November 21, 2024

DealBook: Regulator May Grant Foreign Banks Brief Reprieve on Derivatives

Gary Gensler entered the lion’s den on Thursday with some news that tamed the crowd of bankers.

In a lunchtime speech before a conference of international bankers, Mr. Gensler, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, outlined a plan to regulate overseas derivatives trading while also delaying some new rules for foreign banks. Next Thursday, Mr. Gensler said, the agency will introduce a proposal to phase in foreign compliance with derivatives regulations for “up to one year.”

Regulators would use the time to complete a broader proposal to police derivatives trading overseas. The plan, Mr. Gensler noted on Thursday, tracks an approach first floated last year by a group of bankers.

“I hope you still like it,” Mr. Gensler said with a smile, speaking in a ballroom at the Waldorf Astoria in Midtown Manhattan.

Once the rules are fully phased in, Mr. Gensler said, he expects 20 to 30 foreign banks to register with his agency. The companies include many of the big European banks in attendance on Thursday, including Deutsche Bank and UBS.

The banks have long anticipated the new oversight, which stems from the Dodd-Frank Act, the regulatory overhaul law enacted two years ago.

“Please don’t come in and say you’re surprised,” Mr. Gensler told the Institute of International Bankers. “And if you do, at least keep a smile.”

Despite his playful remarks, Mr. Gensler delivered plenty of tough talk.

In one awkward moment that came as Mr. Gensler discussed future financial collapses, he declared that “some of the banks here will not be survivors.” Bankers, eating fruit and chocolate mousse, rolled their eyes.

Undeterred, Mr. Gensler made the case for regulating derivatives trading overseas. One proposal would apply new oversight to foreign banks that conduct significant derivatives trading in the United States, as well as American banks that have foreign units.

The issue came into focus last month after the multibillion-dollar derivatives mess at JPMorgan Chase. The trades that went awry came from the bank’s London unit.

“Recent events at JPMorgan Chase are a stark reminder of how swaps traded overseas can quickly reverberate with losses coming back into the United States,” Mr. Gensler said. “Now is not the time to retreat from these much-needed reforms.”

Under the proposal, foreign banks involved in more than a very tiny level of derivatives business in the United States will become so-called swap dealers. The swap dealer status comes with enhanced capital requirements and other oversight measures.

In the speech, Mr. Gensler invoked several recent foreign blowups that hit home in the United States. The American International Group, an American insurance company that booked its risky derivatives deals out of London, would have collapsed if not for a major government bailout.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” Mr. Gensler said.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/regulator-may-grant-foreign-banks-brief-reprieve-on-derivatives/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economic Reports for the Week of Jan. 9

CORPORATE EARNINGS Those reporting will include Alcoa (Monday); Chevron (Wednesday); and JPMorgan Chase (Friday).

IN THE UNITED STATES On Monday through Jan. 22, the North American International Auto Show will be held in Detroit. On Tuesday through Friday, the International Consumer Electronics Show will take place in Las Vegas. On Wednesday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will vote on a Dodd-Frank proposal to ban proprietary trading by banks.

OVERSEAS On Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany will meet in Berlin with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to discuss the European debt crisis. On Tuesday through Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will meet with officials in China and Japan. On Wednesday, Mrs. Merkel will meet in Berlin with Mario Monti, the Italian prime minister, to discuss the debt crisis. On Thursday, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England will issue their decisions on interest rates.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2e47811ce1be12cc169f003dc16abf35

DealBook: MF Global Inquiry Turns to Its Primary Regulator

Terrence Duffy of the CME Group testified at a Senate hearing about MF Global's missing funds.Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg NewsTerrence Duffy of the CME Group testified at a Senate hearing about MF Global’s missing funds.

Federal authorities investigating the collapse of MF Global have expanded their inquiry to include the actions of the CME Group, the operator of the main exchange where the commodities brokerage firm conducted business, according to people briefed on the matter.

CME, which also served as MF Global’s primary regulator, has come under heavy criticism after $1.2 billion in customer money disappeared from MF Global. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the government agency leading the case, is now scrutinizing CME’s conduct in the days before MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31.

In particular, the commission is reviewing whether CME’s efforts to verify the safety of customer funds were sufficient, the people said.

CME, for its part, has said that MF Global may have intentionally produced inaccurate documents related to customer accounts.

As the owner of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade and the New York Mercantile Exchange, the CME Group is a major force in commodities and futures. It is the dominant United States exchange operator for billions of dollars in trades, affecting food prices and Wall Street profits. A censure of any kind would be a powerful, if merely symbolic, critique of the behemoth.

If the C.F.T.C. finds that CME did not meet the standards of so-called self-regulatory organizations, it could fine or sanction the exchange. The commission could also revoke CME’s status as a self-regulator, though that is unlikely. Experts say it is rare for the government to hand down any manner of sanction against a self-regulatory body.

CME has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and the review of its actions may not produce any findings.

“Given the issues involved, we welcome and expect the C.F.T.C.’s investigation as a natural part of this process,” a spokeswoman for the CME Group said in a statement. “We are confident the C.F.T.C.’s review will determine we did everything right within our regulatory power. The system did not fail; the firm broke the law by misusing customer funds.”

The collapse of MF Global — and the ensuing hunt for the missing money — has rippled through Wall Street, Washington and the Farm Belt. Creditors are fighting for their cut in bankruptcy court, lawmakers are holding Congressional hearings and farmers and other clients are waiting for their money to reappear.

Don Laird, a retired investor in Texas, says he is still trying to get back hundreds of thousands of dollars of his money that was at MF Global.

“I think CME should be investigated for failure to regulate, and that investigation should involve what liability they should have for any losses MF Global customers suffer,” he said.

Regulators, chastened that the debacle occurred on their watch, are searching for the money while also trying to prevent the next MF Global from happening. As part of that effort, the C.F.T.C. is close to finishing “limited reviews” of customer accounts at the 14 largest futures brokers.

The results of these cursory reviews, which include divisions at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, are expected to be released in the next few weeks, according to one of the people briefed on the matter.

But there are roughly 100 futures brokers, so the government has called on financial industry self-regulators to assist with the spot checks, including the National Futures Association, which recently finished looking at 19 institutions and found no problems, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The government has also called on CME to assist. Notwithstanding the government’s scrutiny of its actions, CME agreed to review 33 futures firms. So far, the profit-making exchange has completed 31 of them.

The first inkling that something was amiss between the exchange and the government came about three weeks ago. At a Congressional hearing in December about MF Global, Terrence Duffy, the executive chairman of the CME Group, told lawmakers that his exchange was asked to back away from the investigation into missing customer money at the brokerage firm.

Asked for an explanation by members of the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Duffy said: “I guess you’d have to ask the C.F.T.C. why. I don’t know.”

But the agency was concerned that a separate inquiry by CME would complicate efforts to discover wrongdoing at MF Global. Many government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are already investigating the case. David Meister, the chief of the C.F.T.C.’s enforcement division, asked CME to step aside from the investigation during a conference call with the exchange’s lawyers, said people briefed on the phone call. It is not clear whether Mr. Meister indicated that his division was also scrutinizing CME.

A spokesman for the C.F.T.C. declined to comment.

One question for authorities is why CME appeared to be slow to respond to the crisis enveloping MF Global in the week before its bankruptcy.

The publicly traded exchange did not dispatch employees to MF Global’s Chicago headquarters until Oct. 27, three days after Moody’s Investors Service cut its rating on the brokerage firm, sending it into a tailspin.

When CME officials arrived at MF Global, they reviewed the firm’s latest statements of customer accounts to ensure client money was safe. Documents indicated the funds were secure, the CME said.

But then the money vanished, and CME pointed the finger at MF Global.

The exchange said that MF Global might have shifted client money “in a manner that may have been designed to avoid detection.”

“It appears that any transfer of such funds occurred after the completion of CME audit procedures,” the exchange said in a statement shortly after the Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing.

But CME never completed an audit, a point officials later conceded when pressed by lawmakers. Instead, CME said it was a spot audit, though they did not complete that either.

CME was unable to verify the customer accounts because MF Global did not hand over needed information corroborating the account statements, according to a submission it made to Congress.

But that did not stop exchange officials from heading home for the weekend at about 6 p.m., on Friday, Oct. 28.

The officials did not return until that Sunday afternoon, after an apparent shortfall in customer funds was discovered.

The fallout has left some customers questioning a model where firms like CME profit from the institutions they regulate.

Other customers are more sanguine, however, adopting a wait-and-see approach when it comes to their missing money and the exchange’s culpability.

John Spangler, a farmer in Marietta, Ill., and his wife, Holly, say CME has operated flawlessly through the many years they have traded corn and soy futures.

Though they are concerned about getting back their money, which amounts to a few thousand dollars, they have not lost faith in the industry.

“As long as the CME comes through with everything, I don’t think there will be any problems,” Mr. Spangler said. “If they don’t,” he said, “things are going to need to change.”


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 6, 2012

An earlier version of this post misspelled the surname of Don Laird, a retired investor in Texas, as Baird.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=170e42dcdb505122c4bfc3e21bfa1e55

DealBook: House Panel Subpoenas Corzine to Testify in MF Global Inquiry

Jon S. Corzine, the former chief of MF Global.Pool photo by Andrew HarrerJon S. Corzine, the former chief of MF Global.

9:02 p.m. | Updated

Jon S. Corzine, the former chief executive of MF Global, faces up to three Congressional subpoenas, as lawmakers seek to question him about the collapse of his brokerage firm.

The House Agriculture Committee voted unanimously on Friday to force Mr. Corzine to appear at a hearing next Thursday about MF Global, where as much as $1.2 billion in customer money remains missing. Customers of the brokerage firm included farmers and agriculture companies, as well as hedge funds and other investors.

The committee’s hearing will present the first public questioning of Mr. Corzine since MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31. Mr. Corzine ran MF Global before he resigned on Nov. 4.

“We agree that his testimony is essential to fulfill our objectives on behalf of our constituents and to complete the hearing record,” the committee’s chairman, Frank Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, said at the committee meeting.

Mr. Corzine also faces demands to testify from two other Congressional panels. The Senate Agriculture Committee will meet on Tuesday to vote on issuing a subpoena to Mr. Corzine, a move that comes after he did not voluntarily testify by a Friday deadline. The other panel, the oversight subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, will meet on Wednesday to vote on issuing a subpoena to Mr. Corzine.

“For the past week, we led a good-faith effort to obtain his testimony voluntarily,” Representative Randy Neugebauer, the House panel’s chairman and a Republican from Texas, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it has become clear that is not possible so the subcommittee will meet to consider the issuance of a subpoena.”

The disappearance of the customer money from MF Global has also spawned a sprawling federal investigation, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission leading the search for the missing money and the Federal Bureau of Investigation examining a potential criminal case. The trustee overseeing the liquidation of MF Global’s brokerage unit is also hunting for the customer cash.

Mr. Corzine has not been accused of any wrongdoing. A representative for Mr. Corzine declined to comment.

The Congressional hearings will be an awkward return to Capitol Hill for Mr. Corzine, who spent five years in Washington as a Democratic senator from New Jersey. He left his Senate seat to become the governor of New Jersey, a job he lost in 2009.

The House Agriculture Committee’s hearing will be quickly followed by the two other Congressional hearings examining MF Global. The Senate Agriculture Committee will hold its hearing on Dec. 13, and the oversight panel of the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on Dec. 15.

In a preview of the coming hearings, members of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday aggressively questioned MF Global’s regulators about the firm’s collapse. With the customer money still missing more than a month after the firm’s Chapter 11 filing, lawmakers noted, some futures industry customers are losing patience.

“MF Global has shattered the faith of customers in the futures markets,” Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat and the committee’s chairwoman, said at that hearing.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=386a20f91883b30274ab48cfbe5a0b0a

DealBook: Regulators Pledge New Rules After MF Global’s Demise

Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, testifying at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg NewsGary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, testifying at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.

8:22 p.m. | Updated

Federal regulators are considering a flurry of new rules for the brokerage industry after MF Global’s collapse and the revelation that customer money is missing from the firm, top officials told Congress on Thursday.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will vote next week on a rule that would restrict the industry’s use of customer money, and the Securities and Exchange Commission could soon enforce new accounting disclosures for brokerage firms. MF Global’s bankruptcy has also renewed calls for federal regulators to more closely monitor brokerage firms rather than continue to outsource oversight duties to for-profit exchanges like the CME Group.

Such self-regulatory organizations are “the front line” of oversight, Gary Gensler, chairman of the trading commission, told the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is examining MF Global’s downfall. The committee will hold a second hearing about MF Global on Dec. 13.

Mr. Gensler said he planned to complete new constraints on risky bets with customer money. Brokerage firms can now invest client money in a range of securities, including sovereign debt. Firms can also, in essence, borrow from their customers, using client money for a loan to the firm.

“We need to tighten that up,” Mr. Gensler told the committee. “I think it’s important that we limit how funds can be used.”

The agency planned to finish the rule earlier this year, but delayed the changes amid a fierce lobbying campaign by Jon S. Corzine, who at the time was the chief executive of MF Global. The rules were unnecessary, Mr. Corzine had argued, because federal laws already prevented brokerage firms from mixing client money with company money.

But in MF Global’s final days, the firm broke that sacrosanct rule. Investigators now fear that MF Global tapped anywhere from $600 million to $1.2 billion to meets its own financial obligations.

Regulators are also examining MF Global’s risky bets on European sovereign debt, positions that caused a crisis of confidence among ratings agencies, the firm’s creditors and regulators. MF Global financed those positions through off-balance-sheet deals known as “repurchase to maturity” transactions.

On Thursday, lawmakers asked why the firm was allowed to keep regulators in the dark about such transactions.

“That is a loophole so big you can drive a Mack truck through it,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. “If that’s not closed, we should ask ourselves what we’re doing.”

Mary L. Schapiro, chairwoman of the S.E.C., said her agency was already considering such a crackdown. The agency, Ms. Schapiro said, was also investigating whether MF Global violated accounting rules.

“We are investigating very carefully both the accounting treatment and the disclosure by the firm,” she said at the hearing.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f4083dbcf2836343ac52bfa25b8b4e0e

DealBook: Derivatives Industry Awaits Rules, and a Timeline

With or without new rules, the derivatives industry is gearing up for big changes.

Three years ago, the complex securities wreaked havoc on Wall Street, prompting Congress to overhaul the long-unregulated market. The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law requires companies to trade credit-default swaps and many other derivatives contracts through regulated exchanges or on a new invention known as swap execution facilities, or S.E.F.’s.

Now, even as regulators miss deadlines to complete the rules, some industry players say they are well prepared for the looming changes.

“Banks, hedge funds, insurers and other sophisticated entities are very eager and ready to begin trading on S.E.F.’s,” Ben Macdonald, global head of fixed income for Bloomberg, told the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday. The infrastructure needed to set up the new trading platforms “certainly exists,” he added.

Regulators have estimated that 30 to 40 firms — ranging from big names like Bloomberg to growing online marketplaces like Tradeweb — will line up to become swap execution facilities, a term coined under Dodd-Frank.

Wall Street, however, is waiting for Washington to catch up. Amid internal wrangling and a broader political divide over the derivatives rules, regulators have fallen behind on several crucial issues.

The Federal Reserve announced last week that it would allow the public two additional weeks to comment on some derivatives proposals. Earlier this month, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced a six-month delay for many of its new derivatives regulations, including the proposal that will spell out rules for the trading facilities.

On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission finally proposed a series of new ethics standards for the derivatives industry. The proposal came more than six months after the commodities commission introduced a similar plan.

The S.E.C.’s proposed code of conduct would for the first time require banks, hedge funds and other firms that trade the opaque products to bolster their compliance departments and act in the best interests of the pension plans and local governments that use derivatives to hedge risk. Under the rules, the firms would also need to disclose a battery of information, including potential conflicts of interest and risks posed by derivatives deals.

“The standards we propose today are intended to establish a framework that protects investors and also promotes efficiency, competition and capital formation,” Mary L. Schapiro, the agency’s chairman, said at a public meeting in Washington on Wednesday.

The S.E.C. previously outlined proposals that, if enacted, would mandate how derivatives trading platforms operated.

But the pressing question is when the rules will take effect.

“We are ready to go,” Chris Bury, co-head of rates sales and trading for Jefferies Company, told the Senate committee. “The market needs the certainty of when the rules will become applicable.”

Some of the holdup stems from Wall Street’s own attacks on the rules. Industry lobbyists and Republican lawmakers led the push to delay the swap regulations. Bloomberg and other trading firms are asking regulators to tread lightly with the new rules.

“Sophisticated market participants do not really need or want federal regulators micromanaging execution protocols,” Mr. Macdonald told the banking committee.

But some advocates of regulation say delays are jeopardizing the safety of the financial system.

Before the crisis, investors bought billions of dollars’ worth of derivatives as insurance on risky mortgage-backed securities. When the underlying mortgages soured, the American International Group and other firms that sold the deals failed to honor their obligations. The government ultimately rescued A.I.G. with a $180 billion bailout.

“The biggest threat is that every day we don’t have financial reform rules in place is a day that the American taxpayers’ pockets are at risk,” said Dennis M. Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, an advocacy group.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a667bc588254b826b6e69be35d528386

Lawmakers Seek Assurances on Bank Regulations

Harmonization has been a top consideration in international talks related to how much capital the biggest banks must maintain and methods for orderly wind-downs of large firms, several officials told the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday at a hearing in Washington.

Representative Spencer Bachus, the Alabama Republican who leads the Financial Services Committee, conducted the hearing amid complaints from bankers that American regulations being imposed under the Dodd-Frank act might slow economic recovery from the 2008 financial crisis and drive business overseas. Lawmakers sought assurances that regulators were looking out for United States interests in dealing with their international counterparts.

“Dodd-Frank was not passed in the E.U., and it was not passed in the G-20, so our regulators must take great care,” Representative Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who serves as financial services vice chairman, said referring to the European Union and the Group of 20 nations.

The six regulators who appeared before the panel agreed that they planned to ensure a level playing field in rules, including those for the $601 trillion global swaps market.

“The best national regime in the world is not going to be adequate if other countries do not adopt robust resolution tool kits and complementary authorities,” said Lael Brainard, the Treasury under secretary for international affairs.

She was joined at the hearing by Daniel K. Tarullo, a Federal Reserve governor; Sheila C. Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Mary L. Schapiro, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and John Walsh, acting comptroller of the currency.

The international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision agreed last year to raise the minimum common equity requirement for banks to 4.5 percent from 2 percent, with an added buffer of 2.5 percent, for a total of 7 percent of assets weighted for risk.

The Basel members are also proposing that so-called global systemically important financial institutions hold additional capital.

“What is important is not to lose sight of the costs of not acting,” Mr. Tarullo said at the hearing. The surcharge based on some studies may be as high as seven percentage points above the Basel requirement, he said, adding that the final figure, now under consideration by regulators, may not reach that level.

American regulators have yet to align themselves on the issue, with Ms. Bair pushing higher capital levels for the largest banks and Mr. Walsh, who oversees national banks, urging caution as talks over rules continue.

“I’m concerned with how much further we can turn up the dial without negative effects on lending capacity,” Mr. Walsh told lawmakers. “A very real risk is that lending will fall, will become more expensive and will again move from the regulated banking sector into the less-regulated shadow banking sector.”

The committee also heard testimony from a second panel including executives at JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley as well as an associate general counsel at the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

The banking officials argued that certain derivative rules will push business outside of the United States.

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Financial Services panel, told regulators they should not let concerns over bank profits affect their decisions.

“They are the means to a sound financial system, they are not the end,” said Mr. Frank, who co-sponsored the financial regulation law that bears his name. “Their profitability in and of itself is not important to anyone other than themselves.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f467e7e7345f3641a25410d93d543553

DealBook: C.F.T.C. Faces More Budget Woes

Gary Gensler is fighting for funding — again.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Tuesday debated a measure that would slash the budget at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by $30 million.

The proposed 15 percent cut comes as the agency, led by Mr. Gensler, struggles with a widening mandate under the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul. The C.F.T.C. recently delayed the implementation of certain rules surrounding the derivatives market, which was at the center of the financial crisis.

Mr. Gensler is making his case for extra funds on Wednesday.

“Only with reform can we reduce risk in the swaps market – risk that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis,” Mr. Gensler said in prepared testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee. “Until the C.F.T.C. completes its rule-writing process and implements and enforces those new rules, the public remains unprotected.”

But “reform” does not come cheaply, he said.

For months, Mr. Gensler has been fighting attacks on his agency’s spending. Republicans, contending that the agency is overstepping its authority in the derivatives markets, have pushed to curtail the C.F.T.C.’s spending.

Although the C.F.T.C. received a 20 percent funding increase April, bringing its budget to $202 million, it fell short of what President Obama had requested for the agency.

As DealBook has previously reported, the agency is still struggling to fill crucial jobs, enforce new rules and upgrade market surveillance technology. The budget woes also have forced the agency to delay some investigations and forgo other potential enforcement cases altogether.

Spending cuts, Mr. Gensler said, would only further undermine the agency’s enforcement efforts.

“It would hamper our ability to seek out fraud, manipulation and other abuses,” he told the committee on Wednesday.

Mr. Gensler has long called for a $108 million funding increase. The funds are necessary, he said, to prevent another financial crisis.

“The C.F.T.C. must be adequately resourced to police the markets and protect the public,” he said on Wednesday. “Without sufficient funding for the agency, our nation cannot be assured of effective enforcement of new rules in the swaps market to promote transparency, lower risk and protect against another crisis.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e0171ad7403c95bd363b72d05882ca57

U.S. Commodity Regulators Sue Oil Traders

United States authorities are suing three companies and two individuals for reportedly manipulating the crude oil market in early 2008, when supplies were tight and the world oil price was cracking $100 a barrel.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission asserted that in January 2008 the defendants bought millions of barrels of physical crude oil at Cushing, Okla., one of the main delivery sites for West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for American oil.

The defendants, part of the Arcadia group of energy trading companies, headquartered in Switzerland, also invested in large positions in the oil futures market, and profited when their expansive buys in the physical market pushed the oil futures higher.

They then bought short positions in the futures market and dumped their holdings of physical oil, most of it in the course of one day, making money again when the oil price fell.

“According to the allegations, defendants conducted a manipulative cycle, driving the price of W.T.I. to artificial highs and then back down, to make unlawful profit,” the commission said in a statement.

The civil enforcement action, filed in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, names two individuals, James T. Dyer of Australia and Nicholas J. Wildgoose of California, and three related companies, Parnon Energy of California, Arcadia Petroleum of Britain and Arcadia Energy, a Swiss company. Calls for comment left at Arcadia Petroleum in London were not immediately returned. A person who answered the phone at Arcadia Energy in Switzerland said that he was unaware of the complaints and that Mr. Dyer and Mr. Wildgoose were on vacation and unavailable for comment.

The commission would not say whether it was conducting any other investigations into oil price speculation. This case appears to be one of the few to emerge so far from the sharp run-up in oil during 2007 and 2008.  

The oil price increase in 2008 drew intense political scrutiny amid suspicions that speculators were artificially manipulating markets before prices dropped again at the end of 2008.

Oil prices have again moved higher this year, exceeding $110 a barrel and again raising questions about whether oil is being pushed higher by fundamental market factors or by speculation.

Last month, President Obama said he was asking Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to set up a working group specifically to look into the issue of fraud in oil and gas markets and “safeguard against unlawful consumer harm.”

In this latest case, the commission estimates the traders made about $50 million in profits from their actions.

In the last few years, the commission has settled a handful of cases of manipulation in the natural gas market.

In 2007, it settled charges for $1 million against the Marathon Petroleum Company for trying to manipulate West Texas Intermediate crude oil in 2003.

The commission brought an action similar to its latest case in 2008, asserting a company called Optiver Holding, a global proprietary trading fund headquartered in the Netherlands, used a trading program to issue rapid-fire orders to manipulate the crude oil market in 2007. That case, which is pending, involved allegations of manipulation of futures contracts for light sweet crude oil, New York Harbor heating oil and New York Harbor gasoline.

In the current case, the commission asserts, the defendants repeated their buying and selling cycle once and were preparing to do it again, but stopped in April 2008 when the commission became suspicious and asked for information. It was not until later in the year, after the defendants had ceased their reported actions, that oil prices soared even higher — reaching $145 in July 2008. By the end of the year, prices had fallen back to around $44. Currently, W.T.I. is around $100.

At one point, the defendants bought about 4.6 million barrels of crude oil, which was estimated at the time to account for two-thirds of the estimated seven million barrels of excess oil then available at Cushing, according to the allegations.

The commission could seek penalties of up to $150 million, plus the $50 million reportedly made in profits, from the defendants. The defendants could also be banned from trading in United States markets.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/global/25oil.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: On Capitol Hill, Regulators Plead for More Money

Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C.'s chairwoman, and Gary Gensler, the C.F.T.C.'s chairman.Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg NewsMary L. Schapiro and Gary Gensler.

Financial regulators asked lawmakers on Wednesday for more money to enforce dozens of new rules and oversee Wall Street.

Although the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission received some additional money in April, the agencies say they are still hurting for cash. Now, the regulators are adopting a refrain more familiar to disappointed sports fans than powerful regulators: wait till next year.

Gary Gensler, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s chairman, and Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C.’s chairwoman, told a Senate appropriations subcommittee that they needed hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 to prevent another financial crisis.

“In 2008, both the financial system and the financial regulatory system failed the test for the American public,” Mr. Gensler said in testimony before the subcommittee that doles out money to financial regulators.

In the wake of the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires Mr. Gensler and Ms. Schapiro to oversee the $600 trillion swaps market, an industry at the center of the financial crisis.

“An investment in the C.F.T.C. is warranted, because, as we saw in 2008, without oversight of the swaps market, billions of taxpayer dollars may be at risk,” Mr. Gensler told the subcommittee. The panel is weighing whether to increase regulatory budgets during the government’s fiscal year 2012, which starts on Oct. 1.

Ms. Schapiro said any cuts would have a “profound impact” on her agency.

Still, the agencies are hardly poor.

Both agencies received more money in April, on top of earlier budget increases approved in the aftermath of the crisis. The S.E.C.’s budget increased 6 percent this year, to $1.18 billion, which is nearly triple what it was a decade ago. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s budget recently grew 20 percent, to $202 million.

But the new money falls short of what President Obama had requested for the agencies and what the Dodd-Frank Act had called for them to receive.

As DealBook reported on Tuesday, the agencies are still struggling to fill crucial jobs, enforce new rules and upgrade market surveillance technology. Regulators warn that their money problems have also jeopardized their most important duty: keeping an eye on Wall Street.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission says the uncertainty has forced it to delay some investigations and forgo other potential cases altogether. The S.E.C.’s enforcement division has adopted cutbacks, too, including curbing its use of expert witnesses in some securities fraud trials.

The agencies also face substantial new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, which requires the S.E.C. to write more than 100 new rules, open five new offices and publish more than 20 studies.

To do so, the S.E.C. has requested a $1.4 billion budget for 2012, a roughly $220 million increase over its current funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission wants to add $106 million to its budget, which would bring it to $308 million.

But Republicans are looking to slash the agencies’ budgets, as the nation’s budget deficit swells. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently approved a 2012 budget plan that would roll back spending to 2008 levels, which would make huge dents in the regulators’ budgets.

“We’re all aware of our budget deficit,” said the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, Jerry Moran of Kansas. “Simply increasing funding does not ensure that an agency can successfully achieve its mission.”

Mr. Moran also questioned whether Mr. Gensler’s budget should focus more on increasing the agency’s market surveillance technology, rather than hiring new lawyers.

Mr. Gensler agreed that “technology is absolutely critical,” and his agency would roughly double its technology budget if it received a flood of new money. But he added: “You can’t send a computer into court to plead a case.”

Ms. Schapiro also warned that funding cuts “would have a devastating impact on the agency’s ability to protect the public from financial fraud.” The agency, she said, would begin fewer investigations into Wall Street wrongdoing, delay examinations of banks and other public companies and suspend its “tips and referrals” system that alerts the agency to potential fraud.

Ms. Schapiro noted that her agency costs taxpayers nothing. The agency offsets its budget with fees collected from the financial industry, often turning a profit for the government.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not collect such fees, although its budget for 2012 would allow the commodities commission to start doing so, which would generate $117 million for the budget.

“The C.F.T.C. is a good investment for the American public,” Mr. Gensler said. “We recognize that the budget deficit presents significant challenges to Congress and the American public. But we cannot forget that the 2008 financial crisis was very real. “

The regulators on Wednesday received some reason to hope for bigger budgets, as the subcommittee’s Democratic members expressed support for the agencies.

“We depend on their foresight and leadership,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic chairman of the panel.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6fc84972be74a757c99cf27e1872431e