557 Views0 Comments0 Likes
Stephen Heifetz & Michael Gershberg: CFIUS now actively reviews and sometimes alters transactions that result in foreign control of U.S. energy companies. There are three primary drivers behind this recent scrutiny.
1.88K Views0 Comments0 Likes
Colleen Baker: Although largely overlooked, failures in PCS systems both domestically and internationally exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008. The Federal Reserve’s critical and significant role in responding to some of these disruptions has similarly been largely overlooked.
1.94K Views0 Comments0 Likes
Joshua C. Zive: Unfortunately, delays and burdens associated with CFIUS are playing an increasingly significant and frustrating role in energy transactions. These delays frustrate the intended role of CFIUS review and make it unnecessarily difficult for energy transactions to be designed and executed in an efficient manner.
885 Views0 Comments0 Likes
Sean J. Griffith: Clearinghouses may not be the last and best solution to the problem of systemic risk and that further regulatory experimentation may be desirable. Policy-makers should strive instead for a structure that fosters diversity and experimentation.
2.92K Views0 Comments0 Likes
Watterson, Suh & Stein: Clearing requirements affect margin requirements, a key mechanism used to mitigate counterparty risk. New clearing rules may substantially costs for users of cleared derivatives because of the higher margin delivery requirements applicable to such transactions.
2.91K Views0 Comments0 Likes
David Felsenthal & Lily Chu: We do not believe that there is any simple, one size-fits-all remedy for regulation of cross-border swaps. We propose therefore that each transaction-level requirement be considered separately, and that specific rules be adopted for each type of transaction-level requirement.