MFA Comment Letters

Topic: US Treasuries

MFA Letter to ESAs on EMIR Risk Mitigation Regulatory Technical Standards07.14.14


MFA submitted a comment letter to the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) on their joint consultation paper on “Draft regulatory technical […]

Click to expand relevant topics

Topics: European Banking Authority European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority, European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA, European Supervisory Authorities, consultation paper, EMIR, European Market Infrastructure Regulation, systemic risk, counterparty credit risk, collateral, OTC derivatives market, market participants, regulatory technical standards, margin, segregation, third country, financial counterparties, non-financial counterparty, clearing threshold, variation margin, initial margin, transparency, G7, harmonization, uncleared derivative, regulatory arbitrage, Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, International Organization of Securities Commissions, IOSCO, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United States, United Kingdom, European Commission, duplicative regulation, substituted compliance, equivalence, Cayman Islands, alternative investment funds, AIMA, Alternative Investment Management Association, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, counterparties, mandatory margin requirements, documentation, regulatory requirements, minimum notional threshold, trade repositories, settlement period, netting, trading costs, efficiency, legal opinion, verification requirement, concentration limits, proportionality principle, US Treasuries, securities, liquidity, haircuts, settlement currency, collateral currency, base currency, third party custodian, liquidation, in-scope entity, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, ISDA, dispute resolution procedures, Individual Segregation,

Comment Letter to the SEC and CFTC on Definitions of “Swap Dealer, Security-Based Swap Dealer (together, SDs), Major Swap Participant, Major Security-Based Swap Participant (together MSPs) and Eligible Contract Participant (ECP)02.22.11


MFA submitted a comment letter to the SEC and CFTC on their joint proposed rule to further define swap dealer, […]

Click to expand relevant topics

Topics: Commodity Futures Trading Commission Securities Exchange Commission, CFTC, SEC, Swaps dealer, SD, Security-Based Swap Dealer, Major Swap Participant, Major Security-Based Swap Participant, msp, security-based swaps, market activity, market growth, systemic risk, United States financial markets, potential future exposure test, systemically important, MSP thresholds, Dealer, end-users, default risk, risk-mitigating tools, hedge fund managers, potential future exposure calculation, over-collateralization, current uncollateralized outward exposure test, independent amount of collateral, initial margin, mark-to-market exposure, ISDA master agreements, daily variation margin calls, valuation of collateral, future exposure discount, centrally cleared positions, central clearing, clearing member defaults, clearinghouse, variation margin, daily volatility, risk mutualization, discount factor, independent variable, tools of credit protection, reproducible test, credit default swaps, CDS, index CDS, unpaid premiums, portfolio risk, fixed downside risk, interest rate swap, LIBOR, swap rate, market-standard discount rate, CDS protection, index reference entity, volatility, jump-to-default risk, single-name CDS, risk factor multiplier, high yield credit swaps, investment-grade credit swaps, credit spreads, credit ratings, investment grade, non-investment grade, margin methodologies, bank capital standards, Chicago mercantile exchange, CME, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., FINRA, multiplier, spread bank designation, swap underlier, swaptions, options on a swap, physically settled swaptions, cash settled swaptions, option expiration date, Form PF, delta weighting, Financial Stability Oversight Council, large private fund, smaller private fund, Form PQR, MSP definitions, Proposed Form PF section 1b, question 11, question 27, proposed form PF section 2(a), question 38, proposed form PF section 3, question 47, proposed form PF section 4, question 68, proposed Form PQR, schedule B, question 5, substantial counterparty exposure, MSP test, substantial position, undiversified market participant, counterparty exposure, systemically important financial institution, commercial hedging, index derivatives, commercial loans, mitigating commercial risk, threshold levels, dealers, uncollateralized exposure, potential systemic risk impact, inflation, upward adjustment, U.S. banking system, highly leveraged, liabilities to equity, asset mix, liquidity, liquidity rights, capital markets, secured debt, unsecured debt, short-term leverage, overnight borrowing, short-term financing, highly liquid assets, US Treasuries, longer-term leverage, term borrowings, risk factor multipliers, high-grade corporate securities, FSOC, hedge funds, eligible contract participant, ECP, non-ECP, financial counterparty, traditional commodity pool, Retail Forex Pool, SD obligations, retail cash, currency based institutions, limited purpose designations, minimum duration of status, quarters, deregistration period, reevaluation period, abnormal price movement, applicable MSP thresholds, master-feeder fund, feeder fund, trading entity, MSP determination, Senator Hagan, Senator Lincoln, creditworthiness, know your counterparty requirements, daily mark requirements, trade verification, acknowledgment requirements, fund domicile, manager domicile, reference entity domicile, market location, underlying instrument, counterparty domicile, US entities, non-US entities, non-US domiciled fund, non-US securities, non-U.S. market, offshore fund, non-U.S. regulators.,
  • Page
  • 1