Chair Selig's proposals to roll back some of the Dodd-Frank provisions regulating derivatives would be a good first step, with more to come. He may want to consider rolling back the registration requirement for "major swap participants," a provision to which no entity is subject and never will be because it would make no sense to subject large end-users (for example, pension plans) to the same requirements that would be applicable to a swap dealer.  

Somewhat more…

To Commissioner Uyeda's four areas for action, there should be a fifth: changing the rules governing the production of investment research. After the research scandals of the dot.com era, the SEC and other regulators treated the production of investment research as if it were a public utility, as to which the producers of the product were not entitled to make a profit or to have any control over the uses/distribution of the product.  

That approach to the regulation of…

The Complaint describes derivatives subject to the CEA as "financial instruments such . . . options, [that]  . .. market participants use . . . to hedge risks or speculate on commodity price movements."  That description fits some prediction contracts, but not all of them.  Does it matter?

The fundamental problem with the Senators' criticism of the SEC's actions is that it is not based on the definition of the term "security" in the securities laws. This is the same fundamental problem that the former administration refused to address: i.e. the mere fact that an activity or a product has the potential to make or lose money does not make the activity or the product a "security" as such term is used in the securities laws.

Unless the Senators can make a persuasive…