Commissioner Piwowar's dissent from the proposal of the rule is well-reasoned. The SEC does not have adequate information needed for proper analysis of the proposal at the current time.

As the Commissioner argues, the SEC justifies the proposed derivatives framework as an "exemption" from Section 18 of the Investment Company Act ("Capital Structure of Investment Companies"), even though the SEC is in fact limiting behavior that it has previously sanctioned. It is not at all obvious…

The implementation of a "reply comment period" is a truly excellent regulatory development. Financial regulation can benefit from regulatory innovations such as this, which foster genuine discussion.

Though these proposed rules are arguably less burdensome than the original proposed rules, it is doubtful that anyone will want to operate under them, no matter how long the SEC may take to review them.

SEC Chair White and CFTC Chair Massad said almost nothing about the most controversial aspect of FSOC's authority: its ability to regulate non-bank financial institutions. Further, little or nothing in the written testimony of the other FSOC voting members seemed to endorse the regulatory power granted to FSOC over non-banks or the manner in which the FSOC operates. Notably, the tone of the witnesses seemed flat and their statements were largely limited to descriptions of the FSOC, or praise…