Position Limits in the Dock
A while back–summer of 2010, if memory serves–I predicted that any CFTC position limit rule would be the subject of legal challenge. My prediction was that someone would argue that the CFTC did not have the statutory authority to promulgate position limits because it had not made a finding that there was indeed excessive speculation that made it necessary to impose limits. Subsequently, a DC Appeals Court decision that overturned an SEC regulation due to a failure to carry out an adequate cost-benefit analysis, made it clear that this would be a major vulnerability for a variety of CFTC rulemakings, position limits among them. The day after the post-Dodd-Frank position limit rule was passed, speaking at a JP Morgan commodity conference, I said a suit challenging the rule would be “coming soon to a courthouse near you.”
Well, soon means about 6 weeks. Today ISDA and SIFMA filed suit in DC contesting the position limit rule. These organizations allege that the CFTC:
— Erred in concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act required it to establish position limits without first determining whether they were even necessary;
— Failed to present a reasoned analysis or consider all evidence in setting position limits;
— Failed to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis as required by law;
— Conducted a flawed rulemaking process that prevented commenters from meaningfully participating.
I imagine that others–such as the CME and maybe ICE–will follow suit, as it were. I also expect that other rules will also wind up in court. The position limit rule is probably the most vulnerable because of the statutory language about excessive speculation, but all of the rules the CFTC has passed are on extremely shaky on cost-benefit analysis grounds.
Frankendodd is under some pressure in Congress, but given the Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, nothing is going to happen on that front. Instead, pieces of it will be chipped away in court. Position limits could well be the first chip off the block. Which is as it should be.
