Ranking
member Capuano also shares the majority report’s praise of the National Futures
Association and the CFTC for moving to ban the Alternative Method, which he
said was an accounting practice that contributed to the loss of MF Global
customer funds. The Democratic Addendum encourages regulators to determine if
adequate protection for customer funds is in place and to continue studying
ways to further protect these funds. It also urges regulators to strengthen
existing disclosure requirements so customers will better recognize and
understand the risks they face.
The
Capuano minority report does not fully share the assessment of the majority
report that MF Global’s bankruptcy was caused by the executive decision to turn
the firm into an investment bank. MF Global’s shift into becoming an investment
bank was not problematic in and of itself, said the minority, as is evident by
the existence of profitable investment banks. Rather, MF Global’s particular
investments posed unsustainable and substantial liquidity risks. Preventing MF
Global and other firms from failing should not be the focus, reasoned the
minority report, rather the priority should be ensuring that investors have
full transparency and access to all relevant financial firm data.
Ranking Member Capuano, who has been an outspoken critic of the credit rating agencies, agrees with the majority report’s findings that the rating agencies should have downgraded MF Global more quickly. He disagrees, however, with the conclusion that they failed in their overall efforts with respect to MF Global. The Democratic Addendum notes that in the case of MF Global, the credit rating agencies at least rated them as essentially junk from the beginning.
The Democratic
Members also draw a distinction from the majority staff report in clarifying
that MF Global’s failure was not just about one bad actor. While MF Global’s
CEO Jon Corzine holds substantial responsibility, the Addendum points out that
neither Mr. Corzine nor any other individual could have taken these actions if
regulations had been tighter and enforcement of them had been more stringent.
Better regulations and stricter enforcement would have made any such attempts
more difficult and more readily apparent to regulators and investors.