The Fed seeking industry input on commodity limits
The Federal Reserve is seeking input from the banking industry on how it should regulate banks in commodity markets.
January 17, 2014 at 04:14 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Federal Reserve is seeking input from the banking industry on how it should regulate banks in commodity markets. This comes as the Senate's banking committee is holding a hearing to discuss ways to limit Wall Street's role in the physical commodities markets. The major policy shift comes after a growing controversy over claims that banks are “using their foothold” in the market to influence supply flows and prices, and conflicts of interests for banks. In July, the Fed publically announced a “review” of its 2003 authorization that first allowed commercial banks like Citigroup to handle physical commodities.
“Each day that we wait to rein in these activities means that end users and consumers will pay higher commodity and energy prices, and taxpayers will continue to be exposed to excessive risks at Too Big to Fail banks,” Senator Sherrod Brown (D.-Ohio), who is leading the hearing, said.
For the first time, the Fed sent out a preliminary notice to issue in which its posing questions and requesting ideas on how bank oversight in the physical commodity markets. The changes to policy would be monumental, and could sidestep a patchwork of legal permissions and waivers that have allowed banks to operate in the markets for the last decade.
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that the Fed is considering imposing a capital surcharge on banks that own physical commodity assets such as pipelines and warehouses. By imposing higher capital costs on such properties, the Fed could prompt banks to scale back their holdings of such assets.
Just as the Fed is re-visiting its regulations, some banks are already preparing new rules. Back in July, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. announced that it would sells its physical commodity units, and “narrowed its field of bidders for the assets to a final handful of parties.” Goldman Sachs has also considered offers for certain units.
For more on The Fed, check out the following:
The Federal Reserve is seeking input from the banking industry on how it should regulate banks in commodity markets. This comes as the Senate's banking committee is holding a hearing to discuss ways to limit Wall Street's role in the physical commodities markets. The major policy shift comes after a growing controversy over claims that banks are “using their foothold” in the market to influence supply flows and prices, and conflicts of interests for banks. In July, the Fed publically announced a “review” of its 2003 authorization that first allowed commercial banks like
“Each day that we wait to rein in these activities means that end users and consumers will pay higher commodity and energy prices, and taxpayers will continue to be exposed to excessive risks at Too Big to Fail banks,” Senator Sherrod Brown (D.-Ohio), who is leading the hearing, said.
For the first time, the Fed sent out a preliminary notice to issue in which its posing questions and requesting ideas on how bank oversight in the physical commodity markets. The changes to policy would be monumental, and could sidestep a patchwork of legal permissions and waivers that have allowed banks to operate in the markets for the last decade.
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that the Fed is considering imposing a capital surcharge on banks that own physical commodity assets such as pipelines and warehouses. By imposing higher capital costs on such properties, the Fed could prompt banks to scale back their holdings of such assets.
Just as the Fed is re-visiting its regulations, some banks are already preparing new rules. Back in July,
For more on The Fed, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250