DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 76 Friday, No. 29 February 11, 2011 Part V Commodity Futures Trading Commission 17 CFR Part 4 Securities and Exchange Commission 17 CFR Parts 275 and 279 Reporting by Investment Advisers to Private Funds and Certain Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors on Form PF; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:44 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11FEP3.SGM 11FEP3 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 8068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ COMMISSION 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC proposed.shtml). Comments are also 20581. available for Web site viewing and 17 CFR Part 4 • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as printing in the SEC’s Public Reference RIN 3038–AD03 mail above. Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// DC 20549 on official business days SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE www.regulations.gov. Follow the between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. COMMISSION instructions for submitting comments. All comments received will be posted ‘‘Form PF’’ must be in the subject field without change; we do not edit personal 17 CFR Parts 275 and 279 of comments submitted via e-mail, and identifying information from clearly indicated on written submissions. You should submit only [Release No. IA–3145; File No. S7–05–11] submissions. All comments must be information that you wish to make RIN 3235–AK92 submitted in English, or if not, available publicly. accompanied by an English translation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reporting by Investment Advisers to Comments will be posted as received to CFTC: Daniel S. Konar II, Attorney- Private Funds and Certain Commodity http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit Advisor, Telephone: (202) 418–5405, Pool Operators and Commodity only information that you wish to make E-mail: [email protected], Amanda L. Trading Advisors on Form PF available publicly. If you wish the CFTC Olear, Special Counsel, Telephone: to consider information that may be AGENCIES: Commodity Futures Trading (202) 418–5283, E-mail: [email protected], exempt from disclosure under the Commission and Securities and or Kevin P. Walek, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information Act, a petition Exchange Commission. Telephone: (202) 418–5405, E-mail: for confidential treatment of the exempt [email protected], Division of Clearing ACTION: Joint proposed rule. information may be submitted according and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures to the established procedures in 17 CFR Futures Trading Commission, Three Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and the 145.9. Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Securities and Exchange Commission The CFTC reserves the right, but shall Washington, DC 20581; SEC: David P. (‘‘SEC’’) (collectively, ‘‘we’’ or the have no obligation, to review, prescreen, Bartels, Attorney-Adviser, Sarah G. ten ‘‘Commissions’’) are proposing new rules filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or Siethoff, Senior Special Counsel, or under the Commodity Exchange Act and all of your submission from http:// David A. Vaughan, Attorney Fellow, at the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be (202) 551–6787 or [email protected], implement provisions of Title IV of the inappropriate for publication, including, Office of Investment Adviser Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and but not limited to, obscene language. All Regulation, Division of Investment Consumer Protection Act. The proposed submissions that have been redacted or Management, U.S. Securities and SEC rule would require investment removed that contain comments on the Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, advisers registered with the SEC that merits of the rulemaking will be NE., Washington, DC 20549–8549. advise one or more private funds to file retained in the public comment file and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CFTC Form PF with the SEC. The proposed will be considered as required under the is requesting public comment on CFTC rule would require commodity Administrative Procedure Act and other proposed rule 4.27(d) [17 CFR 4.27(d)] pool operators (‘‘CPOs’’) and commodity applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Commodity Exchange Act trading advisors (‘‘CTAs’’) registered under the Freedom of Information Act, (‘‘CEA’’) 1 and proposed Form PF. The with the CFTC to satisfy certain 5 U.S.C. 552, et seq. (‘‘FOIA’’). SEC is requesting public comment on proposed CFTC filing requirements by SEC proposed rule 204(b)–1 [17 CFR filing Form PF with the SEC, but only 275.204(b)–1] and proposed Form PF if those CPOs and CTAs are also Electronic Comments [17 CFR 279.9] under the Investment registered with the SEC as investment • Use the SEC’s Internet comment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] advisers and advise one or more private form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ (‘‘Advisers Act’’).2 funds. The information contained in proposed.shtml); or I. Background Form PF is designed, among other • Send an e-mail to rule- things, to assist the Financial Stability [email protected]. Please include File A. The Dodd-Frank Act Oversight Council in its assessment of Number S7–05–11 on the subject line; On July 21, 2010, President Obama systemic risk in the U.S. financial or signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall • system. These advisers would file these Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal Street Reform and Consumer Protection reports electronically, on a confidential (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’).3 While the basis. instructions for submitting comments. Dodd-Frank Act provides for wide- DATES: Comments should be received on Paper Comments ranging reform of financial regulation, or before April 12, 2011. • one stated focus of this legislation is to ADDRESSES: Comments may be Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, submitted by any of the following 1 7 U.S.C. 1a. methods: Securities and Exchange Commission, 2 15 U.S.C. 80b. Unless otherwise noted, when we 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC refer to the Advisers Act, or any paragraph of the CFTC 20549–1090. Advisers Act, we are referring to 15 U.S.C. 80b of • the United States Code, at which the Advisers Act Agency Web site, via its Comments All submissions should refer to File is codified, and when we refer to Advisers Act rule Online process: http:// Number S7–05–11. This file number 204(b)–1, or any paragraph of this rule, we are comments.cftc.gov. Follow the should be included on the subject line referring to 17 CFR 275.204(b)–1 of the Code of instructions for submitting comments if e-mail is used. To help us process and Federal Regulations in which this rule would be published. In addition, in this Release, when we through the Web site. review your comments more efficiently, refer to the ‘‘Advisers Act,’’ we refer to the Advisers • Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary, please use only one method. The SEC Act as in effect on July 21, 2011. Commodity Futures Trading will post all comments on the SEC’s 3 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:44 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11FEP3.SGM 11FEP3 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8069 ‘‘promote the financial stability of the SEC.9 Congress required this registration and reports must include a description United States’’ by, among other in part because it believed that of certain information about private measures, establishing better monitoring ‘‘information regarding [the] size, funds, such as the amount of assets of emerging risks using a system-wide strategies and positions [of large private under management, use of leverage, perspective.4 To further this goal, Title funds] could be crucial to regulatory counterparty credit risk exposure, and I of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes the attempts to deal with a future crisis.’’ 10 trading and investment positions for Financial Stability Oversight Council To that end, Section 404 of the Dodd- each private fund advised by the (‘‘FSOC’’), which is comprised of the Frank Act, which amends section 204(b) adviser.13 The SEC must issue jointly leaders of various financial regulators of the Advisers Act, directs the SEC to with the CFTC, after consultation with (including the Commissions’ Chairmen) require private fund advisers 11 to FSOC, rules establishing the form and and other participants.5 The Dodd- maintain records and file reports content of any such reports required to Frank Act directs FSOC to monitor containing such information as the SEC be filed with respect to private fund emerging risks to U.S. financial stability deems necessary and appropriate in the advisers also registered with the and to require that the Board of public interest and for investor CFTC.14 Governors of the Federal Reserve protection or for the assessment of This joint proposal is designed to System (‘‘FRB’’) supervise designated systemic risk by FSOC.12 The records fulfill this statutory mandate. Under nonbank financial companies that may proposed Advisers Act rule 204(b)–1, pose risks to U.S. financial stability in acquisition of such securities, are qualified private fund advisers would be required the event of their material financial purchasers, and which is not making and does not to file Form PF with the SEC. Private at that time propose to make a public offering of distress or failure or because of their such securities.’’ The term ‘‘qualified purchaser’’ is fund advisers that also are registered as 6 activities.
Recommended publications
  • The Application of Commodity Pool Rules to Insurance Linked Securities

    The Application of Commodity Pool Rules to Insurance Linked Securities

    The Application of Commodity Pool Rules to Insurance Linked Securities October 15, 2012 The Dodd-Frank Act’s expansion of the definition of “commodity pool” to include any form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading in “swaps,” coupled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently adopting an expansive definition of the term “swap” for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, creates uncertainty regarding whether issuers of insurance linked securities (“ILS”) are commodity pools that would require the registration of commodity pool operators (“CPO”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTA”) with the CFTC. Expansive Definition of Swap On July 10, 2012, pursuant to a joint release (“Joint Release”) the CFTC and the SEC adopted final rules, which became effective on October 12, 2012, broadly defining the term “swap” to include, in addition to those contracts commonly known as swaps (including interest rate swaps, floors and caps, currency swaps and credit default swaps), “any agreement, contract or transaction that provides for any purchase, sale, payment or delivery..... that is dependent on the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” This expansive definition will encompass a broad array of contracts including those customarily underlying cat bond and other ILS transactions, unless such contracts are specifically not considered swaps under the rules or are otherwise
  • Arbitrage Pricing Theory∗

    Arbitrage Pricing Theory∗

    ARBITRAGE PRICING THEORY∗ Gur Huberman Zhenyu Wang† August 15, 2005 Abstract Focusing on asset returns governed by a factor structure, the APT is a one-period model, in which preclusion of arbitrage over static portfolios of these assets leads to a linear relation between the expected return and its covariance with the factors. The APT, however, does not preclude arbitrage over dynamic portfolios. Consequently, applying the model to evaluate managed portfolios contradicts the no-arbitrage spirit of the model. An empirical test of the APT entails a procedure to identify features of the underlying factor structure rather than merely a collection of mean-variance efficient factor portfolios that satisfies the linear relation. Keywords: arbitrage; asset pricing model; factor model. ∗S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, forthcoming, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. This article is taken from the authors’ original manuscript and has not been reviewed or edited. The definitive published version of this extract may be found in the complete The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics in print and online, forthcoming. †Huberman is at Columbia University. Wang is at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the McCombs School of Business in the University of Texas at Austin. The views stated here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Introduction The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) was developed primarily by Ross (1976a, 1976b). It is a one-period model in which every investor believes that the stochastic properties of returns of capital assets are consistent with a factor structure.
  • Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Theory and Applications to Financial Data Analysis Basic Investment Equation

    Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Theory and Applications to Financial Data Analysis Basic Investment Equation

    Risk and Portfolio Management Spring 2010 Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Theory and Applications To Financial Data Analysis Basic investment equation = Et equity in a trading account at time t (liquidation value) = + Δ Rit return on stock i from time t to time t t (includes dividend income) = Qit dollars invested in stock i at time t r = interest rate N N = + Δ + − ⎛ ⎞ Δ ()+ Δ Et+Δt Et Et r t ∑Qit Rit ⎜∑Qit ⎟r t before rebalancing, at time t t i=1 ⎝ i=1 ⎠ N N N = + Δ + − ⎛ ⎞ Δ + ε ()+ Δ Et+Δt Et Et r t ∑Qit Rit ⎜∑Qit ⎟r t ∑| Qi(t+Δt) - Qit | after rebalancing, at time t t i=1 ⎝ i=1 ⎠ i=1 ε = transaction cost (as percentage of stock price) Leverage N N = + Δ + − ⎛ ⎞ Δ Et+Δt Et Et r t ∑Qit Rit ⎜∑Qit ⎟r t i=1 ⎝ i=1 ⎠ N ∑ Qit Ratio of (gross) investments i=1 Leverage = to equity Et ≥ Qit 0 ``Long - only position'' N ≥ = = Qit 0, ∑Qit Et Leverage 1, long only position i=1 Reg - T : Leverage ≤ 2 ()margin accounts for retail investors Day traders : Leverage ≤ 4 Professionals & institutions : Risk - based leverage Portfolio Theory Introduce dimensionless quantities and view returns as random variables Q N θ = i Leverage = θ Dimensionless ``portfolio i ∑ i weights’’ Ei i=1 ΔΠ E − E − E rΔt ΔE = t+Δt t t = − rΔt Π Et E ~ All investments financed = − Δ Ri Ri r t (at known IR) ΔΠ N ~ = θ Ri Π ∑ i i=1 ΔΠ N ~ ΔΠ N ~ ~ N ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ E = θ E Ri ; σ = θ θ Cov Ri , R j = θ θ σ σ ρ ⎜ Π ⎟ ∑ i ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ Π ⎟ ∑ i j ⎜ ⎟ ∑ i j i j ij ⎝ ⎠ i=1 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ij=1 ⎝ ⎠ ij=1 Sharpe Ratio ⎛ ΔΠ ⎞ N ⎛ ~ ⎞ E θ E R ⎜ Π ⎟ ∑ i ⎜ i ⎟ s = s()θ ,...,θ = ⎝ ⎠ = i=1 ⎝ ⎠ 1 N ⎛ ΔΠ ⎞ N σ ⎜ ⎟ θ θ σ σ ρ Π ∑ i j i j ij ⎝ ⎠ i=1 Sharpe ratio is homogeneous of degree zero in the portfolio weights.
  • Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds

    Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds

    Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds July 2013 Citi Prime Finance Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds I. Introduction 5 II. Overview of Alternative Open-End Mutual Funds 6 Single-Manager Mutual Funds 6 Multi-Alternative Mutual Funds 8 Managed Futures Mutual Funds 9 III. Overview of Alternative Closed-End Funds 11 Alternative Exchange-Traded Funds 11 Continuously Offered Interval or Tender Offer Funds 12 Business Development Companies 13 Unit Investment Trusts 14 IV. Requirements for 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds 15 Registration and Regulatory Filings 15 Key Service Providers 16 V. Marketing and Distributing 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds 17 Mutual Fund Share Classes 17 Distribution Channels 19 Marketing Strategy 20 Conclusion 22 Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds | 3 Section I: Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds This document is an introduction to ’40 Act funds for hedge fund managers exploring the possibilities available within the publically offered funds market in the United States. The document is not a comprehensive manual for the public funds market; instead, it is a primer for the purpose of introducing the different fund products and some of their high-level requirements. This document does not seek to provide any legal advice. We do not intend to provide any opinion in this document that could be considered legal advice by our team. We would advise all firms looking at these products to engage with a qualified law firm or outside general counsel to review the detailed implications of moving into the public markets and engaging with United States regulators of those markets.
  • Minutes of the Meeting Held on August 6, 2020 Present: Francis Murphy

    Minutes of the Meeting Held on August 6, 2020 Present: Francis Murphy

    Minutes of the meeting held on August 6, 2020 Present: Francis Murphy – Chairman, James Monagle, Michael Gardner, Nadia Chamblin- Foster, John Shinkwin, David Kale, Ellen Philbin, Rafik Ghazarian and Chris Burns. The meeting was called to order at 11:05 AM. The meeting was digitally recorded. Agenda Item #1 – Segal Marco Advisors Ghazarian reviewed Segal Marco’s written analysis of investment performance for the period ending June 30, 2020. Markets bounced back strongly following the losses in the early part of the year, but still remain negative on a year-to-date basis. Ghazarian reviewed the system’s current asset allocation. The system funded the investment with the Pinebridge bank loans fund in July. The system is slightly short of the target allocation in real estate. The hedge fund allocation was cut and is now targeted to 5% of the portfolio. Overall, the total fund was valued at $1.322 billion, representing a gain of 9.94% during the quarter. The fund underperformed with the policy index return of 13.99%. Ghazarian stated that part of this underperformance was attributable to the underperformance of value stocks. Another issue was the drop in the price of Cambridge Bancorp stock, which dragged down the entire equity sleeve. Lazard has also continued to underperform. The hedge fund sleeve also saw poor performance, returning 1.25% in the last quarter, vs. the benchmark at 7.25%. Ghazarain stated that a number of his clients had asked about “recovery funds” which have advertised returns of 15-20%. He noted that some similar funds had very strong performance after the 2008 financial crisis.
  • CFTC Proposes Rules Governing Automated Trading

    CFTC Proposes Rules Governing Automated Trading

    CLIENT MEMORANDUM CFTC Proposes Rules Governing Automated Trading December 22, 2015 AUTHORS Rita M. Molesworth | Deborah A. Tuchman | James E. Lippert The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed broad new regulations governing automated and algorithmic trading.1 The proposed regulations focus on automation of order origination, transmission and execution, and the risks that may arise from that activity. As proposed, Regulation AT would require, among other things, the implementation of pre-trade risk controls at multiple stages along the life-cycle of a trade. Regulation AT would apply to current CFTC registrants that engage in algorithmic trading and potentially also require some currently unregistered entities to register with the CFTC as floor traders if they have direct electronic access to a designated contract market (“DCM”). Regulation AT would also require the National Futures Association (“NFA”) to consider adopting additional membership rules relevant to algorithmic trading. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 16, 2016. Key Definitions Regulation AT would add or amend certain definitions to CFTC regulations, most notably: “Algorithmic Trading” would generally be defined as trading in any commodity interest on or subject to the rules of a DCM, where (i) one or more computer algorithms or systems determine whether to initiate, modify or cancel an 1 Regulation Automated Trading, 80 Fed. Reg. 78824 (Dec. 17, 2015) (“Regulation AT”). 1 CFTC Proposes Rules Governing Automated Trading Continued order, or make certain other determinations with respect to an order, and (ii) such order, modification or order cancellation is electronically submitted for processing on or subject to the rules of a DCM.
  • 34-55547; File No

    34-55547; File No

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (Release No. 34-55547; File No. SR-Amex-2006-110) March 28, 2007 Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options Based on Commodity Pool ETFs I. Introduction On November 24, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposal to amend certain rules to permit the listing and trading of options on securities issued by trust issued receipts (“Commodity TIRs”), partnership units, and other entities (referred herein to as “Commodity Pool ETFs”) that hold or invest in commodity futures products. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 6, 2007.3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enable the listing and trading on the Exchange of options on interests in Commodity Pool ETFs that trade directly or indirectly commodity futures products. As a result, Commodity Pool ETFs are subject to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) due to their status as a commodity pool,4 and therefore, regulated by the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55187 (January 29, 2007), 72 FR 5467. 4 A “commodity pool” is defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(1) as any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests.
  • Regulation Automated Trading: Cftc Source Code Turnover Provision Is Unnecessary and Dangerous to U.S

    Regulation Automated Trading: Cftc Source Code Turnover Provision Is Unnecessary and Dangerous to U.S

    REGULATION AUTOMATED TRADING: CFTC SOURCE CODE TURNOVER PROVISION IS UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS TO U.S. MARKETS Thomas Laser* Abstract Over the past several decades, the financial markets have experienced a technological revolution in how securities and other financial instruments are traded. Where these contracts and assets were once traded on the floors of various registered brick and mortar exchanges across the globe, they are now primarily traded via online platforms. While allowing greater efficiency and transparency in the markets, this shift has also spawned the practice of high-frequency algorithmic trading. This process uses highly sophisticated computers and complex algorithms to trade securities and derivative products faster than the human eye can blink. Although many argue that high-frequency algorithmic trading accounts for a great deal of liquidity in our markets and creates transparency with regard to prices, many feel that the nature of the practice creates the potential for extreme instability in the markets as well. Such instability has been exhibited periodically through occurrences known as “flash crashes.” In response to these events, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has drafted legislation, known as Regulation Automated Trading, aimed at controlling the extent to which algorithmic trading can disrupt the marketplace. However, several of the provisions have come under a great deal of scrutiny. In particular, one provision provides that those engaging in high-frequency algorithmic trading make their source code (the algorithmic code which drives their business) available to regulatory agencies at any time. This Article analyzes the costs and benefits of high-frequency algorithmic trading, and how Regulation Automated Trading oversteps its bounds in trying to regulate the industry.
  • CFTC Proposes Rulemaking Regarding Automated Trading

    CFTC Proposes Rulemaking Regarding Automated Trading

    December 2, 2015 CFTC Proposes Rulemaking Regarding Automated Trading CFTC Proposes Regulation AT to Impose Registration, Pre-Trade Risk Control and System Safeguard Requirements for Automated Trading Firms and Related Obligations for Clearing Members and Exchanges INTRODUCTION On November 24, 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC” or “Commission”) voted unanimously to issue proposed rules to implement a framework of registration, compliance, recordkeeping and reporting rules for market participants engaging in algorithmic (or automated) trading activity. The proposal would also impose algorithmic trading compliance and oversight obligations on clearing member futures commission merchants (“clearing member FCMs”) and designated contract markets (“DCMs” or “exchanges”) and would impose a range of new requirements on DCMs. The proposed algorithmic trading rules (collectively, proposed “Regulation AT”), which would largely codify a range of existing industry best practices, follows the CFTC’s September 2013 Concept Release on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for Automated Trading Environments, in which the Commission originally solicited public comments on how best to address the transition to an automated and interconnected trading environment. Regulation AT includes proposed definitions for several previously undefined terms, notably including algorithmic trading, an AT Person (as used herein, “AT Person”), and direct electronic access (or “DEA”). The proposal does not define high-frequency trading, and instead is designed to apply to all algorithmic or automated trading, regardless of the speed of trading. Regulation AT would also require firms that are not otherwise registered with the CFTC in some other capacity, and that trade via DEA, to register with the CFTC as floor traders. New York Washington, D.C.
  • Fifty Leading Women in Hedge Funds 2020

    Fifty Leading Women in Hedge Funds 2020

    Fifty Leading Women in Hedge Funds 2020 I N A S S O C I A T I O N W I T H 50 LEADING WOMEN IN HEDGE FUNDS 2020 50 LEADING WOMEN IN HEDGE FUNDS 2020 Introduction HAMLIN LOVELL, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE HEDGE FUND JOURNAL his is the eighth edition of our managers of all time – according to LCF Edmond 50 Leading Women in Hedge de Rothschild analysis – namely Bridgewater Funds report and is published Associates and Lone Pine. The two Lone Pine in association with EY for the women in this year’s report are two of the three seventh time. Whilst Covid-19 portfolio managers who succeeded Lone Pine’s has denied us the opportunity founder Steve Mandel. Three of the report’s to host accompanying events discretionary equity portfolio managers specialize in London and New York, at in the healthcare and biotechnology sector, which least this year, the professional achievements has attracted more attention this year for obvious Tof the women featured in this year’s report reasons. Four of the investment professionals shine through, nonetheless. We are so pleased work for systematic and quantitative hedge fund An analysis of the S&P to be publishing this report just a few days after managers, which is notable given the general Kamala Harris made history by becoming the dearth of women in STEM. Another noteworthy first female, first black and first Asian-American cluster is three women managing multi-billion Composite 1500 found US Vice-President-elect. s the leading global evidence is clear. Having more amounts in liquid credit strategies.
  • The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No

    The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No

    Please cite this paper as: Irwin, S. and D. Sanders (2010-06-01), “The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmd40wl1t5f-en OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 27 The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets PRELIMINARY RESULTS Scott H. Irwin Dwight R. Sanders TAD/CA/APM/WP(2010)8/FINAL Executive Summary The report was prepared for the OECD by Professors Scott Irwin and Dwight Sanders. It represents a preliminary study which aims to clarify the role of index and swap funds in agricultural and energy commodity futures markets. The full report including the econometric analysis is available in the Annex to this report. While the increased participation of index fund investments in commodity markets represents a significant structural change, this has not generated increased price volatility, implied or realised, in agricultural futures markets. Based on new data and empirical analysis, the study finds that index funds did not cause a bubble in commodity futures prices. There is no statistically significant relationship indicating that changes in index and swap fund positions have increased market volatility. The evidence presented here is strongest for the agricultural futures markets because the data on index trader positions are measured with reasonable accuracy. The evidence is not as strong in the two energy markets studied here because of considerable uncertainty about the degree to which the available data actually reflect index trader positions in these markets.
  • Dr Tom Howat Spent Seven Years at Trinity College, Cambridge, Studying Applied Mathematics, and Graduating with a Phd in Mathematical Biology in 2006

    Dr Tom Howat Spent Seven Years at Trinity College, Cambridge, Studying Applied Mathematics, and Graduating with a Phd in Mathematical Biology in 2006

    The RingTHE JOURNAL OF THE CAMBRIDGE COMPUTER LAB RING Issue XXXII — January 2013 — £20 The Cambridge Phenomenon 5 Ring news 2 64 4 Letter from the Editor Kick-starting Chip Design The Raspberry Pi Effect Who’s who 3 Valobox 64 6 Making it easier and cheaper to Hall of fame news 9 access paid content through the Web Skin Analytics 8 A mobile health app to give you peace of mind Tom Howat 11 Graduate Story www.camring.ucam.org 2 Ring news Letter from the Editor Events calendar As many of you probably know the In contrast with his fellow economics gradu- Computer Laboratory’s graduate association, ates, Julian Hall eschewed the traditional 2013 Cambridge Computer Lab Ring, is open not path to the City and instead took up an only to all graduates and present and former industrial placement at IBM. His time with February staff of the Computer Laboratory, but also a successful start-up in Auckland taught him Cambridge graduates from other disciplines “how malleable software technology can Wednesday 6th, 6.30pm working in computing careers. be” and he set his sights on staying in the London Ringlet Bar industry. Julian has recently co–founded a Venue to be confirmed While many in industry throughout the company in Cambridge (page 8). April land and far beyond bemoan the lack of computer science graduates, the relentless While Tom Howat’s move into technology Thursday 4th, 6.30pm growth of new technologies has served to is perhaps more traditional (he does come London Ringlet Bar attract a diverse cadre of the most capable from the STEM fields having spent seven Venue to be confirmed graduates from other disciplines.