In testimony last week before the Senate Banking Committee, SEC Chairman Cox pointed out the enormous regulatory black hole in which credit default swaps have come of age since pretty much the dawn of the 21st century. He pointed out that the SEC’s Enforcement Division was focused on using its antifraud authority in this area, and noted that credit default swaps provided a way for market participants to “naked short” the debt of companies without restriction. Cox asked that Congress “provide in the statute the authority to regulate these products to enhance investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly markets,” but he didn’t say who should have such authority. Interestingly enough, I don’t recall any similar discussion of the lack of authority to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives up until this point, while the excesses in the market – and the lack of transparency – have been known for some time.
A day earlier, New York Governor Paterson and the New York Insurance Department announced that, beginning on January 1, 2009, the New York Insurance Department would regulate some credit default swaps as a form of financial guaranty insurance, whenever the credit default swap is issued in New York or issued to a New York purchaser who “holds, or reasonably expects to hold, a ‘material interest’ in the reference obligation.” Governor Paterson also called on the federal government to regulate credit default swaps.
One interesting thing pointed out by the statements of Chairman Cox and Governor Paterson is that no one seems to know for sure how big the market is for credit default swaps. Chairman Cox cited in his testimony “the $58 trillion notional market,” while Governor Paterson referred to the “$62 trillion market.” Any estimates such as these are pretty much educated guesses, since there really isn’t any transparency into the scope of the credit derivatives market. Also, these types of notional amount estimates are often cited to state the size of derivatives markets, but really those amounts overstate the actual exposure that these derivatives present, since the notional amount is really just the basis on which payments are calculated – but not how much any counterparty owes on the actual derivative contract. Something closer to $2 trillion in fair value is perhaps a better estimate of the size of the credit default swap market, at least up until the events of the last few months.
Congress did not yet heed the calls for more federal authority over credit default swaps, as no provisions have been included in the two versions of the bailout bill that would vest regulatory authority over credit derivatives with the SEC or any other agency; however, this may be an issue that Congress will turn to quickly once the latest fire drill has died down.
While I am by no means running for president of the credit default swaps fan club, I think that now is the absolute worst time to start beating the drum for more regulation of derivatives in general and credit derivatives in particular. While speculative activity in credit default swaps no doubt contributed to some of our problems today, credit derivatives have also mitigated risk for countless institutions by spreading the risk of default around the globe. Policymakers should have been paying attention long ago, before the market has grown to the size – and level of interconnectedness – that prevails today. Now, vague talk of regulation only serves to call into question the enforceability of agreements, make counterparties even more nervous about ultimately collecting on their contracts, and put further pressure on credit markets when those markets are least able to handle the pressure.
A Change to the Audit Committee Report
Back in the summer, the SEC approved the PCAOB’s new rule regarding communications with audit committees regarding independence. Last week, the SEC made a conforming amendment to Item 407 of Regulation S-K to change the language of the audit committee report. Previously, the audit committee report referred to “Independence Standards Board No. 1 (Independence Standards Board No.1, Independence Discussions with Audit Committees), as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3600T.” Now, the audit committee report must refer to “applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the audit committee concerning independence.” The applicable requirement is PCAOB Rule 3526, but apparently the SEC does not want to refer directly to the rule itself.
The SEC didn’t amend Item 407 Regulation S-B, which is hanging around for transition purposes until March 15, 2009. But the SEC said interpretively that any filers using Regulation S-B should follow the Regulation S-K language in their audit committee report.
The change to Item 407 of Regulation S-K was effective on September 30.
This September-October issue of the Deal Lawyers print newsletter was just sent to the printer and includes articles on:
– Boards Can’t Watch a Sale Unfold from the Balcony: Nine Take-Aways from Lyondell
– Dealing with State Anti-Takeover Statutes in Negotiated Acquisitions
– Cross-Border M&A: Checklist for Successful Acquisitions in the US
– Outside Termination Dates: No Way Out from a Purchase Agreement
– Broken Deals: Validation of Naked No-Vote Termination Fee
– Lessons Learned: Seeking Block Bids as Schedule 13D Discloseable Events
– The Shareholder Activist Corner: Spotlight on Steel Partners
Try a 2009 no-risk trial to get a non-blurred version of this issue (and the rest of ’08) for free.
Last night, the Senate voted 74 to 25 in favor of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, seeking to create an offer that members of the House can’t refuse when the bill goes up for a vote there by Friday. Here is a Summary and Section-by-Section Analysis of the 451-page bill. As noted in this NY Times article, some of the “sweeteners” added to the Senate bill have nothing to do with the credit crisis or the bailout, including $150 billion in tax breaks for individuals and businesses and legislation requiring insurers to afford parity between mental health conditions and other health problems. The Senate also adopted a temporary increase in the FDIC’s limit on insured bank deposits, raising the ceiling from $100,000 to $250,000.
As Mark Borges noted last night in his CompensationStandards.com blog, the only substantive change to the corporate governance and executive compensation provisions of the House bill was in Section 111, where the limits on compensation that Secretary of the Treasury must adopt to exclude incentives for encouraging executives to take unnecessary and excessive risks now applies to “senior executive officers,” rather than just “executive officers.” As Mark notes, this change is consistent with the application of the other two standards in Section 111 and thus limits all of these provisions to the “named executive officer” group. Apparently, the Senate did not see the need to add any real teeth to the executive compensation and corporate governance provisions of the bill, perhaps because any changes along those lines might not have improved the bill’s success in the House.
Now the market will be on pins and needles until the House acts. After the market’s swoon on Monday, it seems much less likely that constituents will be beating down members’ doors opposing the plan. At this point, whether there will be enough support to pass the bill in the House is anyone’s guess.
SEC Extends Emergency Orders
The SEC announced that it has extended its short sale emergency orders, as well as the emergency order loosening the timing and volume conditions on issuer repurchases in Exchange Act Rule 10b-18. The SEC also announced that the Form SH filing requirement for Exchange Act Section 13(f) filers is also extended, and will become a permanent requirement under interim final rules that the SEC plans to adopt. Based on the language of the press release, it doesn’t appear that information filed on Form SH (under the emergency order at least) will be made public. What the SEC plans to do with the information on short positions obtained on Form SH remains a mystery, and the fact that the information is not being made public seems a little at odds with the SEC’s “full disclosure” mission.
The SEC stated in a press release that the orders are being extended to “allow time for completion of work on the anticipated passage of legislation,” referring to the Congressional efforts to pass a bailout plan. The order banning short selling in “financial” companies is extended until 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the third business day after enactment of the legislation, but in any case no later than October 17th. The order requiring the filing Form SH will be extended until October 17th, but the requirement will remain in place after the expiration of the order under to-be-adopted interim final rules. The relaxed Rule 10b-18 conditions will be extended through October 17th.
The emergency order specifically directed at naked short selling – through Rule 204T, the repeal of the options market maker exception from short selling close-out provisions in Reg. SHO, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-21 – has been extended through October 17th. The SEC also adopted the Staff’s guidance on the application of the initial order. It appears from the press release that the SEC plans to adopt interim final rules to implement this order on a permanent basis as well.
It seems odd that the outright short sale ban on shares of financial companies is now tied to the legislative efforts in Congress. That approach seems to pin a lot of hope on the fact that just the enactment of the legislation (no matter how the legislation comes out) will restore order and calm to the markets. For those companies who are not on the list of companies subject to the ban but who have seen their competitors added to the list, it makes it tougher to judge whether they should contact the exchange to get added, since there is now significant uncertainty as to how long the order will actually remain in effect. In any event, this much is assured: when the ban is lifted, people will go right back to shorting companies with bad assets, bad management and little prospect for success.
Our October Eminders is Posted!
We have posted the October issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply inputting your email address!
Last night, Corp Fin posted a series of new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations replacing three sections of the Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations. The new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations cover:
These Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations include many of the old Telephone Interpretations, as well as a number of new notable interpretations that answer some fundamental, recurring questions.
For example, Question 130.02 of the Exchange Act Sections Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations notes that a delinquent filer must file all delinquent reports in order to be considered current in its Exchange Act reporting. Delinquent filers often ask the Staff if they can become current by filing the latest Form 10-K or some sort of consolidated “catch-up” filing, and now this interpretation makes clear that all missed reports must be filed. Further, Questions 116.04 through 116.06 of the Exchange Act Sections Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations address the issues around the automatic effectiveness of a Form 10, including the ability to withdraw the Form 10 in limited circumstances prior to effectiveness and the necessity of filing Exchange Act reports once the Form 10 is automatically effective, even if the Staff’s review of the Form 10 is ongoing.
In the Exchange Act Rules Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, the Staff includes some detailed guidance on the ability of companies to use an effective Form S-3 during and after the Rule 12b-25 period, as well as some helpful guidance on delisting and deregistration mechanics. Further, following up on some helpful guidance in the Regulation S-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations posted over the Summer about correcting CEO/CFO certifications (see our discussion of those interpretations in the July-August 2008 issue of The Corporate Counsel) , the Staff has consolidated much of its guidance on CEO/CFO certifications in new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations under Exchange Act Rule 13a-14.
Fair Value Accounting Guidance from the SEC and FASB Staff
In the face of intense lobbying calling for the suspension of fair value accounting, the SEC’s Office of Chief Accountant and the FASB Staff issued a press release outlining a series of “clarifications” on fair value accounting.
The press release answers the following questions on the application of FAS 157:
1. Can management’s internal assumptions (e.g., expected cash flows) be used to measure fair value when relevant market evidence does not exist?
2. How should the use of “market” quotes (e.g., broker quotes or information from a pricing service) be considered when assessing the mix of information available to measure fair value?
3. Are transactions that are determined to be disorderly representative of fair value? When is a distressed (disorderly) sale indicative of fair value?
4. Can transactions in an inactive market affect fair value measurements?
5. What factors should be considered in determining whether an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired?
While the new Staff guidance is not inconsistent with what has been said before, it appears that the intent is to provide at least some flexibility for issuers to depart from market prices in certain circumstances, particularly when an active market does not exist.
It seems unlikely that the latest round of guidance will satisfy the mounting criticism of fair value accounting. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of 65 House members sent a letter to Chairman Cox asking that the SEC immediately “suspend” mark to market accounting in favor of a “mark to value” mechanism that “better reflects the value of the asset.” The Congressmen state that until new guidance is put in place, the fair value of assets should be estimated by “using the best available information of the instrument’s value, including the entity’s intended use of that asset, from the point of view of the holder of that instrument.”
Some opposition to the suspension of fair value is emerging. Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that abandoning fair value “would only hurt investor confidence because nobody knows what the true hold-to-maturity price is” (as noted in this Reuters article), while this article by Judith Burns of the Dow Jones Newswires reports that US accounting firms are now opposing calls for rescinding mark to market accounting.
The Rise of Sovereign Fund Investing
Tune in tomorrow for this DealLawyers.com webcast – “The Rise of Sovereign Fund Investing” – and hear about the role of sovereign wealth funds in this crisis marketplace and more:
– G. Christopher Griner, Partner, Kaye Scholer
– Michael Hagan, Partner, Morrison & Foerster
– Jerry Walter, Partner, Fried Frank Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
– Steven Wilner, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton