It seems to have become a consistent theme of regulatory action that regulators, in doing what they believe is right, do not feel constrained by the statutes on which their authority is based. If the CFTC Commissioners are of the view that futures contracts based on political outcomes should not be permitted, they should go to Congress and suggest that the CEA be amended to so provide. (See .)

Commissioner Johnson's "same activity . . . same rules" echoes of SEC Chair Gensler's refrain that "like must be regulated as like." Among the problems with these slogans is that they shut off the possibility of change, whether that change ultimately proves for better or for worse, or some mix of the two.

Saying that everything new or different must be treated exactly as what was here before becomes just another way of saying nothing new or different will be permitted. Long live the…

It is well known that AI works in ways that are not fully understood. Compliance with the CFPB circular may not really be possible as the AI "decision" may be predicated on the interaction of a variety of factors that are not apparent to the potential lender. Perhaps this is an issue as to which the CFPB should request input, rather than establishing requirements that may not be achievable based on the technology.

The trade reporting rules are quite complicated and not intuitive. A misinterpretation or a computer glitch can easily result in hundreds of thousands of "violations." Accordingly, this is an area where it may make sense for firms to do a close review of their trade reporting algorithms or bring in outsiders to have a second look.