Skip to content

Menu

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP logo
HomeAboutResourcesContact
Search
Close

Corporate & Financial Weekly Digest

CFTC Staff Issues Guidance Regarding Risk Assessment of Customer Accounts for Futures Commission Merchants

By Kevin M. Foley & Gregory A. Uffner on April 2, 2021
Posted in CFTC, Derivatives

On March 29, the Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued guidance regarding the implementation of revised Regulation 39.13(g)(8)(ii). Regulation 39.13(g)(8)(ii) provides that a derivatives clearing organization (DCO) must require its clearing members to collect from their customers initial margin at a level that is at least equal to the DCO’s own initial margin requirements with respect to each product and portfolio and commensurate with the risk presented by each customer account. The regulation further requires that a DCO must set both (1) a baseline level of initial margin (“clearing initial margin”), which serves as the minimum amount its clearing members must in turn collect from their customers; and (2) an increased level of initial margin (“customer initial margin”) for categories of customers determined by a clearing member to have a “heightened risk profile.”

When it was originally adopted in 2011, Regulation 39.13(g)(8)(ii) required clearing members to collect customer initial margin for “non-hedge,” i.e., speculative positions. In 2012, DCR issued guidance clarifying that while DCOs generally set customer risk profiles as “hedge” or “non-hedge,” a DCO could choose to use a different set of risk-based criteria. In 2020, the CFTC replaced the term “non-hedge” with “heightened risk profile,” raising concerns among market participants that FCMs could apply the term narrowly to offer lower margin requirements to customers, ultimately resulting in a market-wide reduction in customer margin.

In Letter No. 21-08, DCR clarified that, although the terminology may change, it did not expect to see significant changes in margining practices as a result of the 2020 amendment to the rule. DCR explained that, in order to comply with a DCO’s rules, a clearing member must analyze the risk profile of each customer to determine if the customer presents a heightened risk profile (HRP). DCR added that an FCM can only categorize an account as “non-HRP” that was previously categorized as a “non-hedge” account if it can demonstrate that it is warranted based on the risk profile of the customer. DCR also emphasized that an FCM could assess whether a customer account a customer account presents a “heightened risk profile” based on whether the account is a hedging or speculative account, provided that the FCM maintains policies and procedures that demonstrate that is the risk analysis the FCM uses to determine whether to collect additional initial margin from a customer.

CFTC Letter No. 21-08

Tags: CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Clearing and Risk, DCO, DCR, Derivatives, derivatives clearing organizations, Division of Clearing and Risk, HRP, margin requirements, non-hedge account, risk management
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
CFTC Announces Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
May 28, 2021
Effective Date for NFA Member Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Dues Increases
May 28, 2021
CFTC Renews No-Action Relief for Entities Submitting Swaps for Clearing With DCOs Acting Under Exemptive Orders or No-Action Relief
April 30, 2021

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Sean M. Akchin
  • James M. Brady
  • Henry Bregstein
  • David A. Brennand
  • Matthew S. Brown
  • James J. Calder
  • Claudia Callaway
  • Bonnie Lynn Chmil
  • Mark T. Ciani
  • Wendy E. Cohen
  • Christopher Collins
  • Farzad Damania
  • Jill E. Darrow
  • Charles A. DeVore
  • Gary DeWaal
  • Chris DiAngelo
  • David Y. Dickstein
  • Michael J. Diver
  • Kevin M. Foley
  • Jeff J. Friedman
  • Brooks T. Giles
  • David L. Goldberg
  • Mark D. Goldstein
  • Jack P. Governale
  • Russell E. Greenblatt
  • Christina Grigorian
  • Brian Hecht
  • Christian B. Hennion
  • Daniel O. Imahiyerobo
  • Carolyn H. Jackson
  • Christian T. Kemnitz
  • Carl E. Kennedy
  • Timothy D. Kertland
  • Alexander C. Kim
  • Shelby Klose
  • Shelby Kost
  • David S. Kravitz
  • Nathaniel Lalone
  • Thomas F. Lamprecht
  • Lawrence Levin
  • Susan Light
  • Michael J. Lohnes
  • Gabriel S. Marinaro
  • Richard D. Marshall
  • Edward Matzner
  • Paul McCurdy
  • Margaret J. McQuade
  • Elise W. Michael
  • Tenley Mochizuki
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • Irina Nica
  • Elizabeth Organ
  • Stanley V. Polit
  • Daniel H. Render
  • Scott A. Resnik
  • Mark J. Reyes
  • Neil Robson
  • Alexa Rollins
  • Michael Rosensaft
  • Jonathan Rotenberg
  • Alyse A. Sagalchik
  • Nicole A. Saleem
  • Fred M. Santo
  • Christopher T. Shannon
  • Mitch D. Sprengelmeyer
  • Carrie M. Stickel
  • Joseph Topolski
  • Marc M. Tract
  • Gregory A. Uffner
  • Jonathan D. Weiner
  • Robert Weiss
  • Jack A. West
  • Elizabeth P. White
  • Lisa Wiznitzer
  • Mark D. Wood
  • Allison C. Yacker

Current Postings

  • A Message From Katten
  • FINRA Publishes 2021 Industry Spotlight
  • FINRA Publishes 2021 Budget
  • CFTC Announces Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
  • CFTC Staff Publishes Updated Responses to FAQs Regarding Commission Regulation 4.27 and Form CPO-PQR

Topics

Archives

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS View Katten's LinkedIn Profile Katten's Company Facebook Page Follow Katten on Twitter

Additional Industry Coverage

For additional coverage on financial and regulatory news, visit Bridging the Week, authored by Katten’s Gary DeWaal.

Corporate & Financial Weekly Digest

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Charlotte |
Chicago |
London |
Los Angeles – Century City
Los Angeles – Downtown |
New York |
Orange County |
Shanghai |
Washington, D.C.

Subscribe to this blog via RSS View Katten's LinkedIn Profile Katten's Company Facebook Page Follow Katten on Twitter
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2025, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo