Alert:
For more information on the cybersecurity incident, please visit the cybersecurity incident page.
Following the publication for comments by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) of proposed National Instrument 93-101 – Derivatives: Business Conduct (NI 93-101) and National Instrument 93-102 – Derivatives: Registration (NI 93-102), IIROC performed a complete review of all its Dealer Member related rules (IIROC Rules) to determine:
and the regulation of derivatives-related activities that are not justified and could benefit from rule amendments to address these inconsistencies.
IIROC has also recently announced the implementation of its plain language rules1 which has not only resulted in more clearly stated rule requirements but also helped identify inconsistencies in the regulatory treatment of both listed and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives.
The objectives of the proposed amendments arising from IIROC’s Derivatives Rule Modernization project are to:
Due to the extent and the nature of these proposed amendments we are publishing them for public comment in two separate stages as follows:
Within Stage 1 we are proposing to:
Stage 2 will include proposed amendments to current margin requirements in order to adequately constrain leverage and address margin requirements. Stage 2 will be published for public comment at a later date.
Two important considerations/objectives in developing these proposed amendments were that all rule amendments pursued should:
We request comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments, including in response to the specific questions asked within this notice and on any derivatives-related matter which the proposals do not specifically address. Comments on the proposed amendments should be in writing and delivered by February 19, 2020 (90 days from the publication date of this notice) to:
Phil Devault
Senior Counsel Derivatives Regulation
Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada
Suite 601, 525 Viger Avenue West
Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 0B2
Email: pdevault@iiroc.ca
Comments should also be delivered to:
Market Regulation
Ontario Securities Commission
Suite 1903, Box 55
20 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S8
Email: marketregulation@osc.gov.on.ca
Commentators should be aware that a copy of their comment letter will be made publicly available on the IIROC website at www.iiroc.ca. A summary of the comments contained in each submission will also be included in a future IIROC Notice.
Questions may be referred to:
Richard J. Corner
Vice President and Chief Policy Advisor, Member Regulation
416-943-6908
rcorner@iiroc.ca
Phil Devault
Senior Counsel Derivatives Regulation
514-392-3412
pdevault@iiroc.ca
The IIROC Rules include a general definition for the term “derivative” and specific definitions for the terms “futures contract”, “futures contract option” and “option” as follows:
|
Current terms |
Current definitions |
|
derivative |
A financial instrument whose value is derived from, and reflects changes in, the price of the underlying product. It is designed to facilitate the transfer and isolation of risk and may be used for both risk transference and investment purposes.2 |
|
futures contract |
A contract to make or take delivery of the underlying interest during a designated future month on terms agreed to when the contract is entered on a commodity futures exchange.3 |
|
futures contract option |
A right to acquire a long or short position in connection with a futures contract on terms agreed to at the time the option is granted and any option that has a futures contract as its underlying interest.4 |
|
option |
A derivative contract that:
|
We have reviewed these definitions in order to determine whether their collective scope needs to be expanded or additional definitions need to be introduced. We have also compared these definitions to those used in provincial securities, derivatives and commodity futures legislation.
We believe the scope of IIROC’s derivatives-related definitions should no longer be restricted to futures contracts, futures contract options and options. Instead, the use of a broader-scope general definition approach, through detailing the general features of a derivative rather than defining specific types of derivatives, is preferred. The use of this approach would ensure that each general defined term’s meaning could continue to evolve without needing to make periodic wording revisions and would not become outdated as new derivative products are introduced.
To avoid confusion and differing interpretation, we also believe that IIROC’s derivatives-related definitions should be harmonized as much as possible with the definitions set out in provincial securities, derivatives and commodity futures legislation.
Because certain proposed requirements are different for listed and OTC derivatives, we believe the definitions should differentiate between these two categories of derivatives.
To achieve these results, we are proposing that IIROC:
The following table sets out our proposed revised definitions:
|
Proposed terms |
Proposed definitions |
|
derivative |
An option, swap, futures contract, forward contract, contract for difference or any other financial or commodity contract or instrument whose market price, value, delivery obligations, payment obligations or settlement obligations are derived from, referenced to or based on an underlying interest, including a value, price, rate, variable, index, event, probability or thing.6 |
|
listed derivative |
A derivative that is traded on a marketplace pursuant to standardized terms and conditions set out by that marketplace and whose trades are cleared and settled by a clearing agency.7 |
|
over-the-counter derivative |
The IIROC Rules include definitions for specific categories of client-facing Approved Persons as follows:
|
Current terms |
Current definitions |
|
Portfolio Manager |
An individual designated by the Dealer Member and approved by IIROC to provide discretionary portfolio management for managed accounts.9 |
|
Associate Portfolio Manager |
An individual designated by the Dealer Member and approved by IIROC to provide discretionary portfolio management for managed accounts under the supervision of a Portfolio Manager.10 |
|
Registered Representative |
An individual, approved by IIROC, to trade, or advise on trades, in securities, options, futures contracts, or futures contract options with the public in Canada, on the Dealer Member’s behalf, including where that individual deals only in mutual funds or only with institutional clients.11 |
|
Investment Representative |
An individual, approved by IIROC, to trade in, but not advise on, securities, options, futures contracts or futures contract options, on the Dealer Member’s behalf, including where that individual deals only in mutual funds.12 |
The definitions for the terms “Registered Representative” and “Investment Representative” limit the scope of derivatives that these individuals may trade in or advise on to futures contracts, futures contract options and options.
Given the proposed revised definitions discussed in section 1.1.1 of this notice, we are proposing that IIROC amend the “Registered Representative” and “Investment Representative” terms by replacing the text “securities, options, futures contracts, or futures contract options” with the text “securities or derivatives” within each definition.
The IIROC Rules include definitions for the terms “Dealer Member”, “Dealer Member related activities” and “Securities Related Business” as follows:
|
Current terms |
Current definitions |
|
Dealer Member |
A Member that is an investment dealer in accordance with securities legislation.13 |
|
Dealer Member related activities |
Acting as a Dealer Member, or carrying on business that is necessary or incidental to being a Dealer Member. The Board may include or exclude any activities from this definition.14 |
|
securities related business |
Any business or activity (whether or not carried on for gain) engaged in, directly or indirectly, which constitutes trading or advising in securities or exchange contracts (including futures contracts and futures contract options) for the purposes of securities laws, including for greater certainty, sales pursuant to exemptions under securities laws.15 |
Given the term “securities related business” is intended to only be used in the context of principal / agent relationships and the proposed revised definitions discussed in section 1.1.1 of this notice, we are proposing that IIROC amend the “securities related business” term by:
The IIROC Rules include a definition for the term “securities laws” as follows:
|
Current term |
Current definition |
|
securities laws |
Any laws about trading, distributing, advising or any other related activities in securities, futures contracts, futures contract options or derivatives in Canada enacted by the government of Canada or any province or territory in Canada and all regulations, rules, orders, judgments and other regulatory directions relating to such laws.16 |
We are proposing that IIROC amend the “securities laws” term by:
Generally, the IIROC Rules allow only non-individuals of a certain size or with a certain amount of financial assets under administration to qualify as a sophisticated client (“institutional client”). All other clients, both individual and non-individual, are considered unsophisticated (“retail client”). One of the drawbacks of this approach is that all individual clients are considered unsophisticated, irrespective of their level of investment knowledge and the amount of financial assets they have under administration.
In comparison:
We believe it would be beneficial for market participants for IIROC to reduce the gap between the definitions used to identify sophisticated clients by conforming as much as possible the definitions used to assess client sophistication for all securities and derivatives business lines. To achieve this result within revised “institutional client” and “retail client”17 definitions, we are proposing that within the “institutional client” definition that IIROC:
The following table sets out our proposed revised definitions:
|
Proposed term |
Proposed definition |
|
Institutional client |
(vi) an individual with total securities and precious metals bullion under administration or management exceeding $10 million who requests and consents to being classified as an institutional client, or (vii) a hedger who requests and consents to being classified as an institutional client for accounts with qualifying hedging activities and hedge positions. 18 |
|
hedger |
A non-individual that: (i) is exposed to one or more risks as a necessary part of its activities, (ii) seeks to hedge each risk by engaging in a securities or derivatives transactions where: (a) the underlying interest for the transactions is the same as or materially related to the underlying interest for the risk, (b) the intended effect of the transactions is to: (I) eliminate or reduce the risk related to fluctuations in the market value of the underlying interest or position being hedged, or (II) substitute the risk associated with one currency for the risk associated with another currency, provided the aggregate amount of currency risk to which the hedger is exposed is not increased by the substitution, (c) the positions resulting from the transactions have a high degree of negative correlation with the underlying interest or position being hedged, and (d) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the market value changes in the positions resulting from the transactions will completely or materially offset market value changes in the underlying interest or position being hedged. 19 |
The proposed guidance note found in Attachment A presents our views on how the “hedger” definition should be applied and interpreted and further outlines our expectations and the requirements applicable to all Dealer Members when classifying a hedger as an “institutional client”.
We believe these amendments would result in a reduction of the gap between the institutional client definitions used by IIROC and the CSA. This result was determined to be preferable over adopting different IIROC institutional client definitions for securities-related and derivatives-related activities, which would have in essence introduced a regulatory arbitrage situation between Dealer Members’ securities-related and derivatives-related business lines.
|
Question #1 We have included individuals in the proposed definition of institutional client. We have done so on the basis that individuals and non-individuals that meet the same conditions should be treated as equally sophisticated under our rules, provided that the individuals request and consent to waiving their retail client protections. Do you agree that we should allow certain qualifying individuals to be able to request and consent to being classified as institutional clients? |
|
Question #2 We have included hedgers in the proposed definition of institutional client and have not:
We have done so on the basis that:
Do you agree that IIROC should include a hedger category within its institutional client definition and that this category include all hedging activities rather than hedging activities involving OTC derivatives? Do you agree that meeting a minimum financial assets threshold is unnecessary to qualify as a hedger? If you don’t agree, at what level should IIROC set a minimum financial assets threshold for hedgers? |
|
Question #3 Is the concept of hedger well defined? How could the definition of hedger be improved? |
|
|
The IIROC Rules require that Dealer Members establish and maintain a business continuity plan that identifies the procedures it will take to deal with a significant business disruption.20
Similarly, the CSA have published proposals regarding OTC derivatives activities, which would require the establishment, maintenance and application of a written business continuity and disaster recovery plan that is reasonably designed to minimize disruption and allow a firm to continue its business operations.21
IIROC has recently proposed to mandate that we be notified and provided with specific information at certain points in time when a cybersecurity incident occurs.22 IIROC has no other current or proposed requirements that would mandate we be notified when any other type of business disruption occurs.
Regarding the offering of OTC derivatives to retail clients, the Quebec Derivatives Regulation requires that the Autorité des Marchés Financiers be notified if there are any material system failures that would affect trading.23We believe this requirement is reasonable given there is no other market for these transactions and retail clients can only close-out or offset their positions when they have access to the trading systems of the derivatives issuer and the systems are functioning properly.
Like when cybersecurity incidents and, in Quebec, OTC derivative trading system access denials occur, we believe IIROC should be informed of any firm significant business disruption situation and are proposing new IIROC Rule sections 4710 and 4716 in order to:
We have not specified within the proposed amendments the minimum duration and severity of an impairment that would result in it being considered to be “significant impairment”, nor have we specified the exact steps a firm must take when a significant impairment has occurred. This is because:
To provide further clarity on what would be considered to be a “significant impairment in the client’s access to their account positions or their ability to liquidate or close-out their positions” we plan on issuing guidance setting out important considerations in determining when a “significant impairment” has occurred that requires that the firm’s BCP to be invoked.
|
Question #4 We have not narrowed the scope of the proposed business continuity plan requirement amendments to only apply to significant client access or liquidation impairments involving derivatives as we believe that significant impairments can occur when any type of investment product is involved. We do, however, recognize that the nature of the impairments and the dealer’s ability to resolve the impairment can vary. To address this variability we plan to issue guidance to assist dealers in determining when their business continuity plan must be invoked in response to a significant client access or liquidation impairment. What considerations do you think this guidance should itemize in determining when a dealer should invoke their business continuity plan? |
The sales conduct requirements within the current IIROC Rules generally either:
Given the proposed revised definitions discussed in section 1.1.1 of this notice and our objective to expand, where appropriate, the current application of:
we have reviewed the current sales conduct requirements to determine which ones should apply to all derivatives, listed derivatives and OTC derivatives transactions, positions and accounts. As part of this review, we have considered all of the current sales conduct requirements applicable to Dealer Members.
We are proposing that the scope of application of the current IIROC general sales conduct requirements be broadened, where appropriate, to apply to all derivatives transactions, positions and accounts. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC amend:
We are proposing that the scope of application of the current IIROC Rule derivatives-specific business conduct requirements be broadened, where appropriate, to apply to all derivatives transactions, positions and accounts. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC amend IIROC Rule 3200 – Client Accounts – Part F – Additional Account Opening Requirements for Options, Futures Contract and Futures Contract Options Trading to require:
We are also proposing that IIROC amend IIROC Rule 3900 – Supervision – Part F – Supervision of options, futures contracts and futures contract option trading account to:
We are also proposing that all current IIROC and Ontario Securities Commission expectations and conditions relating to the offering of CFDs to retail clients be codified as IIROC requirements that apply to a broader range of retail client highly-leveraged securities or derivative transactions, positions and accounts.24 To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC enact:
IIROC’s current derivatives risk disclosure requirements specify that:
In 1998, a consolidated options and futures risk disclosure document was introduced by IIROC, which replaced the need to provide separate risk disclosures to futures and options clients.26
Of note, even though these requirements don’t technically apply to OTC derivative offerings, IIROC ensured that they do apply by obtaining undertakings from those Dealer Members who in 2009 began offering OTC derivatives to retail clients, such as CFDs and Forex. However, the disclosures provided by these CFD and Forex firms do not necessarily include a discussion of the incremental risks associated with transacting in OTC derivatives.
We believe that IIROC’s consolidated derivatives risk disclosure statement should be updated to include risk disclosures specific to OTC derivatives. In doing so, the concept of one risk disclosure document for all types of derivatives should be retained to ensure continued streamlined disclosure. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC:
We believe that pre-transaction compensation disclosure should be provided to the same population of clients for all investment product transactions (including derivatives transactions) they enter into. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC:
We are proposing that IIROC harmonize as much as possible the confirmation requirements for all investment product transactions, including derivatives transactions. Specific to derivative transactions, we are proposing that IIROC limit the list of specific transaction confirmation disclosure elements to information that is non-standardized or unique to each derivative transaction. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC:
An updated approach to determining the “market value” of firm inventory and client account positions was implemented as part of IIROC’s Client Relationship Model Phase 2 amendments on December 31, 2015. The revisions made to the definition were focused on ensuring accurate periodic reporting (monthly, quarterly and annual reporting):
In developing these revisions, there was little focus on the specific challenges associated with valuing:
To address these challenges, we are proposing that IIROC:
We believe IIROC should harmonize as much as possible the account statement reporting requirements for client accounts with transactions and positions in investment products, including derivatives. To achieve this result, we are proposing that IIROC expand the scope of IIROC Rule:
Consistent with IIROC’s interpretation of the scope of application of all of the other client reporting requirements, in early 2016 IIROC announced its interpretation that all account positions32 (not just security positions) must be considered when calculating and disclosing annual account compensation and performance information.33 In reaction to this announcement, 13 investment dealers submitted applications to be exempted from the annual reporting requirements for their CFD, Forex and futures account offerings. The basic business case provided in support of these applications was that:
On September 13, 2016 and November 16, 2016, the IIROC Board exempted the CFD, Forex and futures account offerings of these firms from the annual reporting obligations because the monthly/quarterly “enhanced account statement disclosures” the applicants agreed to provide were felt to be more meaningful to clients that engage in the short-term trading strategies and investments that these accounts offer than the disclosures they would otherwise receive within the annual reports.34
Under the “enhanced account statement disclosure” approach, clients must be provided with the following disclosures within their account statement on a monthly/quarterly basis:
We believe that use of this “enhanced account statement disclosure” approach should continue be permitted for qualifying dealers. As a result, we intend to continue to allow for this alternative approach on an ongoing basis through the continuance of previously granted rule exemptive relief.
IIROC Rule 2600, Proficiency Requirements and Exemptions from Proficiencies, sets out the minimum proficiency requirements for individuals requiring IIROC approval. These requirements are designed to ensure that Approved Persons are qualified to perform their job functions competently in order to meet their regulatory obligations and that a Dealer Member’s business is conducted with integrity. The requirements provide that Approved Persons must have the education, training and experience that a reasonable person would consider necessary to perform the activity competently, including understanding the structure, features and risks of each security the Approved Persons recommend. Specifically, the proficiency requirements for the following approval categories require that the Conduct and Practices Handbook Course, amongst others, be passed by:
However, rule amendments are required to:
The CSA have published for public comment proposed National Instrument 93-102, Derivatives: Registration, which sets out registration requirements for firms and individuals engaging in OTC derivatives business. Included in these proposals are:
We believe that IIROC should revise its rules to clarify when an individual must be approved by IIROC to transact in any type of derivatives. To achieve these results, without significantly impacting the existing futures and options proficiency and continuing education regimes, we are proposing that IIROC amend its individual approval requirements to clarify that an individual transacting in derivatives with clients:
A detailed review of the proficiency and continuing education requirements for Approved Persons dealing in derivatives will be done at a later date as part of a comprehensive review of the adequacy of the proficiency and continuing education requirements for all securities and derivatives business lines.
Clean and blackline versions of the proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments are set out in Attachments D and E, respectively.
As previously stated, the objectives of the proposed proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments are to:
Two important considerations/objectives in developing these proposed amendments were that all rule amendments pursued should:
We classified the proposed amendments as a public comment rule proposal due to their substantive nature and their importance in achieving the goal of ensuring consistent and materially harmonized regulatory standards across the each of the securities- and derivatives-related business lines.
In developing these proposed amendments, IIROC considered whether or not to limit the proposed amendments to rule requirements relevant to transactions and positions involving OTC derivatives. It was decide that the proposed amendments should extend to other business lines, where appropriate, in order to ensure that IIROC continues to maintain rules that are generally equivalent across each of the securities- and derivatives-related business lines.
Some of the proposed amendments have been developed taking into consideration the requirements set out in proposed NI 93-101 and NI 93-102. Once these proposals are finalized, revisions may need to be made to some of the IIROC proposals to ensure IIROC Rules continue to be materially harmonized with the relevant CSA requirements.
In many cases, the proposed amendments seek to codify existing Dealer Member practices relating to the provision of derivative account offerings. In some cases, requirements that currently apply to a specific type of derivatives account offering will be extended to all derivative account offerings. In these cases, the proposed rules will introduce incremental costs of compliance to Dealer Members.
A benefit of the proposed amendments is the retention of relatively consistent regulatory requirements across all of the securities- and derivatives-related business lines, which would avoid significant cost of compliance increases that would otherwise occur if requirements are materially different.
A detailed assessment of the impact of these proposals has been prepared and is included as Attachment C.
Overall, we believe that the proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments impose costs and restrictions on the activities of market participants that are proportionate to the goals of the regulatory objectives sought to be realized.
The Board determined the proposed amendments to be in the public interest and on September 25, 2019 approved them for publication for public comment.
We consulted with the industry throughout the development of the proposed amendments including the Derivatives Subcommittee of the Quebec District Council, the Conduct, Compliance and Legal Advisory Section and the Financial and Operations Advisory Section.
After considering:
we may recommend changes to the proposed amendments. Where changes are recommended and the recommended changes are significant, the revised proposed amendments will be published for further public comment. Once the proposals are finalized, they will be taken back to the Board to seek their approval for implementation and they will be submitted/resubmitted to the Recognizing Regulators for approval.
The proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments impose costs and restrictions on the activities of market participants that are proportionate to the goals of the regulatory objectives sought to be realized and the enhanced transparency and standards of dealing with clients that will result. The IIROC Board has determined that the proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments are not contrary to the public interest.
In order to ensure the IIROC Rules remain materially harmonized with the equivalent CSA rule requirements, the finalization and implementation of some of these proposed rule amendments is dependent on the timing of the finalization and implementation of NI 93-101 and NI 93-102. As such is the case we will determine the proposed implementation date for these proposed amendments at a later date when they are closer to finalization.
IIROC has determined that the proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments are Public Comment Rules and are therefore published for public comment.
The proposed Derivatives Rule Modernization Stage 1 amendments have been filed with each of IIROC’s Recognizing Regulators, in accordance with section 3 of the Joint Rule Review Protocol contained in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Oversight of IIROC.
Attachment A - Draft Guidance Note - Applying and interpreting the definitions of “hedger” and “institutional client”
Attachment B - Draft Guidance Note - Derivatives Risk Disclosure Statement
Attachment C - Impact assessment
Attachment D - Clean version of proposed rule amendments
Attachment E - Blackline version of proposed rule amendments
11/21/19
19-0200
Welcome to CIRO.ca!
You can find the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) at CIRO.ca with our fresh look and feel.