Senate Agricultural Committee Passes Commodity End-User Relief Act (with Delta Strategy Group Summary)
The Senate Agricultural Committee passed the Commodity End-User Relief Act, a bill that reauthorizes the CFTC through 2018 and amends certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The bill passed in a party line vote. The last reauthorization affecting the CFTC occurred ten years ago.
The bill included a requirement that the residual interest requirement of a futures commission merchant ("FCM") be met at the end of the next business day, as calculated at the close of the previous business day (Sec. 104). Another provision treats certain estate property of an FCM as customer property where there is a shortfall of customer property in an FCM insolvency proceeding (Sec. 105). That provision effectively overturns the decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in In re Griffin Trading Company, Debtor, 245 B.R. 291 (N.D. Ill. 2000), which held that customers of an insolvent FCM were not entitled to the general assets of an insolvent FCM in the event of a shortfall in segregated customer property. Under current case law, such customers are entitled only to their share of assets that are identifiable or traceable to the customer account.
One adopted amendment, proposed originally by Senator David Perdue (R-GA), clarified that revenue derived from hedging activity is not "financial activity" for purposes of determining whether an entity is "predominately engaged" in financial activity.
During the deliberations, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) proposed an amendment that would assess a CFTC-funding fee for large market users, such as exchanges and banks, but not for small farmers, ranchers and end users. It failed to pass by a vote of 10 to 9 that divided along party lines. In a separate statement, Chair Massad expressed strong support for this fee-based funding amendment.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) proposed and, in the end, withdrew four amendments to roll back provisions of the bill that he claimed represented "rollbacks of important Wall Street reforms," including one that would strike a part of the bill requiring the CFTC to conduct a study of the appropriate de minimis exemption level of swap dealing (Section 304).
Earlier in the week, farmers' groups wrote a letter to the regulators in which they urged committee members to pass the bill. The groups argued that the legislation contains a number of important provisions for agricultural and agribusiness hedgers who use futures and swaps to manage their business and production risks.
Commentary
The adopted changes to the bankruptcy decision are quite significant. In effect, they turn the creditors of FCMs into the guarantors of FCMs' obligations to customers. The same result may occur with respect to the creditors of a broker-dealer and its customer obligations. (The actions of the Lehman trustee in bankruptcy had similar effect). It's easy to see why this result might be popular politically, but whether the policy itself is good or not seems far from obvious. Effectively, it shifts the risk that an FCM will fail because of a customer default from fellow customers to the FCM's creditors.
For those who want a glimpse of how Washington works, Senator Brown's remarks should prove fascinating (they begin at 41:30 of the video of the meeting). According to Senator Brown, Wall Street controls not only community bankers but also Kansas farmers, and consumers must be "protected from runaway prices in the energy markets due to speculation in the energy markets – we all know what that is about." The truth is, some people don't know what that is about. Aren't energy prices crashing? If speculators really were hoarding oil, wouldn't they have been bankrupted by the price crash? In that context, Senator Brown's conclusions seem completely puzzling. He might as well be complaining about the Cubs winning the World Series year after year.