Tagged: FSA

*UK* 2014 FCA UNAUTHORIZED BROKER AND FIRM LIST

This list was obtained from the official FCA website. 

Resource link: http://www.fca.org.uk/news/list?ttypes=warning&yyear=&ssearch=

Considering  this::  No of results your search returned: 3063    Total Pages: 613  It will take too long to copy all of them on to here! Please use the link above to access the page on the FSA site I copied them from. On that page you will be able to click on each name to view more information.

Below are the first 8 pages which covers from August 28, 2014- today, September 23 2014

__________________________________________________________

SEPTEMBER 2014

Loan Machine Limited (clone)

Published: Today   Last Modified : Today


InvestPoint (UK) Ltd

Published: Today   Last Modified : Today


RT Owens & Associates LLC

Published: Today   Last Modified : Today


WB Global Strategic Asset Management

Published: 19/09/2014   Last Modified : 19/09/2014


Martin Kessler (clone)

Published: 18/09/2014   Last Modified : 18/09/2014


Brooke Point Limited/ Broke Point Limited

Published: 17/09/2014   Last Modified : Yesterday


Hirsche Private Asset Management Ltd

Published: 17/09/2014   Last Modified : 17/09/2014


Watts Corporate Services LLC

Published: 17/09/2014   Last Modified : 17/09/2014


Kames Capital in association with Dean Foster Associates (clone)

Published: 17/09/2014   Last Modified : 17/09/2014


Capital Gearing Portfolio Fund (Clone)

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 17/09/2014


Griffin Advisors Limited

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 16/09/2014


Cenkos Global Securities (clone)

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 16/09/2014


Hudson Coe & Associates LLC

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 16/09/2014


Commodities Link

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 16/09/2014


Belfius Commercial Finance Limited (clone)

Published: 16/09/2014   Last Modified : 16/09/2014


GE Shaw Management Group

Published: 15/09/2014   Last Modified : 15/09/2014


DuPont Financial / DuPont FX / DP Global Services Ltd (clone)

Published: 15/09/2014   Last Modified : 15/09/2014


China Merchant Securities Limited (clone)

Published: 12/09/2014   Last Modified : 12/09/2014


The Right Loan 4 U (clone)

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Redbrook Motor Company

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Drummonds Initiatives

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


LEM Spreads / LE Management Ltd

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


GBL Financial Services Ltd (clone)

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Cash Direct UK

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Smith and Stanley Corporate Consultants

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Brookmore Partners/ Brookemore Partners/ Brookmoore Partners/ Brookmore Associates

Published: 11/09/2014   Last Modified : 11/09/2014


Jacob Johnson Consultancy

Published: 10/09/2014   Last Modified : 10/09/2014


Williamson Advisors Ltd

Published: 10/09/2014   Last Modified : 10/09/2014


Bauer and Associates / Bauer Consultants

Published: 10/09/2014   Last Modified : 10/09/2014


Carrington Group LLC

Published: 09/09/2014   Last Modified : 09/09/2014


Jacobs Buchanan Investment Advisors / Jacobs Buchanan Partnership

Published: 08/09/2014   Last Modified : 08/09/2014


PlusFN Ltd / +FN / Equity Sky Capital Marketing Limited

Published: 08/09/2014   Last Modified : 08/09/2014


Fredric & Formby / Fredric and Formby / Fredericks Ltd (clone)

Published: 06/09/2014   Last Modified : 06/09/2014


BAM Capital / BAM Forex (clone)

Published: 05/09/2014   Last Modified : 05/09/2014


Springer Asset Management

Published: 05/09/2014   Last Modified : 05/09/2014

Quick Finance

Published: 05/09/2014   Last Modified : 05/09/2014


Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc (Clone)

Published: 02/09/2014   Last Modified : 02/09/2014


Marcus KPO Services LLC

Published: 01/09/2014   Last Modified : 01/09/2014


City Equities Ltd (Clone)

Published: 29/08/2014   Last Modified : 30/08/2014


Goldman Shaks (PVT) Ltd

Published: 28/08/2014   Last Modified : 28/08/2014


to view earlier months please click here and start on page 9: http://www.fca.org.uk/news/list?ttypes=warning&yyear=&ssearch=



FCA UNAUTHORIZED brokers added to list Aug 2013-Jan 2014

Jarvis Cohen Associates

Published: 10/01/2014   Last Modified : 10/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


dgfinancialservicesltd@gmail.com (clone)

Published: 10/01/2014   Last Modified : 10/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


LBV Asset Management, LBV (clone firm)

Published: 09/01/2014   Last Modified : 09/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Gold Asset Associates

Published: 03/01/2014   Last Modified : 03/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


http://www.d2fsl.com / www2.d2financialservicesltd.com (clone firm)

Published: 02/01/2014   Last Modified : 09/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


http://www.svsfx.com.cn (clone firm)

Published: 02/01/2014   Last Modified : 09/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Protected Today

Published: 31/12/2013   Last Modified : 31/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Fast Line Legal Services

Published: 17/12/2013   Last Modified : 17/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Leighton Corporate Services LLC

Published: 12/12/2013   Last Modified : 12/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Amber Asset Management (clone firm)

Published: 11/12/2013   Last Modified : 09/01/2014 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


McQueen and Bond

Published: 09/12/2013   Last Modified : 09/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


GE Wealth Management (clone firm)

Published: 05/12/2013   Last Modified : 05/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Westberg Equity Research Corp (WERC)

Published: 05/12/2013   Last Modified : 05/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Firkin Asset Consultants

Published: 04/12/2013   Last Modified : 04/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


KSI / Karamanof (clone firm)

Published: 04/12/2013   Last Modified : 04/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


First Trade Europe (clone firm)

Published: 03/12/2013   Last Modified : 03/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Jupiter P Morgan

Published: 03/12/2013   Last Modified : 03/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Emmett Ashford Group

Published: 02/12/2013   Last Modified : 02/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Next Financial Network

Published: 28/11/2013   Last Modified : 28/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


DeVere Group UK (clone firm)

Published: 27/11/2013   Last Modified : 09/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Estlander & Ronnlund Capital Management (clone firm)

Published: 25/11/2013   Last Modified : 26/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Curtis ISA

Published: 21/11/2013   Last Modified : 21/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Edge Capital Markets

Published: 21/11/2013   Last Modified : 21/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


NCP Financials (clone firm)

Published: 21/11/2013   Last Modified : 02/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Ava Capital Markets (clone firm)

Published: 21/11/2013   Last Modified : 02/12/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


First Capital Wealth Limited

Published: 20/11/2013   Last Modified : 20/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Hometrader Group PLC

Published: 20/11/2013   Last Modified : 20/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Dominic Nardone (trading as Trading Knowledge Limited)

Published: 18/11/2013   Last Modified : 18/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Primex – UTIP Trader

Published: 15/11/2013   Last Modified : 15/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


http://www.kingsleyadvice.com (clone firm)

Published: 12/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Cristian Pauna

Published: 12/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms and individuals.


Paul Atwal

Published: 12/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms and individuals.


Fairtrade Wealth Management

Published: 12/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Peter Bradshaw (clone of FCA Approved Person)

Published: 12/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms and individuals.


Board of International Finance

Published: 11/11/2013   Last Modified : 11/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Strategic Private Equity LLC

Published: 08/11/2013   Last Modified : 12/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Stonehill Securities

Published: 08/11/2013   Last Modified : 08/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


eKash UK Ltd

Published: 08/11/2013   Last Modified : 08/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


British Greatfount Capital / GF Capital

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Nationwide Property Buyers Limited

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


GF Capital / British Greatfount Capital (UK)

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Global Corporate Partners

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Tolland & Boch Limited

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Wellz Zable Limited

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Vincent Clare Limited

Published: 07/11/2013   Last Modified : 14/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Skandia Invest (clone firm)

Published: 06/11/2013   Last Modified : 06/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


First Asset Management Ltd

Published: 06/11/2013   Last Modified : 06/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Protect Life Insurance

Published: 05/11/2013   Last Modified : 05/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Pan American Global Partners

Published: 31/10/2013   Last Modified : 31/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


http://www.sgcbuk.com (Misusing the name of FCA EEA authorised firm)

Published: 30/10/2013   Last Modified : 30/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Protec Advisors

Published: 30/10/2013   Last Modified : 30/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Protec Gold Advisors

Published: 30/10/2013   Last Modified : 30/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Swiss Investor Club AG

Published: 28/10/2013   Last Modified : 28/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Hobart Roth LLC

Published: 28/10/2013   Last Modified : 28/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


http://www.citibankinguk.co.uk (Misusing the name of FCA authorised firms)

Published: 25/10/2013   Last Modified : 25/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Cayenne Trust Investment Plc (clone firm)

Published: 24/10/2013   Last Modified : 24/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Ellis Harper & Co LLC

Published: 23/10/2013   Last Modified : 23/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Pictet Private Wealth Management (clone firm)

Published: 23/10/2013   Last Modified : 07/11/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Hanover Group

Published: 22/10/2013   Last Modified : 31/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Martin Donnelly

Published: 22/10/2013   Last Modified : 22/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Harold and Bauman

Published: 22/10/2013   Last Modified : 22/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Brewer Consulting Group

Published: 22/10/2013   Last Modified : 22/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Steinberg Management

Published: 18/10/2013   Last Modified : 18/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Specialist Investor Funds

Published: 18/10/2013   Last Modified : 18/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


ForexTrada

Published: 18/10/2013   Last Modified : 18/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Quinn & Voakes Capital

Published: 17/10/2013   Last Modified : 25/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Glover Capital Group

Published: 17/10/2013   Last Modified : 17/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Hoden International Clearing

Published: 17/10/2013   Last Modified : 17/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


SKJ Capital Partners (clone firm)

Published: 16/10/2013   Last Modified : 16/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Whitney Cooper Associates

Published: 11/10/2013   Last Modified : 17/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


William Wright (clone individual)

Published: 10/10/2013   Last Modified : 10/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Property Cash Buyers

Published: 10/10/2013   Last Modified : 10/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Rowe Corporate Services

Published: 08/10/2013   Last Modified : 08/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Northern Capital Consultants

Published: 07/10/2013   Last Modified : 07/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


D G Financial Service Partner (clone firm)

Published: 07/10/2013   Last Modified : 07/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Bloomfield Advisory

Published: 03/10/2013   Last Modified : 03/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Qualtrum Adviser LLC

Published: 03/10/2013   Last Modified : 03/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Smith Securities Limited

Published: 02/10/2013   Last Modified : 03/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


One Option Finance Ltd (Clone of FCA authorised firm)

Published: 02/10/2013   Last Modified : 03/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Pacific First Securities

Published: 02/10/2013   Last Modified : 02/10/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


Project Finance Bank

Published: 27/09/2013   Last Modified : 27/09/2013 We have published this statement in order to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.


 

Yokohama Mercantile Exchange (YKMEX) SCAM WARNING!! listed as FICTITIOUS on FSA website. FAKE EXCHANGE.

ictit      copied from the FSA website

r          Resource link:  http://www.fsa.go.jp/en/refer/cold/

                   Yokohama Commodity Exchange is real

                 Yokohama Mercantile Exchange is not

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

List of non-registered or non-authorized entities with the FSA

Below is the list of non-registered or non-authorized entities with the FSA, based on information received from investors. Investors should be aware that the solicitations of investment by these listed entities have a possibility of cold calling. Please be reminded that other suspected cold callers may exist and additional entities may be listed. Please also be advised that there have been cases where different companies were located in addresses indicated in the list below. The fact that the address is put in the list below does not mean that such companies have any connection to the listed entities.

partial list_________________________________________________________

             fictitious  regulators and securities/financial exchanges)

(7)Yokohama Mercantile Exchange (YKMEX)
Naka-ku Tower Nogecho 3-13-7 Yokohama Kanagawa Prefecture,231-0064 Japan
http://www.ykmex.orgopen new window

8/19/2013 FCA UNAUTHORIZED FIRMS ADDED AUGUST 1-19, 2013: MKR Global, Accer, Eclipse Options(clone) and more

copied from the FCA website

resource link:  http://www.fca.org.uk/news/list?ttypes=warning&yyear=&ssearch=

the names were duplicated several times in their list- pardon if I missed deleting all the duplicates!

_____________________________________________________________

Shawz Online Brook (Clone of FCA Authorised Firm)

Published: 16/08/2013


MKR Global Services LLC

Published: 15/08/2013


Accer Mergers & Acquisitions

Published: 15/08/2013



Pensions-UK 123 Ltd

Published: 13/08/2013




CV Global Corp LLC

Published: 09/08/2013



Cramer Private Group

Published: 07/08/2013


Lexington International Group Inc

Published: 07/08/2013


Managed Savings Company Limited

Published: 07/08/2013


AJAJ Group

Published: 07/08/2013


RSI Bank Plc

Published: 05/08/2013



The Pension Help Desk Limited

Published: 02/08/2013


KKR (Clone of FCA Authorised Firm)

Published: 02/08/2013


Braun and Brandt Consulting Firm

Published: 01/08/2013


Solstrand Limited

Published: 31/07/2013


Release My Pension

Published: 31/07/2013


July 11, 2013 The European Commission and the CFTC reach a Common Path Forward on cross-border Derivatives

copied from the cftc website

resource link     http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6640-13

_____________________________________________________________________

July 11, 2013

The European Commission and the CFTC reach a Common Path Forward on Derivatives

Washington, DC – European Commissioner Michel Barnier and United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Gary Gensler today announced a Path Forward regarding their joint understandings on a package of measures for how to approach cross-border derivatives.

Commissioner Barnier said that “our discussions have been long and sometimes difficult, but they have always been close, continuous and collaborative talks between partners and friends.”

Chairman Gensler said, “With these joint understandings, together, we’ve taken another significant step in our mutual journey to bring transparency and lower risk to the swaps market worldwide.  I want to thank Commissioner Barnier and all his colleagues for their constructive collaboration throughout this reform process.”

The Path Forward responds to the G20 commitment to lower risk and promote transparency in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets, which were are at the heart of the financial crisis. The CFTC and the European Commission share a common objective of a steadfast and rigorous implementation of these commitments. Together with the European Securities Market Authority (ESMA), the European Commission (EC) and the United States have made significant progress in their regulatory reforms. Close legislative and regulatory co-ordination and co-operation between the European Commission (EC) and the CFTC has ensured that the rules in place pursue the same objectives and generate the same outcomes.  As a result of the joint collaborative effort, in many places, final rules are essentially identical, even though the regulatory calendars are not always synchronized.

As the market subject to these regulations is international, it is acknowledged that, notwithstanding the high degree of similarity that already exists between the respective requirements, without coordination, subjecting the global market to the simultaneous application of each other’s requirements could lead to conflicts of law, inconsistencies, and legal uncertainty. The CFTC and the EC, with ESMA, have worked closely and collaboratively to implement their rules and regulations to avoid this to the greatest extent possible and consistent with international legal principles. The CFTC and the European Commission share the view that jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes.

For bilateral uncleared swaps, and because EU and US rules for risk mitigation are essentially identical, the CFTC plans to issue no-action relief for certain transaction-based requirements.  In this regard, the EU’s system of ‘equivalence’ can be applied to allow market participants to determine their own choice of rules.

For the trading-execution requirement, the CFTC plans to permit foreign boards of trade that have received direct access no-action relief to also list swap contracts for trading by direct access to avoid market and liquidity disruption.

As the markets and regulatory regimes continue to evolve, and in order to ensure a level playing field, promote participation in transparent markets, and promote market efficiency, the CFTC will extend appropriate time-limited transitional relief to certain EU-regulated multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), in the event that the CFTC’s trade execution requirement is triggered before March 15, 2014.  Such relief would be available for MTFs that have multilateral trading schemes, a sufficient level of pre- and post-trade price transparency, non-discriminatory access by market participants, and an appropriate level of oversight.  The CFTC staff will issue no-action letters to this effect. In addition, the CFTC will consult with the EC in giving consideration to extending regulatory relief to trading platforms that are subject to requirements that achieve regulatory outcomes that are comparable to those achieved by the requirements for SEFs.  Both parties will in January 2014 assess progress.

The EC, ESMA, and the CFTC will continue to work together on similar approaches to straight-through-processing and harmonized international rules on margins for uncleared swaps and have essentially identical processes with regard to adopting mandatory clearing obligations and regulating intra-group swaps/derivatives trades. They also share common goals of ensuring that the overseas guaranteed subsidiaries and branches of US and EU persons are not allowed to operate outside of important G20 reforms.

Their approaches for reporting to trade repositories are also very similar and the EC, ESMA and the CFTC will continue to work with each other to resolve remaining issues, such as consistent data fields, access to data, and other issues related to privacy, blocking, and secrecy laws.  They will seek to resolve any material issues that may arise in line with the conclusions that may be drawn from discussions in international forums on this subject.

With respect to central counterparties (CCPs), CFTC rules and EMIR are both based on international minimum standards.  CCP initial margin coverage is the only key material difference and the parties will work together to reduce any regulatory arbitrage opportunities.  They will also endeavour to ensure that CCPs that have not yet been recognised or registered in the US or the EU will be permitted to continue their business operations.

Both sides aim to conclude these discussions as soon as possible, at which stage the substance of relevant relief awarded by the CFTC will be reflected in its guidance relating to substituted compliance, as approved by its principals, while the EU equivalence decisions will have been in place, and where necessary, amended to reflect this partnership. For the future, they have agreed to continue to work collaboratively and to consider any unforeseen implementation effects that might arise in the application of their respective rules.

The EU and the US are leading by example and invite others countries to join this approach to make sure that the G20 commitments will be applied in a sensible and rigorous way to cross-border derivatives trades.

Cross-Border Regulation of Swaps/Derivatives
Discussions between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Union – A Path Forward

July 11, 2013

Our common efforts and joint work

In response to the financial crisis, the G-20 nations agreed on a common goal: to protect the public at large from the financial risks that led to bailouts and economic recession. We agreed to lower risk and promote transparency in a market that is truly global by agreeing to report all over-the-counter derivatives to trade repositories, to centrally clear standardized OTC derivatives and, where appropriate, require trading on transparent and multilateral venues.

The United States (US) and the European Union (EU) share a common objective of an ambitious and rigorous implementation of these G-20 commitments.

The US and the EU have made significant progress in their regulatory reforms.

Close legislative and regulatory co-ordination and co-operation between the European Commission (EC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has ensured that the rules in place pursue the same objectives and generate the same outcomes.

Both regimes will have strict legal requirements in place governing central clearing, trade reporting, and trade execution.  The CFTC is in the process of implementing such regulations and the EC has adopted the regulations giving effect to these requirements.

Pursuant to our respective legislative frameworks and mandates, certain EU rules are stricter in some areas and certain US rules are stricter in others.  The calendar of compliance dates is not always synchronized due to differences in our legislative and rulemaking processes, but that does not change our common goal or our common approach.

As a result of this joint collaborative effort, in many places certain final rules are already essentially identical.

We also fully recognize that the market subject to this regulation is international. The majority of the global swaps and derivatives business is conducted within or between the EU and the US.  A significant amount of transactions take place between counterparties in different jurisdictions (‘cross-border’). The US and the EU both have legitimate interests and concerns about an appropriate regulation of this activity and both could seek legal jurisdiction over the transactions and market participants, and both could subject them to their requirements.

Recognizing the high degree of similarity that already exists between our respective requirements, we seek to address conflicts of law, inconsistencies, and legal uncertainty that may arise from the simultaneous application of EU and US requirements.  Thus, the CFTC, the EC, and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) have worked closely and collaboratively to fully understand each other’s concerns and regulatory approaches.  We have agreed to implement our rules and regulations in a manner that will address conflicts, inconsistencies, and uncertainty to the greatest extent possible and consistent with international legal principles.

As swap market/derivatives participants come into compliance with new regulatory regimes around the globe, a close working relationship between the US and EU with regard to cross-border swaps regulation is mutually beneficial.  By coordinating our efforts, we are providing a model for other regulators and jurisdictions working to implement their G-20 commitments.

To whom we intend to apply our rules

Where a definition has to be given of market participants or infrastructure subject to US or EU jurisdiction, as a matter of principle, it will be construed on a territorial basis, to the extent appropriate.  When foreign entities not affiliated with or guaranteed by US persons are required to register, transaction-level requirements will apply to transactions with US persons and guaranteed affiliates.  For example, EU registered dealers who are neither affiliated with, nor guaranteed by, US persons, would be generally subject only to US transactional rules for their transactions with US persons or US guaranteed affiliates.  Additionally, for market participants that are subject to the requirements of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act or EMIR, the CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight plans to issue a no-action letter specifying that where a swap/OTC derivative is subject to joint jurisdiction under US and EU risk mitigation rules, compliance under EMIR will achieve compliance with the relevant CFTC rules.

We will not seek to apply our rules (unreasonably) in the other jurisdiction, but will rely on the application and enforcement of the rules by the other jurisdiction.  A possible requirement for certain market participants or infrastructures to register with an authority is acceptable to ensure recourse in the event of a failure to provide satisfactory application or enforcement of rules.

Our regulatory approaches

The EC and the CFTC believe that it is important they should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes.

The CFTC seeks to issue final guidance on the cross-border application of its requirements setting out how its rules apply to cross-border swaps activities.  For requirements that are applicable at the entity level, the CFTC has proposed that substituted compliance will be permitted for the requirements applicable in the EU that are comparable to, and as comprehensive as, those applicable in the US.

EU law foresees a system of equivalence. It is based on a broad outcomes-based assessment of the regulatory framework of a third country.  Once equivalence has been determined, infrastructures and firms from that country can access and provide their services across the 28 Member States of the EU under their home jurisdiction rules.  This is expected to be provided for in the relevant forthcoming decisions that the EC can adopt.

Transparency and trading

The CFTC plans to clarify that where a swap is executed on an anonymous and cleared basis on a registered designated contract market (DCM), swap execution facility (SEF), or foreign board of trade (FBOT) the counterparties will be deemed to have met their transaction-level requirements, including the CFTC’s trade-execution requirement.

To date, an FBOT operating pursuant to a direct access no-action relief letter may permit identified members or other participants located in the US to enter trades directly into the trade matching system of the FBOT only with respect to futures and option contracts.  However, an FBOT registered pursuant to Part 48 of the CFTC’s regulations also can list swap contracts for trading by direct access, subject to certain conditions.  In view of the apparent interest on the part of certain FBOTs operating pursuant to the no-action relief in listing swaps for trading by direct access, the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight plans to amend the no-action letters to permit those FBOTs to list swap contracts, subject to certain conditions.  In the future, registered FBOTs will be permitted to list swap contracts for trading by direct access, subject to the same conditions.

As the markets and regulatory regimes continue to evolve, and in order to ensure a level playing field, promote participation in transparent markets, and promote market efficiency, the CFTC will extend appropriate time-limited transitional relief to certain EU-regulated multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), in the event that the CFTC’s trade execution requirement is triggered before March 15, 2014.  Such relief would be available for MTFs that have multilateral trading schemes, a sufficient level of pre- and post-trade price transparency, non-discriminatory access by market participants, and an appropriate level of oversight.  The CFTC staff will issue no-action letters to this effect. In addition, the CFTC will consult with the EC in giving consideration to extending regulatory relief to trading platforms that are subject to requirements that achieve regulatory outcomes that are comparable to those achieved by the requirements for SEFs.  Both parties will in January 2014 assess progress.

While important EU rules on mandatory trade execution and trading platforms under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Regulation are almost complete, we are working collaboratively to share ideas and ensure harmonization to the maximum extent possible.

We are also working together on similar approaches to straight-through-processing so that market participants and infrastructure in both jurisdictions can benefit from the operational improvements that lower risk to the system.

How we look at risk mitigation rules for uncleared trades

The CFTC and the EU have essentially identical rules in important areas of risk mitigation for the largest counterparty swap market participants. Under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), the EU has adopted risk mitigation rules that are essentially identical to some of the CFTC’s business conduct standards for swap dealers and major swap participants.  In areas such as confirmation, portfolio reconciliation, portfolio compression, valuation, and dispute resolution, our respective regimes are essentially identical.

To achieve that outcome for requirements applicable to transactions, the CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight plans to issue a no-action letter specifying that for market participants that are subject to the requirements of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act or EMIR, the staff will not recommend any enforcement action against certain covered market participants in cases where those participants comply with the relevant requirements under EMIR, which are deemed to be essentially identical to the requirements imposed by the CFTC.  Where a swap/OTC derivative is subject to joint jurisdiction under US and EU risk mitigation rules, compliance under EMIR will achieve compliance with the relevant CFTC rules.

The EC is conducting, with ESMA, an equivalence assessment of the requirements applicable in the US under the jurisdiction of the CFTC. Where the EC finds the requirements to be equivalent it can allow market participants the choice to comply either with EMIR rules or with the equivalent CFTC rules.

We also are working together with other regulators from around the world to harmonize our rules on margin for uncleared swaps.  In the expectation that those internationally agreed rules will be applied and enforced in a substantially identical manner, this can be reflected in an equivalence decision in the EU, and be the subject of substituted compliance by the CFTC.

Approach to Offshore Guaranteed Affiliates, Branches, and Collective Investment Vehicles

We have a shared goal of ensuring that the overseas guaranteed affiliates and branches of US and EU persons are not allowed to operate outside of important G-20 reforms.

From a CFTC perspective, Dodd-Frank cross-border transaction requirements generally cover swaps between non-US swap dealers and US-persons or guaranteed affiliates of US persons, as well as swaps between two guaranteed affiliates that are not swap dealers. Compliance with transaction requirements for these trades could be satisfied through substituted compliance.  Similarly, foreign branches of US swap dealers may be able to comply with CFTC rules through substituted compliance, as long as the foreign branch is bona fide and the swap is actually entered into by that branch.  Lastly, the definition of US person should include offshore hedge funds and collective investment vehicles that are majority-owned by US persons or that have their principal place of business in the United States.

From an EU perspective, it is equally essential that any unmitigated risks posed in the EU by non-EU entities do not escape regulation. EMIR will cover transactions undertaken between non-EU entities where those transactions pose unmitigated risk that would have a direct, substantial, and foreseeable effect in the EU. It will also cover transactions undertaken by non-EU entities where this is necessary to prevent regulatory evasion. ESMA will publicly consult this month on the types of entities and contracts that should be determined as meeting these criteria. In particular, ESMA will consider whether such unmitigated risks may exist in respect of transactions undertaken by non-EU entities that are guaranteed by EU entities or by EU branches of non EU entities. The EC will then adopt draft Regulatory Technical Standards determining which contracts should be covered by EMIR.

How we approach mandatory clearing

We have essentially identical processes with regard to adopting mandatory clearing obligations.  When the EU adopts its first mandatory clearing determination beginning next year, it is likely to cover the same classes of interest rate swaps and credit default swap indices as the CFTC’s determination.  In terms of which market participants are covered by mandatory clearing, we have broadly similar approaches and have agreed to a ‘stricter-rule-applies’ approach to cross-border transactions where exemptions from mandatory clearing would exist in one jurisdiction but not in the other. This will prevent loopholes and any potential for regulatory arbitrage. With regard to intra-group swaps/derivatives, we have broadly similar approaches with regard to mandatory clearing.

The rules applicable to our DCOs/CCPs

With regard to derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and central counterparties (CCPs) that are registered in both the US and the EU, CFTC rules and EMIR are both based on international minimum standards.  We have identified one material difference with regard to our regulatory regimes: initial margin coverage.  We will work together to reduce any prudential concerns or regulatory arbitrage opportunities and to reflect this in our respective decisions on registration and equivalence.

In order to avoid significant market fragmentation and uncertainty around clearing obligations, the EC and the CFTC will endeavour to ensure that those infrastructures will be able to clear swaps/derivatives for their clearing members until registration/recognition has been determined.  The EU can achieve this through the EC’s equivalence decisions and ESMA’s recognition of foreign CCPs, while the CFTC can do this through targeted no-action relief.

Two EU CCPs (LCH.Clearnet Ltd. and ICE Clear Europe) are already registered with the CFTC as DCOs.  Additionally, the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk plans to issue no-action letters to both Eurex Clearing AG and LCH.Clearnet SA  (both of which have pending registration applications with the CFTC) to begin clearing interest rate swaps and/or credit default swap indices for US clearing members.  The CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk also has issued no-action letters to two other foreign-based clearing organizations, permitting them and their clearing members to clear, subject to specified conditions, certain swaps that must be cleared by a registered or exempt DCO.  In each case, the time-limited no-action relief expires upon the earlier of December 31, 2013, or the DCO becoming registered with the CFTC.  The CFTC will continue to consider granting no-action relief in similar circumstances where a clearing organization seeks to register as a DCO and has not yet completed the registration process.

Reporting of trades to our trade repositories

For reporting trades to trade repositories, we have determined that our approaches are very similar and we will continue to work with each other to resolve remaining issues, such as consistent data fields, access to data, and other issues related to privacy, blocking, and secrecy laws.  We will seek to resolve any material issues that may arise in line with the conclusions that may be drawn from discussions in international forums on this subject.

Future collaborative efforts

The EC, ESMA, and the CFTC believe it is important that jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other where this is justified by the respective quality and enforcement of regulations.

Both sides aim to conclude these discussions as soon as possible, at which stage the substance of relevant relief as described herein will be reflected by the CFTC in its guidance relating to substituted compliance, as approved by its principals, while the EU equivalence decisions will have been in place, and where necessary, amended to reflect this partnership.

For the future, we have agreed to continue to work collaboratively and to consider any unforeseen implementation effects that might arise in the application of our respective rules.  We will continue discussions with other international partners with a view to establishing a more generalised system that would allow, on the basis of these countries’ implementation of the G-20 commitments, an extension of the treatment the EU and the CFTC will grant to each other.

Brief summary

In response to the financial crisis, the G-20 nations agreed to lower risk and promote transparency in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the European Commission (EC) share a common objective of a steadfast and rigorous implementation of these commitments.

We have both made significant progress in our regulatory reforms and, as a result of our joint collaborative effort in many places, our final rules are essentially identical. Nonetheless, our regulatory calendars are not always synchronized.

As the market subject to this regulation is international, we acknowledge that,   notwithstanding the high degree of similarity that already exists between our respective requirements, without coordination between us, subjecting this global market to the simultaneous application of our requirements could lead to conflicts of law, inconsistencies, and legal uncertainty. The CFTC and the EC have worked closely and collaboratively to implement our rules and regulations to avoid this to the greatest extent possible and consistent with international legal principles.

Jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes.  The CFTC’s approach allows for compliance with entity-based rules through substituted compliance, as well as for transaction-based rules with guaranteed affiliates.  Further, the CFTC plans to clarify that where a swap is executed on an anonymous and cleared basis on a registered designated contract market, swap execution facility, or foreign board of trade the counterparties will be deemed to have met their transaction-level requirements, including the CFTC’s trade-execution requirement.

For bilateral uncleared swaps, because EU and US rules for risk mitigation are essentially identical, CFTC staff plans to issue no-action relief.  In this regard, the EU’s system of ‘equivalence’ can be applied to allow market participants to determine their own choice of rules.

For the trading-execution requirement, the CFTC plans to permit foreign boards of trade that have received direct access no-action relief to also list swap contracts for trading by direct access to avoid market and liquidity disruption.

As the markets and regulatory regimes continue to evolve, and in order to ensure a level playing field, promote participation in transparent markets, and promote market efficiency, the CFTC will extend appropriate time-limited transitional relief to certain EU-regulated multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), in the event that the CFTC’s trade execution requirement is triggered before March 15, 2014.  Such relief would be available for MTFs that have multilateral trading schemes, a sufficient level of pre- and post-trade price transparency, non-discriminatory access by market participants, and an appropriate level of oversight.  The CFTC staff will issue no-action letters to this effect. In addition, the CFTC will consult with the EC in giving consideration to extending regulatory relief to trading platforms that are subject to requirements that achieve regulatory outcomes that are comparable to those achieved by the requirements for SEFs.  Both parties will in January 2014 assess progress.

We continue to work together on similar approaches to straight-through-processing and harmonized international rules on margins for uncleared swaps and have essentially identical processes with regard to adopting mandatory clearing obligations and regulating intra-group swaps/derivatives trades. We also share common goals of ensuring that the overseas guaranteed affiliates and branches of US and EU persons are not allowed to operate outside of important G-20 reforms.

Our approaches for reporting to trade repositories are very similar and we will continue to work with each other to resolve remaining issues, such as consistent data fields, access to data, and other issues related to privacy, blocking, and secrecy laws.  We will seek to resolve any material issues that may arise in line with the conclusions that may be drawn from discussions in international forums on this subject.

With respect to derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and central counterparties (CCPs), CFTC rules and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation are both based on international minimum standards.  CCP initial margin coverage is the only key material difference and we will work together to reduce any regulatory arbitrage opportunities.  We will endeavour to ensure that our DCOs/CCPs that have not yet been recognised or registered will be permitted to continue their business operations.

The EC, the European Securities and Markets Authority, and the CFTC believe it is important that jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other where this is justified by the respective quality and enforcement of regulations.  Both sides aim to conclude these discussions as soon as possible, at which stage the substance of relevant relief as described herein will be reflected by the CFTC in its guidance relating to substituted compliance, as approved by its principals, while the EU equivalence decisions will have been in place, and where necessary, amended to reflect this partnership.

For the future, we have agreed to continue to work collaboratively and to consider any unforeseen implementation effects that might arise in the application of our respective rules.

Last Updated: July 11, 2013

name/description of all FOREX TRADE REGULATORS(groups, associations, agency) FOR all 13 countries that trade.

copied from Global Gain’s website

resource link: http://globegain.com/brokers/forex-regulators

_____________________________________________________

Forex Regulators

Like any financial market Forex currency trading requires proper regulation to avert and eliminate the abuse of investors’ rights. For this purpose each country has its own governmental and independent supervisory bodies which are altogether called ‘Forex regulators’. The most prominent of them are the NFA (the National Futures Associations), the CFTC (the Commodity Futures Trading Committee), the FSA (the Financial Services Authority).

The first and foremost objective of these regulatory bodies is to set and implement the policies for fair and ethical business behaviour of all forex-related institutions within their jurisdiction. In their turn all Forex brokers, IBs and signal sellers have to operate in strict compliance with the rules and standards laid down by the Forex regulators, otherwise their activity is regarded as unlawful. First of all, they must be registered and licensed in the country where their operations are based. This point is really indispensable as approval of the national regulatory institutions implies that the broker must stick to strict quality control standards and ensures that your business with the broker is safe and fair. In accord with this regulation licensed brokers are subject to recurrent audits, reviews and evaluations which force them to maintain the industry standards. Besides, Forex brokers must keep a sufficient amount of funds to be able to execute and complete Forex contracts concluded by their clients and also to return clients’ funds intact in case of bankruptcy.

Not all the brokers nowadays are regulated by appropriate financial regulators in their countries. So it’s of utmost importance to check the broker’s regulatory status before signing an agreement as it will determine the level of security and protection of your investments.

AUSTRALIA

Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)

All the financial markets and firms in Australia as well as organizations and individual self-employed specialists consulting on and dealing with such issues as superannuation, insurance, investment, deposit withdrawals and credit-taking are regulated and controlled by ASIC.

On the one hand, being one of the market regulators, ASIC evaluate the efficiency of these structures performance and their discharge of obligations to act on financial markets properly, fairly, and transparently. Making recommendations to the Minister on the new markets authorization is also in power of ASIC. On 1 August 2010, the oversight of trade carried on domestic licensed equity, derivatives and futures markets was entrusted to ASIC too.

On the other hand, being the financial services regulator, ASIC grant licenses and supervise businesses rendering financial services connected with superannuation and insurance, managed funds and derivatives, shares and firm securities.

CANADA

Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation (CDCC)

Being the Montreal Exchange’s subsidiary companу, CDCC fulfills the function of the principal clearing counterparty in the process of derivative output trading on the exchange. Apart from this function, CDCC performs as a counterparty in an increasing number of the off-exchange trade deals. To guarantee the steadiness and unity to the supported markets is the CDCC’s basic aim.

The exceptional position taken up by CDCC among all the financial markets of Canada is easily explained by the following reasons:

· There’s no other counterparty equal to this unique corporation in options, futures and options on futures clearing and settling in North America.

· 35 years’ experience and practice in exchange-trading.

· According to the average audience rating got from Standard & Poor’s CDCC proves to conduct both reasonable and standard risk assessment policies and a process sequence.

CDCC includes about 30 members, among which both main Canadian brokers and financial institutions are represented.

British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC)

The BCSC is a state-run corporation able to control and govern a dynamic market due to its self-sufficiency and adjustability. Being one of the governmental agencies we report to the Legislature via the minister that bears responsibility for the Securities Act administration. BCSC’s self-financing signifies that not ratepayers but the participants of the market bear the securities regulation cost.

BCSC incurs a liability for the regulation of securities in British Columbia commerce via the Securities Act administration.

Public interest protection and promotion is BCSC main goal which can be achieved only by cultivating the following ideas:

·A fair and transparent securities market that guarantees public certainty and trust

·Creating securities industry characterized by competiveness and dynamics and thus providing vast opportunities for investors with their capitals.

Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)

All the capital markets of Ontario including equities, derivatives markets and fixed income are liable to the regulation by the OSC. Being a self-financed organization, the OSC is at the same time a state-run agency. It means that this commission is responsible vis-a-vis the Legislature of Ontario via the Minister of Finance.

Both the Commodity Futures Act and the Securities Act of the given province are administered and enforced by this regulatory body. The Business Corporations Act, and more exactly some of its provisions, is controlled and regulated by the OSC too.

According to the legislation the OSC’s duties are set out in the following areas: the development and enforcement of rules helping in investment safeguarding; the misconduct discouragement and prevention; the cultivation of fairness and integration at capital markets;  the fosterage of public certainty and trust in the markets.

CYPRUS

Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC)

Widely known as CySEC, The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission corresponds to a regulatory body in the sphere of financial relations in the Republic of Cyprus.

When in 2004 the Republic of Cyprus was included into the number of European Union members, the CySEC became a part of European regulatory system MiFID. Since that time all the companies that have been registered in this Republic have been given access to the markets of Europe.

The CySEC watches that the Cyprian investment firms strictly followed financial instructions according to the legislation and the normative base of Cyprus and European Union. CySEC is a public body which supervises actions and the operations performed at stock exchange.

The incomplete list of obligations CySEC:

– Supervises activity of the licensed investment companies

– Observes activity of brokers and the broker companies

– Gives out current licenses to investment companies

DENMARK

Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Danish FSA)

The Danish FSA’s main mission is to carry out the supervision of various financial ventures such as banks, superannuation funds, mortgage-credit institutions and insurance companies. Solvency supervision is one the basic priorities of this regulatory body. This supervisory activity means that all the financial ventures have to possess their own adequate funds in order to cover all their risks.

So all the Danish securities markets are controlled by this organization. It supervises as well if the given undertakings fulfill their duties and obligations concerning all the relevant information publication (prospectuses, internal knowledge etc.). At last, all the cases of market abuse are also prosecuted by the Danish FSA. Apart from a supervisory activity itself, this regulator performs as a collector of key statistics and as an assistant in financial legislation drawing up.

EUROPEAN UNION

European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Since 1 January 2011 ESMA has been functioning instead of former CESR (the Committee of European Securities Regulators). The latter one, being an independent organization set by European Commission, gave birth to ESMA. Since then ESMA has made its contribution to the protection and support of the EU financial system stability.

Close cooperation with EBA, EIOPA and other organizations connected with the supervision in banking, insurance and pensions assures ESMA to foster harmonization both across financial segments and among securities regulatory bodies. But the main aim of ESMA remains unchangeable – to create and support proper functioning of securities markets. It signifies to provide markets with the unity, transparency, efficiency and fairness. Improvement and reinforcement of the investment sector is another ESMA priority.

GERMANY

Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin)

Since its establishment in May 2002, BaFin has been carrying out the supervision of most financial undertakings in the country such as banks, insurance ventures and providers of all kinds of financial services functioning under the same roof. The Federal Ministry of Finance exercises control over BaFin. Being an independent public-law regulatory body, this organization is financed by dues and payments contributed by the supervised institutions and ventures. So thanks to this fee system, BaFin doesn’t depend on the Federal Budget.

As for BaFin’s main goal it’s, first of all, to operate in the public interest assuring due functioning, unity and stability of the financial system in Germany. BaFin’s solvency supervision consists in controlling financial institutions ability to meet their engagements concerning all kinds of payments. Preventing illegal business and enforcing professional behavior standards are other objectives of BaFin.

JAPAN

Financial Services Agency of Japan (FSA Japan)

The FSA is a Japanese regulatory body, undertaking to assure the financial system stability, to protect depositors, holders of insurance policies and investors of the securities market. Characterized by strict supervision, the FSA doesn’t only inspect private financial companies, but also carries out securities transactions monitoring. Taking by the FSA such measures as planning and policymaking provides financial system in Japan with transparent administration. Discipline and self-responsibility are the main principles of the existing national economy, and the FSA Japan supervises at all levels if these principles are followed by the participants of the market.

Financial systems qualitative repletion is another desired goal for the FSA. It can be achieved only by adapting financial regulations to such financial environmental changes as innovations and globalization.

IRELAND

Central Bank of Ireland (CBI)

The Central Bank of Ireland is the financial services regulator of Ireland and historically the central bank. In compliance with Central Bank Reform Act 2010 the Financial Services Authority of Ireland (commonly known as the Central Bank) and the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (financial regulator) were replaced by a new single body – the Central Bank of Ireland – which now fulfills both central banking and regulatory functions. The Central Bank controls the activities of all financial institutions in Ireland with the purpose to enforce and maintain fair and safe financial environment for consumers. It implements and monitors the consumer protection, the compliance of financial bodies with the established business and prudential requirements. It also fixes min competency requirements for companies. The Central Bank has created several statutory codes of conduct which force financial bodies within its jurisdiction to carry out operations fairly, transparently and solely in the interests of their clients. These protection codes are enforced by means of on-site inspections and backed up by enforcement powers.

SWEDEN

Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (Swedish FSA)

The Swedish FSA is a governmental agency. We strive for promotion of financial stability and assurance of consumer rights. Every company engaged in Swedish financial markets is liable to our supervision and authorization. Analysis of market patterns, evaluation of business soundness of firms, industries and market in general are within our cognizance. Paying due attention to risks and control measures, we ascertain conformity to the relevant normative acts.

We license every activity associated with financial services. Our legislative competence involves issuance of standards and amendment of current unqualified normative acts. Should incompliance or market rate manipulations become apparent, on-the-spot investigations will involve resident and non-resident Swedish companies.

We see to elaboration of accounting and reporting rules, guaranteeing that the public is kept posted on the activities pursued by the companies.

SWITZERLAND

Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)

FINMA protects the investing public, system and its reputation, and advances financial market soundness, thus, strengthening the competitive capacity of the financial sector.

FINMA regulates the activity of other financial organizations, ensures protection against money laundering, and sometimes it acts as the liquidator. FINMA authorizes operation of companies and ensures their compliance with normative acts and laws along with fulfillment of the licensing requirements. It provides lawful administrative aid and imposes penalties, if necessary. Moreover, FINMA exercises regulatory and legislative activity, issues acts and guidelines, providing for acknowledgement of the standards of self-governance. FINMA monitors the matters related to takeover proposals, disclosure, and appeals against decisions taken in this field.

UAI (DUBAI)

Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)

Economic activity of a free target-oriented zone in Dubai is regulated by the DFSA.

Management of resources and securities, execution of banking and trust services, Islamic finance, exchange of international equities and derivatives, as well as insurance matters fall within the competence of the DFSA.

Activity of DFSA is based on a principle of risk-related regulation and avoidance of unnecessary regulatory implications. Besides, the agency made it clear that the obligations liable to fulfillment should comply with optimization of risks in order for such obligations to be successfully met.

Under the circumstances, the priorities include generation of a cycle of risk optimization that aims at identification, evaluation and assessment of risks in order to enhance local and international markets and their patterns.

According to DFSA, the reality of efficient risk-based regulation is more important than the way of its achievement.

Emirates Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA)

Fulfillment of federal tasks has always been the goal of Securities and Commodities Authority. Its normative acts establish and enhance the legal environment of the companies engaged in the securities business, thus, strengthening the Authority’s credibility.

The Authority continuously strives to enhance administration of the subordinate companies, alerting them to the general requirements set by the relevant federal laws and any other supportive normative acts.

The SCA shall license all securities markets in the UAE established in the form of electronically interconnected local public bodies.

Market management shall be ensured by the locally established Board comprising only those members that participate neither in any public joint-stock company nor in any brokerage activity.

The primary task of this agency lies in protection of the investing public, adequate enactment that promotes fair business and advances market efficiency, and adoption of the relevant control measures.

UNITED STATES

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

SEC in the U.S. ensures protection of investors, maintenance of fair markets, and capital formation advancement. The main participants dealing with securities are controlled by the agency. The first concern of the SEC here lies in promotion of crucial information disclosure, protection against fraud and fair business relations.

Rational and well-educated investors are an important mechanism of efficient market functioning, since they serve as the major information source. A variety of information aligned with investor awareness is posted by the SEC on this website, including the database of documents liable to disclosure and submission.

The SEC regulates and controls the American securities markets in cooperation with many other agencies, including Congress, various private companies and other organizations. Notably, the Chairman of the agency and certain public officials participate in a working group on financial markets.

National Futures Association (NFA)

NFA is a self-governed sectoral organization representing American futures industry. Day after day NFA strain to elaborate regulations, programs and services meant to protect market integrity and investors, ensuring legal qualification of it Members.

Being an autonomous regulatory agency, NFA is unbound to any certain marketplace. It activity has no financial implications for the taxpayer and it is funded solely by users of the futures markets in the form of affiliation and assessment fees.

With rapid development of financial markets, NFA has become the leader in self-regulation field. Since the need for efficient regulation today is as substantial as ever, NFA’s reputation is rather beneficial for the market agents willing to share their experience, while NFA serves as a model of self-regulatory organization.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)

FINRA is the largest independent agency regulating securities-related sphere of activity of various organizations in the U.S. FINRA’s objective lies in protection of American investors through assurance of fair and honest operation of the securities industry.

Every feature of the securities business, including registration and instruction of industry agents, elaboration and enforcement of rules and federal laws, evaluation of companies engaged in the field, training and instruction of investors, submission of trade reports, as well as administration of forum for dispute settlement, is covered by FINRA. Contractual market regulation for the key U.S. stock markets falls within our competence as well.

In this sophisticated global economic situation FINRA acts as a reliable representative of investors’ interests; its activity is devoted to assurance of market soundness and aimed at regulation of financial matters to protect the market and the investors themselves.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Economic benefit of the markets dealing with futures is assured by the CFTC through promotion of their competitive capacity and efficiency. It strives for protection of market agents against fraud in order to exclude manipulation and unfair commercial practice, paying due attention to the clearing process soundness. Effective supervision of the CFTC makes it possible for the futures markets to fulfill their key function and provide for price regulation and market risk optimization.

CFTC’s activity is aimed at protection of market agents and individuals from fraud, manipulative action, abuse and constant derivative-related risk in conformity with relevant acts. Besides, its operation advances overt, viable and efficient markets.

UNITED KINGDOM

Financial Services Authority (FSA)

The FSA is the independent body that regulates the financial services industry in the UK. Limited by guarantee, FSA is sponsored by the financial services industry. Although general policy establishment is reserved to the Board, daily decision making and staff management matters fall within the competence of the Executive Committee.

The FSA has a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers which enables them to meet four statutory objectives. The four statutory objectives are:

1.  Market confidence – maintaining confidence in the UK financial system;
2.  Financial stability – contributing to the protection and enhancement of stability of the UK financial system
3.  Consumer protection – securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and
4. The reduction of financial crime – reducing the extent to which it is possible for a regulated business to be used for a purpose connected with financial crime.

The FSA has now become two separate regulatory authorities: The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority

The FSA has now become two separate regulatory authorities

The Financial Conduct Authority can be found at www.fca.org.uk and the Prudential Regulation Authority at www.bankofengland.co.uk.