Trade Associations Issue Side-by-Side Comparison of Global Regulatory Reform Efforts
Raphael Rosenblatt | Bloomberg Law
The Global Financial Markets Association, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe jointly prepared a high level overview of “leading global legislation and regulatory reform proposals.” The overview contained a side-by-side analysis—in chart form—of “related Global, UK, EU and U.S. legislation and/or proposals, along with timelines noting key milestone dates.”
High Level Overview
Intended to be a high level overview of regulatory efforts in the wake of the 2008 financial and economic crises, the overview addressed several topics and outlined the approach taken by global, UK, EU and U.S. regulators in response to each. It also highlighted the differences between each jurisdiction’s regulatory approach. Interesting to note is that the listing of “Regulators, Legislators and Other Actors in Global Reform,” in which the main players within each jurisdiction were identified, showed a larger number of regulators in the United States than the United Kingdom or European Union.
— Numerous Categories Identified
The overview identified the jurisdictions’ varied approaches to: systemic risk; crisis management, recovery and resolution planning; over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives; capital requirements; liquidity; accounting standards; taxes; compensation; securitization; credit rating agencies; hedge funds; and short sales. The overview also listed the regulatory approaches to each of these categories by Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.
— OTC Derivatives
Although the entire overview is beyond the scope of this article, the global efforts at regulating OTC derivatives are noteworthy. Global, EU and U.S. regulators all emphasize the need for central clearing of OTC derivatives. However, U.S. regulators (notably, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)) have not yet finalized all rulemaking as to position limits or mandatory clearing.
— Dodd-Frank Rulemaking
After discussing the global, UK, EU and U.S. regulatory approaches to the various issues set forth in the overview, the overview then listed the rulemaking underTitle VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) by both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC. In all, through September 30, 2011, the SEC has proposed 20 different rules, while the CFTC has proposed 52 rules. This reflects the paradigm shift that occurred from prior to the enactment of Dodd-Frank, when the OTC derivatives market was largely unregulated, to the current regulatory regime.
This document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.
©2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.