Swaps Definitions Regulation - Comment Letter - International Swaps and Derivatives Association - February 22, 2011
|Proposal Date||Comment Deadline||Final Rule Issue|
|August 20, 2010||September 20, 2010||Late 2011|
|Final Rule Issue||Effective Date||Compliance Date|
|May 23, 2012||July 23/Dec. 31, 2012||October 12, 2012|
Further Definition of "Swap Dealer," "Security-Based Swap Dealer," "Major Swap Participant," "Major Security-Based Swap Participant" and "Eligible Contract Participant"
February 22, 2011
From the comment letter:
"We are substantially concerned (a) by acute problems of vagueness and overbreadth in the definition of Dealer; (b) that the Major Participants tests may be overly static, with the unintended consequence that the status of individual entities may fluctuate frequently, unnecessarily increasing uncertainty and cost and (c) that should non-U.S. entities (including non-U.S. affiliates or branches of a U.S. bank) become subject to the Dodd-Frank Act in relation to transactions with non-U.S. counterparties:
- they will be at a competitive disadvantage as compared to local competitors;
- there will be an issue of conflict of entity level regulation where they are already subject to regulation in their home jurisdiction; and
- there is the danger of conflicts between local and Dodd-Frank Act regulation in relation to specific transactions. Examples include circumstances where a swap is required to be cleared in two different places at once and also the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act that counterparties face a futures commission merchant (“FCM”)."