Comment Text:
Christopher Kirkpatrick
Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street NW
Washington, DC 20581
-17 CFR Part 4
- RIN Number 3038-AE98
- Amendments to Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators on Form CPO-PQR
June 15, 2020
Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick,
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on an area that is fairly new to me in my career. My work duties at a financial investment firm have recently included some work related to CFTC. Thus, I wanted to comment.
C. Addition of LEIs
7. In order to further the analysis of Revised Form CPO-PQR across other existing Commission data sets, the Commission is proposing to require the inclusion of LEIs in Revised Form CPO-PQR, to the extent that the CPO or its operated pools otherwise already have LEIs. The inclusion of LEIs would also make this portion of Form CPO-PQR data more accessible for analysis consistent with these other data sets. Should the Commission include LEIs on Revised Form CPO-PQR? Why or why not?
LEIs are very easy to order and have a minimal cost. LEIs only have to be renewed yearly. LEIs are great identifiers for legal entities, especially when entity names are similar. The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is very common. Thus, there should not be a burden with including it on the form.
1. CPOs that are jointly regulated by the Commission and the SEC are required to file Form PF with respect to private funds; many commodity pools are private funds within the meaning of Form PF. One of the Commission's initial rationales for adopting Form CPO-PQR was to encourage more congruent and consistent regulation of similarly situated entities among Federal financial regulatory agencies, particularly with respect to dually registered CPOs required to file Form PF. If Revised Form CPO-PQR is adopted as proposed, Form PF and Form CPO-PQR would become less aligned, meaning that dually registered CPOs would have reporting obligations that are noticeably different from those CPOs only subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Would such a relative lack of regulatory congruence negatively impact CPOs? Should the Commission instead rescind Form CPO-PQR in its entirety and require all CPOs to file all or part of Form PF with NFA? Why or why not?
Yes, the Commission should streamline current Form CPO-PQR. This will mitigate undue burdens for market participants required to file Form CPO-PQR or National Futures Association (“NFA”) Form PQR. This will also increase the overall regulatory integrity of the data.
Talece Y Hunter
[email protected]
917-541-0293
