absence of standardized
risk controls and other measures. Market participants may also be
concerned whether market orders and trades in fact reflect the intent
of the market participants submitting them. The Commission thus
expects, subject to consideration of comments, that standardization of
risk control requirements for all AT Persons via Regulation AT will
reduce such costs and trading disincentives for market participants
arising from Algorithmic Trading events and market abuses. The
Commission also expects, subject to consideration of comments, that
standardization will reduce unexpected costs that market participants
currently experience when unfavorable price movements occur due to the
behavior of another market participant's faulty algorithm. As a result,
the Commission, subject to consideration of comments, views the
proposed standardized risk controls as a tool likely to encourage AT
Persons and other market participants to provide additional liquidity,
mitigating the potential negative impact on market liquidity from
certain costs associated with Regulation AT, as previously discussed in
section (i) above.
iii. Sec. 1.81 Costs--Development, Testing and Supervision of
Algorithmic Systems (AT Persons)
The Commission believes that most market participants and DCMs have
implemented controls regarding the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading systems, in light of the numerous best practices
and regulatory requirements promulgated in this area. For this fully
compliant majority, the codification of such standards in proposed
Sec. 1.81 should not engender additional costs. For any market
participants that are not fully compliant, some additional costs may be
expected. These efforts include the FIA PTG's November 2010
``Recommendations for Risk Controls for Trading Firms,'' FIA's March
2012 ``Software Development and Change Management Recommendations,''
ESMA and MiFID II guidelines and directives on the development and
testing of algorithmic systems, SEC Regulation SCI requirements on the
development, testing, and monitoring of SCI systems, FINRA's March 2015
Notice 15-09 on effective supervision and control practices for market
participants that use algorithmic trading strategies in the equities
market, IOSCO's April 2015 Consultation Report, summarizing best
practices that should be considered by trading venues when developing
and implementing risk mitigation mechanisms, and the Senior Supervisors
Group (SSG) April 2015 Algorithmic Trading Briefing Note, which
described how large financial institutions currently monitor and
control for the risks associated with algorithmic trading during the
trading day.
The Commission has calculated an estimated maximum cost to an AT
Person that has not implemented any of the design, testing, and
supervision standards required by proposed Sec. 1.81 as further
described below. To the extent an AT Person is already in partial
compliance with Sec. 1.81, as the Commission believes many are likely
to be, their costs should be less than the maximum described.
Development and Testing. The Commission estimates that an AT Person
that has not implemented any of the requirements of proposed Sec.
1.81(a) (development and testing of Algorithmic Trading Systems) would
incur a total cost of $349,865 to implement these requirements. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 1,707
hours (1,707 x $70 = $119,490); 2 Business Analysts, working for a
combined 853 hours (853 x $52 = $44,356); 3 Testers, working for a
combined 2,347 hours (2,347 x $52 = $122,044); and 2 Developers,
working for a combined 853 hours (853 x $75 = $63,975).\644\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\644\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring. The Commission estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of proposed Sec. 1.81(b)
(monitoring of Algorithmic Trading Systems) would incur a total cost of
$196,560 to implement these requirements. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 2,080 hours (2,080
x $57 = $118,560); and 1 Business Analyst, working for 1,500 hours
(1,500 x $52 = $78,000).\645\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\645\ As discussed above, the Commission notes that staff
persons who are responsible for monitoring the trading of other AT
Person staff should not simultaneously be actively engaged in
trading. The Commission believes that it would not be possible to
adequately and consistently monitor trading of other AT Person staff
while engaged in trading activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance. The Commission estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of proposed Sec. 1.81(c)
(compliance of Algorithmic Trading Systems) would incur a total cost of
$174,935 to implement these requirements. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 853 hours (853 x $70 =
$59,710); 2 Business Analysts, working for a combined 427 hours (427 x
$52 = $22,204); 3 Testers, working for a combined 1,173 hours (1,173 x
$52 = $60,996); and 2 Developers, working for a combined 427 hours (427
x $75 = $32,025).
Designation and Training of Staff. The Commission estimates that an
AT Person that has not implemented any of the requirements of proposed
Sec. 1.81(d) (designation and training of Algorithmic Trading staff)
would incur a total cost of $101,600 to implement these requirements.
This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist,
working for 500 hours (500 x $57 = $28,500); 1 Project Manager, working
for 500 hours (500 x $70 = $35,000); 1 Developer, working for 300 hours
(300 x $75 = $22,500); and 1
[[Page 78901]]
Business Analyst, working for 300 hours (300 x $52 = $15,600).
Notwithstanding these estimates, the Commission believes that
proposed Sec. 1.81 standardizes existing industry practices in this
area, but does not impose additional requirements that are not already
followed by the majority of market participants. As a result, subject
to consideration of relevant comments, the Commission preliminarily
believes that regulation Sec. 1.81 would not impose additional costs
on the majority of AT Persons and that the costs imposed on AT Persons
that are in partial compliance with Sec. 1.81 will be less than the
amounts described above.
iv. Sec. 1.81 Benefits--Development, Testing and Supervision of
Algorithmic Systems (AT Persons)
The rules proposed with respect to the design, testing, and
supervision of Algorithmic Trading systems are intended to further
mitigate the risk of Algorithmic Trading. In their response to the
Concept Release, IATP noted that, out of all the safeguards discussing
in the Release, they believed ATS testing had the greatest potential to
reduce market disruptions.\646\ By standardizing principles in this
area, Regulation AT is intended to reduce the risk of disorderly
trading, including the risk that orders will be unintentionally sent
into the marketplace by a poorly designed or insufficiently supervised
algorithm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\646\ IATP at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the regulations proposed under Sec. 1.81 may reduce
the risk of market disruptions such as the 2012 incident involving
Knight Capital. The SEC later concluded that, among other failures,
Knight Capital did not have adequate controls and procedures for code
deployment and testing for its order router, did not have sufficient
controls and written procedures to guide employees' responses to
significant technological and compliance incidents, and did not have an
adequate written description of its risk management controls.\647\
Proposed Sec. 1.81 requires written policies and procedures relating
to the following: Testing of all Algorithmic Trading code and relates
systems and any changes to such code and systems prior to their
implementation; regular stress tests of ATSs to verify their ability to
operate in the manner intended under a variety of market conditions; a
plan of internal coordination and communication between compliance
staff of the AT Person and staff of the AT Person responsible for
Algorithmic Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading design, changes,
testing, and controls; and procedures for documenting the strategy and
design of proprietary Algorithmic Trading software used by an AT
Person, among other controls. The standardization of such written
policies and procedures may make disruptive events like the Knight
Capital incident less likely in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\647\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed regulation Sec.
1.81 standardizes existing industry practices in this area, and does
not impose additional requirements that are not already followed by the
majority of market participants. Accordingly, the Commission notes that
many of the benefits of Sec. 1.81 are already being realized. The
proposed rule would help ensure that the benefits of the required
testing and supervision will be fully realized and sustained into the
future.
v. Sec. 170.19 Costs--RFA Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems (RFAs)
Proposed Sec. 170.19 requires an RFA to establish and maintain a
program for the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, the protection of the public interest, and perfecting the
mechanisms of trading on designated contract markets through membership
rules, as deemed appropriate by the RFA, requiring: (1) Pre-trade risk
controls and other measures for ATSs; (2) standards for the
development, testing, monitoring, and compliance of ATSs; (3)
designation and training of algorithmic trading staff; and (4)
operational risk management standards for clearing member FCMs with
respect to customer orders originating with algorithmic trading
systems.
Proposed Sec. 170.19 will impose costs on an RFA to establish and
maintain a program as described in the rule. However, RFAs would only
be required to adopt rules as they deem appropriate; any rulemaking
pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19 would be entirely at the discretion
of the RFA. The Commission believes that the costs to an RFA of
proposed Sec. 170.19 cannot reasonably be quantified given RFAs'
complete discretion to adopt many, several, or no rules in the
foreseeable future pursuant to Sec. 170.19. In addition, relevant
rulemaking by an RFA is likely to be episodic, as circumstances
warranting rulemaking will typically not arise on an annual basis. With
those caveats, however, for purposes of this analysis and as a basis
for comment, the Commission is using its own experience to quantify the
potential costs of proposed Sec. 170.19 to an RFA on those occasions
when it determines to adopt rules. For purposes of this exercise, the
Commission anticipates that an RFA could potentially seek to codify
industry best practices in order to establish a baseline of regulatory
standardization around such practices.
The Commission believes that the work of adopting these rules would
fall primarily to legal, information technology, and compliance staff
within an RFA. It estimates 450 hours of burden for an RFA to adopt
rules. This includes analysis of existing industry best practices,
consultation with market participants, drafting rules, further
consultations, including potentially with Commission staff, and
adoption of final rules. The Commission estimates a total cost of
$34,200 for these efforts. This cost is broken down as follows: 2
Compliance Attorneys, working for a combined 150 hours (150 hours x $96
per hour = $14,400); 2 Developers, working for a combined 150 hours
(150 hours x $75 per hour = $11,250); and 2 Senior Compliance
Specialists, working for a combined 150 hours (150 hours x $57 per hour
= $8,550), for a total cost of $34,200.\648\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\648\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that an RFA, after familiarizing itself with
relevant best practices, may determine that additional membership rules
pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19 are unnecessary. Under those
circumstances, elements of the work described above would not be
required, and the total estimated cost of $34,200 would not be
incurred. The Commission believes, for example, that Compliance
Attorneys, Developers, and Senior Compliance Specialists could analyze
best practices and determine that additional membership rules are not
required after a combined 150 hours of work (50 hours of work for each
professional role). The Commission estimates a total cost of $11,400
for these efforts. This cost is broken down as follows: 2 Compliance
Attorneys, working for a combined 50 hours (50 hours x $96 per hour =
$4,800); 2 Developers, working for a combined 40 hours (50 hours x $75
per hour = $3,750); and 2 Senior Compliance Specialists, working for a
combined 50 hours (50 hours x $57 per hour = $2,850), for a total cost
of $11,400.\649\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\649\ In this regard, the Commission estimates that total costs
for an RFA could range between $11,400 and $34,200 based on the
amount of work invested before the RFA determined not to pursue
additional membership rules pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78902]]
vi. Sec. 170.19 Benefits--RFA Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems (RFAs)
The Commission believes that proposed Sec. 170.19, by requiring
RFAs to establish and maintain a program addressing the automated
trading and algorithmic trading systems of its members, will help to
advance the goals described in Sec. 170.19: Prevention of fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, the protection of the public
interest, and perfecting the mechanisms of trading on designated
contract markets.
RFAs serve a vital regulatory function as frontline regulators of
their members, which would include all AT Persons pursuant to proposed
Sec. 170.18. RFAs promulgate binding membership rules and can
supplement Commission rules as appropriate. RFAs can also operate
examination programs to monitor members' compliance with association
rules, and can sanction members for non-compliance. The Commission
believes that because RFAs have these and other tools at their
disposal, RFAs are well-positioned to address rules in areas
experiencing rapid evolution in market practices and technologies,
including particularly Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.
The Commission believes that the structure of proposed Sec. Sec.
1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 makes it particularly appropriate to give RFAs a
discretionary role in augmenting the requirements of Regulation AT for
AT Persons. Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 address only a
subset of potentially responsive risk controls and other measures. Each
AT Person remains free to adopt additional safeguards reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event given its trading
strategies, technologies, or the markets in which it participates. The
proposed rules also provide a degree of flexibility regarding the
design, implementation, or calibration of those pre-trade risk control
or other measures that are specifically required in Sec. Sec. 1.80,
1.81, and 1.82, again allowing each AT Person to adapt the rules to its
own trading and technology. Given the degree of flexibility embedded in
these rules, RFAs will be well positioned to work with their member AT
Persons to develop standards that are appropriate to each AT Person's
specific trading approach and technology, and that best serve to
promote the goals described in Sec. 170.19.
vii. Sec. 170.18 Costs--AT Person Membership in a Registered Futures
Association (AT Persons)
Proposed Sec. 170.18 requires each registrant that is an AT Person
that is not otherwise required to be a member of an RFA pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to become and remain a member of
at least one RFA that provides for the membership of such registrant,
unless no such futures association is so registered. Proposed Sec.
170.18 would only affect those entities that are not required to become
members of an RFA pursuant to Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17.
Floor brokers and floor traders, who have historically been overseen by
the DCMs on which they operate, are not required by Sec. Sec. 170.15,
170.16, or 170.17 to become members of an RFA and would likely be the
entities impacted by proposed regulation 170.18. The new membership
requirements would require affected entities to pay initial and annual
NFA membership dues.
NFA charges each FCM registrant $5,625 in initial membership dues
and $5,625 per year for continuing NFA membership where NFA is the SRO.
The Commission estimates that membership dues for AT Person floor
traders or floor brokers may also be $5,625, but that actual dues may
be different than this. This is because while NFA will generally have
more limited oversight responsibilities for AT Person floor traders and
floor brokers, it may pass on the costs of proposed Sec. 170.19 to AT
Person members in the form of higher dues.\650\ The Commission
estimates that there will be approximately 100 entities that are AT
Persons and will register as floor traders under the new registration
requirements of Sec. 1.3(x)(3). It is likely that these 100 entities
will be the only entities that will be required to become members of an
RFA pursuant to proposed regulation 170.18. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that entities affected by proposed regulation 170.18 will
incur a total initial cost of about $562,500 for NFA membership dues
(about $5,625 in annual membership dues per registrant, paid each year
by 100 registrants) and a total annual cost of about $562,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\650\ Currently, while floor traders and floor brokers register
with the NFA, they do not become NFA members, and, thus, do not pay
membership dues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also preliminarily believes that the rule may impose
certain compliance costs on affected entities. However, such costs
should not be substantially different from or significantly exceed the
costs associated with current Commission regulations and proposed
Regulation AT generally. As discussed above, proposed Sec. 170.18 will
likely only affect those floor traders that were required to register
with the Commission pursuant to Sec. 1.3(x)(3). NFA, as the only
currently registered RFA, has not to date promulgated any rules
specific to floor traders or AT Persons. As a result, the only current
NFA membership rules that these entities would be required to follow
are those rules that are generally applicable to all NFA members. Many
of these rules are general in nature and mirror current Commission
regulations or those proposed in Regulation AT. Accordingly, these
entities would not incur any additional general, ongoing compliance
costs as a result of NFA membership.
viii. Sec. 170.18 Benefits--AT Person Membership in a Registered
Futures Association (AT Persons)
Because entities that are not members of an RFA are not bound by
the rules of the RFA, the Commission is proposing Sec. 170.18 to
ensure that all AT Persons (including newly registered floor traders)
would become members of an RFA and would therefore be subject to any
membership rules promulgated by such RFA. Regulation AT proposes to
establish a role for RFAs in setting the framework in which AT Persons
operate. Proposed Sec. 170.19, which is described in greater detail
above, requires an RFA to adopt rules, as deemed appropriate by the
RFA, requiring (i) pre-trade risk controls for ATSs; (ii) standards for
the development, testing, monitoring and compliance of ATSs; (iii)
designation and training of algorithmic trading staff; and (iv)
operational risk management standards for clearing member FCMs with
respect to customer orders originating with ATSs. The benefits of these
risk controls and other measures are described in more detail
throughout this section.\651\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\651\ See, e.g., the discussion of benefits related to proposed
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. Sec. 1.82 Costs--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (FCMs)
Based on Concept Release comments, best practices documents issued
by industry or regulatory organizations, as well as existing
regulations, the Commission believes that clearing member FCMs already
implement the specifically-enumerated pre-trade and other risk controls
required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.82. Specifically, in its survey
of FCMs, FIA found that all responding firms used message and execution
throttles, maximum order sizes, price collars, and order
[[Page 78903]]
cancellation capabilities, including a kill switch, either administered
internally or at the exchange level.\652\ FIA also indicated that most
DCMs provide tools to allow the FCM to set pre-trade controls for their
customers, which are a prerequisite for an FCM to provide direct access
to a market participant without routing orders through the FCM's
infrastructure.\653\ Two exchanges commented that their kill switch
functionality allows clearing firms to cancel orders.\654\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\652\ FIA at 60.
\653\ FIA at 13. Two exchanges commented that they provide
technology allowing clearing members to set maximum order size
limits. See CME at 23-24; CFE at 11.
\654\ CME at 23-24; CFE 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that these types of controls have been subject
of industry best practices for years. For example, FIA's Market Access
Risk Management Recommendations from 2010 recommended, among other
things, that a clearing firm providing direct access to a market should
implement maximum quantity limits, price banding or dynamic price
limits and exchange-provided order cancellation capabilities.\655\ The
ESMA Guidelines from 2012 recommended that firms providing direct
market access or sponsored access (as such terms are defined by ESMA)
\656\ must, among other things, implement controls that limit messaging
traffic and establish price and size parameters.\657\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\655\ FIA Market Access Working Group, ``Market Access Risk
Management Recommendations,'' (April 2010) at 8-10.
\656\ ESMA defines direct market access as an investment firm's
client transmitting orders to a trading platform using the
investment firm's infrastructure, and sponsored access as a client
transmitting orders directly to a trading platform without such
orders passing through the investment firm's infrastructure. See
ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 4-5.
\657\ See id. at 14-15, 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that there could be costs
associated with implementation of the risk controls in Sec. 1.82.
Specifically, for purposes of Direct Electronic Access (DEA), defined
in proposed Sec. 1.3(yyyy), if clearing members do not already use
DCM-provided systems, they will need to implement additional DCM-
provided systems. For non-DEA orders, clearing firms will need to
internally develop such controls from scratch, upgrade existing
systems, or purchase a risk management solution from an outside vendor.
Each approach potentially has initial costs and annual ongoing costs,
although the costs of upgrading and implementing the required systems
would vary considerably based on current controls and procedures, as
well as particular business models. For example, the needs of a
clearing member will vary based on its current systems and controls in
place, the comprehensiveness of its controls and procedures, the types
of trading strategies its customers use, and the volume and speed of
its customers' trading activity.
Estimate-DEA Orders, Update to Controls. The Commission also
estimated costs to a clearing member that already uses DCM-provided
controls with respect to DEA orders and only needs to assess and update
its implementation in order to ensure it fully complies with Sec.
1.82. The Commission assumed that message handling already exists and
little is needed to update the clearing member's systems in order to
comply with Sec. 1.82. As noted above with respect to AT Persons and
compliance with Sec. 1.80, the Commission believes that upgrading
existing systems to comply with Sec. 1.82 would involve evaluating
current risk control systems to determine compliance with new
regulatory requirements; modifying existing code or creating new code
to address gaps between current risk control systems and new regulatory
requirements; and testing current systems and new code to verify
correct operation and compliance. The Commission estimates that the
cost for a clearing member to assess and update its implementation of
controls required by Sec. 1.82 is $49,800. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 200 hours (200 x $70 per hour =
$14,000); 1 Business Analyst, working for 200 hours (200 x $52 per hour
= $10,400); 1 Tester, working for 200 hours (200 x $52 per hour =
$10,400); and 1 Developer, working for 200 hours (200 x $75 per hour =
$15,000). The 57 clearing members that will be subject to Sec. 1.82
would therefore incur a total one-time cost of $2,838,600 (57 x
$49,800) to update their controls.\658\ The Commission estimates that
if a clearing member already implements at least some of the DCM-
provided controls required by Sec. 1.82, there will be no additional
annual costs to maintain the modifications required to bring the
clearing member's systems into compliance with Sec. 1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\658\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate-Non-DEA Orders, Update to Controls. The Commission also
estimated costs to clearing members to comply with Sec. 1.82's
requirements with respect to non-DEA orders assuming that the clearing
member already has the pre-trade and other risk controls in place, and
must only update the controls to ensure that they comply with the
regulation. The Commission estimates that the cost for a clearing
member to assess and update its implementation of such controls is
$159,360. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project Manager,
working for 640 hours (640 x $70 per hour = $44,800); 1 Business
Analyst, working for 640 hours (640 x $52 per hour = $33,280); 1
Tester, working for 640 hours (640 x $52 per hour = $33,280); and 1
Developer, working for 640 hours (640 x $75 per hour = $48,000). The 57
clearing members that will be subject to Sec. 1.82 would therefore
incur a total one-time cost of $9,083,520 (57 x $159,360) to update
their controls.\659\ The Commission estimates that if a clearing member
already implements at least some of the DCM-provided controls required
by Sec. 1.82, there will be no additional annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the clearing member's systems into
compliance with Sec. 1.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\659\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission emphasizes that costs listed above are estimates,
and it welcomes comment on their accuracy. The Commission further
emphasizes that the costs for each clearing member will vary. Finally,
the Commission notes that, as indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to the industry. Based on Concept Release
comments, best practices issued by industry and regulatory
organizations, as well as existing regulations, the Commission believes
that clearing members are largely already using the pre-trade and other
risk controls required by Sec. 1.82.
x. Sec. 1.82 Benefits--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (FCMs)
The Commission notes that many of the benefits discussed above with
respect to pre-trade and other risk controls required of trading firms
pursuant to Sec. 1.80 also apply with respect to the benefits of
controls that FCMs must implement pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.82.
Specifically, requiring such controls contributes to orderly markets by
preventing orders that are outside of pre-determined parameters and
ensuring a level-playing field among clearing members. The benefits
also include allowing clearing members to have control over the trading
flow of their customers, regardless of their customers' method of
access--DEA or non-DEA.
In addition, given that different entities have differing
information about the trading activities of their customers/
[[Page 78904]]
users, identification of unintended market behavior may be easier for
certain entity types, such as trading firms. For example, with respect
to trading firms that mostly trade through a single clearing member,
but across a disparate set of products, these metrics may be more
easily calculated at the FCM than at the DCM. To protect against the
broadest set of errors, there are benefits to implementing risk
controls at multiple points in the order chain, including the FCM.
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed Sec. 1.82
standardizes existing industry practices in this area, and some of the
requirements are already followed by the majority of clearing members.
Accordingly, the Commission notes that many of the benefits of Sec.
1.82 are already being realized. This proposed rule may serve to limit
a ``race to the bottom'' in which some entities sacrifice effective
risk controls in order to minimize costs or increase the speed of
trading. Thus, the proposed rule would help ensure that the benefits of
the required risk controls will be fully realized.
xi. Sec. 1.83 Costs--AT Persons and FCM Clearing Members Must Submit
Compliance Reports and Maintain Certain Books and Records
Proposed Sec. 1.83 would require AT Persons and FCMs that are
clearing members for AT Persons to annually submit reports regarding
compliance with Sec. 1.80(a) and Sec. 1.82(a)(1), respectively, to
each DCM on which they operate. The reports prepared by AT Persons
would have descriptions of the AT Person's pre-trade risk controls as
required by proposed Sec. 1.80(a). The reports prepared by FCMs that
are clearing members for AT Persons would have a description of the
FCM's program for establishing and maintaining the pre-trade risk
controls required by proposed Sec. 1.82(a)(1) for its AT Persons at
the DCM. The reports would also be required to include a certification
by the chief executive officer or chief compliance officer of the AT
Person or clearing member FCM, as applicable, that, to the best of his
or her knowledge and reasonable belief, the information contained in
the report is accurate and complete.
In addition, proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) would require AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs for AT Persons to keep and provide
upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their compliance with
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). The Commission is also proposing pursuant to Sec.
40.22(d) that DCMs must require each AT Person to keep and provide to
the DCM books and records regarding the AT Person's compliance with all
Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 requirements, and each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM books and records regarding such clearing
member FCM's compliance with all Sec. 1.82 requirements. The proposed
recordkeeping requirements will cause AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs to incur costs, as discussed below.
AT Person Compliance Reports. AT Persons and FCMs that are clearing
members of AT Persons will incur the cost of annually preparing and
submitting the reports to their DCMs, as well as the written policies
and procedures developed to comply with Sec. 1.81(a) and (c). The
Commission estimates that an AT Person will incur a total annual cost
of $4,240 to draft the report and submit the policies and procedures as
required by Sec. 1.83(a). This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 50 hours (50 x $57 per hour =
$2,850) and 1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for 10 hours (10 x $139
per hour = $1,390) for a total cost of $4,240 per year. The
approximately 420 AT Persons to which Sec. 1.83(a) would apply would
therefore incur a total annual cost of $1,780,800 (420 x $4,240) to
prepare and submit the report and written policies and procedures
required by Sec. 1.83(a).
Clearing Member FCM Compliance Reports. The Commission further
estimates that an FCM will incur a total cost annually of $7,090 to
draft the report required by Sec. 1.83(b). This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 100 hours (100 x
$57 per hour = $5,700) and 1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for 10
hours (10 x $139 per hour = $1,390), for a total cost of $7,090 per
year. The 57 FCMs to which Sec. 1.83(b) would apply would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $404,130 (57 x $7,090) to prepare and
submit the report required by Sec. 1.83(b).
AT Person and Clearing Member FCM Retention of Books and Records.
As discussed above, the Commission believes that AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs already implement the risk controls, testing
standards and other measures that would be required pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82. Retention of records relating to such
measures is prudent business practice and the Commission anticipates
that many AT Persons and clearing member FCMs already maintain some
form of these records in the ordinary course of their business.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs will adapt their current infrastructure to accommodate new
DCM rules relating to recordkeeping, and AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs will not have substantial expenditures related to new
recordkeeping technology or re-programming existing recordkeeping
technology. The Commission expects that additional expenditure related
to Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) recordkeeping requirements would be limited to
the drafting and maintenance of recordkeeping policies and procedures
by in-house counsel and programmer burden hours associated with
recordkeeping technology improvements, as well as annual costs in
ensuring that recordkeeping policies and procedures and related
technology comply with DCM rules. As noted below, with respect to Sec.
40.22(e), the Commission estimates that a DCM would find it necessary
to review the books and records of approximately 10% of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs on an annual basis. The production of such records
would result in additional burden hours by AT Person and clearing
member FCM in-house counsel, a consideration which the Commission
included in its annual cost estimates below.
AT Person Recordkeeping Costs. The Commission estimates that, on an
initial basis, an AT Person will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft and
update recordkeeping policies and procedures and make technology
improvements to recordkeeping infrastructure. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 30 hours (30 x $96 =
$2,880); and 1 Developer, working for 30 hours (30 x $75 = $2,250). The
420 AT Persons would therefore incur a total initial cost of $2,154,600
(420 x $5,130).
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, an AT Person
will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure continued compliance with DCM
recordkeeping rules relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance, including the
updating of policies and procedures and technology infrastructure, and
in respond to DCM record requests. This cost is broken down as follows:
1 Compliance Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 x $96 = $1,920); and 1
Developer, working for 10 hours (10 x $75 = $750). The 420 AT Persons
would therefore incur a total annual cost of $1,121,400 (420 x $2,670).
Clearing Member FCM Recordkeeping Costs. The Commission estimates
that, on an initial basis, a clearing member FCM will incur a cost of
$5,130 to draft and update recordkeeping policies and procedures and
make technology improvements to recordkeeping
[[Page 78905]]
infrastructure. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 30 hours (30 x $96 = $2,880); and 1 Developer,
working for 30 hours (30 x $75 = $2,250). The 57 clearing member FCMs
would therefore incur a total initial cost of $292,410 (57 x $5,130).
The Commission estimates that that DCM rules pursuant to proposed
Sec. 40.22(d) requiring clearing member FCMs to keep and provide books
and records relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance will result in annual
costs of 30 hours of burden per clearing member FCM, and 1,710 burden
hours in total. The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a clearing
member FCM will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure continued compliance
with DCM recordkeeping rules relating to Sec. 1.82 compliance,
including the updating of policies and procedures and technology
infrastructure, and in respond to DCM record requests. This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 20 hours (20
x $96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working for 10 hours (10 x $75 =
$750). The 57 clearing member FCMs would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $152,190 (57 x $2,670).
As discussed further in the consideration of Sec. 15(a) factors
below, the Commission also acknowledges that the compliance
requirements of Regulation AT could have adverse effects on small
clearing firms. Any compliance costs that go beyond existing industry
practice could potentially cause some FCMs to scale back operation.
Thus the rule has some potential to contribute to increased
concentration among clearing firms, i.e., fewer competing clearing
firms.
The Commission emphasizes that costs listed above are estimates,
and it welcomes comment on their accuracy. The Commission further
emphasizes that the costs for each AT Person and each FCM will vary.
xii. Sec. 1.83 Benefits--AT Persons and FCM Clearing Members Must
Submit Compliance Reports and Maintain Certain Books and Records
Proposed Sec. 1.83 would require AT Persons and FCMs that are
clearing members for AT Persons to annually submit reports regarding
compliance with Sec. 1.80(a) and Sec. 1.82(a)(1), respectively, to
each DCM on which they operate. Proposed Sec. 1.83(c) and (d) would
require AT Persons and clearing member FCMs, respectively, to keep and
provide upon request to DCMs books and records regarding their
compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and Sec.
1.82 (for clearing member FCMs). The reports and recordkeeping proposed
by Sec. 1.83, and the review program proposed by Sec. 40.22, will
enable DCMs to have a clearer understanding of the pre-trade risk
controls of all AT Persons that are engaged in Algorithmic Trading on
such DCM. The proposed reports will also enable DCMs to set up the
review program required by Sec. 40.22. The review program would
improve the standardization of market participants' pre-trade risk
controls. The standardization of such systems and procedures should
further reduce the risk that a market participant will engage in
disorderly trading due to inadequate pre-trade risk controls.
xiii. Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) Costs--DCMs Must Provide Controls to FCMs
As noted above with respect to proposed Sec. 1.82, based on
Concept Release comments, best practices documents issued by industry
or regulatory organizations, as well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that most DCMs already have established the
specifically-enumerated pre-trade and other risk controls for use by
clearing members that would be required pursuant to revised Sec.
38.255. The Commission also notes that existing Sec. 38.607 requires
that DCMs that permit direct electronic access must have in place
effective systems and controls reasonably designed to facilitate an
FCM's management of financial risk, such as automated pre-trade
controls that enable member FCMs to implement appropriate financial
risk limits. Accordingly, even if DCMs do not currently and voluntarily
implement the specific controls addressing the risks of Algorithmic
Trading proposed under Sec. 38.255(b), they should already have in
place similar systems addressing FCMs' management of financial risk
pursuant to existing Sec. 38.607.
Estimate-Upgrade of Controls. With respect to a DCM that already
has the controls required by Sec. 38.255(b) in place, and only needs
to update them to meet regulatory requirements (i.e., evaluate current
systems, modify or create new code, and test systems), the Commission
estimates that the cost to the DCM would be $155,520. This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 480 hours (480 x
$70 per hour = $33,600); 1 Business Analyst, working for 480 hours (480
x $52 per hour = $24,960); 1 Tester, working for 480 hours (480 x $52
per hour = $24,960); and 2 Developers, working for a combined 960 hours
(960 x $75 per hour = $72,000). Commission staff estimates that if a
DCM already has at least some of the controls required by Sec.
38.255(b), there will be no additional annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the systems into compliance with this
regulation.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the 15 DCMs that will be
subject to Sec. 38.255(b) would therefore incur a total one-time cost
of $2,332,800 (15 x $155,520) to update their controls.
The Commission believes that the above estimates would change if a
DCM must upgrade its systems in order to comply with Sec. 40.20
(discussed below). Under such circumstances, where the DCM is already
upgrading controls for its own implementation pursuant to Sec. 40.20,
total cost to upgrade controls for use by FCMs pursuant to Sec. 38.255
should decrease. The controls required by Sec. 40.20 should include
interfaces to support external interactions and expanding them to
support FCMs should not have additional costs.
The Commission emphasizes that costs listed above are estimates,
and it welcomes comment on their accuracy. The Commission further
emphasizes that the costs for each DCM will vary. Finally, the
Commission notes that, as indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to DCMs. Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices issued by industry and regulatory organizations, as well
as existing regulations, the Commission believes that DCMs have largely
already established and are providing to FCMs the pre-trade and other
risk controls required by Sec. 38.255(b).
xiv. Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) Benefits--DCMs Must Provide Controls in
DEA Context
An additional benefit to Regulation AT is the reduction of system
risk in the context of Direct Electronic Access. As noted above, the
Commission believes that Algorithmic Trading creates risks regardless
of the method of access. Because of this, the Commission seeks to
ensure that all types of trading, including through DEA, is subject to
pre-trade and other risk controls. The requirements of proposed Sec.
38.255(b) specifically address the structure of DEA, in which orders
submitted by an AT Person do not flow through the clearing member FCM's
infrastructure prior to submission to the DCM. Currently, credit risk
in the DEA context is addressed through clearing member FCM-implemented
controls provided by the DCM, as required pursuant to existing
regulations Sec. Sec. 38.607 and 1.73. Proposed Sec. 38.255(b) and
(c) follow a similar approach that would allow clearing members to have
control over the trading flow of their DEA customers
[[Page 78906]]
for purposes of addressing the operational risks of Algorithmic
Trading. Accordingly, Sec. 38.255(b) would contribute to orderly
markets by preventing orders that are outside of pre-determined
parameters and ensuring a level-playing field among clearing members.
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed regulations Sec.
38.255(b) and (c) standardize existing industry practices in this area,
and that many of the requirements are already followed by the majority
of DCMs. Accordingly, the Commission notes that many of the benefits of
Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) are already being realized. The proposed rule
would help ensure that the benefits of the required risk controls will
be fully realized across all DEA active participants and sustained in
the future.
xv. Sec. 40.20 Costs--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (DCMs)
Based on Concept Release comments, best practices documents issued
by industry or regulatory organizations, as well as existing
regulations, the Commission believes that most DCMs already implement
the specifically-enumerated pre-trade and other risk controls required
pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.20. In response to the Concept Release,
CME and CFE indicated that they implement message rate limits,\660\
order size limits, and price collar mechanisms.\661\ In addition, they
indicated that they provide an optional cancel-on-disconnect
functionality \662\ and kill switch tools.\663\ The Commission notes
that these types of controls have been subject of industry best
practices for years. For example, ESMA guidelines from 2012 recommended
that trading platforms implement, among other things, throttling limits
and controls filtering order price and quantity.\664\ In addition, the
CFTC TAC recommended in 2011 that exchanges implement, among other
things, message throttles, order quantity limits, price collars, and
order cancellation policies that allow clearing firms and clients to
opt for automatic cancellation of order upon disconnect and provide
clearing firms with a tool that allows them to view and cancel
orders.\665\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\660\ In addition, four commenters stated generally that many
exchanges have messaging rate limits in place. See TCL at 6; KCG at
4; MFA at 7; AIMA at 8.
\661\ CME at 8-9, 13-17; CME Appendix A-1, 3-4, 6; CFE at 5-8.
\662\ CME at 23-24, Appendix A-4; CFE at 9-10.
\663\ CME at 23-24.
\664\ ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 12-13.
\665\ CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34 at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Commission believes that most DCMs already implement the
controls required by Sec. 40.20, it acknowledges that there may be
DCMs that do not currently implement such controls, and those DCMs
would incur some costs to comply with this regulation. An initial
investment would be required to develop and implement processes
necessary for compliance, and ongoing costs would be incurred to
maintain such controls. The costs for each DCM will vary depending on
the degree to which its current practices are or are not in compliance,
as well as the procedures it selects and implements in order to comply.
In addition, as noted above with respect to Sec. 38.255(b) and (c),
the Commission acknowledges that Regulation AT could have adverse
effects on smaller DCMs. Any compliance costs that go beyond existing
industry practice could potentially cause some DCMs to cease or scale
back operation, and could potentially impact the entry of new DCMs.
Estimate--Upgrade of Controls. With respect to a DCM that already
has the controls required by proposed Sec. 40.20 in place, and only
needs to update them to meet regulatory requirements (i.e., evaluate
current systems, modify or create new code, and test systems), the
Commission estimates that the cost to the DCM would be $155,520. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project Manager, working for 480
hours (480 x $70 per hour = $33,600); 1 Business Analyst, working for
480 hours (480 x $52 per hour = $24,960); 1 Tester, working for 480
hours (480 x $52 per hour = $24,960); and 2 Developers, working for a
combined 960 hours (960 x $75 per hour = $72,000). The Commission
estimates that if a DCM already has at least some of the controls
required by Sec. 40.20, there will be no additional annual costs to
maintain the modifications required to bring the systems into
compliance with this regulation.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the 15 DCMs that will be
subject to Sec. 40.20 would therefore incur a total one-time cost of
$2,332,800 (15 x $155,520) to update their controls.
The Commission notes that a DCM can choose not to develop these
controls internally, but rather may purchase a solution from an outside
vendor (or another DCM) in order to comply with Sec. 40.20. The
Commission welcomes comments providing estimates concerning the cost
for a DCM to use technology solution from an outside party to comply
with this proposed regulation. In addition, as discussed above, the
Commission believes that the above estimates for Sec. 40.20 would
change if a DCM is simultaneously upgrading its systems in order to
comply with Sec. 38.255. Where the DCM is already upgrading controls
for FCM implementation pursuant to Sec. 38.255, the cost of upgrading
controls for its own implementation pursuant to Sec. 40.20 should
decrease.
The Commission emphasizes that costs listed above are estimates,
and it welcomes comment on their accuracy. The Commission further
emphasizes that the costs for each DCM will vary. Finally, the
Commission notes that, as indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to DCMs. Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices issued by industry and regulatory organizations, as well
as existing regulations, the Commission believes that DCMs are largely
already using the pre-trade and other risk controls required by Sec.
40.20.
xvi. Sec. 40.20 Benefits--Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls (DCMs)
The Commission believes that the pre-trade risk and order
management control requirements that DCMs must implement pursuant to
proposed Sec. 40.20, inasmuch as they are not currently implemented,
will contribute to a system-wide reduction in operational risk, and
will help standardize risk management practices across exchanges. These
enhanced risk management practices should help reduce unintended market
volatility and mitigate and prevent significant disruptive activity
caused by algorithmic trading malfunctions.
In addition, given that FCMs may have differing information about
the trading activities of their customers/users, a DCM may be better
able to identify unintended market behavior. For example, with respect
to a trading firm active in a single product and using multiple
clearing firms, identifying total order frequencies or inventory levels
may be more easily done at the market venue. To protect against the
broadest set of errors, there are benefits to implementing risk
controls at multiple points in the order chain, including the DCM.
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed Sec. 40.20
standardizes existing industry practices in this area, and that many of
the requirements are already followed by the majority of DCMs.
Accordingly, the Commission notes that many of the benefits of Sec.
40.20 are already being realized. The proposed rule would help ensure
that the benefits of the required risk controls will be fully realized
and sustained in the future.
[[Page 78907]]
xvii. Sec. 40.21 Costs--DCM Test Environments for AT Persons (DCMs)
The Commission believes that the majority of DCMs have implemented
test environments in which market participants may test their
algorithmic systems. The Commission received comments in response to
the Concept Release that ``many, if not all, exchanges provide market
participants a test facility to test trading software and algorithms,
as well as offer test symbols to trade.'' \666\ The Commission believes
that most if not all DCM's already provide test environments that would
comply with proposed Sec. 40.21. As a result, subject to consideration
of relevant comments, the Commission preliminarily believes that DCMs
will not incur any material additional costs to comply with the
proposed regulation. The Commission is therefore not estimating any
costs for DCMs in connection with the proposed regulation in this
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\666\ MFA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xviii. Sec. 40.21 Benefits--DCM Test Environments for AT Persons
(DCMs)
As noted, the Commission believes that proposed Sec. 40.21
standardizes existing industry practices in this area, and that the
requirements are already followed by the majority of DCMs. Accordingly,
the Commission notes that many of the benefits of Sec. 40.21 are
already being realized. The proposed rule will help ensure that the
benefits are being realized at all DCMs and sustained in the future.
Proposed Sec. 40.21 requires DCMs to provide test environments in
which market participants may test their algorithmic systems. This
regulation is designed to promote testing of algorithmic systems using
data and market conditions that approximate as closely as possible
those of a live trading environment. Such testing should enable market
participants to discover potential issues in the design of their
algorithmic systems that were not discovered in their own test
environment, thereby mitigating the risk that algorithmic systems cause
market disruptions by failing to operate as intended in the production
environment. Comments received in response to the Concept Release
indicate that DCMs recognize the benefit of providing such test
environments to their market participants. For example, CME indicated
that market participants routinely test in their own testing
environments using historical data to test trading strategies against a
range of market conditions, and that exchanges commonly make their own
historical data available for testing purposes. CME stated that it
requires all systems interfacing with CME Globex to be certified on the
order entry and/or market data interfaces prior to deployment.\667\ FIA
also recommended the use of DCM test environments, noting in its
comment letter, ``We encourage DCMs to develop more robust test
environments that more closely simulate trading in the production
environment, and market participants to thoroughly test new and
modified software in these DCM provided simulators when necessary.''
\668\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\667\ CME at 25-26.
\668\ FIA at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xix. Sec. 40.22 Costs--DCM Review of Compliance Reports (DCMs)
Proposed Sec. 40.22 complements the requirement under Sec. 1.83
for AT Persons and clearing member FCMs to submit compliance reports to
DCMs. Proposed 40.22(a) requires a DCM to implement rules that require
each AT Person that trades on the DCM, and each FCM that is a clearing
member of a DCO for such AT Person, to submit the reports described in
Sec. 1.83(a) and (b), respectively. Under proposed Sec. 40.22(b), a
DCM must require the submission of such reports by June 30th of each
year. Proposed Sec. 40.22(c) requires a DCM to establish a program for
effective periodic review and evaluation of reports described in
paragraph (a) of Sec. 40.22, and of the measures described therein. An
effective program must include measures by the DCM reasonably designed
to identify and remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies and
procedures described in such reports, including identification and
remediation of any inadequate quantitative settings or calibrations of
pre-trade risk controls required of AT Persons pursuant to Sec.
1.80(a).
In addition, as a complement to the compliance report review
program described above, proposed Sec. 40.22(d) requires each AT
Person to keep and provide to the DCM books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.80 and Sec. 1.81,
and requires each clearing member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM
market books and records regarding their compliance with all
requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.22(e)
requires DCMs to review and evaluate, as necessary, books and records
required to be kept pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d), and the measures
described therein. An appropriate review pursuant to Sec. 40.22(e)
should include measures by the DCM reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies, and procedures
described in such books and records.
DCM Establishment of Review Program. The Commission estimates that
a DCM will incur a total one-time cost of $37,000 to establish the
review program required by proposed Sec. 40.22. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Tester, working for 200 hours (200 x $52 per hour =
$10,400); 1 Developer, working for 200 hours (200 x $75 per hour =
$15,000); and 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working for 200 hours (200
x $58 per hour = $11,600).\669\ The 15 DCMs to which Sec. 40.22 would
apply would therefore incur a total one-time cost of $555,000 (15 x
37,000) to establish the review program required by Sec. 40.22.\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\669\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\670\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCM Review of Compliance Reports (Sec. 40.22(c)). Proposed Sec.
40.22(a) and (b) would require DCMs to implement rules that require AT
Persons, and FCMs that are clearing members for AT Persons, to submit
the reports required of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs by proposed
Sec. 1.83. Proposed Sec. 40.22(c) requires a DCM to establish a
program for effective periodic review and evaluation of reports
described in paragraph (a) of Sec. 40.22, and of the measures
described therein. As discussed in section V(D)(e) above, Commission
staff estimates that each DCM will review 120 reports per year pursuant
to Sec. 40.22(c). The Commission estimates that a DCM will incur a
total cost of $925 to review each report required by Sec. 40.22. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Tester, working for 5 hours (5 x $52
per hour = $260); 1 Developer, working for 5 hours (5 x $75 per hour =
$375); and 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working for 5 hours (5 x $58
per hour = $290), for a total review cost of $925 per report. If a DCM
reviews an average of 120 reports per year, a DCM would require 1,800
hours per year to review the 120 reports (15 hours x 120 reports), and
would incur a cost of $111,000 per year. The 15 DCMs to which Sec.
40.22 would apply would incur a total annual cost of $1,665,000 (15 x
$111,000) to conduct such a review.
DCM Communication of Remediation Instructions (Sec. 40.22(c)).
Proposed Sec. 40.22(c) states that an effective review program must
include measures by the DCM reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies and procedures
[[Page 78908]]
described in such reports, including identification and remediation of
any inadequate quantitative settings or calibrations of pre-trade risk
controls required of AT Persons pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80(a). The
Commission estimates that a DCM will communicate remediation
instructions in connection with approximately 20% of the reports
reviewed on an annual basis (or 24 reports, which is 20% of 120
reports). The Commission estimates that a DCM will incur a total cost
of $925 to communicate remediation instructions for a report required
by Sec. 40.22. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Tester, working
for 5 hours (5 x $52 per hour = $260); 1 Developer, working for 5 hours
(5 x $75 per hour = $375); and 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working
for 5 hours (5 x $58 per hour = $290), for a total review cost of $925
per report giving rise to remediation instructions. If a DCM provides
remediation instructions in connection with 24 reports per year, a DCM
would require 360 hours per year to review the 24 reports (15 hours x
24 reports), and would incur a cost of $22,200 per year. The 15 DCMs to
which Sec. 40.22(c) would apply would incur a total annual cost of
$333,000 (15 x $22,200) to conduct such a review.
DCM Review of Books and Records (Sec. 40.22(e)). Proposed Sec.
40.22(d) requires each AT Person to keep and provide to the DCM books
and records regarding their compliance with all requirements pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81, and requires each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM market books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82. The cost of
these obligations to AT Persons and clearing member FCMs under Sec.
40.22(d) is discussed above in this section.
Proposed Sec. 40.22(e) requires DCMs to review and evaluate, as
necessary, books and records required to be kept pursuant to Sec.
40.22(d), and the measures described therein. The Commission notes that
Sec. 40.22(e) does not prescribe how frequently DCMs should perform
this review, or how many AT Persons and clearing member FCMs should be
evaluated on an annual basis. For purposes of generating a cost
estimate, the Commission anticipates that a DCM will find it necessary
to review the books and records of approximately 10% of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs on an annual basis. For example, a DCM may find it
necessary to conduct such a review if: it becomes aware if an AT
Person's kill switch is frequently activated, or otherwise performs in
an unusual manner; if a DCM becomes aware that an AT Person's algorithm
frequently performs in a manner inconsistent with its design, which may
raise questions about the design or monitoring of the AT Person's
algorithms; if a DCM identifies frequent trade practice violations at
an AT Person, which are related to an algorithm of the AT Person; or if
an AT Person represents significant volume in a particular product,
thereby requiring heightened scrutiny, among other reasons. DCMs may
find it appropriate to review the books and records of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs on a more or less frequent basis, depending on
other relevant considerations.
The Commission estimates that AT Persons will generally be active
on half of the 15 DCMs. If a DCM reviews the books and records of 10%
of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs on an annual basis, a DCM will
review 24 entities on an annual basis (420 AT Persons + 57 clearing
member FCMs = 477. 477/2 = 239 entities. 239 x .1 = 24). The Commission
estimates that a DCM will incur a total cost of $4,620 to review the
books and records of an entity pursuant to Sec. 40.22(e). This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working for 30
hours (30 x $58 per hour = $1,740); and 1 Compliance Attorney, working
for 30 hours (5 x $96 per hour = $2,880), for a total review cost of
$4,620 per entity reviewed by a DCM. If a DCM reviews the books and
records of 24 entities per year, a DCM would require 1,440 hours per
year to review the 24 entities (60 hours x 24 entities), and would
incur a cost of $110,880 per year. The 15 DCMs to which Sec. 40.22(e)
would apply would incur a total annual cost of $1,663,200 (15 x
$110,880) to review such books and records.
Total Cost to DCMs for Proposed Sec. 40.22 Requirements. A DCM
will therefore incur $133,200 ($111,000 + $22,200) on an annual basis
to review all reports received at least once every two years,
communicate instructions to persons whose controls the DCM has
determined are insufficient, and will incur $110,880 on an annual basis
to review the books and records of 24 AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs. The 15 DCMs to which Sec. 40.22 would apply would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $3,661,200 ($1,665,000 + $333,000 +
$1,663,200) to maintain the review program required by Sec. 40.22.
The Commission also acknowledges that the compliance requirements
on DCMs in Regulation AT could have adverse effects on smaller DCMs.
Any compliance costs that go beyond existing industry practice could
potentially cause some DCMs to cease or scale back operation, and
impact the entry of new DCMs.
xx. Sec. 40.22 Benefits--DCM Review of Compliance Reports (DCMs)
Proposed Sec. 40.22 is a complement to proposed Sec. 1.83, which
would require AT Persons, and FCMs that are clearing members for AT
Persons, to submit reports regarding compliance with Sec. 1.80(a) and
pursuant to Sec. 1.82(a)(1), respectively, to each DCM on which they
operate, and to keep and provide upon request to DCMs books and records
regarding their compliance with all Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT
Persons) and Sec. 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs) requirements. New
Sec. 40.22 would require each DCM that receives a report described in
Sec. 1.83 to establish a program for effective review and evaluation
of the reports. By requiring DCMs to review the reports, identify
outliers, and communicate instructions to outliers in order to
remediate their pre-trade risk controls, proposed Sec. 40.22 will
standardize market participants' pre-trade risk controls required
pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.80(a). Further, DCM review of compliance
reports is an important safeguard to prevent trading firms, the
``outliers'' described above, from operating without sufficient
controls. Proposed Sec. 40.22(e) will complement the review of
compliance reports, by requiring DCMs to review and evaluate, as
necessary, the books and records kept by AT Persons to demonstrate
their compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81, and the books and
records kept by clearing member FCMs to demonstrate their compliance
with Sec. 1.82. A single Algorithmic Trading malfunction at a single
market participant can significantly impact markets and market
participants. Accordingly, all DCMs and market participants benefit
from a review program that ensures that market participants conducting
Algorithmic Trading have adequate pre-trade risk controls in place.
c. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the CEA section 15(a) factors for the
following proposed regulations: (i) The requirement that AT Persons
implement pre-trade risk controls and other related measures (Sec.
1.80); (ii) standards for the development, testing, and monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading systems by AT Persons (Sec. 1.81); (iii) RFA
standards for automated trading and algorithmic trading systems of
their members (Sec. 170.19); (iv) the requirement that AT Persons must
become a member of a futures association (Sec. 170.18); (v) the
requirement that clearing member FCMs
[[Page 78909]]
implement pre-trade risk controls and other related measures (Sec.
1.82); (vi) the requirement that AT Persons submit compliance reports
to DCMs regarding their risk controls and Algorithmic Trading
procedures and clearing member FCMs submit compliance reports to DCMs
regarding their risk control program for AT Person customers, and that
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs keep and provide upon request to
DCMs certain related books and records (Sec. 1.83); (vii) the
requirement that DCMs implement pre-trade risk controls and other
related measures (Sec. Sec. 38.255 and 40.20); (viii) the requirement
that DCMs provide test environments where AT Persons may test their
Algorithmic Trading systems (Sec. 40.21); and (ix) the requirements of
Sec. 40.22, including that DCMs: implement rules requiring AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs to submit compliance reports each year (Sec.
40.22(a) and (b)); establish a program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of the reports (Sec. 40.22(c)); require each AT Person
to keep and provide to the DCM books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81,
and require each clearing member FCM to keep and provide to the DCM
market books and records regarding their compliance with all
requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82 (Sec. 40.22(d)); and require DCMs
to review and evaluate, as necessary, books and records required to be
kept pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d), and the measures described therein
(Sec. 40.22(e)).
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
The Commission preliminarily believes that Regulation AT would
protect market participants and the public by limiting a ``race to the
bottom,'' in which certain entities sacrifice effective risk controls
in order to minimize costs or increase the speed of trading. The
proposed rules, by standardizing the risk controls required to be used
by firms, would help ensure that the benefits of these risk controls
are more evenly distributed across a wide set of market participants,
and reduce the likelihood that an outlier firm without sufficient risk
controls causes significant market disruption. The requirements under
proposed Sec. Sec. 170.18 and 170.19 that all AT Persons be registered
as a member of a futures association, and subject to an RFA program
promulgating standards for automated trading and algorithmic trading
systems, further promotes the standardization of risk controls.
Moreover, the proposed rules, to the extent that they increase the
usage of effective risk and order management controls, may reduce the
likelihood that market participants execute trades at terms they do not
intend. This is particularly important as to price, as market
participants and members of the public rely on the prices of trades
executed on DCMs, often for products not directly traded on the DCM.
The requirements of proposed Sec. 40.22, which requires DCMs to review
the compliance reports and the books and records of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs, may promote protection of market participants and
the public by helping to ensure that the risk control rules are
followed in a consistent manner and may further reduce the likelihood
of Algorithmic Trading Events and Algorithmic Trading Disruptions.
Applying Regulation AT to all market levels--the trading firm, the
clearing member, and the exchange--may further protect market
participants and the public by providing multiple layers of protection
against market disruptions. In addition, including automated order
routers in the Algorithmic Trading definition may protect market
participants and the public by providing these protections to a wider
set of automated systems that may have the potential to disrupt the
markets.
Finally, the absence of pre-trade risk and order management
controls at automated firms increases the chances for unintended
trading behavior, including algorithms acting beyond their parameters
or risk levels, resulting in unexpected market volatility or market
disruptions (potentially across multiple market venues), distorted
prices, and risks that could harm the economy and the public.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures
Markets
The Commission preliminarily believes that by addressing pre-trade
risk controls, testing, and order management controls at all market
levels--the trading firm, the clearing member, and the exchange--
Regulation AT provides standards that can be interpreted and enforced
in a uniform manner. Implementation of Regulation AT would help
mitigate instabilities in the markets and ensure market efficiency and
integrity. Regulation AT may serve to limit a ``race to the bottom,''
in which certain entities sacrifice effective risk controls in order to
minimize costs or increase the speed of trading. The proposed rules, by
standardizing the risk controls required to be used by firms, would
help ensure that the benefits of these risk controls are more evenly
distributed across a wide set of market participants, and reduce the
likelihood that an outlier firm without sufficient risk controls causes
significant market disruption.
In particular, the implementation of such controls and systems
would help prevent the occurrence of unintended and erroneous trades,
and therefore contribute to market efficiency and integrity. For
example, Regulation AT requires that trading firms, clearing members
and exchanges implement maximum order size limits. That control is
intended to prevent unintentionally large orders from entering the
market and causing unintended executions. The Commission believes that
a positive trading intention behind an execution is integral to the
operations of an efficient market and to market integrity. By limiting
the potential for erroneous executions, Regulation AT should enhance
market efficiency and integrity by minimizing the number of trades that
are subsequently broken and ensuring that publicly reported transaction
prices are valid. Similarly, Regulation AT requires message and
execution throttles, which mitigate the risks of executing large
numbers of unintended orders, potentially harming market efficiency and
integrity. Ensuring that only bona fide and intentional orders are
entered into the market may also help promote market competitiveness by
helping to ensure that a single entity does not inadvertently dominate
the market due to unintended excessive orders.
The Commission acknowledges that certain aspects of Regulation AT,
such as the compliance reports, could have adverse effects on some
trading firms due to the cost of creating and submitting the compliance
reports, and to the extent that firms do not already do so,
implementing and maintaining the proposed regulation's required pre-
trade risk and order management controls. In order to mitigate costs to
trading firms, the Commission is restricting the need for trading firm
level risk controls and the associated compliance reports to those
entities that are registered with the Commission in some capacity. For
those who are not required to register, pre-trade risk controls will be
executed by the entity's clearing firm and the contract market the
entity trades on and compliance reports will be submitted by the
clearing FCM.
According to a study by the Commission's Division of Swap Dealer
and Intermediary Oversight that was presented to the Commission's
Agricultural Advisory Committee on
[[Page 78910]]
September 22, 2015,\671\ the number of active FCMs has declined in
recent years from 180 in 2005 to 76 in December 2014. The decline over
this period in the number of FCMs holding customer assets was not as
large as the overall decline in the number of FCMs: from 85 to 60. The
decline in the number of FCMs can be attributed to a number of factors,
including low interest rates (which can reduce FCM profitability by
lowering the rate of return on the investment of customer funds) and
the changing regulatory environment. The compliance and other costs on
clearing FCMs that go beyond existing industry practice could, in
conjunction with existing factors that are pressuring FCMs, potentially
cause some additional FCMs to scale back operations, or make it less
likely that new FCMs will enter the market. The Commission also notes
the possibility that if clearing FCMs are required to establish and
maintain pre-trade risk controls and order cancellation systems
pursuant to Sec. 1.82(c) with respect to AT Order Messages originating
with AT Persons that do not use DEA and to submit compliance reports
regarding their risk controls, they may refuse to serve such firms in
light of the additional costs or may raise trading fees to cover these
costs. Such potential increased costs may make it more difficult for
new trading firms to enter the market and for certain existing trading
firms to remain in the market. This could happen if FCMs determines to
cease serving firms that, in light of the increased costs, are no
longer profitable for the FCM. However, it is possible that the rule
will create a market opportunity for certain FCMs to specialize in
monitoring the operation of Algorithmic Trading systems used by trading
firms that do not use DEA. This may mitigate the impact of other FCMs
exiting the market or new FCMs choosing not to enter the market and may
mitigate the impact on trading firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\671\ The presentation is available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@aboutcftc/documents/file/aac092215presentations_dsio.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential reduction in the number of clearing FCMs and market
participants due to increased costs could reduce liquidity and increase
transaction costs in futures markets. The proposed rules also impose
costs on DCMs that, to the extent they go beyond existing industry
practice (including the costs of reviewing submissions from AT Persons
and FCMs pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.22), may significantly affect
small or start-up DCMs. However, the Commission emphasizes the general
benefits that Regulation AT provides to the market, such as the
protection of market integrity and efficiency, which were impacted by
previous disruptive market events. As noted in section III above, for
example, the events at Knight Capital significantly impacted the
equities market. Due to coding errors in Knight's systems, the firm's
automated trading system inadvertently built up unintended positions in
the equity market, eventually resulting in losses of more than $460
million for the firm.\672\ In addition, the Flash Crash in 2010
impacted market efficiency in several respects; for example, due to the
extreme price movement, the exchanges and FINRA made a determination to
cancel a significant number of trades that were executed during the
crash.\673\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\672\ See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
\673\ As noted in the Flash Crash Report, ``during the 20 minute
period between 2:40 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., over 20,000 trades (many
based on retail-customer orders) across more than 300 separate
securities, including many ETFs, were executed at prices 60% or more
away from their 2:40 p.m. prices. After the market closed, the
exchanges and FINRA met and jointly agreed to cancel (or break) all
such trades under their respective `clearly erroneous' trade
rules.'' See the Flash Crash Report, supra note 121 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has preliminarily determined that burdens placed on
market participants, FCMs, and DCMs imposed by Regulation AT is
justified by the benefits in ensuring that all orders submitted through
Algorithmic Trading pass through effective controls and systems that
mitigate the risks of malfunctioning automated trading systems. The
Commission has endeavored to minimize the compliance burden in
Regulation AT to the minimum level necessary to protect market
participants and the public.
The proposed rules may promote the financial integrity of futures
markets by reducing the likelihood of flash crashes and other automated
trading disruptions. Such disruptions can place financial strain on
market participants, intermediaries, and DCOs.
iii. Price Discovery
Requiring trading firms, clearing members and exchanges to
implement pre-trade risk controls, testing, and order management
control requirements in order to mitigate the risk of a malfunctioning
trading algorithm or automated trading disruption promotes the price
discovery process by reducing the likelihood of transactions at prices
that do not accurately reflect market forces.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The Commission believes that the pre-trade risk and order
management control requirements contained in Regulation AT will
contribute to a system-wide reduction in operational risk, and will
help standardize risk management practices across similar entities
within the marketplace. The reduction in operational risk may simplify
the tasks associated with sound risk management practices. These
enhanced risk management practices should help reduce unintended market
volatility, which will aid in efficient market making, and reduce
overall transaction costs as they relate to price movements, which
should encourage market participants to trade in Commission-regulated
markets. Market participants and those who rely on prices as determined
within regulated markets should benefit from markets that behave in an
orderly and expected fashion.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified any effects that these proposed
rules would have on other public interest considerations other than
those addressed above.
d. Consideration of Alternatives
i. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
In proposing these regulations, the Commission considered
alternatives suggested by comments to the Concept Release. The
Commission notes that the Concept Release raised numerous potential
measures and controls, not all of which are proposed in Regulation AT.
Accordingly, comments supporting or opposing regulation in the area of
automated trading were made without the benefit of knowing specifically
what regulations would be proposed. Some commenters indicated that
there was already sufficient regulation in the area of risk controls.
For example, FIA suggested that ``the best approach to achieve
standardization is to reflect industry best practices through working
groups of DCMs, FCMs and market participants.'' \674\ CFE stated that
there is already sufficient regulation of DCMs in relation to risk
controls and that exchange risk control practices should evolve as
technology and markets evolve.\675\ MFA indicated that current CFTC
regulations and existing best practices require entities to have
sufficient and effective pre-trade risk controls.\676\ ICE commented
that exchanges are better able to implement and update risk controls on
a market-by-market basis than through a
[[Page 78911]]
Commission rulemaking.\677\ OneChicago indicated that ``additional
mandates'' as to exchange risk controls will increase costs and
complexity.\678\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\674\ FIA at 63.
\675\ CFE at 1-2.
\676\ MFA at 5.
\677\ ICE at 1.
\678\ OneChicago at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Concept Release addresses a number of potential
measures that are not proposed as part of Regulation AT. With respect
to the pre-trade risk and other controls proposed in this NPRM, the
Commission acknowledges that many best practices as to risk controls
have been developed without a regulatory mandate, and that trading
firms, clearing member FCMs, and DCMs are in the best position to
determine the most effective design of their own particular risk
controls and innovate new forms of controls. However, the Commission
believes that regulation in this area will better foster
standardization of controls across all entities, including smaller
firms or exchanges that may, without regulation, implement some but not
all of the controls required by Regulation AT. This rulemaking may
serve to limit a ``race to the bottom'' in which some entities
sacrifice effective risk controls in order to minimize costs or
increase the speed of trading. In the context of automated trading, a
technological malfunction at a single firm can have a significant
impact across markets and market participants.\679\ Given that reality,
it is insufficient that some, but not all, industry participants have
the appropriate risk controls. Requiring the implementation of certain
risk controls through regulation will help ensure that all industry
participants have the appropriate risk controls, thus fostering trade
certainty and market integrity for all market participants. In
determining which risk controls discussed in the Concept Release should
be proposed in this NPRM, the Commission has attempted to propose those
core risk controls that it believes are currently implemented by the
majority of market participants, foregoing certain risk controls that
are implemented by relatively few market participants and may be of
less value in mitigating risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\679\ See, e.g., the discussion of Knight Capital in section III
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some commenters to the Concept Release explained the
appropriate implementation or design of particular pre-trade risk
controls, which are discussed above as relevant to each control. Also
as discussed above, the Commission determined that, while it believes
that these comments are reasonable and merit further consideration by
market participants as they implement risk controls, the specific
design and operation of risk controls should not be mandated by
regulation. Rather, given the wide variety of trading firms,
technology, trading strategies, markets, and products, the relevant
entities--trading firms, clearing firms, and DCMs--should have the
discretion to determine the appropriate design of the specific controls
required by Regulation AT.
The remainder of this discussion focuses on various alternative
measures that the Commission considered in proposing these regulations,
some of which were discussed in the Concept Release, and some of which
are contained in other regulatory systems. The Commission evaluated
various regulatory definitions of algorithmic trading when considering
how to draft a definition for purposes of this NPRM. The Commission has
proposed that the definition of Algorithmic Trading will include
systems that make determinations regarding any aspect of the routing of
an order, i.e., systems that only make decisions as to the routing of
orders to one or more trading venues. The Commission notes analogous
definitions adopted by the European Commission under MiFID II and by
FINRA do not include automated systems that only route orders as
algorithmic trading. Excluding automated order routers would reduce the
number of automated systems captured by Regulation AT relative to the
Commission's proposal and may reduce the number of AT Persons subject
to the costs of the regulation. Nevertheless, the Commission believes
that automated order routers have the potential to disrupt the market
to a similar extent as other types of automated systems, and that there
are significant benefits to including automated order routers in the
proposed regulations.
The Commission is also considering expanding the definition of
Algorithmic Trading to encompass orders that are generated using
algorithmic methods (e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or sell signal
at a particular time), but are then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, who determines all aspects of the routing
of the orders. Such an alternative would increase the number of
automated systems captured by Regulation AT relative to the
Commission's proposal and may increase the number of AT Persons subject
to the costs of the regulation. The Commission preliminarily believes
that such manually entered orders present less risk than fully
automated orders and that the benefits of including them in the
definition of Algorithmic Trading would therefore be limited.
In the event that a non-clearing FCM or other entity acts only as a
conduit for orders, and does not make any determinations with respect
to such orders, the conduit entity would not be engaged in Algorithmic
Trading, as that definition is currently proposed. The Commission
preliminarily believes that expanding the definition to include conduit
entities would not sufficiently enhance the benefits associated with
Regulation AT relative to the additional costs.
The Commission determined not to extend Regulation AT to SEFs, a
proposal that was supported by one Concept Release commenter. CFE
stated that any risk control requirements should apply to SEFs, in
addition to DCMs. CFE explained that there must be a level playing
field between both DCMs and SEFs and that there be no regulatory
disparities that would make it more advantageous to list a swap on a
SEF as opposed to a DCM.\680\ The Commission believes in fostering a
level playing field in its markets, and as a result any requirements on
DCMs arising out of Regulation AT may ultimately be imposed on SEFs at
a later date. However, as noted in section (C)(1) above, an important
consideration for the Commission is that SEFs and SEF markets are much
newer and less liquid than the more established and liquid DCMs and DCM
markets. While SEFs and SEF markets are still in this nascent stage,
the Commission does not want to impose additional requirements that may
have the effect of decreasing the number of SEFs or decreasing
liquidity. Moreover, the Commission, based on its present knowledge,
believes that automated trading is not as prevalent in SEF markets as
compared to DCM markets. Therefore, the policy considerations
underlying Regulation AT are not as critical, at least at this time, in
the SEF context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\680\ CFE at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1.82 requires clearing FCMs to implement controls
with respect to AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person. The
Commission is considering modifying proposed Sec. 1.82 to require
clearing FCMs to implement controls with respect to all orders,
including orders that are manually submitted. Such a requirement would
correspond to the requirement under proposed Sec. 40.20(d) that DCMs
implement risk controls for orders that do not originate from
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission is considering this modification
because it recognizes that manually entered
[[Page 78912]]
orders also have the potential to cause significant market disruption.
The Commission requests comment on this proposed alternative
formulation of Sec. 1.82, which the Commission may implement in the
final rulemaking for Regulation AT. The Commission acknowledges that
this proposed alternative formulation would impose additional costs on
clearing FCMs relative to the currently proposed Sec. 1.82. The
Commission requests comment on the potential benefits of this proposal
relative to the increased costs to clearing FCMs, in addition to any
other comments regarding the effectiveness of this proposal in terms of
risk reduction.
ii. Compliance Reports
Proposed Sec. 1.83 would require AT Persons and clearing FCMs to
submit compliance reports to DCMs on an annual basis. Such reports
would need to be submitted and certified annually by the chief
executive officer or the chief compliance officer of the AT Person or
FCM. Proposed Sec. 40.22 would require DCMs to establish a program for
effective periodic review and evaluation of the reports. The Commission
has proposed these regulations, using the deadlines described above,
because it believes they represent an appropriate balancing of the
transparency and risk reduction provided by the reports against the
burden placed on AT Persons, clearing FCMs, and DCMs of providing and
reviewing the reports.
The Commission is considering the alternatives of requiring AT
Persons and clearing FCMs to submit such reports more or less
frequently than annually. The Commission is also considering the
alternatives of placing the responsibility for certifying the reports
required by proposed Sec. 1.83 only on the chief executive officer,
only on the chief compliance officer, or permitting certification from
other officers of the AT Person or FCM. While proposed Sec. 40.22
would require DCMs to establish a program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of the reports, the Commission is considering the
alternative of requiring DCMs to review the reports at more specific
intervals.
The Commission considered the alternative of requiring additional
information in the reports by AT Persons to DCMs under proposed Sec.
1.83, including (1) descriptions of order cancellation systems; (2)
policies and procedures for the development, testing, and monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading systems; and (3) policies and procedures for the
training of Algorithmic Trading staff. The Commission determined not to
propose these additional requirements in order to limit costs both to
AT Persons and to the DCMs that will be required to review the reports
under proposed Sec. 40.22, while retaining the benefits of protecting
market participants and the public from disruptions and other adverse
events associated with automated trading.
Requirements related to RFAs. The Commission is considering making
adjustments to the scope of RFA responsibility under proposed Sec.
170.19. For example, RFAs could be responsible for fewer or additional
areas regarding AT Persons, ATSs, and algorithmic trading than
specified in proposed Sec. 170.19 and could have more or less latitude
to issue rules than under the proposal.
e. Request for Comments
Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
112. How would an alternative definition of Algorithmic Trading
that excludes automated order routers affect the costs and benefits of
the pre-trade and other risk controls in comparison to the costs and
benefits of the proposed definition that includes automated order
routers? Would such an alternative definition reduce the number of AT
Persons captured by Regulation AT?
113. Would the benefits of Regulation AT be enhanced significantly
if the definition of Algorithmic Trading were modified to capture a
conduit entity such as a non-clearing FCM, thereby making the entity an
AT Person subject to Regulation AT? How would such a modification
affect costs?
114. Would the benefits of Regulation AT be enhanced significantly
if the definition of Algorithmic Trading were expanded to encompass
orders that are generated using algorithmic methods (e.g., an algorithm
generates a buy or sell signal at a particular time), but are then
manually entered into a front-end system by a natural person? How would
such a modification affect costs? Please comment on the costs and
benefits of an alternative whereby the Commission would implement
specific rules regarding the appropriate design of the specific
controls required by Regulation AT and compare them to the costs and
benefits of the Commission's proposal whereby the relevant entities--
trading firms, clearing firms, and DCMs--would have the discretion to
determine the appropriate design of those controls.
115. Does one particular segment of trading firms, clearing member
FCMs or DCMs (e.g., smaller entities) currently implement fewer of the
pre-trade and other risk controls required by Regulation AT than some
other segment of trading firms, clearing member FCMs or DCMs? If so,
please describe any unique or additional costs that will be imposed on
such persons to develop the technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk controls required by Regulation
AT.
116. In question 14, the Commission asks whether there are any AT
Persons who are natural persons. Would AT Persons who are natural
persons (or sole proprietorships with no employees other than the sole
proprietor) be required to hire staff to comply with the risk control,
testing and monitoring, or compliance requirements of Regulation AT?
117. Do you agree with the accuracy of cost estimates provided by
the Commission as to how much it will cost a trading firm, clearing
member FCM or DCM to internally develop the technology and systems
necessary to implement the pre-trade and other risk controls required
by Regulation AT? If you disagree with the Commission's analysis,
please provide your own quantitative estimates, as well as data or
other information in support. Please specify in your answer the type of
entity and which specific pre-trade risk or order management controls
for which you are providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate between the situations where an
entity (i) already has partially compliant controls in place, and only
needs to upgrade such technology and systems to bring it into
compliance with the regulations; and (ii) needs to build such
technology and systems from scratch. Please include, as applicable,
hardware and software costs as well as the hourly wage information of
the employee(s) necessary to develop such risk controls (i.e.,
technology personnel such as programmer analysts, senior programmers
and senior systems analysts).
118. The Commission has assumed that the effort to adjust any one
risk control (by ``control,'' in this context, the Commission means the
pre-trade risk controls, order cancellation systems, and connectivity
systems required by Sec. 1.80) will require assessment and possible
modifications to all controls. Is this assumption correct, and if not,
why not?
119. As indicated above, the Commission lacks sufficient
information to provide full estimates of costs that a trading firm,
clearing member FCM or DCM will incur if it chooses not to internally
develop such controls, and instead purchases the solutions of an
outside vendor in order to comply with Regulation AT's pre-trade and
other risk controls requirements. Please provide quantitative estimates
of such costs, including supporting data or other
[[Page 78913]]
information. In addition, please specify in your answer the type of
entity and which specific pre-trade risk or order management control
for which you are providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate between the situations where an
entity (i) already uses an outside vendor to at least some extent to
implement the controls; and (ii) does not currently implement the
controls and must obtain all applicable technology and systems from an
outside vendor necessary to comply with Regulation AT. Please include,
if applicable, hardware and software costs as well as the hourly wage
information of the employee(s) necessary to effectuate the
implementation of such controls from an outside vendor.
120. Do you agree with the Commission's estimates of how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it uses internally developed
technology and systems? If not please provide quantitative estimates
and supporting data or other information with respect to how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it uses an outside vendor's
technology and systems.
121. Is it correct to assume that many of the trading firms subject
to Sec. 1.80 are also subject to the SEC's Market Access Rule, and,
accordingly, already implement many of the systems required by
Regulation AT for purposes of their securities trading?
Please specify in your answer the type of entity and which specific
pre-trade risk or order management control is already required pursuant
to the Market Access Rule, and the extent of the overlap.
122. Please comment on the costs and benefits (including
quantitative estimates with supporting data or other information) to
clearing FCMs of an alternative to proposed Sec. 1.82 that would
require clearing FCMs to implement controls with respect to all orders,
including orders that are manually submitted or are entered through
algorithmic methods that nonetheless do not meet the definition of
Algorithmic Trading and compare those costs and benefits to those costs
and benefits of proposed Sec. 1.82.
123. Please comment on the additional costs (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other information) to AT Persons of
complying with each of the following specific requirements of Sec.
1.80:
a. Sec. 1.80(a)(2) (pre-trade risk control threshold
requirements);
b. Sec. 1.80(a)(3) (natural person monitors must be alerted when
thresholds are breached)
c. Sec. 1.80(d) (notification to DCM and clearing member FCM that
AT Person will use Algorithmic Trading);
d. Sec. 1.80(e) (self-trade prevention tools); and
e. Sec. 1.80(f) (periodic review of pre-trade risk controls and
other measures for sufficiency and effectiveness).
124. The Commission welcomes comment on the estimated costs of the
pre-trade risk controls proposed in Sec. 1.80 as compared to the
annual industry expenditure on technology, risk mitigation and/or
technology compliance systems.
125. Please comment on the costs to AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs of complying with DCM rules requiring retention and production of
records relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 compliance,
pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d), including without limitation on the extent
to which AT Persons and clearing member FCMs already have policies,
procedures, staffing and technological infrastructure in place to
retain such records and produce them upon DCM request.
126. The Commission anticipates that Regulation AT may promote
confidence among market participants and reduce market risk,
consequently reducing transaction costs, but has not estimated this
reduction in transaction costs. The Commission welcomes comment on the
extent to which Regulation AT may impact transaction costs and effects
on liquidity provision more generally.
AT Person Membership in RFA; RFA Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems
127. The Commission estimates that the costs of membership in an
RFA associated with proposed Sec. 170.18 will encompass certain costs,
such as those associated with NFA membership dues. Has the Commission
correctly identified the costs associated with membership in an RFA?
128. The Commission expects that entities that will be required to
become members of an RFA would not incur any additional compliance
costs as a result of their membership in an RFA. The Commission
requests comment on the accuracy of this expectation. What additional
compliance costs, if any, would a registrant face as a result of being
required to become a member of an RFA pursuant to proposed Sec.
170.18?
129. Has the Commission accurately estimated that approximately 100
entities will be affected by the membership requirements of Sec.
170.18?
130. The Commission invites estimates on the cost to an RFA to
establish and maintain the program required by Sec. 170.19, and the
amount of that cost that will be passed along to individual categories
of AT Person members in the RFA.
Development, Testing, and Supervision of Algorithmic Systems
131. Proposed Sec. 1.81(a) establishes principles-based standards
for the development and testing of Algorithmic Trading systems and
procedures, including requirements for AT Persons to test all
Algorithmic Trading code and related systems and any changes to such
code and systems prior to their implementation. AT Persons would also
be required to maintain a source code repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code used in the production
environment, and changes to such code, among other requirements. Are
any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(a) not already followed by the
majority of market participants that would be subject to Sec. 1.81(a)
(or some particular segment of market participants), and if so, how
much will it cost for a market participant to comply with such
requirement(s)?
132. Proposed Sec. 1.81(b) requires that an AT Person's
Algorithmic Trading is subject to continuous real-time monitoring and
supervision by knowledgeable and qualified staff at all times while
Algorithmic Trading is occurring. Proposed Sec. 1.81(b) also requires
automated alerts when an Algorithmic Trading system's AT Order Message
behavior breaches design parameters, upon loss of network connectivity
or data feeds, or when market conditions approach the boundaries within
which the ATS is intended to operate, to the extent applicable, among
other monitoring requirements. Are any of the requirements of Sec.
1.81(b) not already followed by the majority of market participants
that would be subject to Sec. 1.81(b), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply with such requirement(s)?
133. Proposed Sec. 1.81(c) requires that AT Persons implement
policies designed to ensure that Algorithmic Trading operates in a
manner that complies with the CEA and the rules and regulations
thereunder. Among other controls, the policies should include a plan of
internal coordination and communication between
[[Page 78914]]
compliance staff of the AT Person and staff of the AT Person
responsible for Algorithmic Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading
design, changes, testing, and controls. Are any of the requirements of
Sec. 1.81(c) not already followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to Sec. 1.81(c), and if so, how
much will it cost for a market participant to comply with such
requirement(s)?
134. Proposed Sec. 1.81(d) requires that AT Persons implement
policies to designate and train their staff responsible for Algorithmic
Trading, which policies should include procedures for designating and
training all staff involved in designing, testing and monitoring
Algorithmic Trading. Are any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(d) not
already followed by the majority of market participants that would be
subject to Sec. 1.81(d), and if so, how much will it cost for a market
participant to comply with such requirement(s)?
AT Person and FCM Compliance Reports
135. Please comment on whether any of the alternatives discussed
above regarding compliance reports would provide a superior cost-
benefit profile relative to the Commission's proposal.
DCM Test Environments
136. Do any DCMs not currently offer a test environment that
simulates production trading to their market participants, as would be
required by proposed Sec. 40.21? If so, how much would it cost a DCM
to implement a test environment that would comply with the requirements
of Sec. 40.21?
DCM Review of Compliance Reports
137. Please comment on the cost estimates provided above with
respect to DCMs' review of compliance reports provided under Sec.
40.22 and related review requirements, including the estimated cost for
DCMs to: Establish the review program required by Sec. 40.22; review
the reports provided by AT Persons and clearing member FCMs;
communicate remediation instructions to a subset of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs; and review and evaluate, as necessary, books and
records of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs as contemplated by
proposed Sec. 40.22(e).
Section 15(a) Considerations
138. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Sec. 15(a) of
the CEA.
139. Are the compliance costs associated with the proposed rules of
sufficient magnitude to potentially cause smaller market participants,
FCMs, or DCMs to cease or scale back operations? Do these costs create
significant barriers to entry?
8. Requirements for Certain Entities To Register as Floor Traders
a. Background
The Commission proposes to require registration for certain market
participants with Direct Electronic Access. To achieve registration,
the Commission proposes amending the definition of ``Floor trader'' in
Commission regulation 1.3(x). The amended definition would include any
person who purchases or sells futures or swaps solely for such person's
own account in any other place provided by a contract market for the
meeting of persons similarly engaged where such place is accessed for
Algorithmic Trading by such person in whole or in part through Direct
Electronic Access (as defined in proposed Sec. 1.3(yyyy)).
b. Costs
Registration and Membership Fees. The new registration requirements
imposed on certain entities with Direct Electronic Access would require
these entities to pay certain one-time registration charges. NFA
currently charges non-natural persons applying for registration as
floor traders $200 per application (on Form 7-R), and charges
individuals $85 per application (on Form 8-R). The Commission estimates
that there will be approximately 100 entities with Direct Electronic
Access that will register as Floor Traders under the new registration
requirements. The Commission further estimates that each entity will be
required to file 10 Forms 8-R in relation to its principals.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that new registrants will incur
one-time registration costs of $105,500 for Form 7-R and 8-R fees
combined (Form 7-Rs submitted by 100 new registrants, at $200 per Form
7-R plus 10 Forms 8-R submitted by each of 100 new registrants, at $85
per Form 8-R).\681\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\681\ As noted previously, the Commission has delegated its
registration functions to NFA. Non-natural person floor trader
entities register with the Commission and apply for membership in
NFA via CFTC Form 7-R. Principals of non-natural person floor trader
entities register via Form 8-R. The Commission estimates that each
non-natural person floor trader entity will have approximately 10
principals and therefore need to file approximately 10 Forms 8-R. In
the event that a natural person meets the definition of Floor Trader
in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3), and is therefore required to register
with the Commission and become a member of NFA, such person would
only be required to complete Form 8-R and would face substantially
lower costs than those estimated here. The Form 7-R and 8-R fees
estimated here are based on NFA's current fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for Submitting Applications. In addition, the Commission
estimates that new registrants will incur a total one-time cost of
$105,600 to prepare and submit Forms 7-R and 8-R. This cost represents
the work of 1 Compliance Attorney per registrant, working for 11 hours
(11 x $96 = $1,056 per registrant).\682\ The 100 new registrants will
therefore incur a total one-time cost of $105,600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\682\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Indirect Costs. The Commission preliminarily believes that
there are additional indirect costs, beyond the cost of registration,
to new registrants resulting from the new registration requirement. New
floor traders required to register under proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) will
be included in the definition of ``AT Person.'' These proposed rules
establish various requirements for AT Persons, including the
implementation of risk controls for algorithmic systems (proposed Sec.
1.80), the implementation of standards for development, testing, and
supervision of algorithmic systems (proposed Sec. 1.81), and the
submission to DCMs of compliance reports regarding risk controls and,
upon request, certain related books and records (proposed Sec. 1.83).
Because these provisions apply to AT Persons, new floor traders under
Proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) will only be required to follow these
provisions as a result of their status as a floor trader. Thus, any
costs associated with these rules are also indirect costs of
registration itself.\683\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\683\ See Section V(E)(7)(b) above for a discussion of costs
associated with Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Benefits
The Commission preliminarily believes that registration of certain
entities with Direct Electronic Access would enhance the pre-trade
controls and risk management tools discussed elsewhere in this NPRM.
For example, the pre-trade risk controls listed in proposed Sec.
1.80(a)--maximum AT Order Message frequencies per unit time, maximum
execution frequencies per unit time, order price parameters and maximum
order size limits--must be established and used by all AT Persons. If
the Commission were to only require those trading firms or clearing
member FCMs that are already registered with the Commission to
implement such controls, it would be ignoring a significant number of
market participants that actively trade on Commission-regulated
markets, each of which has algorithmic trading systems
[[Page 78915]]
that could malfunction and create systemic risk to all market
participants. The Commission estimates that there are approximately one
hundred proprietary trading firms engaged in Algorithmic Trading in
Commission-regulated markets. However, a technological malfunction in a
single trading firm's systems can significantly impact other markets
and market participants. Accordingly, the proposed registration
requirement accomplished through revised Sec. 1.3(x) is critical to
ensuring that all such firms are registered and subject to appropriate
risk control, testing, and other requirements of Regulation AT.
A number of commenters to the Concept Release pointed out benefits
of additional registration.\684\ AFR stated that ``[t]he enhancement of
investigative authority is extraordinarily important given that the
Commission would often need to involve itself in the workings of the
ATSs to anticipate problems and to detect and investigate problems that
have occurred. HFT firms should have the highest priority.'' \685\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\684\ Better Markets 13; AFR 8-9; TCL 17.
\685\ AFR 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIMA and VFL specifically emphasized benefits of registration for
participants with direct market access.\686\ VFL commented that if an
exchange provides a participant the ability to connect directly, then
that participant enjoys all of the rights of a member and should be
regulated at the federal and exchange level.\687\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\686\ AIMA 24; VFL 3.
\687\ VFL 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the section 15(a) factors for the proposed
amendment of the definition of ``Floor trader'' in Commission
Regulation 1.3(x), for purposes of registering participants with Direct
Electronic Access.
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
The Commission preliminarily believes that requiring market
participants with Direct Electronic Access to register with the
Commission will further the protection of market participants and the
public by enhancing the Commission's ability to seek information from
such firms and allow for wider implementation of many of the pre-trade
risk controls and other tools discussed in this release. Broader use of
these tools will reduce the likelihood of market disruptions that
adversely impact market participants and the public. Regulation AT may
serve to limit a ``race to the bottom,'' in which certain entities
sacrifice effective risk controls in order to minimize costs or
increase the speed of trading. The proposed rules, by standardizing the
risk controls required to be used by firms, would help ensure that the
benefits of these risk controls are more evenly distributed across a
wide set of market participants, and reduce the likelihood that an
outlier firm without sufficient risk controls causes significant market
disruption. Thus, the proposed registration requirement may help ensure
the protections of market participants and the public that these tools
provide as discussed above.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures
Markets
The Commission preliminarily believes that requiring market
participants with Direct Electronic Access to register with the
Commission will further the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial
integrity of futures markets by enhancing the Commission's ability to
seek information from such firms and allow for wider implementation of
many of the pre-trade risk controls and other tools discussed in this
release. Broader use of these tools will reduce the likelihood of
market disruptions that may adversely impact the efficiency and
integrity of the futures markets. Consistent use of these tools may
also even the playing field within groups of automated firms, such as
market-makers, or across firms with differing strategies. This
consistency can improve firm competitiveness and reduce disadvantages
experienced by those firms who would employ more comprehensive risk
control and order management programs even absent a rule requiring use
of such tools. Thus, the proposed registration requirement may help
ensure the furtherance of efficiency, competitiveness, and financial
integrity that these tools provide as discussed above.
iii. Price Discovery
The Commission preliminarily believes that requiring market
participants with direct market access to register with the Commission
will also further price discovery by enhancing the Commission's ability
to seek information from such firms and allow for wider implementation
of many of the pre-trade controls and risk management tools discussed
in this release. Broader use of these tools will reduce the likelihood
of market disruptions that may interfere with the price discovery
process. Thus, the proposed registration requirement may help ensure
the furtherance of price discovery protections that these tools provide
as discussed above.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The Commission preliminarily believes that requiring market
participants with direct market access to register with the Commission
will also further sound risk management practices by enhancing the
Commission's ability to seek information from such firms and allow for
wider implementation of many of the pre-trade controls and risk
management tools discussed in this release. Broader use of these tools
will reduce the likelihood of market disruptions that may interfere
with sound risk management practices. Thus, the proposed registration
requirement may help ensure the furtherance of sound risk management
practices that these tools provide as discussed above.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified any effects that these proposed
rules would have on other public interest considerations other than
those addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission considered a number of alternatives to the proposed
approach of requiring registration for entities with Direct Electronic
Access. In the Concept Release, the Commission sought comments
regarding broader registration of proprietary traders generally. Based
upon the comments received, many of which did not support registration,
the Commission is not proposing broad registration of proprietary
traders at this time.
As an alternative to requiring the registration of entities engaged
in proprietary Algorithmic Trading through DEA, the Commission
considered reaching such entities indirectly through the DCMs on which
they trade. This approach would have necessitated that DCMs implement
rules requiring relevant entities to meet the substantive standards of
Regulation AT. These DCM rules would have needed to require, for
example, that relevant entities implement pre-trade risk controls,
establish policies and procedures for testing and monitoring of ATSs,
and provide compliance reports regarding their algorithmic trading to
DCMs (which are currently proposed as direct obligations upon AT
Persons under Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83, respectively). This
alternative would have reduced the costs for such entities, since they
would not be required to register with the Commission. However,
[[Page 78916]]
such costs would instead have been borne by DCMs, and potentially
passed back on to relevant entities. The Commission did not pursue this
approach for a number of other reasons as well. In particular, the
Commission wanted to ensure that such entities are directly subject to
Commission regulations, rather than impose obligations indirectly
through DCMs. In addition, the Commission wanted to ensure a uniform
baseline of regulatory expectations which might not arise where
numerous DCMs are independently producing their own self-regulatory
standards in lieu of the Commission's standards. Furthermore, the
Commission also wanted to combine the requirement to register with the
Commission with the requirement under Sec. 170.18 that all AT Persons
must become a member of a registered futures association, so that the
RFA can consider adopting standards for automated trading and ATSs
applicable to AT Persons. These standards are described under Sec.
170.19. As discussed above, the Commission believes that Sec. Sec.
170.18 and 170.19 would allow RFAs to supplement elements of Regulation
AT as markets and trading technologies evolve over time, and do so in a
uniform manner that would not be available through separate initiatives
by individual DCMs.
The Commission also considered not requiring currently unregistered
entities to register with the Commission as floor traders. A number of
commenters supported such an approach, including FIA, which suggested
``[r]ather than creating a new registration framework, expanding the
information required in [the DCM's] audit trail may be a more direct
and efficient way to address the Commission's concerns.'' \688\ Other
commenters also focused on whether the Commission already had access to
the information that registration would ostensibly enable it to
acquire. Commenters pointed out that: DCMs already use Operator IDs;
the DCM audit trail already satisfies the goals of registration;
implementing the Commission's final rule on ownership and control
reporting (OCR) will provide additional information on trading
identities; and the Commission already has access to trade data (i.e.,
Regulation 1.40 and part 38's mandate that DCMs require market
participants to submit to jurisdiction).\689\ The Commission notes that
obtaining information from proprietary traders is not the primary
purpose of the proposed registration requirement, and therefore
believes that the goals of Regulation AT can only be realized by
requiring currently unregistered entities to register with the
Commission as floor traders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\688\ FIA at 44.
\689\ FIA 43-46; CME at 32-34; Gelber at 22-24; KCG at 18; MFA
at 3; AIMA at 2, 24; Chicago Fed at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed more fully in section IV(E)(3) above, the ``floor
trader'' definition is not being expanded to capture all proprietary
traders engaged in Algorithmic Trading; rather, the revised floor
trader definition is limited to firms using DEA to engage in
Algorithmic Trading. Registration of entities with DEA as floor traders
would enhance the pre-trade controls and risk management tools
discussed elsewhere in this NPRM by making such entities subject to the
various regulations governing AT Persons under the NPRM. For example,
the pre-trade risk controls listed in proposed Sec. 1.80--maximum AT
Order Message frequencies per unit time, maximum execution frequencies
per unit time, order price parameters and maximum order size limits--
must be established and used by all AT Persons. The Commission is also
considering whether it is appropriate to further limit the registration
requirement by adding a de minimis exception, whereby only those
persons with DEA who also meet certain trading volume or message volume
thresholds would be required to register.
f. Request for Comments
140. The Commission estimates that the costs of registration will
encompass direct costs (those associated with NFA membership, and
reporting and recordkeeping with the Commission), and indirect costs
(e.g. those associated to risk control requirements placed on all
registered entities). Has the Commission correctly identified the costs
associated with the new registration category? What firm
characteristics would change the level of direct and indirect costs
associated with the registration?
141. Has the Commission accurately estimated that approximately 100
currently unregistered entities will be captured by the new
registration requirement in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3).
142. Has the Commission accurately estimated that each currently
unregistered entity captured by the new registration requirement in
proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) will have approximately 10 persons required to
file Form 8-R?
143. As defined, the new floor trader category restricts the
registration requirement to those who make use of Direct Electronic
Access. Is this requirement overly restrictive or unduly broad from a
cost-benefit perspective? Are there alternate, or additional,
characteristics of trading activity to determine registration status
that would be preferable from a cost-benefit standpoint? For example,
should persons with trading volume or message volume below a specified
threshold be exempted from registration?
144. Will any currently unregistered entities change their business
model or exit the market in order to avoid the proposed registration
requirement?
145. The Commission believes that the risk control protocols
required of registered entities, specifically those under the new
registration category, will provide a general benefit to the safety and
soundness of market activity and price formation. Has the Commission
correctly identified the type and level of benefits which arise from
placing these requirements on a new set of significant market
participants?
146. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
9. Transparency in Exchange Trade Matching Systems
a. Background
The proposed regulations concerning additional disclosure by DCMs
regarding their trade matching systems (amendments to Sec. Sec.
38.401(a) and 40.1(i)) provide that DCMs publicly disclose certain
information prominently and clearly. These proposed regulations would
require DCMs to provide a description of attributes of trade matching
systems that materially affect the entry and execution of orders and
requests for quotes, including any changes to trade matching systems
that would cause such effects.
b. Costs
The Commission notes that DCMs are currently obligated under DCM
core principles and existing regulations to make available certain
types of information concerning the operation of their electronic
matching platforms through publication of rulebooks and through the
required posting of specifications of platforms on their Web site. DCMs
are also obligated under DCM core principles and existing regulations
to establish and maintain a program of risk analysis and oversight to
identify and minimize sources of operation risk, which should identify
and remediate aspects of an electronic matching platform that could
negatively affect market participants' orders. Therefore, to a large
extent, the Commission believes that the disclosure
[[Page 78917]]
requirements under proposed Sec. 38.401(a) would not materially impact
a DCM's operations costs.
The Commission anticipates that additional costs under proposed
Sec. 38.401(a) would be staff hours associated with drafting
descriptions of such attributes that the DCMs should already be
determining as part of their systems testing and disclosure of platform
specifications. Such drafting may also require additional
determinations as to the materiality of attributes and, where
applicable, additional testing of systems to ensure an accurate
description of those attributes in public documents. This may also
involve attorneys' fees associated with reviewing any disclosures.
The proposed amendments to Sec. 38.401(a) and (c) require DCMs to
publicly post information regarding certain aspects of their electronic
matching platforms. The Commission anticipates that DCMs are likely to
be aware of these aspects of their platforms based on their daily work
in operating their matching engines, monitoring performance, and
receiving customer feedback, among other internal monitoring
activities. As a result, the added burden under the proposed amendments
would be limited to drafting the description of such attributes and
making the description available on the DCM's Web site.
The Commission estimates that a DCM would incur an annual cost of
$19,200 to comply with amended Sec. 38.401(a)-(c), assuming the DCM is
already compliant with the requirements to post the specifications of
its electronic matching platform under current Sec. 38.401(a). This
cost represents the work of 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 200
hours (200 x $96 per hour = $19,200).\690\ The 15 DCMs that would be
subject to amended Sec. 38.401(a)-(c) would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $288,000 (15 x $19,200).\691\ The Commission anticipates
that this figure would decrease in subsequent years as the descriptions
provided would only need to be amended to reflect changes to the
electronic matching platform or the discovery of previously unknown
attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\690\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\691\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendment to Regulation 40.1(i) that adds the language
``(including but not limited to any operation of an electronic matching
platform that materially affects the time, priority, price, or quantity
of execution of market participant orders, the ability to cancel,
modify, or limit display of market participant orders, or the
dissemination of real-time market data to market participants)'' would
not result in any additional costs for DCMs. The Commission notes that
the proposed change to Regulation 40.1(i) clarifies and codifies the
Commission's existing interpretation of the term ``rule.'' Moreover,
the proposal is consistent with industry practice, whereby DCMs have
submitted as rule changes information regarding proposed changes to
electronic trade matching platform that affect the entry and execution
of market participant orders and quotes. Therefore, the Commission does
not anticipate that DCMs will be required to file submissions relating
to any changes to the platform that should not already be filed under
current Commission interpretation and industry practice.
c. Benefits
The Commission believes that the additional disclosure by DCMs
regarding their trade matching systems, pursuant to the proposed
amendments to Sec. Sec. 38.401(a) and 40.1(i), would have substantial
benefits for market participants. With a better understanding of how
their order messages interact with an electronic matching platform,
market participants can more efficiently use the electronic markets to
hedge risks. Moreover, the disclosure required by the proposed rule
would foster greater transparency in the operation of electronic
markets. This enhanced transparency would foster confidence in the
markets and ensure the availability of efficient markets to hedge
risks. Finally, this increased transparency would encourage competition
among DCMs to provide the best platforms for market participants, as
market participants would be able to evaluate better the relative
benefits of trading on individual exchanges. The Commission believes
that, to the extent that DCMs are currently in compliance with the
proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 38.401(a) and 40.1(i), many of the
benefits of the proposed amendments are already being realized. The
proposed rule will ensure that the benefits are being realized by
market participants at all DCMs.
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section 15(a) factors for the proposed
regulations requiring additional disclosure by DCMs regarding their
trade matching systems (amendments to Sec. Sec. 38.401(a) and
40.1(i)).
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed disclosure
requirement and the enhanced transparency that it would foster will
protect market participants by providing them with a better
understanding of how their order messages interact with an electronic
matching platform, thus facilitating their ability to tailor their
orders to their understanding of the matching engine and reducing the
likelihood of unpleasant surprises regarding order fills.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures
Markets
Requiring submissions for changes to available order types and
platform functionalities also ensures transparency on the operation of
such platforms, further encouraging competition among DCMs and
enhancing market integrity. The increased transparency may increase
investor confidence and expand participation in the futures markets.
iii. Price Discovery
The proposed rule may protect and enhance the price discovery
process by providing market participants and the public with a better
understanding of how buy and sell orders interact on the trading
platform, thus making the price discovery process more transparent.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposal may promote sound risk management practices by
providing market participants with more detailed information regarding
how their order messages will be processed once they reach the trading
platform, and how their messages will interact with messages from other
market participants, including the priority with which they will be
executed. This information will enable market participants to calibrate
their risk controls more effectively.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified any effects that these proposed
rules would have on other public interest considerations other than
those addressed above.
vi. Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission is considering the alternative of applying the
transparency requirement only with respect to latencies within a
platform and how a self-trade prevention tool determines whether to
cancel an order. The Commission preliminarily believes that the broader
language that it is proposing
[[Page 78918]]
would better ensure that DCMs disclose any additional attributes of an
electronic matching platform that may materially impact market
participant orders and any material attributes that may arise in the
future as the structures of matching engines continue to evolve. This
additional information may enable market participants to make better
and more informed decisions about their trading decisions.
e. Request for Comments
147. The Commission anticipates that costs associated with the
transparency requirement would come from some additional testing of
platform systems and from drafting and publishing descriptions of any
relevant attributes of the platform. What new costs would be associated
with providing descriptions of attributes of electronic matching
platforms that affect market participant orders and quotes?
148. Please compare the costs and benefits of the alternative of
applying the transparency requirement only with respect to latencies
within a platform and how a self-trade prevention tool determines
whether to cancel an order with the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule.
149. What benefits might market participants receive through
increased transparency into the operation of electronic matching
platforms, particularly for those market participants without direct
electronic access who may not be able to accurately measure latencies
or other metrics of market efficiency?
150. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
10. Self-Trade Prevention
a. Background
Regulation AT proposes a new requirement (Sec. 40.23) that a DCM
shall implement rules reasonably designed to prevent self-trading by
market participants, except as specified in paragraph (b) of Sec.
40.23. ``Self-trading'' is defined for purposes of Sec. 40.23 as the
matching of orders between accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common control. A DCM must either apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention tools that are
reasonably designed to prevent self-trading and are applicable to all
orders on its electronic trade matching platform. This requirement is
subject to the proviso in proposed Sec. 40.23(b) that a DCM may, in
its discretion, implement rules that permit the matching of orders for
accounts with common beneficial ownership where such orders are
initiated by independent decision makers. Under Sec. 40.23(b), a DCM
could also permit the matching of orders for accounts under common
control where such orders comply with the DCM's cross-trade, minimum
exposure requirements or similar rules, and are for accounts that are
not under common beneficial ownership.
Proposed Sec. 40.23(c) states that a DCM may only permit the self-
trading described in Sec. 40.23(b) if the DCM complies with certain
requirements, including the requirement under Sec. 40.23(c) that the
DCM requires market participants to request approval from the DCM that
self-trade prevention tools not be applied with respect to specific
accounts under common beneficial ownership or control, on the basis
that they meet the criteria of Sec. 40.23(b). Finally, proposed Sec.
40.23(d) would require DCMs to publish statistics on their Web site
with respect to self-trading activity on their platform. For example,
each DCM would be required to describe the amount of trading on its
platform that represents permitted self-trading approved pursuant to
Sec. 40.23(b).
b. Costs
The Commission assumes that most, if not all, DCMs currently offer
self-trade prevention controls or plan to implement them and provide
them for use by market participants in the near future. FIA recommends
that DCMs offer such controls,\692\ and several DCMs provide the
controls, a capability which was introduced, and refined, in recent
years.\693\ As a result, subject to consideration of relevant comments,
the Commission preliminarily believes that DCMs would not incur
additional costs to develop and offer self-trade prevention controls as
required by Sec. 40.23(a). The Commission has, nonetheless, estimated
the cost to a DCM that does not currently offer self-trade prevention
tools to develop and implement such tools for purposes of complying
with Sec. 40.23(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\692\ FIA at 25-27.
\693\ FIA at 25-27; MFA at 8; Gelber 7-9; AIMA at 10; IATP at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to DCMs to Implement Self-Trade Prevention Tools. The
Commission estimates that a DCM would incur a total one-time cost of
$155,520 to implement these Sec. 40.23(a) requirements, in the absence
of any existing controls. This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Project Manager, working for 480 hours (480 x $70 = $33,600); 1
Business Analyst, working for 480 hours (480 x $52 = $24,960); 1
Tester, working for 480 hours (480 x $52 = $24,960); and 2 Developers,
working for a combined 960 hours (960 x $75 = $72,000).\694\
Notwithstanding these estimates, the Commission believes that the
requirement under proposed Sec. 40.23(a) that DCMs either apply self-
trade prevention tools, or provide such tools to market participants,
standardizes existing industry practice. As a result, subject to
consideration of relevant comments, the Commission preliminarily
believes that this requirement under Sec. 40.23(a) will not impose
additional costs on DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\694\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCM Review of Approval Requests. DCMs will, however, incur
additional costs in connection with proposed Sec. 40.23(c). This
provision requires market participants to request approval from the DCM
that self-trade prevention tools not be applied with respect to
specific accounts under common beneficial ownership or control, on the
basis that they meet the criteria of Sec. 40.23(b). DCMs will incur
costs to review these Sec. 40.23(c) approval requests. These costs may
vary significantly depending on the number of approval requests a DCM
receives. The Commission has therefore estimated the average annual
costs that a DCM will incur, while acknowledging that DCMs may incur
lower or higher costs depending on the number of requests received. On
average, the Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a DCM will
incur a cost of $22,000 to review these approval requests. This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working for 200
hours (200 x $58 per hour = $11,600); and 1 Business Analyst, working
for 200 hours (200 x $52 per hour = $10,400).\695\ The 15 DCMs that
will be subject to Sec. 40.23(c) would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $330,000 (15 x 22,000).\696\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\695\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\696\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCM Publication of Statistics Regarding Self-Trade Prevention. In
addition, DCMs will incur costs to generate and publish the self-trade
statistics on their Web site required by Sec. 40.23(d). The Commission
estimates that, on an annual basis, a DCM will incur a cost of $6,650
to generate and publish these statistics. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Developer, working for 50 hours (50 x $75 per hour =
$3,750); and 1 Senior Compliance Examiner, working for 50 hours (50 x
[[Page 78919]]
$58 per hour = $2,900).\697\ The 15 DCMs that will be subject to Sec.
40.23(c) and (d) would therefore incur a total annual cost of $99,750
(15 x 6,650).\698\ These costs may vary significantly depending on the
size of a DCM and the number of products it lists for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\697\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\698\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of persons subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, proposed Sec. 40.23 requires DCMs to apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention tools that are
reasonably designed to prevent self-trading and are applicable to all
orders on its electronic trade matching platform. To the extent that a
DCM offers self-trade prevention tools to market participants, in lieu
of the DCM internalizing and directly applying these tools, then market
participants will be required to use these tools. Commenters indicated
that exchange-provided self-trading controls are widely used by market
participants.\699\ The FIA PTG Survey indicated that 25 of 26
responding firms use such controls.\700\ In the event that a market
participant is required to use self-trade prevention tools in the
scenario described above, and was not previously using such tools, the
Commission estimates that the market participant will not incur any
additional costs beyond those costs already incurred to implement the
pre-trade risk controls required by Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\699\ FIA at 26; Gelber at 7-9.
\700\ FIA at 26, 59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Participant Approval Requests. Market participants will,
however, incur additional costs in the event that they prepare and
submit the approval requests contemplated by Sec. 40.23(c). This
provision requires market participants to request approval from DCMs on
which they are active that self-trade prevention tools not be applied
with respect to specific accounts under common beneficial ownership or
control. The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, a market
participant will incur a total cost of $3,810 to prepare and submit
these approval requests to the DCMs on which the market participant is
active. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Business Analyst,
working for 30 hours (30 x $52 per hour = $1,560); and 1 Developer,
working for 30 hours (30 x $75 per hour = $2,250).\701\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\701\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission cannot predict how many market participants would
likely submit the approval requests contemplated by Sec. 40.23(c) on
an annual basis. The Commission believes that not all market
participants trading on a DCM would submit such requests. In the view
of the Commission, for example, a limited subset of market participants
will own two or more accounts, but operate them through ``independent
decision makers'' that initiate orders for ``separate business
purposes,'' as contemplated by Sec. 40.23(b). Similarly, a limited
subset of market participants will find it advantageous to incur the
costs associated with the self-trading described by Sec. 40.23(b),
such as trading costs and clearing fees. In addition, the Commission
believes that market participants submitting orders through Algorithmic
Trading are more likely than traders submitting orders manually to
inadvertently self-trade through independent decision-makers. The
Commission estimates that, notwithstanding the fact that the DCM rules
described in Sec. 40.23(c) are directed to all market participants,
the number of market participants that will submit the approval
requests described therein are equivalent to the number of AT Persons
calculated above (420).\702\ On this basis, the Commission estimates
that market participants will incur a total annual cost of $1,600,200
to submit the approval requests contemplated by Sec. 40.23(c) ($3,810
per market participant x 420 market participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\702\ See section V(A) above for the calculation of the number
of person subject to Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Benefits
The Commission notes that, to the extent that DCMs are offering
self-trade prevention tools and market participants are using them,
many of the benefits of the proposed rules are already being realized.
Nonetheless, the Commission has determined to propose rules in the area
of self-trading that address both intentional and unintentional
matching of orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership
or are under common control, with the goal of benefiting markets and
market participants. In particular, the proposed rules would codify a
regulatory baseline for self-trade prevention across DCMs, and provide
all market participants with enhanced transparency regarding the
products in which they trade.
Regulation AT addresses certain self-trading as provided in Sec.
40.23(a) and (b) (trades between accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common control, with certain exceptions). At
their extreme, intentional self-trades, or wash sales, may indicate an
intent to manipulate a market by creating a false impression of supply
or demand or distortions in prices. While Section 4c of the CEA
prohibits wash sales, unintentional self-trades are not specifically
prohibited under the statute. While existing Commission rules address
market manipulation, including wash sales, the use of self-trade tools
(as compared to an electronic market without such controls) can improve
market functioning, aid firm and market efficiency, and minimize
unintentional, and often unnecessary, trading by firms that may be
difficult for firms to track on their own. Absent self-trade controls,
it has become even more difficult for firms to avoid unintentional
self-matches due to their use of automated strategies, which make
trading decisions in isolation from the rest of the firm at very high
speeds. The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed rule,
by standardizing the use of self-trade controls, will ensure that these
benefits of self-trade controls will be available to all market
participants. The Commission believes that DCMs are best situated to
promulgate rules designed to limit the frequency of self-trading on
their platforms, and to provide disclosure to the marketplace regarding
the frequency of self-trade activity on their platform.
Proposed Sec. 40.23(c) requires market participants to request
approval from DCMs on which they are active that self-trade prevention
tools not be applied with respect to specific accounts under common
beneficial ownership or control. The Commission preliminarily believes
that this rule will benefit the market by providing, to the DCMs,
additional transparency on the relationships between accounts and
trading strategies within a firm. In addition, the rule will better
ensure that firms will apply self-trade prevention tools in a
consistent manner.
The Commission preliminarily believes that publication of self-
trade statistics by DCMs (proposed Sec. 40.23(d)) will benefit market
participants by providing transparency about the frequency of certain
categories of self-trades on each DCM, which can aid in a better
understanding of the sources, and characteristics, of liquidity demand
and supply across futures products.
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section 15(a) factors for the new
proposed requirement (Sec. 40.23) that a DCM shall implement rules
reasonably designed to prevent self-trading by market participants,
except as specified in paragraph (b) of Sec. 40.23.
[[Page 78920]]
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed rule would
protect market participants and the public by codifying the use of
self-trade controls and increasing transparency around self-trading as
required by proposed Sec. 40.23(d). It may also incentivize practices
that help to reduce the likelihood of wash trades and self-trades.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures
Markets
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed rule
standardizing the use of self-trade controls and increasing
transparency around self-trading would promote the efficiency of the
markets. The use of self-trade controls may promote financial integrity
by helping to limit self-trades (including intentional and potentially
manipulative self-trades). Moreover, requiring that DCMs provide self-
trade controls and that market participants use them may enhance
competitiveness by preventing a race to the bottom; that is,
eliminating the possibility that a DCM or market participant could
elect not to require or implement self-trade prevention in order to
gain competitive advantage.
iii. Price Discovery
The proposed rule may protect and enhance the price discovery
process by standardizing the use of self-trade controls and increasing
transparency around self-trading.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposed rule may promote sound risk management practices since
self-trade controls (which the rule codifies) give market participants
greater ability to avoid unintentional self-trading that could expose
them to various financial risks.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified any effects that these proposed
rules would have on other public interest considerations other than
those addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
Proposed Sec. 40.23 provides that DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools by requiring market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account identification process, the Commission's
principal goal is to address unintentional self-trading; the Commission
does not have a specific interest in regulating the manner by which
market participants identify to DCMs the accounts that should not trade
with each other, so long as this goal is met. The Commission has
requested comment on whether other identification methods should be
permitted in Sec. 40.23. For example, the Commission has requested
comment on whether the opposite approach is preferable: market
participants would identify to DCMs the accounts that should be
permitted to trade with each other (as opposed to those accounts that
should be prevented from trading with each other). The Commission has
also asked for comment on whether other identification methods would
reduce costs for market participants or be easier for both market
participants and DCMs to administer. Upon consideration of comments,
the Commission may choose to adopt these other methods in lieu of what
is now proposed.
f. Request for Comments
151. Please comment on the cost estimates described above for DCMs
and market participants to comply with the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
The Commission is interested in commenter opinion on all aspects of its
analysis, including its estimate of the number of entities impacted by
the proposed regulation and the amount of costs such entities may incur
to comply with the regulation.
152. Please comment on the benefits described above. Do you agree
with the Commission's position that self-trade prevention requirements
will result in more accurate indications of the level of market
interest on both sides of the market and help ensure arms-length
transactions that promote effective price discovery? Are there
additional benefits to regulatory self-trade prevention requirements
not articulated above?
153. Are there any DCMs that neither internalize and apply self-
trade prevention tools, nor provide self-trade prevention tools to
their market participants? If so, please provide an estimate of the
cost to such a DCM to comply with the requirement under Sec. 40.23(a)
to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools.
154. Would any DCMs that currently offer self-trade prevention
tools need to update their tools to meet the requirements of Sec.
40.23? If so, please provide an estimate of the cost to such a DCM to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
155. What percentage of market participants do not currently make
use of exchange-provided self-trade prevention tools, when active on a
DCM that provides, but does not require such tools? Please provide an
estimate of the cost to such a market participant to initially
calibrate and use exchange-provided self-trade prevention tools, in
accordance with Sec. 40.23. Please also comment on any other direct or
indirect costs to a market participant that does not currently use
self-trade prevention tools arising from the proposed requirement to
implement such tools.
156. The Commission estimates above that the number of market
participants that will submit the approval requests described by Sec.
40.23(c) is approximately equivalent to the number of AT Persons.
Please comment on whether the estimate of the number of market
participants submitting such approval requests should be higher or
lower. For example, should the estimate be raised to account for
proprietary algorithmic traders that will not be AT Persons, because
they do not use Direct Electronic Access and therefore will not be
required to register as floor traders?
157. Proposed Sec. 40.23 provides that DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools by requiring market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account identification process, the Commission's
principal goal is to prevent unintentional self-trading; the Commission
does not have a specific interest in regulating the manner by which
market participants identify to DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other, so long as this goal is met.
Should any other identification methods be permitted in Sec. 40.23?
For example, please comment on whether the opposite approach is
preferable: market participants would identify to DCMs the accounts
that should be permitted to trade with each other (as opposed to those
accounts that should be prevented from trading with each other). In
particular, please comment on whether this approach or other
identification methods would reduce costs for market participants or be
easier for both market participants and DCMs to administer.
158. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
[[Page 78921]]
11. Market-Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
a. Summary of Proposed Rules
The Commission is proposing new regulations in part 40 to increase
transparency around DCM market-maker and trading incentive programs,
underline existing regulatory expectations, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such programs. The proposed regulations
would amend existing Sec. 40.1(i), which applies to all registered
entities, to make clear that market-maker and trading incentive
programs are ``rules'' for purposes of part 40, and therefore subject
to part 40's rule filing requirements. They would also establish
information requirements when DCMs file rules for Commission approval
pursuant to existing Sec. 40.5 or self-certify rules pursuant to
existing Sec. 40.6. Information requirements would be codified in
proposed Sec. 40.25, including Sec. 40.25(a) for information to be
provided to the Commission and Sec. 40.25(b) specifying information
that must be available on a DCM's public Web site. Relatedly, proposed
Sec. 40.26 would permit the Commission or the director of DMO to
require certain information from DCMs regarding their market-maker or
trading incentive programs, including but not limited to copies of
program agreements, names of program participants, and payments or
other benefits conferred pursuant to a program.
The most substantive provisions of the Commission's proposed rules
for market-maker and trading incentive programs are in new Sec.
40.27(a). Proposed Sec. 40.27(a) would codify DMO's long-standing
guidance to DCMs that market-maker and trading incentive programs
should not provide payments or incentives for trades between accounts
under common ownership. Finally, the proposed regulations would also
make clear in Sec. 40.28 that DCMs' existing trade practice and market
surveillance responsibilities in subparts C and E of part 38 apply
equally to market-maker and trading incentive programs.
b. Costs
i. Rule 40.1(i)--Definition of ``Rule''; and Rule 40.26--Information
Requests From the Commission or the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight
Proposed amendments to Sec. 40.1 and new Sec. 40.26 serve in
large part to emphasize existing regulatory requirements and Commission
or staff authorities. As such, they are not expected to impose
meaningful costs on DCMs. While they may in some cases impose minor
incremental costs, they should not require entirely new programs,
systems, or categories of employees for DCMs that are already compliant
with parts 38 and 40 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 40.1(i) to make clear that
market-maker and trading incentive programs are ``rules'' for purposes
of part 40. This codification of a previously articulated Commission
standard with broad industry-wide acceptance should not give rise to
new costs for market participants. The Commission has previously stated
its view, in a Final Rule regarding Provisions Common to Registered
Entities, that a market-maker or trading incentive program is an
``agreement'' corresponding to ``trading protocol'' as such terms are
used within Sec. 40.1(i)'s existing definition of ``rule.'' \703\ In
the same Final Rule, the Commission stated that ``all market maker and
trading incentive programs must be submitted to the Commission in
accordance with the procedures established in part 40.'' \704\ DCMs,
for example, certify numerous market-maker and trading incentive
programs to the Commission annually, including 341 such self-
certifications in 2013. For these and other rule filings, DCMs already
employ corresponding staff and other resources to comply with their
part 40 obligations. The proposed amendments to Sec. 40.1(i) do not
create a new category of rule filings, nor do they require more
frequent filings. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would require no
additional staff or other resources beyond those already in place to
meet existing rule filing requirements in part 40. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Sec. 40.1(i) will
impose no additional costs on the registered entities to which it
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\703\ See Final Rule, Provisions Common to Registered Entities,
76 FR 44776, 44778 (July 27, 2011), where the Commission stated,
specifically with respect to DCMs, that ``[a] DCM's rules
implementing market maker and trading incentive programs fall within
the Commission's oversight authority.''
\704\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 40.26 is a new regulatory provision that would
permit the Commission or the director of DMO to require certain
information from DCMs regarding their market-maker or trading incentive
programs. As with Sec. 40.1(i), the Commission believes that proposed
Sec. 40.26 will impose no additional costs on DCMs. The proposed
regulation is a more targeted iteration of existing Sec. 38.5, which
requires a DCM to file with the Commission such ``information related
to its business as a designated contract market'' as the Commission may
require. Section 38.5 also requires a DCM upon request by the
Commission or the director of DMO to file ``a written demonstration''
that the DCM ``is in compliance with one or more core principles as
specified in the request'' or ``satisfies its obligations under the
Act,'' including ``supporting data, information and documents.''
Proposed Sec. 40.26 does not alter a DCM's existing obligations
under Sec. 38.5, but rather makes clear that Commission and DMO
information requests may pertain specifically to market-maker and
trading incentive programs. It also provides a non-exhaustive list of
the types of ``supporting data, information and documents'' that the
Commission or the director of DMO may request that is particularly
appropriate to market-maker and trading incentive programs. Proposed
Sec. 40.26 imposes no new obligation to provide information, and does
not increase the frequency which information must be provided. The
Commission is aware that DCMs already employ legal, business,
technology, and other staff and resources necessary to respond to Sec.
38.5 information requests. The Commission believes that the same staff
will be appropriate for any Sec. 40.26 information request that it may
issue to focus specifically on market-maker or trading incentive
programs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that proposed Sec.
40.26 will impose no additional costs on DCMs.
ii. Rule 40.25--Additional Public Information Required for Market Maker
and Trading Incentive Programs; and Rule 40.28--Surveillance of Market
Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
Proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would require DCMs to provide the
Commission with certain information regarding their market-maker and
trading incentive programs when submitting such programs as rules
pursuant to part 40. Specifically, when requesting approval of a new
program pursuant to Sec. 40.5, or self-certifying a program pursuant
to Sec. 40.6, DCMs would be required to provide the name of the
program, the date on which it begins, and the date on which it
terminates (if applicable). DCMs would also be required to provide a
description of any categories of market participants or eligibility
criteria limiting who may participate in the program. For any market-
maker or trading incentive program open to only some market
participants, proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would require DCMs to explain why
the program was limited to the chosen participants or criteria.
Proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would also require DCMs to include in their
rule filings an
[[Page 78922]]
explanation of how persons eligible for a market-maker or trading
incentive program would apply to participate, and how eligibility would
be evaluated by the DCM.
Separately, proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would require DCMs to provide
an explanation of the specific purpose for a market-maker or trading
incentive program, and a list of all products or services to which the
program applies. It would also require a description of any payments,
incentives, discounts, considerations, inducements or other benefits
that program participants may receive, including any non-financial
incentives. Finally, proposed Sec. 40.25(a) would require a
description of the obligations, benchmarks, or other measures that
participants in a market-maker or trading incentive program must meet
to receive benefits.
To ensure public transparency in market-maker and trading incentive
programs, proposed Sec. 40.25(b) would enlarge upon DCMs' existing
obligations in part 40 to provide public notice and other information
regarding their rule filings. Specifically, proposed Sec. 40.25(b)
would require DCMs to ensure that the information described above in
Sec. 40.25(a) is easily located on their public Web sites. Lastly,
proposed Sec. 40.25(c) would require DCMs to notify the Commission
upon the termination of a market maker or trading incentive program.
While proposed Sec. 40.25 would require information from DCMs
regarding their market-maker or trading incentive programs, the
Commission believes it largely incorporates existing rule filing
requirements in part 40. For example, existing Sec. Sec. 40.5 and 40.6
each require a DCM requesting approval or self-certifying rules to
provide the Commission with the rule text; the proposed effective date
or date of intended implementation; and an ``explanation and analysis
of the operation, purpose, and effect'' of the proposed rule. Existing
Sec. Sec. 40.5 and 40.6 also require each DCM to provide the
Commission with an assessment of the rule's ``compliance with
applicable provisions of the Act, including core principles, and the
Commission's regulations thereunder;'' and ``a brief explanation of any
substantive opposing views expressed to [the DCM] by governing board or
committee members, members of the entity or market participants that
were not incorporated into the rule. . . . '' Furthermore, these
existing provisions each require a DCM to certify that the DCM posted
on its public Web site a notice of pending rule or certification and to
also post a copy of the DCM's submission to the Commission on the DCM's
Web site.
The Commission believes proposed Sec. 40.25 adds important clarity
to existing rule filing requirements in part 40 when such filings
pertain to market-maker or trading incentive programs. However, it also
recognizes important overlaps between proposed Sec. 40.25 and existing
regulations in Sec. Sec. 40.5 and 40.6. Furthermore, proposed Sec.
40.25 does not create a new category of rule filings, nor does it or
require more frequent filings. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that additional costs to DCMs attributable to Sec. 40.25 will
not be significant. As an example of such costs, DCMs will need to
evaluate Sec. 40.25 and assess whether and what filings must be made
to comply with the regulation. In addition, the more explicit
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.25, as compared to existing
regulations, may prompt DCMs to make filings that they otherwise may
not have made. The Commission estimates the costs of proposed Sec.
40.25 per DCM as described below.
The Commission believes that the work of proposed Sec. 40.25 will
fall primarily upon DCM Compliance Attorneys already employed in
completing part 40 rule filings. The Commission estimates that a DCM
(through its Compliance Attorneys) will incur a total annual cost of
$14,976 to comply with proposed Sec. 40.25. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 156 hours \705\ (156 x
$96 per hour = $14,976).\706\ On average, the 15 DCMs to which proposed
Sec. 40.25 would apply would therefore incur a total annual cost of
$224,640 (15 x $14,976) to comply with proposed Sec. 40.25. The
Commission notes, however, that actual costs per DCM may vary depending
on the number of market-maker and trading incentive program rule
filings submitted by an individual DCM on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\705\ The Commission estimates that a Compliance Attorney will
be required to spend an additional three hours per week over the
course of a 52 week year to comply with proposed Sec. 40.25. Such
hours are additional because DCMs are already required to provide
substantial information regarding market-maker and trading incentive
program rule filings pursuant to existing requirements in Sec. Sec.
40.5 and 40.6 as discussed above. Three additional hours per week
across a 52 week year yields approximately 156 additional hours per
year per DCM to comply with proposed Sec. 40.25.
\706\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, proposed Sec. 40.28 requires that a DCM, ``consistent
with its obligations pursuant to subparts C and E of part 38 . . .
review all benefits accorded to participants in market maker and
trading incentive programs . . . to ensure that such benefits are not
earned through abusive practices.'' Notably, the proposed regulation
points to preexisting requirements in the Commission's rules--and to
costs that DCMs must already assume independently of proposed Sec.
40.28. Subpart C of part 38, entitled ``Compliance with Rules,''
requires DCMs to prohibit abusive trading practices on its markets by
all members and market participants, including but not limited to a
series of enumerated trade practice violations. It also requires DCMs
to have the capacity to detect and investigate rule violations,
including sufficient compliance staff and resources, automated trade
surveillance systems, and real-time market monitoring. Subpart E,
``Prevention of Market Disruptions,'' requires DCMs to ``collect and
evaluate data on individual traders' market activity on an ongoing
basis in order to detect and prevent manipulation, [and] price
distortions.'' In addition, subpart E requires a DCM to have the
ability to ``comprehensively and accurately'' reconstruct trading on
its markets, obtain information from its market participants, and
implement additional requirements for cash-settled and physically-
settled contracts.
Proposed Sec. 40.28 does not add to the oversight responsibilities
outlined above, but rather makes clear that a DCM's existing
obligations in subparts C and E of part 38 apply equally in the context
of market-maker and trading incentive programs. The Commission believes
that proposed Sec. 40.28 will impose no significant new costs on DCMs,
but acknowledges that it may result in minor administrative costs.
Specifically, a DCM not already doing so will be required to ensure
appropriate communication between its compliance staff tasked with
detecting abusive practices and its business staff that may administer
the DCM's market-maker or trading incentive programs. For example, in
the case of an incentive program based on a market participant's gross
trading volume, compliance staff would be required to inform business
staff of trades that should not be credited towards the incentive
program because they were conducted in violation of an exchange rule.
The Commission believes that the costs associated with proposed Sec.
40.28 are not significant due in part to DCMs' existing surveillance
capabilities, which are typically highly automated.
The Commission estimated the costs of complying with proposed Sec.
40.28. In making its estimates, the Commission determined that the
primary costs associated with the regulation will be communication
between a DCM's
[[Page 78923]]
compliance and business staffs. The Commission estimates that a DCM
will incur a total annual cost of $12,710 to comply with proposed Sec.
40.28. This cost is broken down as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney,
working for 62 hours (62 x $96 per hour = $5,952); 1 Senior Compliance
Specialist, working for 62 hours (62 x $57 per hour = $3,534); and 1
Business Analyst, working for 62 hours (62 x $52 per hour =
$3,224).\707\ In the event that no DCM is currently in compliance with
proposed Sec. 40.28, the 15 DCMs to which proposed Sec. 40.28 would
apply would therefore incur a total annual cost of $190,650 (15 x
$12,710) to comply with proposed Sec. 40.28.\708\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\707\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\708\ The Commission estimates that each such staff person will
be required to dedicate approximately 1 hour per week over the
course of a 52 week year, yielding approximately 52 hours per year.
The Commission is increasing these estimates by an additional 20
percent to account for more complicated circumstances that may
arise. This yields a total of approximately 62 hours per year for
each relevant staff role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Rule Sec. 40.27--Payment for Trades With No Change in Ownership
Prohibited
The Commission is also proposing new Sec. 40.27(a) to require that
DCMs implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent
the payment of market-maker or trading incentive payments for trades
between accounts identified to the DCM as under common beneficial
common ownership or known to the DCM as under common ownership.
Proposed Sec. 40.27(a) is consistent with guidance provided to DCMs by
the Commission that incentive payments should not be made for ``self-
trades.'' In this regard, the proposed regulation ratifies staff's
previous guidance \709\ and further develops the Commission's
expectations regarding appropriate uses of market-maker and trading
incentive programs. However, because the subject matter of proposed
Sec. 40.27(a) is not explicitly addressed in existing regulations, the
Commission is analyzing it as an entirely new cost to DCMs for this
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\709\ See Final Rule, Provisions Common to Registered Entities,
76 FR 44776, 44778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the costs associated with proposed
Sec. 40.27(a) will be administrative in nature. DCMs will be required
to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that
self-trades permitted pursuant to Sec. 40.23 nonetheless do not
receive market-maker or trading incentives payments, discounts or other
considerations. DCMs will also be required to implement policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that any other self-trades
known to the DCM do not receive market-maker or trading incentive
payments, discounts or other considerations.
The Commission believes a DCM could efficiently implement proposed
Sec. 40.27(a) by requiring the DCM's compliance staff (Senior
Compliance Specialist) to periodically provide its business staff
(Business Analyst) with summary statistics regarding self-trades by
market participants. Business Analysts responsible for administering a
market-maker or trading incentive program could then discount such
trades from any payments, benefits, or other considerations made
pursuant to a program. Reports regarding self-trades could be automated
at the DCM's discretion. When necessary, Senior Compliance Specialists
could collaborate with the DCM's legal staff (Compliance Attorney) to
address instances in which the existence of a self-trade is unclear.
Similarly, Business Analysts could collaborate with legal or compliance
counterparts where a market participant challenges the DCM's
determinations or payments. The Commission believes that a similar
process of information flow to Business Analysts administering
payments, benefits, or other considerations pursuant to a market-maker
or trading incentive program would also be appropriate to implement
proposed Sec. 40.27(a). The Commission estimates the costs of
compliance as described below.
The Commission estimates that a DCM will incur a total annual cost
of $30,108 to comply with proposed Sec. 40.27(a). This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney, working for 52 hours (52 x $96
per hour = $4,992); 1 Senior Compliance Specialist, working for 156
hours (156 x $57 per hour = $8,892); and 1 Business Analyst, working
for 312 hours (312 x $52 per hour = $16,224).\710\ The 15 DCMs to which
proposed Sec. 40.27(a) would apply would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $451,620 (15 x $16,224) to comply with proposed Sec.
40.27(a).\711\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\710\ See section V(B) above for the calculation of hourly wage
rates used in this analysis.
\711\ The Commission estimates that a Compliance Attorney will
require 1 hour per week, a Senior Compliance Specialist will require
3 hours per week, and a Business Analyst will require 6 hours per
week, in each case over the course of a 52 week year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Benefits
The Commission anticipates that the proposed amendments to Sec.
40.1(i) and new Sec. Sec. 40.25-40.28 will facilitate Commission
oversight; increase public transparency; and help ensure market-maker
and trading incentive programs that are compliant with the Act and
Commission regulations. The proposed rules are consistent with existing
regulatory expectations. To the extent that they impose requirements
beyond those of existing Commission regulations and to the extent that
DCMs are currently not in compliance with the proposed rules, the
Commission expects the rules to increase transparency around DCM
market-maker and trading incentive programs, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such programs. Building on the Dodd-Frank
Act, the Commission adopted in June 2012 core principles and final
rules modernizing the regulatory regime applicable to all DCMs (``DCM
Final Rules''). Among other areas, the DCM Final Rules emphasized DCMs'
obligations as the front-line regulators of their markets. These
include extensive trade practice responsibilities pursuant to subpart C
of part 38, and market surveillance responsibilities pursuant to
subpart E. In addition, the Commission codified new requirements that a
DCM offer its ``members [and] persons with trading privileges . . .
with impartial access to its markets and services,'' including: (1)
``Access criteria that are impartial, transparent and applied in a non-
discriminatory manner'' and (2) ``comparable fee structures . . . for
equal access to, or services from'' the DCM.
Substantively, the Commission believes that the proposed
regulations for market-maker and trading incentive programs will help
facilitate Commission oversight by eliminating any potential ambiguity
that may exist regarding its authority over such programs. Proposed
amendments to the definition of ``rule'' in Sec. 40.1(i), in
particular, will codify previous statements by the Commission regarding
the treatment of market-maker and trading incentive programs as
``rules'' pursuant to part 40, which statements however were not
explicitly reflected in existing Sec. 40.1(i). Proposed Sec. 40.25
will enhance the types of information that DCMs should expect to
provide the Commission when requesting approval or self-certifying
market-maker or trading incentive programs. Such information will
include a description of any eligibility criteria for participation in
a market-maker or trading incentive program, and an explanation for
programs with limited eligibility. Proposed Sec. 40.25 will also
require that information regarding
[[Page 78924]]
market-maker and trading incentive programs be easily located on a
DCM's Web site. Taken together, these measures will for example
facilitate the Commission's oversight of DCMs' compliance with
impartial access and comparable fee structure requirements in Sec.
38.151(b) adopted by the Commission in 2012.
Proposed Sec. 40.27(a) is designed to promote market integrity and
to discourage abusive trading practices. The Commission believes it is
imperative that market participants are not incentivized to trade
solely for the purpose of collecting market-maker or trading incentive
program benefits. Trading for the sake of collecting such benefits may,
for example, inaccurately signal the level of liquidity in the market
and may result in a non-bona fide price. Key public statistics
published by DCMs regarding trades, orders, and other measures of
liquidity on their markets must not be inflated through trading
strategies that may be violative of DCM or Commission rules and that
are designed solely to collect incentives or to meet market-maker
program requirements. For example, the Commission seeks to eliminate
incentives that may encourage market participants to engage in illegal
behavior such as wash trading, which is prohibited under the CEA and
Commission regulations.\712\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\712\ See Section 4c(a) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(2)(A), and
Commission regulation 1.38(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section 15(a) factors for the proposed
new regulations in part 40 to increase transparency around DCM market-
maker and trading incentive programs, underline existing regulatory
expectations, and introduce basic safeguards in the conduct of such
programs. The proposed regulations would amend existing Sec. 40.1(i)
and create new Sec. Sec. 40.25- 40.28.
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed rule would
protect market participants and the public by eliminating potential
ambiguity that may exist regarding the Commission's expectations and
requirements with respect to market-maker and trading incentive
programs and by guarding against such programs incentivizing self-
trading. By so doing, the proposed rules would help ensure that volume
reports accurately reflect levels of bona fide risk shifting
transactions activity rather than self-trades. It may also reduce the
frequency of self-trades, and eliminate incentives that may encourage
market participants to engage in illegal behavior such as wash trading,
by prohibiting market-maker or trading incentive program payments for
transactions involving accounts under common ownership.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures
Markets
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed rule would
promote the efficiency, competitiveness and financial integrity of
futures markets by clarifying Commission requirements and expectations
regarding market-maker and trading incentive programs. The proposed
rule regarding payments to accounts with common ownership may reduce
incentives to self-trade and thus may also help further ensure (beyond
the rules related to self-trades also being proposed in this release)
that market volumes reflect only trades that shift risk between
different counterparties and thus accurately reflect supply and demand
in the market and true market liquidity. The proposed rule regarding
payments to accounts with common ownership may promote financial
integrity by helping to prevent intentional self-trades (wash trades)
that could lead to price distortions.
iii. Price Discovery
The Commission expects that the proposed rule regarding payments to
accounts with common ownership to protect and enhance the price
discovery process by helping to prevent intentional self-trades (wash
trades) that could lead to price distortions. The proposed rules also
would make clear Commission requirements designed to prevent market-
maker and trading incentive programs from interfering with or doing
harm to the price discovery process.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposed rule regarding payments to accounts with common
ownership may promote sound risk management practices by helping to
ensure that market-maker and trading incentive programs do not
incentivize self-trades or wash trades. The proposed rules also would
make clear Commission requirements designed to prevent market-maker and
trading incentive programs from deterring sound risk management
considerations.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified any effects that these proposed
rules would have on other public interest considerations other than
those addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
As discussed, the proposed rules regarding market-maker and trading
incentive programs largely refer to and clarify the Commission's
existing rules and guidance and make Commission expectations more clear
to new and existing DCMs. The Commission considered not proposing these
rules. Absent these rules, the Commission could still realize many of
the benefits by enforcing the existing regulations, but it would be
more difficult to ensure that DCMs provide information regarding
market-maker and trading incentive programs prominently on their Web
sites. Moreover, absent the proposed rule, there would only be guidance
rather than a rule regarding payments for self-trades. The Commission
has determined to propose these rules to provide increased regulatory
certainty to DCMs and market participants regarding market-maker and
trading incentive programs and to ensure that such programs do not
permit self-trade payments.
f. Request for Comments
159. The Commission requests comment on the accuracy of its cost
estimates.
160. To what extent are the costs imposed on the DCMs by the
proposed rule already incurred pursuant to existing rules?
161. To what extent are the benefits of the proposed rule currently
being realized?
162. Do DCM Web sites currently provide adequate information
regarding market-maker and trading incentive programs, and is such
information easily located?
163. To what extent do DCMs currently make payments for self-trades
pursuant to market-maker and trading incentive programs?
164. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
VI. Aggregate Estimated Cost of Regulation AT
Summarizing the cost estimates presented above, the Commission
estimates that Regulation AT will impose the following costs on persons
subject to its rules. These costs are broken into one-time costs for
initial compliance, and annual costs following thereafter. As discussed
in section V above, the Commission calculated costs for certain risk
mitigation procedures,
[[Page 78925]]
but determined that they generally will not be imposed upon market
participants because, among other reasons, they relate to procedures or
controls that are already widely used in the industry.\713\ The two
charts below do not include such costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\713\ See, e.g., the calculation of costs for procedures related
to the testing, monitoring and supervision of Algorithmic Trading
systems, which are discussed in section V(E)(7) above. These costs
are not included in the charts in this section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted above, the Commission believes that the risk
controls and other measures required by Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.82 are
already widely used by market participants. Upgrading such systems to
come into full compliance with the proposed regulations will impose
initial one-time costs, which are included in the one-time costs chart
below. However, the Commission believes that because market
participants already have these systems in place, the proposed
regulations will generally not result in increased annual costs to
maintain such systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\714\ See supra note 597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time costs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost for all
Regulation Description entity entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Floor Traders (100 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3(x)/170.18 \714\........................ Registration of new floor traders $200 $20,000
with CFTC and as members of RFA--
Form 7-R Fee.
1.3(x)/170.18.............................. Registration of new floor traders 96 9,600
with CFTC and as members of RFA--
preparation of Form 7-R.
1.3(x)/170.18.............................. Registration of new floor traders 850 85,000
with CFTC and as members of RFA--
Form 8-R Fee for 10 principals.
1.3(x)/170.18.............................. Registration of new floor traders 960 96,000
with CFTC and as members of RFA--
preparation of Form 8-R for 10
principals.
-------------------------------
Total New Floor Traders................ ................................... 2,106 210,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT Persons (420 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.80....................................... Risk controls...................... 79,680 33,465,600
1.83(c).................................... Recordkeeping...................... 5,130 2,154,600
-------------------------------
Total AT Persons....................... ................................... 84,810 35,620,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing Member FCMs (57 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.82....................................... Risk controls--DEA orders.......... 49,800 2,838,600
1.82....................................... Risk controls--non-DEA orders...... 159,360 9,083,520
1.83(d).................................... Recordkeeping...................... 5,130 292,410
-------------------------------
Total Clearing Member FCMs............. ................................... 214,290 12,214,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCMs (15 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38.255(b).................................. Provide controls to FCMs........... 155,520 2,332,800
40.20...................................... Risk controls...................... 155,520 2,332,800
40.22(c)................................... Establish compliance report review 37,000 555,000
program.
-------------------------------
Total DCMs............................. ................................... 348,040 5,220,600
-------------------------------
Total All Entities..................... ................................... .............. 53,265,930
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost for all
Regulation Description entity entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Floor Traders (100 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170.18..................................... RFA annual membership dues (payable $5,625 $562,500
first year of membership and each
year after).
-------------------------------
Total New Floor Traders................ ................................... 5,625 562,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT Persons (420 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.83(a).................................... Submit compliance reports/written 4,240 1,780,800
policies.
1.83(c).................................... Recordkeeping...................... 2,670 1,121,400
40.23...................................... Submit approval requests to DCMs to 3,810 1,600,200
forego self-trade controls.
-------------------------------
Total AT Persons....................... ................................... 10,720 4,502,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78926]]
Clearing Member FCMs (57 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.83(b).................................... Submit compliance reports.......... 7,090 404,130
1.83(d).................................... Recordkeeping...................... 2,670 152,190
-------------------------------
Total Clearing Member FCMs............. ................................... 9,760 556,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCMs (15 Entities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38.401..................................... Disclosure of trade matching 19,200 288,000
programs.
40.22(c)................................... Review of compliance reports....... 111,000 1,665,000
40.22(c)................................... Remediation of compliance reports.. 22,200 333,000
40.22(e)................................... Review books and records........... 110,880 1,663,200
40.23(c)................................... Review approval requests from 22,000 330,000
market participants re self-
trading.
40.23(d)................................... Publish statistics on self-trading. 6,650 99,750
40.25...................................... Provide information on market maker 14,976 224,640
programs in rule filings.
40.27...................................... Restrictions on payments under 30,108 451,620
marker maker programs.
40.28...................................... Surveillance of market maker 12,710 190,650
programs for abusive practices.
-------------------------------
Total DCMs............................. ................................... 349,724 5,245,860
-------------------------------
Total All Entities..................... ................................... .............. 10,867,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is also presenting the following costs applicable to
an RFA pursuant to proposed Sec. 170.19. The Commission anticipates
that an RFA will incur these costs on an episodic basis in connection
with Sec. 170.19.
Episodic costs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost for all
Regulation Description entity entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFAs (1 Entity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170.19..................................... RFA Standards...................... $34,200 $34,200
-------------------------------
Total RFAs............................. ................................... 34,200 34,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. List of All Questions in the NPRM
Listed below are all questions raised in the preceding sections of
this NPRM, organized according to the section of the NPRM in which the
question appears. The Commission welcomes any and all comments on any
aspect of Regulation AT regardless of whether it is addressed by a
particular question. If responding to a specific question enumerated in
this NPRM, the Commission requests that commenters in their comment
letters refer to that question being answered.
IV(D) Codification of Defined Terms
``Algorithmic Trading''--Sec. 1.3(zzzz)
1. Is the Commission's definition of ``Algorithmic Trading''
generally consistent with what algorithmic trading is understood to
mean in the industry? If not, please explain how it is inconsistent and
how the definition should be modified. In your answer, please explain
whether the definition inappropriately includes or excludes a
particular type or aspect of trading.
2. Should the Commission adopt a definition of ``Algorithmic
Trading'' that is more closely aligned with any definition used by
another regulatory organization?
3. For purposes of the Commission's definition of Algorithmic
Trading, is it necessary for the Commission to define ``computer
algorithms or systems''? If so, please explain what should be included
in such a definition.
4. Should the Commission's definition of ``Algorithmic Trading''
include systems that only make determinations as to the routing of
orders to different venues (which is contemplated in the proposed
definition)? With respect to the definition of ``Algorithmic Trading,''
should the Commission differentiate between different types of
algorithms, such as alpha-generating algorithms and order routing
algorithms?
5. Is the Commission's understanding correct that most entities
using automated order routers will be using similar or related
automated technology to determine other parameters of an order?
6. The Commission posits a scenario in which an AT Person submits
orders through Algorithmic Trading, and a non-clearing FCM or other
entity acts only as a conduit for these AT Person orders. If the non-
clearing FCM or other entity does not make any determinations with
respect to such orders, the conduit entity would not be engaged in
Algorithmic Trading, as that definition is currently proposed. Should
the definition of Algorithmic Trading be modified to capture a conduit
entity such as a non-clearing FCM in this scenario, thereby making the
entity an AT Person subject to Regulation AT? In other words, should
non-clearing FCMs be required to manage the risks of AT Person
customers? How would non-clearing FCMs do so if the non-clearing FCMs
do not have risk controls comparable to the risk controls specified in
proposed Sec. 1.82?
7. The Commission, recognizing that natural person traders who
manually enter orders also have the potential to cause market
disruptions, is considering expanding the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are generated using algorithmic
methods (e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or sell signal at a
particular time), but are then manually entered into a front-end system
by a natural person, who
[[Page 78927]]
determines all aspects of the routing of the orders. Such order entry
would not represent Algorithmic Trading under the currently proposed
definition. The Commission requests comment on this proposed expansion
of the definition of Algorithmic Trading, which the Commission may
implement in the final rulemaking for Regulation AT. The Commission
requests comment on the costs and benefits of this proposal, in
addition to any other comments regarding the effectiveness of this
proposal in terms of risk reduction.
``Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue''--Sec. 1.3(tttt)
8. Should the definition of Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue be
modified to include other potential compliance failures involving an AT
Person that may have a significant detrimental impact on such AT
Person, the relevant DCM, or other market participants?
``Algorithmic Trading Disruption''--Sec. 1.3(uuuu)
9. Should the definition of Algorithmic Trading Disruption be
modified to include other types of disruptive events that may originate
with an AT Person?
10. Should the definition be expanded to include other types of
disruptive downstream consequences that may result from an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption originating with an AT Person, and which may
negatively impact the relevant designated contract market, other market
participants, or other persons? Alternatively, should the scope of the
definition be reduced, and if so, why?
11. In addition, should the reference to ``materially degrades'' in
the definition of Algorithmic Trading Disruption be expanded or
otherwise modified to encompass other types of disruptions that may
impact the relevant designated contract market, other market
participants, or other persons? Please provide examples of real-world
events originating with AT Persons (as defined under Regulation AT)
that resulted in disruptions that may not be captured by the reference
to ``materially degrades'' in the definition.
``AT Order Message''--Sec. 1.3(wwww)
12. Please comment on the proposed scope of the Commission's
definition of AT Order Message. Is the proposed definition too
expansive, in that it would limit the submission of messages that do
not have the potential to disrupt the market? Alternatively, is the
scope of the AT Order Message too limited, in that it could allow
messages not related to orders (i.e., heartbeat messages or requests
for mass quotes) to intentionally or unintentionally flood the DCM's
systems and slow down the matching engine? Please explain how this
definition would be more appropriately limited or expanded.
``AT Person''--Sec. 1.3(xxxx)
13. The Commission notes that the FIA Guide recommends certain pre-
trade risk controls and contemplates three levels at which these
controls can be placed: Automated trader, broker, and exchange. FIA
defines ``automated trader'' as any trading entity that uses an
automated system, including hedge funds, buy-side firms, trading firms,
and brokers who deploy automated algorithms, and defines ``broker'' as
FCMs, other clearing firms, executing brokers and other financial
intermediaries that provide access to an exchange.
a. Should the Commission's definition of ``AT Person'' explicitly
include or exclude any of the classes of parties included in FIA's term
``automated trader''? Please explain. Are there any types of entities
not present in this list that should be included in the ``AT Person''
definition?
b. Should Regulation AT use the term ``broker,'' as understood by
FIA? If so, please explain. Is there another term that would be more
appropriate in defining the scope of AT Persons?
14. Algorithmic Trading carries technological and personnel costs,
and the Commission expects that such trading will be performed by
entities, not natural persons. Is this a reasonable assumption? For
purposes of quantifying the number of AT Persons that will be subject
to the regulations, do you believe that any AT Person (a definition
that encompasses the following persons if engaged in Algorithmic
Trading: FCMs, floor brokers, swap dealers, major swap participants,
commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors, introducing
brokers, and newly registered floor traders using Direct Electronic
Access) will be a natural person or a sole proprietorship with no
employees other than the sole proprietor?
15. The Commission recognizes that a CPO could use Algorithmic
Trading to enter orders on behalf of a commodity pool which it
operates. In these circumstances, should the Commission consider the
CPO that operates the commodity pool or the underlying commodity pool
itself as ``engaged in Algorithmic Trading'' pursuant to the definition
of AT Person? \715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\715\ The Commission notes that CPOs are separate legal entities
from the underlying commodity pools which they operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Commission notes that pursuant to Sec. 1.57(b) of the
Commission's regulations IBs may not carry proprietary accounts.
However, certain customer relationships may cause an IB to fall under
the definition of AT Person. The Commission requests comment on the
types of IB customer relationships that could cause IBs to fall under
the definition of AT Persons. What activities are currently being
conducted by IBs that could cause an IB to be considered engaging in
Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the rules of a DCM and would
therefore cause the IB to be considered an AT Person?
17. Should the definition of AT Person be limited to persons using
DEA? In other words, should the definition capture persons registered
or required to be registered as FCMs, floor brokers, SDs, MSPs, CPOs,
CTAs, or IBs that engage in Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the
rules of a DCM, or persons registered or required to be registered as
floor traders as defined in Sec. 1.3(x)(3), in each case if such
persons are using DEA? The Commission requests comment on the costs and
benefits of this approach, including comments on whether this more
limited definition of AT Persons would adequately mitigate the risks
associated with algorithmic trading.
``Direct Electronic Access''--Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
18. Please explain whether the Commission's proposed definition of
DEA will encompass all types of access commonly understood in
Commission-regulated markets as ``direct market access.'' In light of
the proposed regulations concerning pre-trade and other risk controls
and standards for the development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic trading systems, do you believe that the proposed
definition of Direct Electronic Access is too limited (or,
alternatively, too expansive)? If so, please explain why and how the
definition should be revised.
19. Should the Commission define ``routed'' in its definition of
DEA? If so, how? Are there specific examples of trading or routing
arrangements where it would be unclear whether trading was performed
through DEA?
20. Should the Commission use the term ``direct market access''
instead of DEA, and if so why?
[[Page 78928]]
21. Should the Commission define sub-categories of DEA, such as
sponsored market access?
22. The Commission's proposed definition of DEA in Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
differs from definitions of direct electronic access in Sec. 38.607
and direct access for FBOTs in Sec. 48.2(c). The Commission believes
that the more technical definition in proposed 1.3(yyyy) is appropriate
for Regulation AT. The Commission solicits comment regarding proposed
1.3(yyyy), whether all definitions of ``direct'' access should be
harmonized across the Commission's rules, and if so how. Do you believe
that two definitions would create confusion with respect to Commission
requirements as to direct electronic access? With respect to Sec. Sec.
1.80, 1.82, and 38.255(b) and (c) provisions imposing risk control
requirements on AT Persons, FCM and DCMs, should the Commission use the
existing definition of direct electronic access provided in Sec.
38.607?
IV(E) Registration of Certain Persons Not Otherwise Registered With
Commission--Sec. 1.3(x)
23. Should firms operating Algorithmic Trading systems in CFTC-
regulated markets, but not otherwise registered with the Commission, be
required to register with the CFTC? If not, what alternatives are
available to fully effectuate the purpose and design of Regulation AT?
24. Should all firms deploying Algorithmic Trading systems be
required to register with the Commission? Are there additional
characteristics of AT Persons that should be taken into consideration
for registration purposes? For example, should the Commission limit
registration to trading firms meeting certain trading volume, order or
message levels? In other words, should there be a minimum volume, order
or message test in order to meet the definition of ``floor trader,'' or
otherwise to meet the definition of AT Person? If so, what should be
measured and what specific thresholds should be used?
25. In the alternative, should the Commission broaden the
registration requirements in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3)(ii) so that all
persons trading on a contract market through DEA are required to
register, instead of only those who are engaged in Algorithmic Trading?
26. Please supply any information or data that would help the
Commission in deciding whether firms may or may not meet the definition
of ``floor trader'' in Section 1a(23) of the Act.
27. Do you believe that the registration of such firms as ``floor
traders'' would help effectuate the purposes of the CEA to deter and
detect price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity?
If you believe that registration of such firms will not help effectuate
the purposes of the CEA, or that the same purposes can be achieved by
other means, please explain.
IV(F) RFA Standards for Automated Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems--Sec. 170.19
28. The Commission requests comment on the scope of
responsibilities assigned to RFAs under proposed Sec. 170.19. Should
RFAs be responsible for fewer or additional areas regarding AT Persons,
ATSs, and algorithmic trading than specified in proposed Sec. 170.19,
prongs (1), (2), (3), and (4) (Sec. 170.19(a)(1)-(a)(4))? Regulation
170.19 requires RFAs to consider the need for rules in the areas listed
in prongs (1)-(4) (Sec. 170.19(a)(1)-(a)(4)). Should RFAs be
responsible for considering whether to adopt rules in fewer or
additional areas?
29. The Commission requests comment on the latitude afforded to
RFAs in proposed Sec. 170.19. Should RFAs have more or less latitude
to issue rules than specified in proposed Sec. 170.19?
30. The Commission requests comment on RFAs' obligation in proposed
Sec. 170.19 to establish and maintain a program for the prevention of
fraud and manipulation, protection of the public interest, and
perfecting the mechanisms of trading, including through rules it may
determine to adopt pursuant to Sec. 170.19. The proposed rules
anticipate that an RFA's program will include examination and
enforcement components. Is this the appropriate approach?
31. The Commission requests comment on whether proposed Sec.
170.19 may result in duplicative obligations on AT Persons or any other
market participant. In particular, please comment on potential
duplication, if any, between algorithmic trading requirements that an
RFA may impose upon its members pursuant to Sec. 170.19, and similar
requirements that may be imposed by a DCM in its role as a self-
regulatory organization. What amendments would be appropriate in any
final rules arising from this NPRM to clarify that unintended overlap
between the role of an RFA and a DCM in this context?
IV(G) AT Persons Must Become Members of an RFA--Sec. 170.18
32. The Commission requests comment on whether the regulatory
framework established by Regulation AT would require all AT Persons to
be members of an RFA in order to be effective. Alternatively, could the
goals of Regulation AT be realized without requiring all AT Persons to
be members of an RFA?
IV(H) Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls for AT Persons--Sec. 1.80
33. Are any pre-trade and other risk controls required by Sec.
1.80 ineffective, not already widely used by AT Persons, or likely to
become obsolete?
34. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically enumerated in proposed Sec. 1.80?
35. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required in Sec. 1.80 sufficiently address the possibility of
technological advances in trading, and the development of new, more
effective controls that should be implemented by AT Persons?
36. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the regulation's
requirements relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
37. The Commission notes that Sec. 1.80(d) requires that prior to
initial use of Algorithmic Trading, an AT Person must notify its
clearing member FCM and the DCM that it will engage in Algorithmic
Trading. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the content of that
notification requirement is sufficient, or whether clearing member FCMs
and DCMs should also be notified of additional information. For
example, should AT Persons be required to notify their clearing member
FCMs of particular changes to their Algorithmic Trading systems that
would affect the risk controls applied by the clearing member FCM?
38. Is Sec. 1.80(f)'s requirement that each AT Person periodically
review its compliance with Sec. 1.80 appropriate? Should there be more
prescriptive and granular requirements to ensure that each AT Person
periodically reviews its pre-trade and other risk controls and takes
appropriate steps to update or recalibrate them in order to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event? Alternatively, is Sec. 1.80(f) necessary?
Does the Commission need to explicitly require AT Persons to conduct a
periodic review of their compliance with Sec. 1.80?
39. AT Persons that are registered FCMs are required by existing
Commission regulation 1.11 to have formal ``Risk Management Programs,''
including, pursuant to Sec. 1.11(e)(3)(ii), ``automated financial risk
management
[[Page 78929]]
controls reasonably designed to prevent the placing of erroneous
orders'' and ``policies and procedures governing the use, supervision,
maintenance, testing, and inspection of automated trading programs.''
As described in Sec. 1.11, an FCM's Risk Management Program must
include a risk management unit independent of the business unit;
quarterly risk exposure reports to senior management and the governing
body of the FCM, with copies to the Commission; and other substantive
requirements. The Commission requests public comment regarding whether
one or more of the proposed requirements applicable to FCMs in
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) should be incorporated
within an FCM's Risk Management Program and be subject to the
requirements of such program as described in Sec. 1.11. In this
regard, any final rules arising from this NPRM could place all
requirements applicable to FCMs in Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and
1.83(c) within the operational risk measures required in Sec.
1.11(e)(3)(ii). Such incorporation could help improve the interaction
between an FCM's operational risk efforts and its pre-trade risk
controls; development, monitoring, and compliance efforts; and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80,
1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c). It could also help ensure that an FCM's
Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) processes benefit from the
same internal rigor and independence required by the Risk Management
Program in Sec. 1.11.
40. The Commission proposes to adopt a multi-layered approach to
regulations intended to mitigate the risks of automated trading,
including pre-trade risk controls and other procedures applicable to AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and DCMs. Please comment on whether an
alternative approach, for example one which does not impose
requirements at each of these three levels, would more effectively
mitigate the risks of automated trading and promote the other
regulatory goals of Regulation AT.
IV(I) Standards for Development, Testing, Monitoring, and Compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems--Sec. 1.81
41. The Commission understands that the requirements for
developing, testing, and supervising algorithmic systems proposed in
Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) are already widely used throughout the industry. Are
any specific requirements proposed in this section not widely used by
persons that would be designated as AT Persons under Regulation AT, and
if not, why not? If any requirements described in Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) are
not widely used, please provide an estimate of the cost that would be
incurred by an AT Person to implement such requirements.
42. Are there any aspects of Sec. 1.81(a)-(d) that are unnecessary
for purposes of reducing the risks from Algorithmic Trading, and should
not be mandated by regulation? If so, please explain.
43. Are the procedures described above for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading sufficient to ensure that algorithmic
systems are thoroughly tested before being used in production, and will
operate in the manner intended in the production environment?
44. Are there any additional procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading that should be required under Regulation
AT?
45. Are any of the required procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading likely to become obsolete in the near
future as development and testing standards evolve?
46. Are the procedures for designating and training Algorithmic
Trading staff of AT Persons sufficient to ensure that such staff will
be knowledgeable in the strategy and operation of Algorithmic Trading,
and capable of identifying Algorithmic Trading Events and promptly
escalating them to appropriate staff members?
47. Is it typical that persons responsible for monitoring
algorithmic trading do not simultaneously engage in trading activity?
48. Proposed Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83 would impose certain
requirements on all AT Persons regardless of the size, sophistication,
or other attributes of their business. The Commission requests public
comment regarding whether these requirements should vary in some manner
depending on the AT Person. If commenters believe proposed Sec. Sec.
1.80, 1.81, and 1.83 should vary, please describe how and according to
what criteria.
IV(J) Risk Management by Clearing Member FCMs--Sec. 1.82
49. Are any pre-trade or other risk controls required by Sec. 1.82
ineffective, not already widely used by clearing member FCMs, or likely
to become obsolete?
50. Are there any aspects of proposed Sec. 1.82 that pose an undue
burden for clearing member FCMs and are unnecessary for purposes of
reducing the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading? If so, please
explain (1) the burden; (2) why it is not necessary to reduce the risks
associated with Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the case of DEA.
What alternatives are available consistent with the purposes of
Regulation AT?
51. Please describe the technological development that would be
required by clearing member FCMs to comply with the requirement to
implement and calibrate the pre-trade and other risk controls required
by Sec. 1.82(c) for non-DEA orders. To what extent have clearing
member FCMs already developed the technology required by this
provision, for example in connection with existing requirements under
Sec. 1.11, and Sec. Sec. 1.73 and 38.607 for clearing FCMs to manage
financial risks?
52. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically required pursuant to proposed Sec. 1.82?
53. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required in Sec. 1.82 sufficiently address the possibility of
technological advances in trading and development of new, more
effective controls that should be implemented by FCMs?
54. The Commission welcomes comment on whether the requirements of
Sec. 1.82 relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
55. Proposed Sec. 1.82 does not require FCMs to have connectivity
monitoring such as ``system heartbeats'' or automatic cancel-on-
disconnect functions. Do you believe that Sec. 1.82 should require
FCMs to have such functionality?
56. Proposed Sec. 1.82 requires clearing FCMs to implement
controls with respect to AT Order Messages originating with an AT
Person. The Commission is considering modifying proposed Sec. 1.82 to
require clearing FCMs to implement controls with respect to all orders,
including orders that are manually submitted or are entered through
algorithmic methods that nonetheless do not meet the definition of
Algorithmic Trading. Such a requirement would correspond to the
requirement under proposed Sec. 40.20(d) that DCMs implement risk
controls for orders that do not originate from Algorithmic Trading. If
the Commission were to incorporate such amendments in any final rules
arising from this NPRM, its intent would be to further reduce risk by
ensuring that all orders, regardless of source, are screened for risk
at both the clearing member FCM and the DCM level. Risk controls at the
point of order origination would continue to be limited to AT Persons.
The Commission requests comment on this proposed amendment to Sec.
1.82, which the Commission may implement
[[Page 78930]]
in the final rulemaking for Regulation AT. The Commission requests
comment on the costs and benefits to clearing FCMs of this proposal, in
addition to any other comments regarding the effectiveness of this
proposal in terms of risk reduction.
IV(K) Compliance Reports Submitted by AT Persons and Clearing FCMs to
DCMs; Related Recordkeeping Requirements--Sec. 1.83
57. The Commission welcomes comment on the type of information that
should be included in the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83.
Should different or additional descriptions be included in the reports,
which will be evaluated by DCMs under proposed Sec. 40.22?
58. How often should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should the report be submitted more or
less frequently than annually?
59. When should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should the reports be submitted on a
date other than June 30 of each year?
60. Should a representative of the AT Person or clearing member FCM
other than the chief executive officer or the chief compliance officer
be responsible for certifying the reports required by proposed Sec.
1.83? Should only the chief executive officer be permitted to certify
the report? Alternatively, should only the chief compliance officer be
permitted to certify the report?
61. Are there any aspects of proposed Sec. 1.83(b) that pose an
undue burden for clearing member FCMs and are unnecessary for purposes
of reducing the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading? If so,
please explain (1) the burden; (2) why it is not necessary to reduce
the risks associated with Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the case
of DEA. What alternatives are available consistent with the purposes of
Regulation AT, including in particular Regulation AT's intent that
Sec. 1.83 reports benefit from the third-party SRO review performed by
DCMs with respect to such reports?
62. Should the reports required by proposed Sec. 1.83 be sent to
any entity other than each DCM on which the AT Person operates, such as
the Commission or an RFA? For example, should the Commission require
that AT Persons that are members of a RFA send compliance reports to
RFA upon NFA's request?
63. Proposed Sec. 1.83(c) includes recordkeeping requirements
imposed on AT Persons, and proposed Sec. 1.83(d) includes
recordkeeping requirements imposed on clearing member FCMs. Should the
recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 1.83(c) be distributed throughout
the sections of the Commission's regulations that contain recordkeeping
requirements for various categories of Commission registrants that will
be classified as AT Persons? Should Sec. 1.83(d) be transferred to
Sec. 1.35 of the Commission's regulations, which contains
recordkeeping requirements for clearing member FCMs?
IV(L) Direct Electronic Access Provided by DCMs--Sec. 38.255(b) and
(c)
64. Are there any pre-trade and other risk controls required by
Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) that will be ineffective, not already widely
provided by DCMs for use by FCMs, or likely to become obsolete?
65. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that DCMs
should be specifically required to provide to FCMs pursuant to proposed
Sec. 38.255(b) and (c)?
66. Do you believe that the pre-trade and other risk controls
required pursuant to Sec. 38.255(b) sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in trading? For example, do they
appropriately address the potential for the future development of
additional effective controls that should be provided by DCMs and
implemented by FCMs?
67. The Commission welcomes comment on whether Sec. 38.255(b)'s
requirements relating to the design of controls and the levels at which
the controls should be set are appropriate and sufficiently granular.
68. Proposed Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) do not require DCMs to provide
to FCMs connectivity monitoring systems such as ``system heartbeats''
or automatic cancel-on-disconnect functions. Should Sec. 38.255
require such functionality?
IV(M) Disclosure and Transparency in DCM Trade Matching Systems--Sec.
38.401(a)
69. The Commission has proposed that certain components of an
exchange's market architecture should be considered part of the
``electronic matching platform'' for purposes of the DCM transparency
provision. Are there any additional systems that should fall within the
meaning of ``electronic matching platforms'' for purposes of proposed
Sec. 38.401(a)?
70. The Commission has specifically identified, as ``attributes''
that must be disclosed, latencies within a platform and how a self-
trade prevention tool determines whether to cancel an order. Are there
any other attributes that would materially affect the execution of
market participant orders and therefore should be made known to all
market participants? Should the Commission revise the final rule so
that it only applies to latencies within a platform and how a self-
trade prevention tool determines whether to cancel an order?
71. What information should be disclosed as part of the description
of relevant attributes of the platform? For instance, with latencies
within a platform, should statistics on latencies be required? If so,
what statistics would help market participants assess any impact on
their orders? Would a narrative description of attributes be
preferable, including a description of how the attributes might affect
market participant orders under different market conditions, such as
during times of increased messaging activity?
72. The Commission notes that proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) are not intended to require the disclosure of a DCM's trade
secrets. The Commission requests comments on whether the proposed rules
might inadvertently require such disclosure, and if so, how they might
be amended to address this concern. Furthermore, the Commission
anticipates that the mechanisms and standards for requesting
confidential treatment already codified in existing Sec. 40.8 could be
used by DCMs to identify and request confidential treatment for
information otherwise required to be disclosed pursuant to proposed
Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), for example by incorporating Sec.
40.8's mechanisms and standards into any final rules arising from this
NPRM. If commenters believe that the mechanisms and standards in Sec.
40.8 are inappropriate for this purpose, please describe any other
mechanism that should be included in any final rules to facilitate DCM
requests for confidential treatment of information otherwise required
to be disclosed pursuant to proposed Sec. 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
73. The Commission notes that DCMs are required, as part of
voluntary submissions of new rules or rule amendments under Sec.
40.5(a) and self-certification of rules and rule amendment under Sec.
40.6(a), to provide inter alia an explanation and analysis of the
operation, purpose and effect of the proposed rule or rule amendment.
Would the information required under Sec. Sec. 40.5(a) or 40.6(a)
provide market participants and the public with sufficient information
regarding material attributes of an electronic matching platform?
74. The Commission recognizes that DCMs are required to have system
safeguards to ensure information security, business continuity and
disaster recovery under DCM Core
[[Page 78931]]
Principle 20. The Commission understands that some attributes of an
electronic matching platform designed to implement those safeguards
should be maintained as confidential to prevent cybersecurity or other
threats. Does existing Sec. 40.8, 17 CFR 40.8 (2014) provide
sufficient basis for DCMs to publicly disclose the relevant attributes
of their platforms while maintaining as confidential information
concerning system safeguards?
75. With respect to material attributes affecting market
participant orders caused by temporary or emergency situations, such as
network outages or the temporary suspension of certain market
functionality, what is the best way for DCMs to alert market
participants? How are DCMs currently handling these situations?
76. The Commission proposes that DCMs provide a description of the
relevant material attributes in a single document ``disclosed
prominently and clearly'' on the exchange's Web site. The Commission
also proposes that this document be written in ``plain English'' to
allow market participants, even those not technically proficient, to
understand the attributes described. Would these requirements be
practical and help market participants locate and understand the
information provided?
77. The Commission proposes requiring DCMs to disclose information
on the relevant attributes: (a) When filing a rule change submission
with the Commission for changes to the electronic matching platform; or
(b) within a ``reasonable time, but no later than ten days'' following
the identification of such attribute. Do the proposed timeframes
provide sufficient time for DCMs to disclose the relevant information?
Do the proposed timeframes offer sufficient notice of changes or
discovered attributes to market participants to allow them to adjust
any systems or strategies, including any algorithmic trading systems?
78. The Commission proposes requiring disclosure of newly
identified attributes within 10 days of discovery. Does this provide
DCMs sufficient time to analyze the attribute and provide a
description? Should DCMs be required to provide notice of the existence
of the attribute and supplement as further analysis is performed?
IV(N) Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls at DCMs--Sec. 40.20
79. The Commission proposes to require DCMs to set pre-trade risk
controls at the level of the AT Person, and allows discretion to set
controls at a more granular level. Should the Commission eliminate this
discretion, and require that the controls be set at a specific, more
granular, level? If so, please explain the more appropriate level at
which pre-trade risk controls should be set by a DCM.
80. The Commission requests public comment on the pre-trade and
other risk controls required of DCMs in proposed Sec. 40.20. Are any
of the risk controls required in the proposed rules unhelpful to
operational or other risk mitigation, or to market stability, when
implemented at the DCM level?
81. Are there additional pre-trade or other risk controls that
should be specifically enumerated in proposed Sec. 40.20?
82. The Commission proposes, with respect to its kill switch
requirements, to allow DCMs the discretion to design a kill switch that
allows a market participant to submit risk-reducing orders. The
Commission also does not mandate particular procedures for alerts or
notifications concerning kill switch triggers. Does the proposed rule
allow for sufficient flexibility in the design of kill switch
mechanisms and the policies and procedures concerning their
implementation? Should the Commission consider more prescriptive rules
in this area?
83. Does existing Sec. 38.1051 provide the Commission with
adequate authority to require DCMs to adequately test planned changes
to their matching engines and other automated systems?
IV(O) DCM Test Environments for AT Persons--Sec. 40.21
84. Should the test environment provided by DCMs under proposed
Sec. 40.21 offer any other functionality or data inputs that will
promote the effective design and testing of Algorithmic Trading by AT
Persons?
IV(P) DCM Review of Compliance Reports by AT Persons and Clearing
FCMs--Sec. 40.22
85. In lieu of a DCM's affirmative obligation in proposed Sec.
40.22 to review AT Person and clearing member FCM compliance reports,
should DCMs instead be permitted to rely on the CEO or CCO
representations required by proposed Sec. 1.83(a)(2)? If so, what
events in the Algorithmic Trading of an AT Person should trigger review
obligations by the DCM?
86. Should Sec. 40.22(c) provide more specific requirements
regarding a DCM's establishment of a program for effective periodic
review and evaluation of AT Person and clearing member FCM reports? For
example, Sec. 40.22(c) could require review at specific intervals
(e.g., once every two years). Alternatively, Sec. 40.22(c) could
provide greater discretion to DCMs in establishing their programs for
the review of reports. Please comment on the appropriateness of these
alternative approaches.
87. Should Sec. 40.22(e) provide more specific requirements
regarding the triggers for a DCM to review and evaluate the books and
records of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs required to be kept
pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d)? For example, Sec. 40.22(e) could require
review at specific intervals (e.g., once every two years), or it could
require review in response to specific events related to the
Algorithmic Trading of AT Persons. Please comment on the
appropriateness of these alternative approaches.
88. Does Sec. 40.22 leave enough discretion to the DCM in
determining how to design and implement an effective compliance review
program regarding Algorithmic Trading? Alternatively, is there any
aspect of this regulation that should be more specific or prescriptive?
89. Should Sec. 40.22 specifically authorize a DCM to establish
further standards for the organization, method of submission, or other
attributes of the reports described in Sec. 40.22(a)?
IV(Q) Self-Trade Prevention Tools--Sec. 40.23
90. The Commission seeks to require self-trade prevention tools
that screen out unintentional self-trading, while permitting bona-fide
self-matched trades that are undertaken for legitimate business
purposes. Under the regulations proposed above, DCMs shall implement
rules reasonably designed to prevent self-trading (``the matching of
orders for accounts that have common beneficial ownership or are under
common control''), but DCMs may in their discretion implement rules
that permit ``the matching of orders for accounts with common
beneficial ownership where such orders are initiated by independent
decision makers.''
a. Do these standards accomplish the goal of preventing only
unintentional self-trading, or would other standards be more effective
in accomplishing this goal? For example, should the Commission consider
adopting in any final rules arising from this NPRM an alternative
requirement modeled on FINRA Rule 5210 and require market participants
to implement policies and procedures to review their trading activity
for, and a prevent a pattern of, self-trades?
b. While the regulations contain exceptions for bona fide self-
match trades (described in Sec. 40.23(b)), the
[[Page 78932]]
regulations are intended to prevent all unintentional self-trading, and
do not include a de minimis exception for a certain percentage of
unintentional self-trading. Should the regulations permit a certain de
minimis amount of unintentional self-trading, and if so, what amount
should be permitted (e.g., as a percentage of monthly trading volume)?
c. The following terms are used in proposed Sec. 40.23(a) and (b):
(1) Self-trading, (2) common beneficial ownership, (3) independent
decision makers, and (4) common control. Do any of these terms require
further definition? If so, how should they be defined? Should any
alternatives be used and, if so, how should such substitute terms be
defined?
d. With respect to ``common beneficial ownership,'' the Commission
requests comment on the minimum degree of ownership in an account that
should trigger a determination that such account is under common
beneficial ownership. For example, should an account be deemed to be
under common beneficial ownership between two unrelated persons if each
person directly or indirectly has a 10% or more ownership or equity
interest in such account? The Commission refers commenters to the
aggregation rules in part 150 of its regulations, including
specifically Sec. 150.4, and requests comment on a potential
Commission definition of common beneficial ownership that is modeled on
Sec. 150.4.
e. The Commission also requests comment on whether ``common
beneficial ownership'' should be defined in any final rules arising
from this NPRM, or whether such definition should be left to each DCM
with respect to its program for implementing proposed Sec. 40.23.
91. Are there any other types of self-trading that should be
permitted in addition to the exceptions permitted in Sec. 40.23(b)(1)
and (2)? If so, please describe such other types of acceptable self-
trading and explain why they should be permitted.
92. Proposed Sec. 40.23 provides that DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools by requiring market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account identification process, the Commission's
principal goal is to prevent unintentional self-trading; the Commission
does not have a specific interest in regulating the manner by which
market participants identify to DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other, so long as this goal is met.
Should any other identification methods be permitted in Sec. 40.23?
For example, please comment on whether the opposite approach is
preferable: market participants would identify to DCMs the accounts
that should be permitted to trade with each other (as opposed to those
accounts that should be prevented from trading with each other).
93. The Commission believes that its requirements concerning self-
trade prevention tools must strike the appropriate balance between
flexibility (allowing market participants with diverse trading
operations and strategies the discretion in implementation so as
effectively prevent only unintentional self-trades) and simplicity (a
variety of design and implementation options may render this control
too complex to be effective).\716\ Does the Commission allow sufficient
discretion to exchanges and market participants in the design and
implementation of self-trade prevention tools? Is there any area where
the Commission should be more prescriptive? The Commission is
particularly interested in whether there is a particular level at which
it should require implementation of self-trade prevention tools, i.e.,
if the tools must prevent matching of orders from the same trading
firm, the same trader, the same trading algorithm, or some other level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\716\ See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13 (discussing balance
between flexibility and complexity with respect to self-trade
prevention tools).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. Proposed Sec. 40.23(a) would require DCMs to either apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention tools. Please
comment whether Sec. 40.23(a) should, in addition, permit market
participants to use their own self-trade prevention tools to meet the
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.23(a), and if so, what additional
regulations would ensure that DCMs are able to: ensure that such tools
are comparable to DCM-provided tools; monitor the performance of such
tools; and otherwise review such tools and ensure that they are
sufficiently rigorous to meet the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
95. Is it appropriate to require implementation of self-trade
prevention tools with respect to all orders? Should such controls be
mandatory for only a particular subset of orders, i.e., orders from AT
Persons or orders submitted through DEA?
96. Please comment on the requirement that DCMs disclose self-trade
statistics. Is the data required to be disclosed appropriate? Is there
any other category of self-trade data that DCMs should be required to
disclose?
97. Should DCMs be required to disclose the amount of unintentional
self-trading that occurs each month, alongside the self-trade
statistics required to be published under proposed Sec. 40.23(d)?
98. As noted above, the Commission understands that there is some
potential for self-trade prevention tools to be used for wrongful
activity that may include disruptive trading or other violations of the
Act or Commission regulations on DCMs. Are there ways to design self-
trade prevention tools so that they do not facilitate disruptive
trading (such as spoofing) or other violations of the Act or Commission
regulations on DCMs? Are additional regulations warranted to ensure
that such tools are not used to facilitate such activities?
IV(R) DCM Market Maker and Trading Incentive Programs--Sec. Sec.
40.25-40.28
99. To what extent do market participants currently trade in ways
designed primarily to collect market maker or trading incentive program
benefits, rather than for risk management purposes?
100. To what extent do that market maker and trading incentive
programs currently provide benefits for self-trades? To what extent do
market participants collect such benefits for self-trades?
101. The Commission requests comment regarding whether the
information proposed to be collected in Sec. 40.25 would be sufficient
for it to determine whether a DCM's market-maker or trading incentive
program complies with the impartial access requirements of Sec.
38.151(b). If additional or different information would be helpful,
please identify such information.
102. The Commission requests comment regarding whether DCMs should
be required to maintain on their public Web sites the information
required by proposed Sec. 40.25(a) and (b) for an additional period
beyond the end of the market maker or trading incentive program. The
Commission may determine to include in any final rules arising from
this NPRM a requirement that such information remain publicly available
pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.25(b) for an additional period up to six
months following the end of a market maker or trading incentive
program.
103. The Commission requests comment regarding whether the text of
proposed Sec. 40.27(a) identifies with sufficient particularity the
types of trades that are not eligible for payments
[[Page 78933]]
or benefits pursuant to a DCM market-maker or trading incentive
program. What amendments, if any, are necessary to clearly identify
trades that are not eligible?
104. Section 40.27(a) provides that DCMs shall implement policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent the payment of
market-maker or trading incentive program benefits for trades between
accounts under common ownership. Are there any other types of trades or
circumstances under which the Commission should also prohibit or limit
DCM market-maker or trading incentive program benefits?
105. The Commission is proposing in Sec. 40.27(a) certain
requirements regarding DCM payments associated with market maker and
trading incentive programs. Please address whether the proposed rules
will diminish DCMs' ability to compete or build liquidity by using
market maker or trading incentive programs. Does any DCM consider it
appropriate to provide market maker or trading incentive program
benefits for trades between accounts known to be under common
beneficial ownership?
106. In any final rules arising from this NPRM, should the
Commission also prohibit DCMs from providing trading incentive program
benefits where such benefits on a per-trade basis are greater than the
fees charged per trade by such DCMs and its affiliated DCO (if
applicable)? The Commission also specifically requests comment on the
extent, if any, to which one or more DCMs engage in this practice.
107. Proposed Sec. 40.25(b) imposes certain transparency
requirements with respect to both market maker and trading incentive
programs. The Commission requests public comment regarding:
a. The most appropriate place or manner for a DCM to disclose the
information required by proposed Sec. 40.25(b);
b. The benefits or any harm that may result from such transparency,
including any anti-competitive effect or pro-competitive effect among
DCMs or market participants;
c. Whether transparency as proposed in Sec. 40.25(b) is equally
appropriate for both market maker programs and trading incentive
programs, or are the proposed requirements more or less appropriate for
one type of program over the other?
d. Whether any of the enumerated items required to be posted on a
DCM's public Web site pursuant to proposed Sec. 40.25(b) could
reasonably be considered confidential information that should not be
available to the public, and if so, what process should be available
for a DCM to request from the Commission an exemption from the
requirements of proposed Sec. 40.25(b) for that specific enumerated
item?
Related Matters--A. Calculation of Number of Persons Subject to
Regulations
108. The Commission requests comment on its calculation of the
number of AT Persons, newly registered floor traders, clearing member
FCMs, and DCMs that will be subject to Regulation AT.
Related Matters--C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
109. The Commission requests comment on each element of its RFA
analysis. In particular, the Commission specifically invites comment on
the accuracy of its estimates of potential firms that could be
considered ``small entities'' for RFA purposes.
110. The Commission also requests comment on whether any natural
persons will be designated as AT Persons under the proposed definition
of that term.
Related Matters--E. Cost Benefit Considerations
111. Beyond specific questions interspersed throughout its
discussion, the Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of
its consideration of costs and benefits, including: (a) Identification,
quantification, and assessment of any costs and benefits not discussed
therein; (b) whether any of the proposed regulations may cause FCMs or
DCMs to raise their fees for their customers, or otherwise result in
increased costs for market participants and, if so, to what extent; (c)
whether any category of Commission registrants will be
disproportionately impacted by the proposed regulations, and if so
whether the burden of any regulations should be appropriately shifted
to other Commission registrants; (d) what, if any, costs would likely
arise from market participants engaging in regulatory arbitrage by
restructuring their trading activities to trade on platforms not
subject to the proposed regulations, or taking other steps to avoid
costs associated with the proposed regulations; (e) quantitative
estimates of the impact on transaction costs and liquidity of the
proposals contained herein; (f) the potential costs and benefits of the
alternatives that the Commission discussed in this release, and any
other alternatives appropriate under the CEA that commenters believe
would provide superior benefits relative to costs; (g) data and any
other information to assist or otherwise inform the Commission's
ability to quantify or qualitatively describe the benefits and costs of
the proposed rules; and (h) substantiating data, statistics, and any
other information to support positions posited by commenters with
respect to the Commission's consideration of costs and benefits.
Sec. 1.80 Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
112. How would an alternative definition of Algorithmic Trading
that excludes automated order routers affect the costs and benefits of
the pre-trade and other risk controls in comparison to the costs and
benefits of the proposed definition that includes automated order
routers? Would such an alternative definition reduce the number of AT
Persons captured by Regulation AT?
113. Would the benefits of Regulation AT be enhanced significantly
if the definition of Algorithmic Trading were modified to capture a
conduit entity such as a non-clearing FCM, thereby making the entity an
AT Person subject to Regulation AT? How would such a modification
affect costs?
114. Would the benefits of Regulation AT be enhanced significantly
if the definition of Algorithmic Trading were expanded to encompass
orders that are generated using algorithmic methods (e.g., an algorithm
generates a buy or sell signal at a particular time), but are then
manually entered into a front-end system by a natural person? How would
such a modification affect costs? Please comment on the costs and
benefits of an alternative whereby the Commission would implement
specific rules regarding the appropriate design of the specific
controls required by Regulation AT and compare them to the costs and
benefits of the Commission's proposal whereby the relevant entities--
trading firms, clearing firms, and DCMs--would have the discretion to
determine the appropriate design of those controls.
115. Does one particular segment of trading firms, clearing member
FCMs or DCMs (e.g., smaller entities) currently implement fewer of the
pre-trade and other risk controls required by Regulation AT than some
other segment of trading firms, clearing member FCMs or DCMs? If so,
please describe any unique or additional costs that will be imposed on
such persons to develop the technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk controls required by Regulation
AT.
116. In question 14, the Commission asks whether there are any AT
Persons who are natural persons. Would AT Persons who are natural
persons (or sole
[[Page 78934]]
proprietorships with no employees other than the sole proprietor) be
required to hire staff to comply with the risk control, testing and
monitoring, or compliance requirements of Regulation AT?
117. Do you agree with the accuracy of cost estimates provided by
the Commission as to how much it will cost a trading firm, clearing
member FCM or DCM to internally develop the technology and systems
necessary to implement the pre-trade and other risk controls required
by Regulation AT? If you disagree with the Commission's analysis,
please provide your own quantitative estimates, as well as data or
other information in support. Please specify in your answer the type of
entity and which specific pre-trade risk or order management controls
for which you are providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate between the situations where an
entity (i) already has partially compliant controls in place, and only
needs to upgrade such technology and systems to bring it into
compliance with the regulations; and (ii) needs to build such
technology and systems from scratch. Please include, as applicable,
hardware and software costs as well as the hourly wage information of
the employee(s) necessary to develop such risk controls (i.e.,
technology personnel such as programmer analysts, senior programmers
and senior systems analysts).
118. The Commission has assumed that the effort to adjust any one
risk control (by ``control,'' in this context, the Commission means the
pre-trade risk controls, order cancellation systems, and connectivity
systems required by Sec. 1.80) will require assessment and possible
modifications to all controls. Is this assumption correct, and if not,
why not?
119. As indicated above, the Commission lacks sufficient
information to provide full estimates of costs that a trading firm,
clearing member FCM or DCM will incur if it chooses not to internally
develop such controls, and instead purchases the solutions of an
outside vendor in order to comply with Regulation AT's pre-trade and
other risk controls requirements. Please provide quantitative estimates
of such costs, including supporting data or other information. In
addition, please specify in your answer the type of entity and which
specific pre-trade risk or order management control for which you are
providing estimates. In addition, please differentiate between the
situations where an entity (i) already uses an outside vendor to at
least some extent to implement the controls; and (ii) does not
currently implement the controls and must obtain all applicable
technology and systems from an outside vendor necessary to comply with
Regulation AT. Please include, if applicable, hardware and software
costs as well as the hourly wage information of the employee(s)
necessary to effectuate the implementation of such controls from an
outside vendor.
120. Do you agree with the Commission's estimates of how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it uses internally developed
technology and systems? If not please provide quantitative estimates
and supporting data or other information with respect to how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it uses an outside vendor's
technology and systems.
121. Is it correct to assume that many of the trading firms subject
to Sec. 1.80 are also subject to the SEC's Market Access Rule, and,
accordingly, already implement many of the systems required by
Regulation AT for purposes of their securities trading? Please specify
in your answer the type of entity and which specific pre-trade risk or
order management control is already required pursuant to the Market
Access Rule, and the extent of the overlap.
122. Please comment on the costs and benefits (including
quantitative estimates with supporting data or other information) to
clearing FCMs of an alternative to proposed Sec. 1.82 that would
require clearing FCMs to implement controls with respect to all orders,
including orders that are manually submitted or are entered through
algorithmic methods that nonetheless do not meet the definition of
Algorithmic Trading and compare those costs and benefits to those costs
and benefits of proposed Sec. 1.82.
123. Please comment on the additional costs (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other information) to AT Persons of
complying with each of the following specific requirements of Sec.
1.80:
a. Sec. 1.80(a)(2) (pre-trade risk control threshold
requirements);
b. Sec. 1.80(a)(3) (natural person monitors must be alerted when
thresholds are breached);
c. Sec. 1.80(d) (notification to DCM and clearing member FCM that
AT Person will use Algorithmic Trading);
d. Sec. 1.80(e) (self-trade prevention tools); and
e. Sec. 1.80(f) (periodic review of pre-trade risk controls and
other measures for sufficiency and effectiveness).
124. The Commission welcomes comment on the estimated costs of the
pre-trade risk controls proposed in Sec. 1.80 as compared to the
annual industry expenditure on technology, risk mitigation and/or
technology compliance systems.
125. Please comment on the costs to AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs of complying with DCM rules requiring retention and production of
records relating to Sec. Sec. 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 compliance,
pursuant to Sec. 40.22(d), including without limitation on the extent
to which AT Persons and clearing member FCMs already have policies,
procedures, staffing and technological infrastructure in place to
retain such records and produce them upon DCM request.
126. The Commission anticipates that Regulation AT may promote
confidence among market participants and reduce market risk,
consequently reducing transaction costs, but has not estimated this
reduction in transaction costs. The Commission welcomes comment on the
extent to which Regulation AT may impact transaction costs and effects
on liquidity provision more generally.
AT Person Membership in RFA; RFA Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems
127. The Commission estimates that the costs of membership in an
RFA associated with proposed Sec. 170.18 will encompass certain costs,
such as those associated with NFA membership dues. Has the Commission
correctly identified the costs associated with membership in an RFA?
128. The Commission expects that entities that will be required to
become members of an RFA would not incur any additional compliance
costs as a result of their membership in an RFA. The Commission
requests comment on the accuracy of this expectation. What additional
compliance costs, if any, would a registrant face as a result of being
required to become a member of an RFA pursuant to proposed Sec.
170.18?
129. Has the Commission accurately estimated that approximately 100
entities will be affected by the membership requirements of Sec.
170.18?
130. The Commission invites estimates on the cost to an RFA to
establish and maintain the program required by Sec. 170.19, and the
amount of that cost that will be passed along to individual categories
of AT Person members in the RFA.
[[Page 78935]]
Development, Testing, and Supervision of Algorithmic Systems
131. Proposed Sec. 1.81(a) establishes principles-based standards
for the development and testing of Algorithmic Trading systems and
procedures, including requirements for AT Persons to test all
Algorithmic Trading code and related systems and any changes to such
code and systems prior to their implementation. AT Persons would also
be required to maintain a source code repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code used in the production
environment, and changes to such code, among other requirements. Are
any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(a) not already followed by the
majority of market participants that would be subject to Sec. 1.81(a)
(or some particular segment of market participants), and if so, how
much will it cost for a market participant to comply with such
requirement(s)?
132. Proposed Sec. 1.81(b) requires that an AT Person's
Algorithmic Trading is subject to continuous real-time monitoring and
supervision by knowledgeable and qualified staff at all times while
Algorithmic Trading is occurring. Proposed Sec. 1.81(b) also requires
automated alerts when an Algorithmic Trading system's AT Order Message
behavior breaches design parameters, upon loss of network connectivity
or data feeds, or when market conditions approach the boundaries within
which the ATS is intended to operate, to the extent applicable, among
other monitoring requirements. Are any of the requirements of Sec.
1.81(b) not already followed by the majority of market participants
that would be subject to Sec. 1.81(b), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply with such requirement(s)?
133. Proposed Sec. 1.81(c) requires that AT Persons implement
policies designed to ensure that Algorithmic Trading operates in a
manner that complies with the CEA and the rules and regulations
thereunder. Among other controls, the policies should include a plan of
internal coordination and communication between compliance staff of the
AT Person and staff of the AT Person responsible for Algorithmic
Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading design, changes, testing, and
controls. Are any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(c) not already
followed by the majority of market participants that would be subject
to Sec. 1.81(c), and if so, how much will it cost for a market
participant to comply with such requirement(s)?
134. Proposed Sec. 1.81(d) requires that AT Persons implement
policies to designate and train their staff responsible for Algorithmic
Trading, which policies should include procedures for designating and
training all staff involved in designing, testing and monitoring
Algorithmic Trading. Are any of the requirements of Sec. 1.81(d) not
already followed by the majority of market participants that would be
subject to Sec. 1.81(d), and if so, how much will it cost for a market
participant to comply with such requirement(s)?
AT Person and FCM Compliance Reports
135. Please comment on whether any of the alternatives discussed
above regarding compliance reports would provide a superior cost-
benefit profile relative to the Commission's proposal.
DCM Test Environments
136. Do any DCMs not currently offer a test environment that
simulates production trading to their market participants, as would be
required by proposed Sec. 40.21? If so, how much would it cost a DCM
to implement a test environment that would comply with the requirements
of Sec. 40.21?
DCM Review of Compliance Reports
137. Please comment on the cost estimates provided above with
respect to DCMs' review of compliance reports provided under Sec.
40.22 and related review requirements, including the estimated cost for
DCMs to: Establish the review program required by Sec. 40.22; review
the reports provided by AT Persons and clearing member FCMs;
communicate remediation instructions to a subset of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs; and review and evaluate, as necessary, books and
records of AT Persons and clearing member FCMs as contemplated by
proposed Sec. 40.22(e).
Section 15(a) Considerations
138. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
139. Are the compliance costs associated with the proposed rules of
sufficient magnitude to potentially cause smaller market participants,
FCMs, or DCMs to cease or scale back operations? Do these costs create
significant barriers to entry?
Registration--Sec. 1.3(x)(3)
140. The Commission estimates that the costs of registration will
encompass direct costs (those associated with NFA membership, and
reporting and recordkeeping with the Commission), and indirect costs
(e.g. those associated to risk control requirements placed on all
registered entities). Has the Commission correctly identified the costs
associated with the new registration category? What firm
characteristics would change the level of direct and indirect costs
associated with the registration?
141. Has the Commission accurately estimated that approximately 100
currently unregistered entities will be captured by the new
registration requirement in proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3).
142. Has the Commission accurately estimated that each currently
unregistered entity captured by the new registration requirement in
proposed Sec. 1.3(x)(3) will have approximately 10 persons required to
file Form 8-R?
143. As defined, the new floor trader category restricts the
registration requirement to those who make use of Direct Electronic
Access. Is this requirement overly restrictive or unduly broad from a
cost-benefit perspective? Are there alternate, or additional,
characteristics of trading activity to determine registration status
that would be preferable from a cost-benefit standpoint? For example,
should persons with trading volume or message volume below a specified
threshold be exempted from registration?
144. Will any currently unregistered entities change their business
model or exit the market in order to avoid the proposed registration
requirement?
145. The Commission believes that the risk control protocols
required of registered entities, specifically those under the new
registration category, will provide a general benefit to the safety and
soundness of market activity and price formation. Has the Commission
correctly identified the type and level of benefits which arise from
placing these requirements on a new set of significant market
participants?
146. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
Transparency in Exchange Trade Matching Systems
147. The Commission anticipates that costs associated with the
transparency requirement would come from some additional testing of
platform systems and from drafting and publishing descriptions of any
relevant attributes of the platform. What new costs would be associated
with providing descriptions of attributes of electronic matching
[[Page 78936]]
platforms that affect market participant orders and quotes?
148. Please compare the costs and benefits of the alternative of
applying the transparency requirement only with respect to latencies
within a platform and how a self-trade prevention tool determines
whether to cancel an order with the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule.
149. What benefits might market participants receive through
increased transparency into the operation of electronic matching
platforms, particularly for those market participants without direct
electronic access who may not be able to accurately measure latencies
or other metrics of market efficiency?
150. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
Self-Trade Prevention
151. Please comment on the cost estimates described above for DCMs
and market participants to comply with the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
The Commission is interested in commenter opinion on all aspects of its
analysis, including its estimate of the number of entities impacted by
the proposed regulation and the amount of costs such entities may incur
to comply with the regulation.
152. Please comment on the benefits described above. Do you agree
with the Commission's position that self-trade prevention requirements
will result in more accurate indications of the level of market
interest on both sides of the market and help ensure arms-length
transactions that promote effective price discovery? Are there
additional benefits to regulatory self-trade prevention requirements
not articulated above?
153. Are there any DCMs that neither internalize and apply self-
trade prevention tools, nor provide self-trade prevention tools to
their market participants? If so, please provide an estimate of the
cost to such a DCM to comply with the requirement under Sec. 40.23(a)
to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools.
154. Would any DCMs that currently offer self-trade prevention
tools need to update their tools to meet the requirements of Sec.
40.23? If so, please provide an estimate of the cost to such a DCM to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 40.23.
155. What percentage of market participants do not currently make
use of exchange-provided self-trade prevention tools, when active on a
DCM that provides, but does not require such tools? Please provide an
estimate of the cost to such a market participant to initially
calibrate and use exchange-provided self-trade prevention tools, in
accordance with Sec. 40.23. Please also comment on any other direct or
indirect costs to a market participant that does not currently use
self-trade prevention tools arising from the proposed requirement to
implement such tools.
156. The Commission estimates above that the number of market
participants that will submit the approval requests described by Sec.
40.23(c) is approximately equivalent to the number of AT Persons.
Please comment on whether the estimate of the number of market
participants submitting such approval requests should be higher or
lower. For example, should the estimate be raised to account for
proprietary algorithmic traders that will not be AT Persons, because
they do not use Direct Electronic Access and therefore will not be
required to register as floor traders?
157. Proposed Sec. 40.23 provides that DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools by requiring market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account identification process, the Commission's
principal goal is to prevent unintentional self-trading; the Commission
does not have a specific interest in regulating the manner by which
market participants identify to DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other, so long as this goal is met.
Should any other identification methods be permitted in Sec. 40.23?
For example, please comment on whether the opposite approach is
preferable: Market participants would identify to DCMs the accounts
that should be permitted to trade with each other (as opposed to those
accounts that should be prevented from trading with each other). In
particular, please comment on whether this approach or other
identification methods would reduce costs for market participants or be
easier for both market participants and DCMs to administer.
158. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
Market-Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
159. The Commission requests comment on the accuracy of its cost
estimates.
160. To what extent are the costs imposed on the DCMs by the
proposed rule already incurred pursuant to existing rules?
161. To what extent are the benefits of the proposed rule currently
being realized?
162. Do DCM Web sites currently provide adequate information
regarding market-maker and trading incentive programs, and is such
information easily located?
163. To what extent do DCMs currently make payments for self-trades
pursuant to market-maker and trading incentive programs?
164. The Commission requests comment on its discussion of the
effects of the proposed rules on the considerations in Section 15(a) of
the CEA.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 1
Commodity futures, Commodity pool operators, Commodity trading
advisors, Definitions, Designated contract markets, Floor brokers,
Futures commission merchants, Introducing brokers, Major swap
participants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swap dealers.
17 CFR Part 38
Commodity futures, Designated contract markets, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 40
Commodity futures, Definitions, Designated contract markets,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 170
Commodity futures, Commodity pool operators, Commodity trading
advisors, Floor brokers, Futures commission merchants, Introducing
brokers, Major swap participants, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Swap dealers.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 1--GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h,
6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9,
10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).
[[Page 78937]]
0
2. In Sec. 1.3, add paragraphs (x)(3), (tttt), (uuuu), (vvvv), (wwww),
(xxxx), (yyyy), and (zzzz) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(x) * * *
(3)(i) Who, in or surrounding any other place provided by a
contract market for the meeting of persons similarly engaged purchases
or sells solely for such person's own account--
(A) Any commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or
swap; or
(B) Any commodity option authorized under section 4c of the Act;
and
(ii) Who uses Direct Electronic Access as defined in paragraph
(yyyy) of this section, in whole or in part, to access such other place
for Algorithmic Trading; and
(iii) Who is not registered with the Commission as a futures
commission merchant, floor broker, swap dealer, major swap participant,
commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or introducing
broker.
* * * * *
(tttt) Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue. This term means an
event at an AT Person that has caused any Algorithmic Trading of such
entity to operate in a manner that does not comply with the Commodity
Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, the rules of any
designated contract market to which such AT Person submits orders
through Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any registered futures
association of which such AT Person is a member, the AT Person's own
internal requirements, or the requirements of the AT Person's clearing
member, in each case as applicable.
(uuuu) Algorithmic Trading Disruption. This term means an event
originating with an AT Person that disrupts, or materially degrades--
(1) The Algorithmic Trading of such AT Person,
(2) The operation of the designated contract market on which such
AT Person is trading, or
(3) The ability of other market participants to trade on the
designated contract market on which such AT Person is trading.
(vvvv) Algorithmic Trading Event. This term means an event at an AT
Person that constitutes--
(1) An Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue; or
(2) An Algorithmic Trading Disruption.
(wwww) AT Order Message. This term means each new order or quote
submitted through Algorithmic Trading to a designated contract market
by an AT Person and each change or deletion submitted through
Algorithmic Trading by an AT Person with respect to such an order or
quote.
(xxxx) AT Person. This term means any person registered or required
to be registered as a--
(1) Futures commission merchant, floor broker, swap dealer, major
swap participant, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor,
or introducing broker that engages in Algorithmic Trading on or subject
to the rules of a designated contract market; or
(2) Floor trader as defined in paragraph (x)(3) of this section.
(yyyy) Direct Electronic Access. This term means an arrangement
where a person electronically transmits an order to a designated
contract market, without the order first being routed through a
separate person who is a member of a derivatives clearing organization
to which the designated contract market submits transactions for
clearing.
(zzzz) Algorithmic Trading. This term means trading in any
commodity interest as defined in paragraph (yy) of this section on or
subject to the rules of a designated contract market, where:
(1) One or more computer algorithms or systems determines whether
to initiate, modify, or cancel an order, or otherwise makes
determinations with respect to an order, including but not limited to:
The product to be traded; the venue where the order will be placed; the
type of order to be placed; the timing of the order; whether to place
the order; the sequencing of the order in relation to other orders; the
price of the order; the quantity of the order; the partition of the
order into smaller components for submission; the number of orders to
be placed; or how to manage the order after submission; and
(2) Such order, modification or order cancellation is
electronically submitted for processing on or subject to the rules of a
designated contract market; provided, however, that Algorithmic Trading
does not include an order, modification, or order cancellation whose
every parameter or attribute is manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, with no further discretion by any computer
system or algorithm, prior to its electronic submission for processing
on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market.
0
3. Add subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A--Requirements for Algorithmic Trading
Sec.
1.80 Pre-trade risk controls for AT Persons.
1.81 Standards for the development, monitoring, and compliance of
Algorithmic Trading systems.
1.82 Clearing futures commission merchant risk management.
1.83 AT Person and clearing member futures commission merchant
reports and recordkeeping.
Subpart A--Requirements for Algorithmic Trading
Sec. 1.80 Pre-trade risk controls for AT Persons.
For all AT Order Messages, an AT Person shall implement pre-trade
risk controls and other measures reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event, including but not limited to:
(a) Pre-Trade Risk Controls. (1) The pre-trade risk controls shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Maximum AT Order Message frequency per unit time and maximum
execution frequency per unit time; and
(ii) Order price parameters and maximum order size limits.
(2) Pre-trade risk controls shall be set at the level of each AT
Person, or such other more granular level as the AT Person may
determine, including but not limited to, by product, account number or
designation, or one or more identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message.
(3) Natural person monitors at the AT Person shall be promptly
alerted when pre-trade risk control parameters established pursuant to
this section are breached.
(b) Order Cancellation Systems. (1) Systems that have the ability
to:
(i) Immediately disengage Algorithmic Trading;
(ii) Cancel selected or up to all resting orders when system or
market conditions require it; and
(iii) Prevent submission of new AT Order Messages.
(2) Prior to an AT Person's initial use of Algorithmic Trading to
submit a message or order to a designated contract market's trading
platform, such AT Person must notify the designated contract market on
which it conducts Algorithmic Trading whether all of its resting orders
should be cancelled or suspended in the event that the AT Person's
Algorithmic Trading system disconnects with the trading platform.
(c) System Connectivity. AT Persons with Direct Electronic Access
as defined in Sec. 1.3(yyyy) shall implement systems to indicate on an
ongoing basis whether they have proper connectivity with the trading
platform and any systems used by a designated contract market to
provide the AT Person with market data.
[[Page 78938]]
(d) Notification of Algorithmic Trading. Prior to an AT Person's
initial use of Algorithmic Trading to submit a message or order to a
designated contract market's trading platform, such AT Person shall
notify its clearing member and the designated contract market on which
it will be trading that it will engage in Algorithmic Trading.
(e) Self-Trade Prevention Tools. To the extent that implementation
of a designated contract market's self-trade prevention tools requires
calibration or other action by an AT Person, such AT Person shall
calibrate or take such other action as is necessary to apply such
tools.
(f) Periodic Review for Sufficiency and Effectiveness. Each AT
Person shall periodically review its compliance with this section to
determine whether it has effectively implemented sufficient measures
reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event. Each AT
Person shall take prompt action to remedy any deficiencies it
identifies.
Sec. 1.81 Standards for the development, monitoring, and compliance
of Algorithmic Trading systems.
(a) Development and testing of Algorithmic Trading Systems. (1)
Each AT Person shall implement written policies and procedures for the
development and testing of its Algorithmic Trading systems. Such
policies and procedures shall at a minimum include the following:
(i) Maintaining a development environment that is adequately
isolated from the production trading environment. The development
environment may include computers, networks, and databases, and should
be used by software engineers while developing, modifying, and testing
source code.
(ii) Testing of all Algorithmic Trading code and related systems
and any changes to such code and systems prior to their implementation,
including testing to identify circumstances that may contribute to
future Algorithmic Trading Events. Such testing must be conducted both
internally within the AT Person and on each designated contract market
on which Algorithmic Trading will occur.
(iii) Regular back-testing of Algorithmic Trading using historical
transaction, order, and message data to identify circumstances that may
contribute to future Algorithmic Trading Events.
(iv) Regular stress tests of Algorithmic Trading systems to verify
their ability to operate in the manner intended under a variety of
market conditions.
(v) Procedures for documenting the strategy and design of
proprietary Algorithmic Trading software used by an AT Person, as well
as any changes to such software if such changes are implemented in a
production environment.
(vi) Maintaining a source code repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code used in the production
environment, and changes to such code. Such source code repository must
include an audit trail of material changes to source code that would
allow the AT Person to determine, for each such material change: who
made it; when they made it; and the coding purpose of the change. Each
AT Person shall keep such source code repository, and make it available
for inspection, in accordance with Sec. 1.31.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically review the effectiveness of
the policies and procedures required by this paragraph (a), and take
prompt action to document and remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.
(b) Monitoring of Algorithmic Trading Systems. (1) Each AT Person
shall implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its Algorithmic Trading systems is subject to
continuous real-time monitoring by knowledgeable and qualified staff
while such Algorithmic Trading system is engaged in trading. Such
policies and procedures shall at a minimum include the following:
(i) Continuous real-time monitoring of Algorithmic Trading to
identify potential Algorithmic Trading Events.
(ii) Automated alerts when an Algorithmic Trading system's AT Order
Message behavior breaches design parameters, upon loss of network
connectivity or data feeds, or when market conditions approach the
boundaries within which the Algorithmic Trading system is intended to
operate, to the extent applicable.
(iii) Monitoring staff of the AT Person shall have the ability and
authority to disengage an Algorithmic Trading system and to cancel
resting orders when system or market conditions require it, including
the ability to contact staff of the applicable designated contract
market and clearing firm, as applicable, to seek information and cancel
orders. Such monitoring staff must also have dashboards and control
panels to monitor and interact with the Algorithmic Trading systems for
which they are responsible.
(iv) Procedures that will enable AT Persons to track which
monitoring staff is responsible for an Algorithmic Trading system
during trading hours.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically review the effectiveness of
the policies and procedures required by this paragraph (b), and take
prompt action to document and remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.
(c) Compliance of Algorithmic Trading Systems. (1) Each AT Person
shall implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its Algorithmic Trading systems operates in a
manner that complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
(2) Each AT Person shall implement written policies and procedures
requiring:
(i) Staff of the AT Person to review Algorithmic Trading systems in
order to detect potential Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
Procedures shall indicate that such staff shall include staff of the AT
Person familiar with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder, the rules of any designated contract market to
which such AT Person submits AT Order Messages, the rules of any
registered futures association of which such AT Person is a member, the
AT Person's own internal requirements, and the requirements of the AT
Person's clearing member, in each case as applicable.
(ii) A plan of internal coordination and communication between
compliance staff of the AT Person and staff of the AT Person
responsible for Algorithmic Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading
design, changes, testing, and controls, which plan should be designed
to detect and prevent Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
(3) Each AT Person shall periodically review the effectiveness of
the policies and procedures required by this paragraph (c), and take
prompt action to document and remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.
(d) Designation and training of Algorithmic Trading staff. (1) Each
AT Person shall implement written policies and procedures to designate
and train its staff responsible for Algorithmic Trading. Such policies
and procedures shall at a minimum include the following:
(i) Procedures for designating and training all staff involved in
designing, testing and monitoring Algorithmic Trading, and documenting
training events. Training must, at a minimum, cover design and testing
standards, Algorithmic Trading Event communication procedures, and
requirements for notifying staff of the
[[Page 78939]]
applicable designated contract market when Algorithmic Trading Events
occur.
(ii) Training policies reasonably designed to ensure that natural
person monitors are adequately trained for each Algorithmic Trading
system or strategy (or material change to such system or strategy) for
which such monitors are responsible. Training must include, at a
minimum, the trading strategy for the Algorithmic Trading as well as
the automated and non-automated risk controls that are applicable to
the Algorithmic Trading.
(iii) Escalation procedures to inform senior staff of the AT Person
as soon as Algorithmic Trading Events are identified.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically review the effectiveness of
the policies and procedures required by this paragraph (d), and take
prompt action to document and remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.
Sec. 1.82 Clearing member futures commission merchant risk
management.
(a) For all AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person, the
futures commission merchant that is the clearing member for such AT
Person shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Make use of pre-trade risk controls reasonably designed to
prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic Trading Disruption, including at a
minimum, those pre-trade risk controls described in Sec. 1.80(a)(1).
(2) Pre-trade risk controls must be set at the level of each AT
Person, or such other more granular level as the clearing futures
commission merchant may determine, including but not limited to, by
product, account number or designation, or one or more identifiers of
natural persons associated with an AT Order Message.
(3) The futures commission merchant shall have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that natural person monitors
at the clearing futures commission merchant are promptly alerted when
pre-trade risk control parameters established pursuant to this section
are breached.
(4) Make use of the order cancellation systems described in Sec.
1.80(b)(1).
(b) Direct Electronic Access orders. For all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person submitted to a trading platform through
Direct Electronic Access as defined in Sec. 1.3(yyyy), the futures
commission merchant that is the clearing member for the AT Person shall
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of this
section by implementing the pre-trade risk controls and order
cancellation systems provided by designated contract markets pursuant
to Sec. 38.255(b) and (c) of this chapter.
(c) Non-Direct Electronic Access orders. For all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person that are not submitted to a trading
platform through Direct Electronic Access as defined in Sec.
1.3(yyyy), the futures commission merchant that is the clearing member
for the AT Person shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1), (2), and (4) of this section by itself establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls and order cancellation systems
described therein.
Sec. 1.83 AT Person and clearing member futures commission merchant
reports and recordkeeping.
(a) AT Person Reports. Each AT Person shall annually prepare a
report and submit such report by June 30 to each designated contract
market on which such AT Person engaged in Algorithmic Trading. Together
with the annual report, each AT Person shall submit copies of the
written policies and procedures developed to comply with Sec. 1.81(a)
and (c). Such report shall cover the time period from May 1 of the
previous year to April 30 of the year such report is submitted. The
report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the pre-trade risk controls required by Sec.
1.80(a), including a description of each item enumerated in Sec.
1.80(a) and a description of all parameters and the specific
quantitative settings used by the AT Person for such pre-trade risk
controls; and
(2) A certification by the chief executive officer or chief
compliance officer of the AT Person that, to the best of his or her
knowledge and reasonable belief, the information contained in the
report is accurate and complete.
(b) Clearing member futures commission merchant reports. Each
futures commission merchant that is a clearing member for one or more
AT Person(s) shall annually prepare and submit a report by June 30 to
each designated contract market on which such AT Person(s) engaged in
Algorithmic Trading. Such report shall cover the time period from May 1
of the previous year to April 30 of the year such report is submitted.
The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the clearing member futures commission
merchant's program for establishing and maintaining the pre-trade risk
controls required by Sec. 1.82(a)(1) for its AT Persons at the
designated contract market; and
(2) A certification by the chief executive officer or chief
compliance officer of the futures commission merchant that, to the best
of his or her knowledge and reasonable belief, the information
contained in the report is accurate and complete.
(c) AT Person recordkeeping. Each AT Person shall keep, and provide
upon request to each designated contract market on which such AT Person
engages in Algorithmic Trading, books and records regarding such AT
Person's compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80
and 1.81.
(d) Clearing member futures commission merchant recordkeeping. Each
futures commission merchant that is a clearing member for an AT Person
shall keep, and provide upon request to each designated contract market
on which such AT Person engages in Algorithmic Trading, books and
records regarding such clearing member futures commission merchant's
compliance with all requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82.
PART 38--DESIGNATED CONTRACT MARKETS
0
4. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6j,
6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-1, 7b-3, 8, 9, 15, and 21, as
amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
0
5. Revise Sec. 38.255 to read as follows:
Sec. 38.255 Risk controls for trading.
(a) The designated contract market must establish and maintain risk
control mechanisms to prevent and reduce the potential risk of price
distortions and market disruptions, including, but not limited to,
market restrictions that pause or halt trading in market conditions
prescribed by the designated contract market.
(b) For all AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person that
are submitted to a designated contract market through Direct Electronic
Access as defined in Sec. 1.3(yyyy) of this chapter, the designated
contract market shall make available to the clearing member futures
commission merchant for such AT Person effective systems and controls,
reasonably designed to facilitate the items enumerated below:
(1) The clearing member futures commission merchant's management of
the risks, pursuant to Sec. 1.82(a)(1) and (2) of this chapter, that
may arise from such AT Person's Algorithmic Trading using Direct
Electronic Access.
(i) Such systems and controls shall include, at a minimum, the pre-
trade
[[Page 78940]]
risk controls described in Sec. 1.80(a)(1) of this chapter.
(ii) Such systems shall, at a minimum, enable the clearing member
futures commission merchant to set the pre-trade risk controls at the
level of each such AT Person, product, account number or designation,
and one or more identifiers of natural persons associated with an AT
Order Message. Designated contract market rules should permit clearing
member futures commission merchants to choose the level at which they
place control, so long as clearing member futures commission merchants
use at least one of the levels.
(2) The clearing member future commission merchant's ability,
pursuant to Sec. 1.82(a)(4) of this chapter, to make use of the order
cancellation systems described in Sec. 1.80(b)(1) of this chapter. The
designated contract market shall enable the clearing member future
commission merchant to apply such order cancellation systems to orders
from each such AT Person, product, account number or designation, or
one or more identifiers of natural persons associated with an AT Order
Message.
(c) A designated contract market that permits Direct Electronic
Access as defined in Sec. 1.3(yyyy) of this chapter shall also require
clearing member futures commission merchants to use the systems and
controls described in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to all
AT Order Messages originating with an AT Person that are submitted
through Direct Electronic Access.
0
6. Amend Sec. 38.401 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Add paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
c. Revise paragraph (a)(2); and
0
d. Add paragraph (c)(3).
0
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 38.401 General requirements.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
(iii) Rules and specifications pertaining to the operation of the
electronic matching platform or trade execution facility, including but
not limited to those pertaining to the operation of its electronic
matching platform that materially affect the time, priority, price, or
quantity of execution, or the ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of market participant orders.
(iv) Any known attributes of the electronic matching platform,
other than those already disclosed in rules or specifications under
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, that materially affect the time,
priority, price, or quantity of execution of market participant orders,
the ability to cancel, modify, or limit display of market participant
orders, or the dissemination of real-time market data to market
participants, including but not limited to latencies or other
variability in the electronic matching platform and the transmission of
message acknowledgements, order confirmations, or trade confirmations,
or dissemination of market data.
(2) Through the procedures, arrangements and resources required in
paragraph (a) of this section, the designated contract market must
ensure public dissemination of information pertaining to new product
listings, new rules, rule amendments, rules pertaining to the operation
of the electronic matching platform or trade execution facility, known
attributes of its electronic trading platform under paragraph
(a)(1)(iv) of this section, or other changes to previously-disclosed
information, in accordance with the timeline provided in paragraph (c)
of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) A designated contract market, in making available on its Web
site information pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section, shall place such information and submissions on its Web site
within a reasonable time, but no later than 10 business days, following
the identification of or changes to such attributes. Such information
shall be disclosed prominently and clearly in plain English.
* * * * *
0
7. In Appendix B to part 38, in the paragraph with the subject heading
Core Principle 4 of section 5(d) of the Act: PREVENTION OF MARKET
DISRUPTION, revise paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 38--Guidance on, and Acceptable Practices in,
Compliance With Core Principles
* * * * *
Core Principle 4 of section 5(d) of the Act: PREVENTION OF
MARKET DISRUPTION
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Risk controls for trading. An acceptable program for
preventing market disruptions must demonstrate appropriate trade
risk controls, in addition to pauses and halts. Such controls must
be adapted to the unique characteristics of the markets to which
they apply and must be designed to avoid market disruptions without
unduly interfering with that market's price discovery function. The
designated contract market must employ the pre-trade risk controls
specified in the Commission's regulations (including applicable
regulations contained in part 40 of this chapter), and may employ
additional controls that the designated contract market believes are
appropriate to its market. Within the specific array of controls
that are selected, the designated contract market also must set the
parameters for those controls, so long as the types of controls and
their specific parameters are reasonably likely to serve the purpose
of preventing market disruptions and price distortions, or as they
are otherwise required to be designed pursuant to Commission
regulation. If a contract is linked to, or is a substitute for,
other contracts, either listed on its market or on other trading
venues, the designated contract market must, to the extent
practicable, coordinate its risk controls with any similar controls
placed on those other contracts. If a contract is based on the price
of an equity security or the level of an equity index, such risk
controls must, to the extent practicable, be coordinated with any
similar controls placed on national security exchanges.
* * * * *
PART 40--PROVISIONS COMMON TO REGISTERED ENTITIES
0
8. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8 and 12, as amended by
Titles VII and VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
0
9. Revise Sec. 40.1(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 40.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
(i) Rule means any constitutional provision, article of
incorporation, bylaw, rule, regulation, resolution, interpretation,
stated policy, advisory, terms and conditions, market maker or trading
incentive program, trading protocol (including but not limited to any
operation of an electronic matching platform that materially affects
the time, priority, price, or quantity of execution of market
participant orders, the ability to cancel, modify, or limit display of
market participant orders, or the dissemination of real-time market
data to market participants), agreement or instrument corresponding
thereto, including those that authorize a response or establish
standards for responding to a specific emergency, and any amendment or
addition thereto or repeal thereof, made or issued by a registered
entity or by the governing board thereof or any committee thereof, in
whatever form adopted.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 40.13 through 40.19 [Reserved]
0
10. Add reserved Sec. Sec. 40.13 through 40.19.
0
11. Add Sec. Sec. 40.20 through 40.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 40.20 Risk controls for trading.
A designated contract market shall implement pre-trade and other
risk
[[Page 78941]]
controls reasonably designed to prevent an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption (or, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, similar
disruption resulting from orders that originate from manual order entry
or other non-Algorithmic Trading) or an Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issue, including at a minimum all of the following:
(a) Pre-trade risk controls. Pre-trade risk controls reasonably
designed to address the risks from Algorithmic Trading on a designated
contract market.
(1) The pre-trade risk controls to be established and used by a
designated contract market shall include, at a minimum, those described
in Sec. 1.80(a)(1) of this chapter.
(2) At a minimum, the pre-trade risk controls established and used
pursuant to this section shall be set at the level of each AT Person.
Designated contract markets must also evaluate whether to establish
pre-trade risk controls at a more granular level, including at a
minimum, by product or one or more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message. Where deemed appropriate by the
designated contract market, pre-trade risk controls should be set at
such more granular levels.
(3) A designated contract market shall have policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that natural person monitors at such
designated contract market are promptly alerted when pre-trade risk
control parameters established pursuant to this section are breached.
(b) Order cancellation systems. (1) Order cancellation systems that
have the ability to:
(i) Perform the actions described in Sec. 1.80(b)(1) of this
chapter with respect to orders from AT Persons; and
(ii) Cancel or suspend all resting orders from AT Persons in the
event of disconnect with the trading platform.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) System connectivity. (1) Systems that enable the systems of an
AT Person with Direct Electronic Access as defined in Sec. 1.3(yyyy)
of this chapter to indicate to the AT Person on an ongoing basis
whether the AT Person has proper connectivity with--
(i) The designated contract market's trading platform, and
(ii) Any systems used by the designated contract market to provide
the AT Person with market data.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Risk control mechanisms for manual order entry and other non-
Algorithmic Trading. (1) A designated contract market shall implement
the risk control mechanisms described in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)(i)
of this section for orders that do not originate from Algorithmic
Trading, after making any adjustments to the mechanisms that the
designated contract market determines are appropriate for such orders.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 40.21 DCM test environments.
(a) A designated contract market shall provide a test environment
that will enable AT Persons to simulate production trading. Such test
environment shall provide access to historical transaction, order and
message data and shall also enable AT Persons to conduct conformance
testing of their Algorithmic Trading systems to verify compliance with
the requirements of Sec. Sec. 1.80(a) through (c) and 1.81(a)(1)(ii)
through (iv) and (c)(1) of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 40.22 DCM review of compliance reports; maintenance of books and
records.
A designated contract market shall comply with the following:
(a) Review of reports. Implement rules that require each AT Person
that trades on the designated contract market, and each futures
commission merchant that is a clearing member of a derivatives clearing
organization for such AT Person, to submit the reports described in
Sec. 1.83(a) and (b), respectively, of this chapter;
(b) Submission date. Require the submission of such reports by June
30th of each year;
(c) Review program. Establish a program for effective periodic
review and evaluation of reports described in paragraph (a) of this
section, and of the measures described therein. An effective program
shall include measures by the designated contract market reasonably
designed to identify and remediate any insufficient mechanisms,
policies and procedures described in such reports, including
identification and remediation of any inadequate quantitative settings
or calibrations of pre-trade risk controls required of AT Persons
pursuant to Sec. 1.80(a) of this chapter;
(d) Maintenance of books and records. Implement rules that require
each AT Person to keep and provide to the designated contract market
books and records regarding such AT Person's compliance with all
requirements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.80 and 1.81 of this chapter, and
require each clearing member futures commission merchant to keep and
provide to the designated contract market books and records regarding
such clearing member futures commission merchant's compliance with all
requirements pursuant to Sec. 1.82 of this chapter; and
(e) Review and evaluate, as necessary, books and records required
to be kept pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, and the measures
described therein. An appropriate review shall include measures by the
designated contract market reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms, policies, and procedures
described in such books and records.
Sec. 40.23 Self-trade prevention tools.
(a) A designated contract market shall implement rules reasonably
designed to prevent self-trading by market participants, except as
specified in paragraph (b) of this section. ``Self-trading'' is defined
for purposes of this section as the matching of orders for accounts
that have common beneficial ownership or are under common control. A
designated contract market shall either apply, or provide and require
the use of, self-trade prevention tools that are reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading and are applicable to all orders on its electronic
trade matching platform. For purposes of complying with this
requirement, a designated contract market may either determine for
itself which accounts should be prohibited from trading with each
other, or require market participants to identify to the designated
contract market which accounts should be prohibited from trading with
each other.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a designated contract market
may, in its discretion, implement rules that permit self-trading
described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to occur, in
each case subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) A self-trade resulting from the matching of orders for accounts
with common beneficial ownership where such orders are initiated by
independent decision makers. A designated contract market may through
its rules further define for its market participants ``independent
decision makers.''
(2) A self-trade resulting from the matching of orders for accounts
under common control where such orders comply with the designated
contract market's cross-trade, minimum exposure requirements or similar
rules, and are for accounts that are not under common beneficial
ownership.
(c) A designated contract market may permit self-trading described
in paragraph (b) of this section only if the designated contract
market:
(1) Requires market participants to request approval from the
designated contract market that self-trade
[[Page 78942]]
prevention tools not be applied with respect to specific accounts under
common beneficial ownership or control, on the basis that they meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this section. The designated contract
market must require that such approval request be provided to it by a
compliance officer or senior officer of the market participant; and
(2) Requires market participants to withdraw or amend an approval
request if any change occurs that would cause the information provided
in such approval request to be no longer accurate or complete.
(d) For each product and expiration month traded on a designated
contract market in the previous quarter, the designated contract market
must prominently display on its Web site the following information:
(1) The percentage of trades in such product including all
expiration months that represent self-trading approved (pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section) by the designated contract market,
expressed as a percentage of all trades in such product and expiration
month;
(2) The percentage of volume of trading in such product including
all expiration months that represents self-trading approved (pursuant
to paragraph (c) of this section) by the designated contract market,
expressed as a percentage of all volume in such product and expiration
month; and
(3) The ratio of orders in such product and expiration month whose
matching was prevented by the self-trade prevention tools described in
paragraph (a) of this section, expressed as a ratio of all trades in
such product and expiration month.
Sec. 40.24 [Reserved]
0
12. Add reserved Sec. 40.24.
0
13. Add Sec. Sec. 40.25 through 40.28 to read as follows:
Sec. 40.25 Additional public information required for market maker
and trading incentive programs.
(a) When submitting a Rule regarding a market maker or trading
incentive program pursuant to Sec. 40.5 or Sec. 40.6, a designated
contract market shall, in addition to information required by such
sections, include the following information in its public Rule filing:
(1) The name of the market maker program or trading incentive
program, the date on which it is scheduled to begin, and the date on
which it is scheduled to terminate (if applicable);
(2) An explanation of the specific purpose for the market maker or
trading incentive program;
(3) A list of all products or services to which the market maker or
trading incentive program applies;
(4) A description of any eligibility criteria or categories of
market participants defining who may participate in the market maker or
trading incentive program;
(5) For any market maker or trading incentive program that is not
open to all market participants, an explanation of why such program is
limited to the chosen eligibility criteria or categories of market
participants, and an explanation of how such limitation complies with
the impartial access and comparable fee structure requirements of Sec.
38.151(b) of this chapter for designated contract markets;
(6) An explanation of how persons eligible for the market maker or
trading incentive program may apply to participate, and how eligibility
will be evaluated by the designated contract market;
(7) A description of any payments, incentives, discounts,
considerations, inducements or other benefits that market maker or
trading incentive program participants may receive, including any non-
financial incentives; and
(8) A description of the obligations, benchmarks, or other measures
that a participant in a market maker or trading incentive program must
meet to receive the benefits described in paragraph (a)(7) of this
section.
(9) A description of any legal affiliation between the designated
contract market and any entity acting as a market maker or
participating in a market maker program.
(b) In addition to any public notice required pursuant to this part
(including without limitation the requirements of Sec. Sec. 40.5(a)(6)
and 40.6(a)(2)) of this chapter a designated contract market shall
ensure that the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(8) of this section is easily located on its public Web site from
the time that such designated contract market begins accepting
participants in the market maker or trading incentive program through
the time that it ceases operation of the market maker or trading
incentive program.
(c) A designated contract market shall notify the Commission upon
the termination of a market maker or trading incentive program prior to
the termination date previously notified to the Commission; any
extension or renewal of a market maker or trading incentive program
beyond its original termination date shall require a new Rule filing
pursuant to this part.
Sec. 40.26 Information requests from the Commission or the Director
of the Division of Market Oversight.
(a) Upon request by the Commission or the Director of the Division
of Market Oversight, a designated contract market shall provide such
information and data as may be requested regarding participation in
market maker or trading incentive programs offered by the designated
contract market, including but not limited to, individual program
agreements, names of program participants, benchmarks achieved by
program participants, and payments or other benefits conferred upon
program participants.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 40.27 Payment for trades with no change in ownership prohibited.
(a) A designated contract market shall implement policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the payment of market maker
or trading incentive program benefits, including but not limited to
payments, discounts, or other considerations, for trades between
accounts that are:
(1) Identified to such designated contract market as under common
beneficial ownership pursuant to the approval process described in
Sec. 40.23(c); or
(2) Otherwise known to the designated contract market as under
common ownership.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 40.28 Surveillance of market maker and trading incentive
programs.
(a) A designated contract market, consistent with its obligations
pursuant to subpart C of part 38 of this chapter, shall review all
benefits accorded to participants in market maker and trading incentive
programs, including but not limited to payments, discounts, or other
considerations, to ensure that such benefits are not earned through
abusive practices.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 170--REGISTERED FUTURES ASSOCIATIONS
0
14. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6d, 6m, 6p, 6s, 12a, and 21.
0
15. Add Sec. 170.18 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 170.18 AT Persons.
Each registrant, as defined in Sec. 1.3(oooo) of this chapter,
that is an AT Person, as defined in Sec. 1.3(xxxx) of this chapter,
that is not otherwise required to be a member of a futures association
that is registered under Section 17 of the
[[Page 78943]]
Act pursuant to Sec. Sec. 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 of this chapter
must become and remain a member of at least one futures association
that is registered under Section 17 of the Act and that provides for
the membership therein of such registrant, unless no such futures
association is so registered.
0
16. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec. 170.19, to read as follows:
Subpart D--Standards for Automated Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems
Sec. 170.19 RFA Standards for Automated Trading and Algorithmic
Trading Systems.
(a) A registered futures association must establish and maintain a
program for the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, the protection of the public interest, and perfecting the
mechanisms of trading on designated contract markets by adopting rules
for each category of member, as deemed appropriate by the registered
futures association, requiring:
(1) Pre-trade risk controls and other measures for algorithmic
trading systems;
(2) Standards for the development, testing, monitoring, and
compliance of algorithmic trading systems;
(3) Designation and training of algorithmic trading staff; and
(4) Operational risk management standards for clearing member
futures commission merchants with respect to customer orders
originating with algorithmic trading systems.
(b) [Reserved]
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 27, 2015, by the
Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendices to Regulation Automated Trading--Commission Voting Summary,
Chairman's Statement, and Commissioners' Statements
Appendix 1--Commission Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and
Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the
negative.
Appendix 2--Statement of Chairman Timothy G. Massad
Today, the Commission has approved a proposal that addresses the
increased use of automated trading in our markets. I strongly
support this important action. In the futures markets, today almost
all trading is electronic in some form. And over the last few years,
more than 70 percent of all trading has become automated.
Automated trading has brought many benefits to market
participants. These include more efficient execution, lower spreads
and greater transparency. But its extensive use also raises
important policy and supervisory questions and concerns.
The Commission has already taken a number of steps to respond to
the development of automated trading in our markets. Following the
2010 ``Flash Crash,'' the CFTC worked with the SEC to establish
certain controls to minimize the risk of market disruptions. The
Commission has also required clearing members to implement policies
and procedures governing the use of automated trading programs. We
have also required automatic screening of orders for compliance with
risk limits if they are automatically executed.
But as markets continue to evolve, it is important to continue
looking at this issue. Therefore, in September 2013, the Commission
issued a Concept Release that requested public comment on the
necessity and operation of a variety of risk controls and measures.
The Commission received many written comments and also held a
meeting of its Technological Advisory to discuss the issues raised.
It served as a very useful way to understand existing industry
practices and discuss what further actions might make sense.
The proposal approved today addresses several areas discussed in
the Concept Release, and incorporates much of that public input. It
focuses on minimizing the potential for disruptions and other
operational problems that may arise from the automation of order
origination, transmission or execution. They may come about due to
malfunctioning algorithms, inadequate testing of algorithms, errors
and similar problems.
No set of rules can prevent all such problems. But that doesn't
discharge us from our duty to take reasonable measures to minimize
these risks. It is our responsibility as regulators to create a
framework that promotes the integrity of these markets. And I
believe this proposed rule helps do that.
Our futures market infrastructure is already very strong. Our
regulatory framework--and the controls and measures that exist at
the exchange and clearing member level in particular--have helped
create the best futures markets in the world. Our proposal seeks to
maintain that strength as our markets evolve further.
We have proposed a number of measures that largely reflect what
are industry best practices to minimize the risk of disruptions and
similar problems. We have tried to be principles-based. We have set
forth requirements for certain controls, but we have avoided
prescribing the parameters or levels at which they should be set.
The proposed risk controls will apply regardless of whether the
automated trading is high- or low-frequency. The proposal does not
define high frequency trading.
A key principal of this proposed rule is to have risk controls
at three levels--the exchange level, clearing member level and
trading firm level. Market participants generally supported this
multi-level approach in response to the Concept Release, and I
believe it is important to achieving a sound framework. But in doing
so, we must seek efficiency, and avoid conflicting or unnecessary
requirements at multiple levels.
In order to make the multi-level approach effective, we are
proposing to require the registration of proprietary traders who
engage in algorithmic trading on our regulated exchanges via
``direct electronic access.'' Today, our staff estimates that
roughly 35 percent of the futures trading in our markets is done by
traders who use direct electronic access and are not registered with
us. A registration requirement will ensure that all those with
direct electronic access to our markets are complying with pre-trade
risk controls, testing and other requirements. And it would enhance
the Commission's ability to carry out its oversight
responsibilities.
While we believe a registration requirement is appropriate, we
have also invited market participants to comment on whether there
are alternatives that can achieve the proposal's underlying
objectives. We have also asked whether the registration requirement
should be limited to trading firms meeting certain volume, order or
message levels--or be based on other characteristics. Further, we
are seeking comment on whether all firms trading through direct
electronic access should be required to register, even if they are
not using algorithmic trading.
We believe that many of the requirements we are proposing for
trading firms represent the best practices already followed by many
larger firms. However, we know that a faulty algorithm at a single
firm, regardless of size, can potentially cause a significant
problem. As a result, we have proposed standards that are applicable
regardless of the size or similar attributes of a trading firm. We
also are cognizant of the importance of establishing effective
standards without creating barriers to entry for small firms. So we
welcome comment on whether these requirements should vary in any way
depending on the size or activity level of the trading firm.
We have also proposed certain risk controls for clearing member
futures commission merchants (FCMs) with respect to their customers
engaged in algorithmic trading. FCMs play a critical role in overall
risk management. As I noted earlier, they have implemented measures
already to require order limits and screening of orders. We believe
the requirements we are proposing today help achieve an effective
multi-layered approach.
We have asked for public comment on whether there are any
aspects of the required controls that may pose an undue burden on
clearing member FCMs or that are unnecessary for reducing the risks
associated with algorithmic trading. We've also asked about what
technological development would be required by clearing members to
comply with some requirements of this proposal.
I've said frequently that it's very important that we have a
robust clearing member industry and that all customers--particularly
smaller ones--are able to access the markets effectively and
efficiently. We want to make sure this proposal is consistent with
achieving that objective.
[[Page 78944]]
We have also included measures on some additional topics not
covered in the Concept Release. These include provisions to increase
transparency for exchanges' electronic trade matching platforms, as
well as for market maker and trading incentive programs, which have
become more significant as automated trading has increased.
There are concerns that have been raised with respect to
automated trading that also go beyond the scope of this proposal.
These include whether our markets are best served by this speed, and
what are its impacts on volatility and liquidity? These are
important topics for market participants and the Commission to
continue to study and discuss.
This proposal provides some common-sense risk controls that I
believe embrace the benefits that automated trading has brought to
our markets, while also protecting against the increased possibility
of breakdowns and disruptions that come with it. We encourage--and
welcome--public comment, which will carefully be taken into account
before we take any final action.
Appendix 3--Concurring Statement of Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen
I want to thank the Commission staff for the time they have
devoted to the proposed rule on automated trading. It is a timely
topic.
As I have previously said, our markets have seen immense
technological change over the last fifteen years.\1\ Futures trading
used to involve ``throngs of traders with jackets and badges using
hand-gestures'' to purchase futures and options.\2\ That trading
structure has largely disappeared, with even CME closing the vast
majority of its futures pits this summer. Meanwhile, algorithmic
trading has substantially increased. Algo trading comprised less
than 10% of futures volume at the turn of the millennium.\3\ Yet,
``per CFTC staff's estimates, for the most liquid U.S. futures
contracts which account for over 75% of total trading volume, more
than 90 percent of all trades make use of algorithms or some other
form of automation.'' \4\ Of course, these estimates are just that,
estimates. We still do not have comprehensive, precise data on the
percentage of trades created or entered by algorithms in many
product classes. Clearly, further research and work remain for all
stakeholders, from regulators, to industry participants, to
academics and advocates of financial reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Keynote Address by Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen before ISDA
North America Conference, CFTC (Sep. 17, 2015), http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabowen-6.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, I do not believe this lack of information requires that
regulators passively wait for this information to emerge. Simply
waiting for that kind of data to materialize could allow problems to
emerge in the interim that harm investors and the broader financial
system. Given the current state of our economy and a global
financial system still recovering from the 2008 financial crisis,
that is a risk that I believe we must not take. Recent events have
raised important questions about the impact and role of algorithmic
trading in our markets. As I said earlier, this fall, ``Even though
the amount of algorithmic trading and definitions of these various
terms are not crystal clear, what is clear is trades involving
algorithms make up a substantial portion of our markets, and
algorithms can and do malfunction at times, with negative effects on
the markets. As a result, I believe we are obligated to consider if
it is prudent to establish some regulations on algorithmic trading
in our markets.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, we begin the process of potentially establishing those
regulations. From what I have seen, I believe we now owe it to
market participants, investors, and ordinary consumers to ensure
that a reasonable level of regulation exists over this new trading
technology. I have said such regulation should include requirements
that entities utilizing algorithms to trade must use risk management
strategies, be required to disclose information to regulators, and
have people who understand the Commodity Exchange Act and our
regulations involved in the creation and maintenance of their
algorithms. I think this proposed regulation meets that standard and
does so in a way that allows for innovation and continued
development of this nascent technology.
Having said what I think lies at the core of this regulation,
let me also be clear about what this regulation is not. The rule
before us today should not substantially change how many firms
utilize algorithms. If, as I hope, a firm already uses risk
management strategies, has various protections against malfunctions
in place, and retains the services of talented attorneys, this new
regulation will not create significant new burdens for that firm. In
effect, this rulemaking largely formalizes and mandates firms
involved in algorithmic trading to engage in a variety of practices
that they should already be doing for their own protection.
I expect that some observers will have issues with this
regulation for not doing more to constrain the growth and use of
algorithmic trading, and I expect there will be further debate. I do
not regard this regulation as the final word on regulation of
algorithmic trading. If there is clear evidence that more precise
regulations are needed on this technology to protect investors or
ward off systemic risk, I would support further regulatory action.
And I am sure that, given the ferocious rate of change of this
technology, we will need to update this regulation regularly to
account for those changes. In many ways, this regulation is merely
the first step in a process, it's a starter home rather than a two-
story. But we have to start somewhere, and starting with something
that formalizes best practices and increases disclosure is an
excellent place to start.
I have said numerous times that I support smart regulation,
regulation that works. That goal is especially critical when it
comes to regulation of such a nascent, significant, and widespread
technology as algorithmic trading. I therefore hope we'll get
comments on this proposal from a wide swath of stakeholders, from
industry experts, to end-users being impacted by this technology, to
even ordinary investors and consumers concerned about the potential
effects of algorithmic trading on commodity prices. I do not expect
that everyone will have the same views on this subject or that there
will be unanimity of opinion on any part of this rule. Even though
I've only been in Washington for a year and a half, I'm experienced
enough to know that people have different opinions on high-
visibility issues like this one. However, I do encourage people to
comment so that we can get a full and fair read of popular opinion
on both this proposal and the topic in general. And if people have
concrete evidence that algorithmic trading is distorting markets and
needs to be curtailed, please submit it via a comment.
There are a few sections of this rule on which I think public
comment would be particularly helpful. First, the proposal's sixth
and seventh questions ask about the nature of our proposed
definition of algorithmic trading, including whether we should
expand ``the definition of Algorithmic Trading to encompass orders
that are generated using algorithmic methods . . . but are then
manually entered into a front-end system by a natural person. . .
.'' The definition of algorithmic trading is at the heart of this
proposal, and we need comments on this point. If there is evidence
that a form of algorithmic trading poses systemic risks but is not
captured by this definition, we should expand the definition to
expand to cover that form of trading.
Second, section 1.83(a) of the proposal requires that persons
engaged in algorithmic trading and registered as such with the
Commission must prepare and submit an annual report to the
Commission. These persons are required to include in their reports a
description of the pre-trade risk controls in place, copies of
policies crafted to comply with requirements regarding the testing
and development of algorithmic trading systems and how their
algorithmic trading systems comply with the Commodity Exchange Act
and our regulations, and a certification by their chief executive
officer or chief compliance officer that the information in the
report is accurate and complete.
I think the current 1.83(a) does not ask registrants for enough
information. Now, we don't want to require each registered
algorithmic trader to submit a tome of several thousand pages each
year that lays out every arcane factoid about their trading systems.
Such a requirement would bury our staff in paper and create
significant expense for registrants. Yet, having already asked each
registered algorithmic trader to submit an annual report, I believe
we should ask for more information in the report. After all, at the
point a company has to file an annual report, it should already be
doing a comprehensive review of its policies. As a result, asking
for one or two more pieces of information to be included in the
annual report should not be a substantial additional cost to
registrants. I therefore hope that
[[Page 78945]]
commenters will let us know what additional information registrants
should be required to submit in their annual reports. For instance,
should we require registrants to submit information about how they
train and monitor the staff responsible for handling algorithmic
trading or about their order cancellation systems?
Finally, the proposal prohibits designated contract markets
(DCMs) from paying market maker incentive program benefits for
trades between accounts under common ownership. I think that's a
good change and worthy of being formalized in rule text. These
programs serve a critical purpose of encouraging liquidity, but we
don't get increased liquidity by increasing the amount of trades a
person does with herself.
However, I wonder whether this prohibition should not go
further. Perhaps we should also prohibit DCMs from paying these
program benefits for trades in which the benefits are, on a per
trade basis, greater than the fees charged by the relevant DCM and
affiliated derivatives clearing organization (DCO). Paying benefits
for such trades seems tantamount to giving a subsidy to un-economic
trades and thereby potentially risks distorting the overall market.
I would therefore welcome comments about whether this section is
adequate as is or whether we should also prohibit DCMs from giving
benefits to such seemingly non-economic trades.
In closing, let me stress again that I want this rule to be both
effective and workable. No one benefits from rules that work in the
abstract but are confusing, impossible to implement as written, or
full of gaps that prompt stakeholders to engage in widespread
regulatory arbitrage. I believe this automated trading proposal is a
commonsense effort at establishing reasonable regulation on a
nascent technology, but if there are flaws with it, if it goes too
far or not far enough, I want to know that now, before it is
finalized. Thank you.
Appendix 4--Statement of Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo
Introduction
The electronification of trading over the past 30 to 40 years
and the advent of exponential digital technologies have transformed
financial businesses, markets and entire economies, with dramatic
implications for capital formation and risk transfer. In U.S.
futures markets, we see this change most presently in the area of
algorithmic or automated trading that now constitutes up to seventy
percent of regulated futures markets. Automated trading can lower
transaction costs while increasing trader productivity through
greater transaction speed, precision and sophistication. For many
markets, automated trading brings trading liquidity, broader market
access, enhanced transparency and greater competition.
At the same time, automated trading presents a host of potential
new challenges. They include increased risk of sudden spikes in
market volatility and ``phantom'' liquidity arising from the sheer
speed of execution, potentially flawed algorithms and position
crowding. They also include the risk of data misinterpretation by
computerized analysis and mathematical models that increasingly
replace human thought and deliberation. Legal scholars raise
important questions about the viability of traditional market
regulation in automated trading markets.
How markets and market regulators adjust to this change from
human to automated trading will be extremely important. It requires
delicate balancing. To ensure vibrant, accessible and durable
markets, we must cultivate and embrace new technologies without
harming innovation. Without a doubt, there must be effective
safeguards of market integrity and credibility, but those safeguards
should not bar promising innovation and continuous market
development.
In turning to Regulation Automated Trading (``Regulation AT''),
I acknowledge that my staff and I had dozens of issues and concerns
that we brought to the attention of the Division of Market
Oversight. While they were responsive to a few small topics, many
other issues require much further attention and consideration that I
will summarize in this statement.
Still, after reading through the almost five hundred pages of
this proposal, I am left with one major question that I still cannot
answer.
That question is: does this proposal sufficiently benefit the
safety and soundness of America's futures markets so as to outweigh
its additional costs and burdens?
I wish the answer was clearer.
I have three main concerns with Regulation AT. First, some of
the requirements of the proposal appear to be window dressing. That
is especially the case in its requirement for development and
implementation of risk controls and related testing standards that
the industry has already widely adopted.
Second, I am concerned about the high costs and burdens of this
proposal, especially on small market participants. I am especially
concerned about its requirement that registrants hold their
proprietary source code in data repositories available for
inspection by the Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice at
any time for any reason.
Third, I question the regulatory inconsistencies regarding the
market participants that must comply with this rulemaking.
For these reasons and others, I have serious doubts about
today's proposed rulemaking.
Last November, I delivered a speech at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce where I set forth six principles that I would follow as I
evaluate financial market regulations.\1\ As part of those
principles, I proposed the ``SMART REG'' standard to help analyze
whether CFTC rules actually solve for real problems and promote the
U.S. economy and the American markets.\2\ I struggle to see how
Regulation AT passes the SMART REG standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remarks of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo before
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Re-Balancing Reform: Principles for
U.S. Financial Market Regulation In Service to the American Economy,
Nov. 20, 2014, http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlos-2.
\2\ Id. The ``SMART REG'' standard follows whether new CFTC
regulations S--Solve for real problems, not anecdotes of bad
behavior; M--Measure success through a rigorous cost benefit
analysis; A--Advance innovation and competition through flexible
rules; R--Represent the best approach among alternative courses of
action; T--Take into account evidence, rather than assumptions; R--
Realistically set compliance deadlines; E--Encourage employment of
American workers; and are G--Grounded in law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, I want to hear the views of market participants on
this proposal. I will evaluate any final rule based on the SMART REG
standard and thereafter determine whether to support or reject it.
I will explain my areas of concern.
I. Necessity of Regulation AT
It is hard to identify exactly what issue in automated trading
Regulation AT is designed to address. The agency is basically
playing catch-up to an industry that has already developed and
implemented risk controls and related testing standards for
automated trading. Regulation AT describes the extensive best
practices and recommendations for automated trading issued by
industry organizations and notes that the majority of industry
participants are following such best practices. Regulation AT simply
codifies industry best practices in many respects, but does not go
as far as current industry efforts. As such, the Commission admits
that many of the benefits of this proposal are already being
realized in the marketplace. In reality, current industry standards
on automated trading have well surpassed Regulation AT in many
areas.
It is clear that the industry has long been at the forefront of
creating market solutions for risk controls in automated trading
well before any regulatory mandate. As I recently stated, I favor
this type of ongoing bottom-up market-driven approach to risk
controls for automated trading.\3\ Given the industry's leadership
role and the fact that Regulation AT simply codifies a small subset
of industry best practices, while adding heavy compliance burdens, I
question the necessity and value-add of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Keynote Address of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher
Giancarlo before the 2015 ISDA Annual Asia Pacific Conference, Top-
Down Financial Market Regulation: Disease Mislabeled as Cure, Oct.
26, 2015, http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlo-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff partly justifies the proposal as necessary to ensure
market integrity given the risks of automated trading. As support,
Regulation AT illustrates examples of recent disruptive events in
automated trading. However, the dearth of incidents in the futures
market seems to indicate that current industry solutions are working
well. Regulation AT only cites three U.S. disruptive automated
trading events in the past five and a half years and two of those
events occurred in the equities market, obviously outside of our
jurisdiction. In addition, the equities market events occurred
despite the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') having
implemented some reforms related to automated trading.\4\ Thus, I
question whether Regulation AT will
[[Page 78946]]
in fact reduce future disruptive events and enhance market
integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Regulation AT Preamble, Section II.C.1.: ``Background on
Regulatory Responses to Automated Trading.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As further support for market integrity, the preamble asserts
that the proposal may limit a ``race to the bottom,'' in which
certain entities sacrifice effective risk controls in order to
minimize costs or increase the speed of trading. In this, the
proposal betrays a na[iuml]ve misunderstanding of elementary micro-
economics. Market participants have every economic incentive to
implement effective risk controls to prevent the loss of their
capital and being forced out of business. That is why the industry
has been a leader in best practices for automated trading, including
development of risk controls and related testing standards. This
ongoing bottom-up market-driven approach to risk controls for
automated trading has raised, not lowered, the standards.
Several commenters cited in Regulation AT supported a
principles-based approach to regulation citing the need for
flexibility because each market and the participants in those
markets are different.\5\ These commenters also noted that the
Commission already has robust regulations in place to address the
risks of automated trading.\6\ Tweaking the Commission's existing
regulations \7\ in line with a principles-based approach may be a
better way to build upon ongoing industry efforts regarding
automated trading, while reducing the compliance burdens of
Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ICE Comment Letter at 1-3 (Jan. 17, 2014); Katten Muchin
Rosenmann Comment Letter on behalf of Gelber Group at 5, 20 and 22-
24 (Dec. 9, 2013).
\6\ Id.
\7\ See e.g., Commission regulations 1.11(e)(3)(ii), 1.73,
23.600(d)(9), 23.609, 38.255 and 38.607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I invite comment on the necessity of Regulation AT and on other
approaches to automated trading that support--rather than burden--
ongoing industry efforts.
II. Costs of Regulation AT Versus the Benefits
I am concerned about the costs of Regulation AT, especially on
small market participants. The Commission tries to downplay the
costs of this proposal because in many respects it simply codifies
industry best practices and many market participants are already
following such practices.\8\ The proposal also repeatedly asserts
that the rules are flexible seemingly in an effort to highlight its
low burdens. However, in reality, Regulation AT adds compliance,
reporting and registration requirements, and establishes designated
contract market (``DCM'') and registered futures association
(``RFA'') review programs. These additional requirements will
certainly increase costs to all market participants engaged in
Algorithmic Trading that are subject to this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ I also note that the Commission uses old compensation data
from 2012 in calculating the costs of Regulation AT, which
underreports these costs estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Small Market Participants
The costs of this proposal may disproportionately impact small
market participants. While Regulation AT raises this concern and
asks questions in this regard, at the same time, the proposal
dismisses the possibility that it will capture many small entities.
I am not so sure that will be the case as the definition of
Algorithmic Trading is very broad and would appear to capture market
participants using off-the-shelf type automated systems or simple
excel spreadsheets to automate trading.\9\ If that is the case, then
this proposal could capture, for example, a small proprietary
trading firm, a small commodity trading advisor (``CTA'') or a rural
grain elevator company that uses simple automation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See definition of Algorithmic Trading in proposed Commission
regulation 1.3(zzzz).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation AT would add numerous costs to small market
participants and raise barriers to entry. Small market participants
may be less likely to employ risk controls consistent with
Regulation AT so they would incur costs to develop or purchase such
risk controls. They would also incur costs to hire additional
employees to develop and implement policies and procedures for the
development, testing, monitoring and compliance of their Algorithmic
Trading systems. Small market participants would have to hire
additional employees to continuously monitor their Algorithmic
Trading systems on a real-time basis. They would incur costs to
annually prepare and submit a pre-trade risk control compliance
report to each DCM on which they trade. Furthermore, the proposal
would add costs to small market participants given the required
registration with the Commission and an RFA. That sounds like a
whole lot of extra costs to me for a ``principles-based'' non-
prescriptive rule.
The proposed rule admits that the Commission does not know how
many small entities this proposal will affect--unfortunately, a
common theme for CFTC rules when discussing costs and burdens on the
marketplace. I am disappointed that the Commission did not get a
better sense of the potential universe of small market participants
that may be impacted by Regulation AT. To this point, I am very
interested to hear estimates of costs Regulation AT will impose on
smaller market participants and how it will impact their ability to
conduct business.
Interestingly, the proposed rule also asserts that a
technological malfunction or error in a very small proprietary
trading firm's algorithm could have a significant, detrimental
impact on the market despite providing no evidence to support this
claim.\10\ I invite commenters to weigh in on this issue. I am also
interested to hear comments on whether the proposed rules make sense
for those market participants using off-the-shelf type automated
systems or simple excel spreadsheets to automate trading, especially
the rules around development, testing, monitoring and compliance of
Algorithmic Trading systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Regulatory Flexibility Act section of Regulation AT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Overlapping Requirements and Duplicative Costs
Regulation AT contains a potential overlap in some requirements
and duplicative costs in that it requires AT Persons to register
with an RFA and, at the same time, to be subject to reviews by DCMs.
The National Futures Association (``NFA''), the only RFA at this
time, will need to hire additional employees to establish and
maintain a program for Algorithmic Trading systems. The preamble to
Regulation AT also contemplates that NFA would conduct routine
examinations of its members to ensure that they are complying with
NFA rules. This requirement translates into additional costs that
will be passed down to NFA's members. Regulation AT notes that NFA
is the frontline regulator and is well-positioned to address rules
and issues related to Algorithmic Trading as market conditions and
technology develops.
However, it seems that DCMs have the most intimate knowledge of
the markets and their participants trading in those markets. DCMs
have been at the forefront of creating market solutions for risk
controls in automated trading, along with testing and certification
of automated systems.\11\ In this regard, Regulation AT requires AT
Persons \12\ and their clearing member futures commission merchants
(``FCMs'') to submit annual reports and policies and procedures
regarding their Algorithmic Trading to all DCMs on which they trade.
DCMs must establish a program to review these reports and procedures
and provide feedback, including any deficiencies in participants'
pre-trade risk control settings or calibrations.\13\ AT Persons and
their clearing member FCMs must also keep, and provide upon request
to DCMs, books and records regarding compliance with the proposed
rules. DCMs must review these books and records as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ E.g., CME Comment Letter at 25-26 (Dec. 11, 2013)
(discussing CME's two testing environments for its users and its
certification requirement).
\12\ AT Person is defined in proposed Commission regulation
1.3(xxxx) and captures the persons subject to Regulation AT,
including existing Commission registrants engaged in Algorithmic
Trading and the newly expanded definition of floor trader.
\13\ Proposed Commission regulation 40.22(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the preamble states that the NFA and DCM requirements
are not intended to create conflicting obligations, I am afraid that
the lack of clarity provides a potential to subject AT Persons to
some duplication. As noted above, DCMs already have standards for
risk controls, testing and certification of automated systems, but
Regulation AT requires NFA to address these topics in its program.
Regulation AT also discusses reviews for both NFA and DCMs.
Duplicative requirements would add unnecessary costs that would be
especially harmful to small market participants.
I am interested to hear from market participants if Regulation
AT provides enough clarity on this issue or if the Commission should
provide further detail. I am particularly interested to hear
comments on the requirement for market participants to register with
NFA and to be subject to NFA's program for Algorithmic Trading
systems. In light of DCMs' existing efforts on risk controls and
testing, is such a requirement necessary or are DCMs already serving
as the frontline regulator? Would NFA serve a
[[Page 78947]]
useful role in setting consistent standards across all markets or do
DCMs need flexibility in setting rules because each market and the
participants in those markets are different?\14\ I also invite
comment on alternatives to the requirement that AT Persons and their
clearing member FCMs prepare and submit annual reports to DCMs and
DCM reviews of those reports. One possibility is to require AT
Persons and their clearing member FCMs to conduct self-assessments
(like FINRA requires) and only require submission to DCMs upon
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Source Code Repository and Commission Regulation 1.31
Source code is the intellectual property of AT Persons
representing their current and future trading strategies. Source
code of AT firms is unlike traditional trading firm information in
that it reveals not what positions are held in the past or present,
but what positions the firm intends to buy or sell in the future
upon specified market events.
I am particularly concerned that Regulation AT requires that
each market participant keep a source code repository for algorithms
and make it available for inspection to any representative of the
Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice for any reason.\15\
Currently, the federal government may only obtain such sensitive
information through a subpoena. Regulation AT dramatically lowers
the bar for the federal government to obtain this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Under Regulation AT, in accordance with Commission
Regulation 1.31 (17 CFR 1.31), AT Persons would have to make their
source code repository available for inspection to any
representative of the CFTC, in addition to the U.S. Department of
Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am unaware of any other industry where the federal government
has such easy access to a firm's intellectual property and future
business strategies. Other than possibly in the area of national
defense and security, I question whether the federal government has
similarly unfettered access to the future business strategy of any
American industrial sector. Does the SEC require such access from
its registrants? Do other agencies in the federal government have
ready access to businesses' intellectual property and business
strategies?
I am unclear why either the Commission or the U.S. Department of
Justice needs access to source code information without a subpoena,
especially the Justice Department, whose only use for such
information would be in criminal proceedings. Does today's rule
proposal presume that the use of automated trading technology makes
a trading firm more likely to engage in criminal behavior than a
manual trading operation?
There is strong reason for concern about maintaining the
confidentiality of this source code. As we all know, the federal
government has a poor track record of keeping sensitive information
secure from cyberattacks and other data breaches. Any data breach of
this information would be devastating for such entities and,
potentially, for the safety and orderly operation of U.S. markets.
Imagine the harm that could be caused to U.S. financial markets, if
cyber terrorists or other belligerents were able to get their hands
on this technology the same way some of the U.S.' most important
industrial, military and other sensitive data have been hacked. I
question the need for this new requirement and request commenter
feedback on this issue.
In addition to my concerns above, I previously expressed
reservations about Commission regulation 1.31 in the proposed
rulemaking on Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or
Forward Transactions.\16\ Commenters to that proposed rulemaking
stated that Commission regulation 1.31 is technologically outdated
and compliance with the rule is overly burdensome, infeasible and
costly.\17\ Managed Funds Association, the Investment Adviser
Association and the Alternative Investment Management Association
even petitioned the Commission to amend Rule 1.31 back on July 21,
2014.\18\ Unfortunately, the Commission has not acted on this
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or Forward
Transactions, 79 FR 68140, 68148 (proposed Nov. 14, 2014).
\17\ Managed Funds Association Comment Letter at 4-7 (Jan. 13,
2015); Commodity Markets Council Comment Letter at 5 (Jan. 13,
2015); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter 5-6 (Jan. 13, 2015).
\18\ Managed Funds Association, the Investment Adviser
Association and the Alternative Investment Management Association,
Petition for Rulemaking to Amend CFTC Regulations 1.31, 4.7(b) and
(c), 4.23 and 4.33 (Jul. 21, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation AT's requirement that source code repositories must
be kept and made available for inspection pursuant to Commission
regulation 1.31 will impose unnecessary costs and burdens on AT
Persons. Given the voluminous comments that the staff has received
on the unworkability of Rule 1.31, I am surprised that Regulation AT
would subject source codes to this rule. As an alternative, the
Commission should consider allowing AT Persons to keep source code
repositories in accordance with their own reasonable and secure
internal recordkeeping procedures. I welcome comments on the costs
of Commission regulation 1.31 in this regard.
Finally, I would like to note that currently unregistered market
participants who will now be required to register under the revised
floor trader definition may be subject to heighted record keeping
requirements under proposed Commission regulation 1.35.\19\ Proposed
Rule 1.35 states that a member of a DCM that is not registered or
required to be registered with the Commission in any capacity would
not have to keep (i) records of transactions in a manner that is
searchable or allows for identification of a particular transaction
\20\ and (ii) text messages related to those transactions.\21\ If
the Commission finalizes Rule 1.35 as proposed, Regulation AT's
registration requirement would increase the burdens under that rule.
I invite commenters to provide feedback on the intersection of
Regulation AT and Rule 1.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Records of Commodity Interest and Related Cash or Forward
Transactions, 79 FR 68140 (proposed Nov. 14, 2014).
\20\ Id. at 68146, Proposed Commission regulation 1.35(a)(3)(i).
\21\ 79 FR at 68146, Proposed Commission regulation
1.35(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Other Costs
I would also like to obtain industry input on the following
costs of Regulation AT:
1. The costs on FCMs under proposed Rules 1.82 and 1.83,
especially the requirement that an FCM prevent or mitigate an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption for its AT Persons.\22\ I have
previously expressed concerns about the harm caused to the FCM
industry by the heightened cost of regulation, so I am especially
interested to hear comments in this regard.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Proposed Commission regulation 1.82(a)(1).
\23\ Statement of Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo for the
Market Risk Advisory Committee Meeting, Jun. 1, 2015; http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/giancarlostatement060115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The costs to DCMs to establish and maintain a program for the
review and evaluation of compliance reports and books and records of
each AT Person and their clearing member FCMs trading on the DCMs,
as required under proposed Rule 40.22.
3. The ease and costs for DCMs to generate and publish self-
trading statistics, as required under proposed Rule 40.23(d).
E. Costs Versus Benefits
Based on all the costs described above, Regulation AT does not
seem to be a non-prescriptive, low-burden rule that simply codifies
industry best practices as the proposal asserts. It goes much
further and, I fear, does greater harm. While Regulation AT does
recognize industry best practices with respect to several risk
controls, it adds prescriptive compliance, reporting and
registration requirements and establishes overlapping and
duplicative DCM and RFA review programs of questionable value. Given
the industry's extensive efforts to date, I question whether the
costs of Regulation AT actually justify the benefits. The
principles-based approach that I discussed above may be as effective
and less costly than Regulation AT's approach. I invite commenters
to provide feedback regarding the costs and benefits of Regulation
AT and the specific points I raised above.
III. Regulatory Inconsistency of Regulation AT
I would like to note three regulatory inconsistencies in
Regulation AT. The staff proposes to amend the definition of floor
trader \24\ in order to register currently unregistered persons
using direct electronic access for algorithmic trading on DCMs.\25\
The preamble to Regulation AT states that in 1993, when the
Commission finalized rules regarding the definition and registration
of floor traders, the Commission decided to include as floor traders
only those traders operating on the trading floor of an exchange.
However, in that 1993 rulemaking, the Commission stated that certain
traders using electronic trading systems come within the floor
trader definition. Back then, the
[[Page 78948]]
Commission took a technological approach to the definition of floor
trader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 17 CFR 1.3(x).
\25\ Another requirement is that the person must be trading for
their own account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Regulation AT is taking that same approach and is
proposing to register persons using direct electronic access for
algorithmic trading, but not those using manual means. I am not
clear on the rationale for this technology driven distinction to
registration (as the preamble does not articulate one) when the
proposal acknowledges that manual trading also poses risks. Several
commenters cited in Regulation AT also noted the importance of risk
controls for manual and automated trading systems.\26\ I invite
industry comments on this issue, notwithstanding my above concerns
about the registration requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ E.g., CME Comment Letter at 43, 44 (Dec. 11, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another regulatory inconsistency is that Regulation AT only
captures floor traders who use direct electronic access for
algorithmic trading, but it captures all existing registrants, such
as FCMs, swap dealers and CTAs regardless of whether they use direct
electronic access for algorithmic trading. Again, Regulation AT does
not articulate a reason for this inconsistency and I question its
logic. I invite comment on this issue, including whether, for
existing registrants, the proposal should only capture those using
direct electronic access.
Finally, Regulation AT only applies to trading on DCMs and not
on SEFs. Regulation AT justifies this distinction by stating that
compared to DCMs, SEFs and SEF markets are newer and less liquid and
have less automated trading. However, DCMs can also list swaps and
Regulation AT applies to that trading. In this regard, Regulation AT
may disadvantage DCMs who list swaps as compared to SEFs. I welcome
comments on this competitive disadvantage, including whether
Regulation AT should exclude from its scope swaps listed on DCMs.
IV. Other Comments on Regulation AT
I also invite industry comment on the following issues:
1. Whether the Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue definition
in proposed Commission regulation 1.3(tttt) is necessary. If a major
reason for Regulation AT is market integrity then it seems the
Algorithmic Trading Disruption definition is sufficient.
Furthermore, if an AT Person violates a rule or regulation it will
be liable so the Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue definition
appears unnecessary.
2. Whether the definition of Direct Electronic Access in
proposed Commission regulation 1.3(yyyy) should be harmonized with
the definition in Rule 38.607.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 38.607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Whether several of the proposed rules that require periodic
review of compliance measures or regular testing of Algorithmic
Trading systems open up AT Persons to liability risk. For example,
proposed Commission regulation 1.80(f) \28\ requires each AT Person
to periodically review its compliance with the pre-trade risk
control requirements to determine whether it has effectively
implemented sufficient measures reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. What happens if market conditions change
rapidly between periodic reviews and the AT Person's risk controls
are no longer sufficient to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event? Is
the AT Person now liable for a violation of Commission rules? Will
this periodic review become a continuous review in order to avoid
liability?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See also proposed Commission regulations 1.81(a)(1)(iii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2) and (c)(2)(i) for further examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
While I am pleased that Regulation AT provides flexibility in
setting risk control parameters and does not require the pre-
approval or pre-testing of algorithms, the proposal appears to add
many burdensome compliance costs and does not adequately take into
account small market participants or the work of the industry in
developing algorithmic trading risk controls and related testing
requirements. Rather than duplicating their efforts and adding
additional burdens, the Commission should look to support and
enhance ongoing industry progress. On the other hand, I am highly
concerned about Regulation AT's several significant inconsistencies
and its extraordinary requirement that AT source codes be placed in
government accessible repositories.
Overall, I have a great many concerns with Regulation AT. Most
principally, I struggle to figure out if it will benefit the safety
and soundness of America's futures markets enough to outweigh its
additional costs and burdens. Its purpose must not be to allow a
Federal regulator to say that it has ``done something'' about
computerized trading in response to media headlines, best-selling
books or political campaign agendas. The development of automated
trading is too complicated and too important to be addressed with
such superficiality.
For my part, I will carefully review thoughtful comments from
market participants and the public. I will measure my support for
any final rule against the SMART REG standard.
[FR Doc. 2015-30533 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P