UPDATE 2-U.S. CFTC guidance on bans may keep traders guessing

Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:25pm EST

 * Guidance proposed on scope of bans on disruptive trade
 * "Spoofing" ban requires intent, other bans do not
 * Sommers: guidance vague, could chill market
 * Gensler: working on rule for testing, supervising algos
 (Updates with quotes from Sommers, enforcement official, vote
results, other details)
 By Roberta Rampton
 WASHINGTON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. futures regulator
proposed guidance on Thursday on trades it will soon ban as
disruptive, but one of its top officials said the new
information would leave traders guessing about what is allowed
and what is barred.
 The Dodd-Frank financial reform law banned three specific
trading practices, but traders have complained the prohibitions
are so vague that they could chill markets, or leave the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission tied up in court
challenges if it tries to police the bans.
 "This proposal does not cure that vagueness," said Jill
Sommers, a Republican commissioner at the agency.
 The CFTC proposed an "interpretive order" to try to address
the confusion and elaborate on what would run afoul of bans on
violating bids and offers, disrupting or "banging" the closing
period, and "spoofing" the market with bids and offers that are
subsequently canceled.
 "In many areas, the order raises more questions than it
answers," Sommers said, noting it would give CFTC staff
"maximum flexibility" on how to enforce the ban.
 "I believe that if this proposed guidance were final today,
it would have a chilling effect on market liquidity, because
it's so unclear what's illegal," Sommers told Reuters.
 The CFTC's commissioners voted 4-1 to collect comments on
the guidance for 60 days, after which time they would need to
vote again to finalize it.
 Whether or not the CFTC approves the new guidance, the bans
on disruptive trading will take effect in July -- unlike most
of the derivatives provisions in Dodd-Frank, which require the
CFTC to craft regulations to implement the law.
 <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  FACTBOX-Details of rules                   [ID:N24352855]
  Take a Look                                 [ID:nCFTCREG]
  Industry comments              r.reuters.com/qaq84
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
 NO NEW CURBS FOR ALGO TRADES - YET
 Dodd-Frank gave the CFTC the power to ban other practices
it deems disruptive, and the agency has asked whether it should
consider new rules for supervising algorithmic trading, or for
holding algo traders responsible when their programs run amok.
 The agency is working on a proposed rule for testing and
supervising algorithmic trading, Chairman Gary Gensler said.
 The rule will be based in part on recommendations from a
panel of experts advising the CFTC and the Securities and
Exchange Commission on how to prevent another "flash crash"
like the stock market plunge of May 6, 2010, Gensler said.
 The CFTC needs to go beyond the three bans to take steps to
ensure high-frequency traders using complex algorithmic
strategies do not disrupt markets, said Bart Chilton, a
Democratic commissioner.
 "We need explicit rules to address trading using advanced
analytics," Chilton said.
 SPOOFING REQUIRES INTENT
 Traders and exchanges have argued the CFTC should specify
that traders need to intend to disrupt markets to run afoul of
the new bans.
 Enforcement officials said submitting and canceling bids
and offers with the intent to create the appearance of market
depth -- or an intentional overload of a trading system --
would fall under the spoofing ban.
 Traders who have part of their orders filled before
canceling other parts would not violate the ban if they
intended to "consummate a trade", said Bob Pease, an attorney
in the agency's enforcement division.
 The Dodd-Frank law did not require the CFTC to prove intent
for the bans on violating bids and offers or banging the close,
officials said.
 (Editing by Dale Hudson and John Picinich)






Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.