Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]

[Notices]

[Pages 53162-53164]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2011-21645]

=======================================================================

———————————————————————–

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65153; File No. S7-32-11]

Acceptance of Public Submissions Regarding the Study of Stable

Value Contracts

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

(the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted on July 21, 2010. Section 719(d)

of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission

(the “SEC” and, together with the CFTC, the “Commissions”) jointly

conduct a study to determine whether stable value contracts (“SVCs”)

fall within the definition of a swap. Section 719(d) of the Dodd-Frank

Act also requires that the Commissions, in making that determination,

jointly consult with the Department of Labor, the Department of the

Treasury, and the State entities that regulate the issuers of SVCs.

Further, Section 719(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that if the

Commissions determine that SVCs fall within the definition of a swap,

they jointly shall determine if an exemption for SVCs from the

definition of a swap is appropriate and in the public interest. In

connection with this study, the Commissions’ staffs seek responses of

interested parties to the questions set forth below.

DATES: Please submit comments in writing on or before September 26,

2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

CFTC

Agency Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments

through the Web site.

Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20581.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail above.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Please submit your comments using only one method. “Stable Value

Contract Study” must be in the subject field of responses submitted

via e-mail, and clearly indicated on written submissions. All comments

must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English

translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information that

you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information

Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information

may be submitted according to the procedures established in section

145.9 of the CFTC’s regulations.1

—————————————————————————

1 17 CFR 145.9.

—————————————————————————

The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to

review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of

your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be

inappropriate for publication, including obscene language. All

submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on

the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment

file and will be considered as required under applicable laws, and may

be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

SEC

Electronic Comments

Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml);

Send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please include File

Number S7-32-11 on the subject line; or

Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov).

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number

S7-32-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-

mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more

efficiently, please use only one method. The SEC will post all comments

on the SEC’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).

Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the

SEC’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549,

on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All

comments received will be posted without change; the SEC does not edit

personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit

only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CFTC: Stephen A. Kane, Consultant,

Office of the Chief Economist, (202) 418-5911, [email protected]; or David

E. Aron, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 418-6621,

[email protected], Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581; SEC: Matthew A.

Daigler, Senior Special Counsel, (202) 551-5500, Donna Chambers,

Special Counsel, (202) 551-5500, or Leah Drennan, Attorney-Adviser,

(202) 551-5500, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the

Dodd-Frank Act into law.2 Pursuant to section 719(d)(1)(A) of the

Dodd-Frank Act, the Commissions jointly must conduct a study, not later

than 15 months after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, to

determine whether SVCs fall within the definition of a swap.3 Section

719(d)(1)(A) of the

[[Page 53163]]

Dodd-Frank Act also requires the Commissions, in making such

determination, jointly to consult with the Department of Labor, the

Department of the Treasury, and the State entities that regulate the

issuers of SVCs.

—————————————————————————

2 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-

Frank Act is available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.txt.pdf.

3 The term “swap” is defined in Commodity Exchange Act

(“CEA”) section 1a(47), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47). The term “security-based

swap” is defined as an agreement, contract, or transaction that is

a “swap” (without regard to the exclusion from that definition for

security-based swaps) and that also has certain characteristics

specified in the Dodd-Frank Act. See section 3(a)(68) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68). Thus, a

determination regarding whether SVCs fall within the definition of a

swap also is relevant to a determination of whether SVCs fall within

the definition of the term “security-based swap.” These terms are

the subject of further definition in joint proposed rulemaking by

the Commissions. See Further Definition of “Swap,” “Security-

Based Swap,” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement”; Mixed Swaps;

Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, File No. S7-16-11, 76

FR 29818 (May 23, 2011) (“Product Definitions Proposing Release”).

Citations herein to provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 refer to the numbering of those

provisions after the effective date of Title VII.

—————————————————————————

If the Commissions determine that SVCs fall within the definition

of a swap, they jointly must determine if an exemption for SVCs from

the definition of a swap is appropriate and in the public interest.4

Until the effective date of any regulations enacted pursuant to Section

719(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and notwithstanding any other provision

of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Title VII requirements will not

apply to SVCs.5

—————————————————————————

4 See section 719(d)(1)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Pursuant to

section 719(d)(1)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, “The Commissions shall

issue regulations implementing the determinations required under

this paragraph.”

5 See section 719(d)(1)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

—————————————————————————

Section 719(d)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act defines a “stable value

contract” as:

any contract, agreement, or transaction that provides a crediting

interest rate and guaranty or financial assurance of liquidity at

contract or book value prior to maturity offered by a bank,

insurance company, or other State or federally regulated financial

institution for the benefit of any individual or commingled fund

available as an investment in an employee benefit plan (as defined

in section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, including plans described in section 3(32) of such Act)

subject to participant direction, an eligible deferred compensation

plan (as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986) that is maintained by an eligible employer described in

section 457(e)(1)(A) of such Code, an arrangement described in

section 403(b) of such Code, or a qualified tuition program (as

defined in section 529 of such Code).6

—————————————————————————

6 The Commissions understand that a bank, insurance company,

or other state or federally regulated financial institution that

offers an SVC is commonly referred to as an “SVC provider.”

The Commissions’ staffs understand that stable value funds

(“SVFs”) are a type of investment commonly offered through 401(k) and

other defined contribution plans with the objective of providing

preservation of principal, liquidity, and current income at levels that

are typically higher than those provided by money market funds.7 The

Commissions’ staffs further understand that SVCs are components of SVFs

that SVF sponsors or managers purchase from SVC providers, including

banks and insurers, that provide a guarantee, or “wrap,” by the

service provider to pay plan participants at “book value” should the

market value of the SVF be worth less than the amount needed to pay

that book value.8 In furtherance of this SVC study, the Commissions’

staffs seek responses to the any or all of the questions below.

Commenters are encouraged to provide additional relevant information,

including empirical evidence where appropriate and to the extent

feasible, beyond that called for by these questions.

—————————————————————————

7 See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability Office, 401(K)

Plans: Certain Investment Options and Practices That May Restrict

Withdrawals Not Widely Understood, at 10-11, GAO-11-234 (Washington,

DC: Mar. 10, 2011); Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited

Transaction Restrictions, Department of Labor, 75 FR 61932, 61938

(Oct. 6, 2010).

8 See 401(K) Plans: Certain Investment Options and Practices

That May Restrict Withdrawals Not Widely Understood, supra note 7,

at 11. In the context of an SVC, the staffs understand, based on

conversations with market participants, that the term “book value”

means investment principal plus interest accrued using the crediting

rate formula determined for the SVF and set forth in the SVC.

—————————————————————————

Swap Definitional and Exemptive Issues

1. Do SVCs possess characteristics that would cause them to fall

within the definition of a swap? If so, please describe those

characteristics.

2. What characteristics, if any, distinguish SVCs from swaps?

3. Does the definition of the term “stable value contract” in

Section 719(d)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act encompass all of the products

commonly known as SVCs?

4. Are the proposed rules and the interpretive guidance set forth

in the Product Definitions Proposing Release 9 useful, appropriate,

and sufficient for persons to consider when evaluating whether SVCs

fall within the definition of a swap? If not, why not? Would SVCs

satisfy the test for insurance provided in the Product Definitions

Proposing Release? Why or why not? Is additional guidance necessary

with regard to SVCs in this context? If so, what further guidance would

be appropriate? Please explain.

—————————————————————————

9 See supra note 3. The Commissions note that any comment

submitted in response to this question will be taken into

consideration by the Commissions as they consider any final action

on the Product Definitions Proposing Release.

—————————————————————————

5. If the Commissions were to determine that SVCs fall within the

definition of a swap, what would be their underlying reference asset?

6. If the Commissions were to determine that SVCs fall within the

definition of a swap, what facts and considerations, policy and

otherwise, would support exempting SVCs from the definition of a swap?

What facts and considerations, policy and otherwise, would not support

exempting SVCs from the definition of a swap?

7. If the Commissions were to (a) Determine that SVCs fall within

the definition of a swap but provide an exemption from the definition

of a swap, (b) determine that SVCs fall within the definition of a swap

and not provide an exemption from such definition, or (c) determine

that such contracts are not swaps, what beneficial or adverse

regulatory or legal consequences, if any, could result? For example,

could any of such determinations lead to beneficial or adverse

treatment under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

(“ERISA”), bankruptcy law, tax law, or accounting standards, as

compared to the regulatory regimes applicable to SVCs, in the event

that the Commissions were to determine that SVCs are not swaps or grant

an exemption from the definition of a swap?

Market and Product Structure Issues

8. What are the different types of SVCs, how are they structured,

and what are their uses? Please describe in detail.

9. Please describe the operation of SVCs and SVFs generally in

terms of contract structure, common contract features, investments,

market structure, SVC providers, regulatory oversight, investor

protection, benefits and drawbacks, risks inherent in SVCs, and any

other information that commenters believe the Commissions should be

aware of in connection with the SVC study.

10. What provisions of SVCs, if any, allow SVC providers to

terminate SVCs that prevent benefit plan investors from transacting at

book value? What are the trade-offs, including the costs and benefits

of such provisions? Please describe in detail.

11. Describe the benefits and risks of SVCs for SVC providers. How

do SVC providers mitigate those risks? Please provide detailed

descriptions. How effective are any such measures?

12. Describe the benefits and risks of SVCs for investors in SVFs.

Please provide detailed descriptions.

13. The Commissions’ staffs understand that SVC providers sometimes

negotiate so-called “immunization” provisions with SVF managers and

that such provisions typically allow SVC providers (or SVF managers) to

terminate the SVCs based upon negotiated triggers, which can include

underperformance of the portfolio against a benchmark. The Commissions’

staffs also understand that, once immunization provisions have been

triggered and are in effect, the

[[Page 53164]]

SVF must be managed according to the immunization guidelines, which

typically require the liquidation of all securities rated below AAA and

in certain cases may require the portfolio to be invested 100% in

Treasury securities. What risks, if any, do “immunization” provisions

in SVCs pose to investors in SVFs? If immunization provisions in SVCs

pose risks to investors in SVFs, are these risks clearly disclosed to

investors? Are these risks required to be disclosed to investors? What

are the sources of such requirements? How do SVF managers or SVC

providers address the risk that immunization will be exercised? How

effective are any such measures?

14. The Commissions’ staffs understand that some SVCs grant SVC

providers the right to limit coverage of employer-driven events or

employee benefit plan changes. Such events or changes could cause a

decrease in a SVF’s value and result in large scale investor

withdrawals or redemptions (sometimes called a “run on the fund”).

How do SVC providers and SVF managers manage this risk, if at all? How

effective are any such measures?

15. The Commissions’ staffs understand that SVF managers infuse

capital into their funds in certain instances. Please describe the

circumstances under which an SVF fund manager would provide such

capital support for its fund.

16. The Commissions’ staffs understand that “pull to par”

provisions of SVCs provide that SVCs will not terminate (absent the

application of another contract termination provision) until the gap

between the market value of the wrapped assets and the SVC book value

is closed, however long that takes. The Commissions’ staffs also

understand that pull to par provisions are standard for SVCs. Are these

understandings correct? Please describe pull to par provisions and how

prevalent such provisions are in SVCs.

17. How have SVFs and SVCs been affected by the recent financial

crisis? How many SVC providers are in the market today? Is the number

of SVC providers higher or lower than prior to the financial crisis

that began in 2008? Are fees now higher or lower than prior to the

financial crisis?

18. Do investors have incentives to make a run on a SVF when its

market-to-book ratio is substantially below one? What protections, if

any, do SVCs provide to protect fund investors who do not redeem their

fund shares amid a run on the fund? How effective are any such

protections?

19. How do market risk measures assess the risk of a run on a SVF?

To the extent that SVC providers use value-at-risk (“VaR”) models, do

such VaR models adequately assess the risk of loss resulting from such

events or other possible but extremely unlikely events? Do other loss

models more adequately assess the risk of loss, such as the expected

value of a loss or the expected value given a loss, which employs the

entire loss probability distribution without excluding events in the

extreme tail of the loss distribution?

20. Are certain SVC providers more likely, as a result of credit

cyclicality, to become financially distressed? If so, is such financial

distress likely to occur concurrently with financial distress of SVFs?

If so, can the risk of such concurrent financial distress be mitigated?

How effective are any such measures?

21. Do SVC providers pose systemic risk concerns? Are there

concerns with entities that may be systemically important institutions

providing SVCs? What are the consequences for SVFs, employee benefit/

retirement plans, and the financial system should an SVC provider fail?

22. Are there issues specific to financial institutions providing

SVCs, including institutions that are systemically significant, that

the Commissions should consider in connection with the SVC study? If

so, please describe.

Regulatory Issues

23. What disclosures to benefit plan investors in SVFs currently

are required, and what are the sources of such requirements? What

additional disclosure typically is provided, either voluntarily or on

request? What additional disclosure, if any, would be warranted and why

would it be warranted? Please explain in detail.

24. What financial and regulatory protections currently exist that

are designed to ensure that SVC providers can meet their obligations to

investors, and what are the sources of such protections? Does the level

of protection vary depending on the SVC provider? How effective are any

such measures?

25. Currently, do entities other than state-regulated insurance

companies and federally- or state-regulated banks provide SVCs? If so,

what kinds of entities do so and how are they regulated? If not, are

there any barriers to the provision of SVCs by entities other than

state-regulated insurance companies and federally- or state-regulated

banks?

26. What role do SVF managers play in protecting the interests of

plan participants with respect to SVFs? How effective are any such

measures?

Compliance Issues if the Commissions Were To Determine SVCs Were Swaps

27. If the Commissions were to determine that SVCs fall within the

definition of a swap and should not be exempted from such definition,

should the regulatory regime for SVCs be limited or tailored in any

way? If so, how? Please explain in detail. Should any of the

requirements for capital and margin for SVCs differ from those for

swaps that are not SVCs? Why or why not? If the requirements for

capital and margin should differ, please explain in detail what those

differences should be.

28. If the Commissions were to determine that SVCs fall within the

definition of a swap and should not be exempted from such definition,

would the requirements of any regulatory regime for swaps impact fee

structures or fees charged by SVC providers? Please describe

(quantitatively, if possible) the relationship of any new federal

regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act to possible changes in fee

structures or fees, to the extent feasible, and state any assumptions

used in quantifying such relationship.

29. If the Commissions were to determine that SVCs fall within the

definition of a swap and should not be exempted from such definition,

would this decision influence the availability of SVFs to investors?

Would this designation affect existing SVFs and the ability of SVFs to

purchase SVCs? If so, how and why?

Dated: August 18, 2011.

By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

David A. Stawick,

Secretary.

Dated: August 18, 2011.

By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-21645 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P

Last Updated: August 25, 2011