[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25470-25475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12161]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1


Bunched Orders and Account Identification

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Interpretation and Approval Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``Commission'') 
hereby is issuing an Interpretation regarding the account 
identification requirement of Commission Regulation

[[Page 25471]]

1.35(a-1)(2)(i) as it pertains to the practice of combining orders for 
different accounts into a single order for placement and execution, 
i.e., ``block'' or ``bunched'' orders. The Commission simultaneously is 
issuing an Order approving the National Futures Association (``NFA'') 
Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-10 Relating to the 
Allocation of Block Orders for Multiple Accounts (``NFA Notice'').\1\ 
This Interpretation provides that, with respect to bunched orders, 
compliance with the guidance provided in the NFA Notice, incorporated 
herein, and with the Commission guidance provided in this 
Interpretation, will be deemed by the Commission to be compliance with 
the account identification requirement of the above-cited regulation. 
The Commission also is providing an opportunity for comment prior to 
this Interpretation and Approval Order becoming effective.

    \1\ The NFA Notice is published herein as paragraph III to this 
Interpretation and Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: This Interpretation and Approval Order, subject to the 
Commission's consideration of any comments received, shall become 
effective simultaneously on June 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested person should submit their views and comments to 
Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 20581. In 
addition, comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to facsimile 
number (202) 418-5521, or by electronic mail to [email protected]. 
Reference should be made to bunched orders and account identification.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Duane C. Andresen, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 
St., NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone: (202) 418-5490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    This Interpretation sets forth certain account documentation 
procedures under which bunched orders may be placed, recorded, 
executed, ``given up'' to multiple clearing firms, where applicable, 
and allocated to customer accounts, which the Commission will deem as 
sufficient to satisfy the account identification requirement of 
Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i). By this Approval Order, the Commission, 
pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act, is approving 
the NFA Notice. The Commission also is setting forth additional 
guidance under which bunched orders may be handled, to include 
situations where certain of the NFA procedures may not be applicable in 
that they do not apply to registrants who are not members of the NFA or 
under the supervision of NFA members.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The interpretation reflected herein pertains only to bunched 
orders as defined in this Interpretation or the NFA Notice. All 
other customer orders placed for execution must be documented in 
accordance with the express terms of Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(1) and 
applicable exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's issuance of this Interpretation and Approval Order 
is based on its understanding that (1) commodity trading advisors 
(``CTA''), futures commission merchants (``FCM''), introducing brokers 
(``IB''), consistent with their responsibilities hereunder, will 
maintain documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the procedures 
authorized hereby are in fact followed, and (2) affected registrants, 
exchanges and the NFA will have effective systems in place that are 
used to monitor compliance and that appropriate procedures will be in 
place to address apparent noncompliance. In this connection, Commission 
staff recently has reviewed relevant audit and compliance procedures at 
the NFA and exchanges with respect to account identification for 
bunched orders. Commission staff also, on an ongoing basis, has 
encouraged the implementation of audit enhancements to address the 
types of allocation abuses observed in connection with exchange and 
Commission investigations regarding preferential allocation and other 
forms of allocation fraud.
    In general, as specified herein with respect to bunched orders, the 
floor order account identification requirement of Commission Regulation 
1.35(a-1)(2)(i) may be met by prefiling the appropriate order 
allocation procedures with a registrant clearing or executing the 
trades, the NFA or an exchange. That regulation's account 
identification requirement also may be met by the contemporaneous 
transmission of such allocation instructions with the order to a 
registrant clearing or executing the trades, either verbally or, 
consistent with the methodology described in the NFA Notice, 
electronically. These prefiled procedures or contemporaneous 
instructions also must include a methodology to allocate to those 
accounts orders that may be filled at multiple prices (``split fills'') 
or at less than specified quantities (``partial fills'') and, where 
applicable, to allocate give ups to multiple clearing firms, including 
a methodology to allocate split and partial fills among those clearing 
firms. CTAs, FCMs, IBs, their respective associated persons (``AP''), 
and FBs, as applicable, who do not identify the ultimate customer(s) 
and appropriate quantity on a floor order must satisfy the standards 
set forth in the NFA Notice and the Commission guidance provided herein 
to be in compliance with Commission Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i). 
Compliance with the express terms of Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i) will 
continue to be required in all cases where the procedures referenced in 
this Interpretation are not applicable or are not followed.

II. Background

    Commission Regulation 1.35(a-1)(1) requires that each FCM and each 
IB receiving a customer order immediately prepare a written record of 
the order which includes certain account identification. Regulation 
1.35(a-1)(2)(i) requires that each member of a contract market who 
receives a customer's order on the floor of a contract market that is 
not in the form of a written record also immediately prepare a written 
record of such order, including certain account identification. Under 
that rule, the floor order must include the account number for the 
ultimate customer for whom the order is placed or an identifying code 
which is directly linked to that specific customer account. This 
requirement has existed since Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2) became effective 
March 24, 1972.\3\ Since this regulation was adopted, there have been 
changes in the manner in which orders are placed, executed and cleared 
on the futures markets that reflect changes in the manner of doing 
business and in the types of entities using these markets. With the 
growth of managed funds business, in which multiple accounts are 
advised by one adviser using one or more trading strategies, the 
practice of bunching multiple orders for different accounts into a 
single order for placement and execution has increased dramatically. In 
addition, the unbundling of clearing and execution services has 
resulted in the increasingly common use of give up arrangements, 
whereby orders are executed by one or more FCMs and given up for 
clearing to other FCMs. While the CTA selects the executing FCM, the 
CTA's customers may select different FCMs for clearing purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 37 FR 3802 (February 23, 1972). Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2) was 
amended effective August 30, 1993 and was redesignated as 1.35(a-
1)(2)(i). 58 FR 31162 (June 1, 1993). The requirement to include 
customer account identification on the floor order remained 
unchanged.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25472]]

    Previously, to accommodate these changes in industry practice, 
Commission staff interpreted Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i) to permit the 
placement and execution of bunched orders provided that the person 
placing the bunched order provided at the time of entry a single series 
designation that identified all accounts included in the bunched order 
and a predetermined allocation formula. That interpretation required 
that the allocation formula be provided to the FCM prior to or 
contemporaneously with the placement of the bunched order, specify by 
account number those accounts to which it would apply, specify the 
number of contracts to be allocated to each account, and be designed to 
provide fair and equitable treatment of the accounts such that no 
account or group of accounts received consistently favorable or 
unfavorable treatment. That interpretation of Regulation 1.35(a-
1)(2)(i) consistently has been provided in response to specific 
inquiries and, in recognition that written regulatory guidance in this 
area may be necessary, was published in the Federal Register as 
paragraph (5) of a proposed amendment to Regulation 1.35(a-1).\4\ In 
issuing this Interpretation, the Commission expressly is adopting 
procedures consistent with the staff interpretation as clarified herein 
and withdrawing proposed Regulation 1.35(a-1)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 58 FR 26270 (May 3, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The NFA Notice

    The NFA Notice addresses three primary issues: (1) The manner and 
timing of the identification of the allocation formula; (2) principles 
that govern the allocation of trades; and (3) bunched orders executed 
on a give up basis, and reads in full as follows:

NFA Compliance Rule 2-10; Interpretive Notice Relating to the 
Allocation of Block Orders for Multiple Accounts

    CFTC Regulation 1.35, which NFA Compliance Rule 2-10 adopts by 
reference, requires that each FCM receiving a customer order 
immediately prepare a written record of the order which includes an 
appropriate account identification. NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 requires 
CTA Members to provide FCMs with that required information. The 
purpose of the regulation is to prevent various forms of customer 
abuse, such a fraudulent allocation of trades, by providing an 
adequate audit trail which allows customer orders to be tracked at 
every step of the order processing system. Since this regulation was 
originally adopted, however, there have been dramatic changes in the 
way business is done. With the explosive growth of the managed funds 
business and the increasing use of ``give-up'' agreements, it is not 
at all uncommon for some CTAs to place block orders for hundreds of 
accounts on markets around the world, with orders executed by one or 
more FCMs and cleared by other FCMs. How the basic requirements of 
CFTC Regulation 1.35 apply to block orders for multiple accounts 
(``block or bunched order'') has been the source of considerable 
difficulty and confusion. While this Notice does not attempt to 
address all of the issues which can arise in this context, it does 
provide guidance on commonly recurring questions.
    With respect to block orders, CFTC Regulation 1.35 has been 
interpreted to require that, at or before the time the order is 
placed, the FCM must be provided with information which identifies 
the accounts included in the block order and which specifies the 
number of contracts to be allotted to each account. In most 
instances, a CFTA can verbally provide all of that information 
contemporaneously with the placement of the order. Some of the time, 
however, this is not practical. Verbal transmission of numerous 
account numbers and allocation information could result in price 
slippage in filling block market orders. Most CTAs can deal with 
this problem by pre-filing with the FCM standing instructions which 
contain all of the necessary information.
    For a limited number of larger and more sophisticated CTAs, 
however, pre-filing standing instructions may not be practicable 
either. For these CTAs, although their basic allocation methodology 
does not change, the specific allocation instructions produced by 
the methodology may change on a daily basis. For example, a large 
CTA with a dynamic trading program may regularly change its order 
size based upon market volatility and historical price data. 
Certainly, if a CTA changes its order size, then the precise number 
of contracts allocated to each account within the CTA's trading 
program will also change. Other factors could cause regular changes 
to a CTA's order size and/or allocation breakdowns such as the 
number of accounts which open and close and any additions and 
withdrawals made in existing accounts. In the above instances, 
although the specific application of a CTA's allocation methodology 
to the universe of its accounts may cause allocation adjustments, 
the allocation methodology itself remains constant. Because the 
methodology must meet the standards of this Notice, it must be 
designed to provide non-preferential treatment for all accounts. 
Though these CTAs could provide the allocation information to their 
FCMs in advance of each order, this information could disclose their 
trading strategies, which they are obviously reluctant to do.
    In general, then, there are two alternatives to the verbal 
filing of all account identification data contemporaneously with 
order placement:
    (1) pre-filing of instructions for identification of accounts 
included in block orders and the allocation of executed block orders 
to accounts; and
    (2) under the stringent requirements described below, the 
contemporaneous filing of allocation instructions via electronic 
transmission.
    This Interpretive Notice clarifies how either approach can be 
implemented consistent with the requirements of CFTC Regulation 
1.35.

Pre-Filing of Allocation Instructions

    Allocation instructions for trades made through block orders for 
multiple accounts must deal with two separate issues. The first, 
which arises in all such orders, involves the question of how the 
total number of contracts should be allocated to the various 
accounts included in the block order. The second involves the 
allocation of split or partial fills. For example, a CTA may place a 
block order of 100 contracts for multiple accounts. In many 
instances, however, a market order for 100 contracts may be filled 
at a number of different prices. Similarly, if an order is to be 
filled at a particular price, the FCM may be able to execute some 
but not all of the 100 lot order. In either example, the question 
arises of how the different prices or the contracts in the partial 
fill should be allocated among the accounts included in the block 
order.
    The same set of core principles govern the procedures to be used 
in handling both of these issues. Any procedure for the general 
allocation of trades or the allocation of split and partial fills 
must be:
     Designed to meet the overriding regulatory objective 
that allocations are non-preferential, such that no account or group 
of accounts receive consistently favorable or unfavorable treatment;
     Sufficiently objective and specific that the 
appropriate allocation for any given trade can be verified in any 
audit by NFA, an exchange DSRO, the CFTC or the FCM's and CTA's own 
accountant; and
     Consistently applied by the Member firm.
    In performing audits, we have noted that Members employ a wide 
variety of methods to allocate split and partial fills, some of 
which satisfy the standards stated above and some of which do not. 
The following examples of procedures for the allocation of split and 
partial fills generally satisfy the standards stated above.

Example #1--Rotation of Accounts

    One basic allocation procedure involves a rotation of accounts 
on a regular cycle, usually daily or weekly, which receive the most 
favorable fills. For example, if a firm has 100 accounts trading a 
particular trading program, in the first phase of the cycle, Account 
#1 receives the best fill, Account #2 the second best, etc. In phase 
2 of the cycle, Account #2 receives the best fill and Account #1 
moves to the end of the line and receives the least favorable fill.

Example #2--Random Allocation

    Some firms prepare on a daily basis a computer generated random 
order of accounts and allocate the best price to the first account 
on the list and the worst to the last. This method would satisfy the 
standards stated above.

Example #3--Highest Prices to the Highest Account Numbers

    Some firms rank accounts in order of their account numbers and 
then allocate the highest fill prices to the accounts with the

[[Page 25473]]

highest account numbers. Any advantage the higher numbered accounts 
enjoy on the sell order are theoretically offset by the disadvantage 
on the buy orders. Although under certain market conditions this may 
not always be true, the method generally complies with the 
standards.

Example #4--Average Price and Quantity

    With regard to split and partial fills, allocations made 
pursuant to exchange rules which provide for the allocation of 
average prices and quantities in block orders for multiple accounts 
would, of course, be acceptable. In addition, certain firms may have 
internal programs which calculate the average price for each block 
order and allocate the actual fill prices among the accounts 
included in the order to approximate, as closely as possible, the 
average fill price. These internal programs must specifically 
satisfy the standards stated above and be documented by the Member 
firm.
    Though the examples cited above are the ones NFA most commonly 
sees in audits, others may offer comparable treatment. We would also 
note that the appropriateness of any particular method for 
allocating split and partial fills depends on the CTA's overall 
trading approach. For example, a daily rotation of accounts may 
satisfy the general standards for CTAs who trade on a daily basis 
but inappropriate for CTAs who trade less frequently. In addition, 
certain variations of these basic methods would not satisfy those 
requirements. For example, it would not be acceptable for the CTA to 
deviate from the regular rotation to accommodate an account whose 
performance is lagging behind others in the same program. This would 
inject the CTA's subjective judgment into the process, would render 
the allocation impossible to duplicate in the audit process and 
would open the potential for customer abuse.
    One related issue which has generated some confusion is whether 
the responsibility for the allocation of split and partial fills 
rests with the CTA or with the FCM. The CTA certainly has the sole 
responsibility for ensuring that the procedures are appropriate in 
light of its approach to trading. With respect to the actual 
implementation of the procedures, since the CTA is directing the 
trading in the accounts, the responsibility for allocating split and 
partial fills among the accounts should rest with the CTA. However, 
there is nothing under NFA rules to preclude an FCM from agreeing to 
undertake this responsibility, whether it clears or executes the 
trades, pursuant to either its own procedures or to those supplied 
by the CTA. Any division of responsibilities agreed to by the FCM 
and CTA should be clearly documented.
    There is also good deal of confusion on how the basic principles 
of CFTC Regulation 1.35 apply to block orders executed on a ``give-
up'' basis, a process which was essentially unknown when Regulation 
1.35 was originally adopted. Subject to exchange rules, in any given 
block order there may be multiple executing FCMs, multiple clearing 
FCMs or multiple FCMs serving each of these functions. The exact 
form of customer identification which the FCM must receive from the 
CTA under Regulation 1.35 may vary depending on the FCM's role in 
filling the order. Essentially, each FCM must receive sufficient 
information to allow it to perform its function. For executing FCMs, 
this includes, at a minimum, the number of contracts to be given up 
to each clearing FCM and instructions for allocation of split and 
partial fills among these FCMs. Information concerning the number of 
contracts to be allocated to each account included in the block 
order must be provided to the FCM which will carry out those 
instructions, which, in most cases, will be the FCM clearing the 
accounts. All of this information must be provided at or before the 
time the order is placed and could be provided by pre-filing a set 
of instructions. If the pre-filed instructions for the general 
allocation or the allocation of split and partial fills meet the 
standards set forth in this Notice, then the clerical task of 
implementing the instructions could be performed by either the FCM 
or the CTA.
    If that clerical function is performed by the CTA, this does not 
suggest that the FCM is relieved of any further responsibility. The 
FCM has certain basic duties to its customers, including the duty to 
supervise its own activities in a way designed to ensure that it 
treats its customers fairly. Specifically, the FCM would violate 
this duty if it has actual or constructive notice that allocations 
for its customers may be fraudulent and fails to take appropriate 
action. The FCM with such notice must make a reasonable inquiry into 
the matter and, if appropriate, refer the matter to the proper 
regulatory authorities (e.g., the CFTC or the NFA or its DSRO). 
Obviously, whether an FCM has such notice depends upon the 
information that the FCM has or should have, which, in turn, is 
based upon the FCM's role in the executing and clearing process. For 
example, an FCM that both executes and clears an entire block order 
will possess more information than an FCM that executives or clears 
only a portion of an order. In order to fulfill its duties, and FCM 
at any level of the process should implement appropriate compliance 
measures. For example, an FCM may choose to spot check the 
allocations made to its customer accounts for conformity with the 
prefiled instructions it has received from the CTA and/or review the 
performance of accounts being traded pursuant to the same trading 
program.

Contemporaneous Filing of Instructions Via Electronic Transmission

    Instructions for the allocation of contracts to accounts 
included in a block order can also be given at the time the CTA 
places the trade. NFA notes, however, that as a general rule 
allocation procedures for split and partial fills should be pre-
filed with the appropriate FCM. For instructions on the number of 
contracts to be assigned to each account in the block order, many 
CTA's simply provide the necessary allocation information by phone 
when they call in the block order. For certain CTAs, however, 
providing allocation instructions verbally when the block order is 
placed may not be a practicable option. These CTAs may have hundreds 
of accounts included in the block order and providing detailed 
allocation information by phone may be extremely time consuming. 
Delaying the execution of the order while that process drags on 
might ultimately harm customers through market price slippage. For 
most of these CTAs, the prefiling of instructions provides an 
adequate alternative. However, for a limited number of CTAs, it may 
not be practicable to pre-file with the FCM a standing set of 
allocation instructions. The trading programs used by these CTAs are 
complex and dynamic. Given the fine tuning adjustments that are made 
on a daily basis, the exact number of contracts these CTAs allocate 
to any given account may vary from one day to the next, and may make 
the prefiling of instructions impracticable.
    Under these circumstances, one way the CTA may provide the 
account identification information required under CFTC Regulation 
1.35 would be to send the FCM, by facsimile or other form of 
electronic transmission, the breakdown of contracts to be assigned 
to each account included in the block order. The CTA would have to 
begin to send that information at the time the order is placed. 
Given the possibility of busy signals, paper jams and other 
limitations of electronic transmissions, there may be momentary 
delays in the completion of the transmission. Such delays should be 
neither commonplace nor lengthy, and the CTA should maintain 
appropriate documentation whenever such delays occur. When those 
delays do occur, however, CFTC Regulation 1.35 does not necessarily 
require the FCM to delay execution of the order until the electronic 
transmission of the allocation information is completed. To avoid 
delays in execution due to such transmission difficulties, the CTA 
must have provided the FCM with a written certification that:
    (1) the CTA will begin the transmission to the FCM of the 
allocation breakdown contemporaneously with the placement of the 
order and will maintain appropriate documentation regarding any 
delays experienced in such transmission;
    (2) prior to the placement of an order, the CTA has also 
generated a non-preferential allocation breakdown for each order 
which has been computer time-stamped indicating the date on which 
the order is to be placed and the date and time the allocation 
breakdown was printed;
    (3) the CTA maintains with either their executing or clearing 
FCMs a complete list of all accounts traded by the CTA, by trading 
program if applicable;
    (4) if a bunched order does not include all accounts within a 
particular trading program, then prior to the execution of the order 
these CTAs will identify for their FCMs the accounts which are 
included, by account identifier or designation;
    (5) on a daily basis, these CTAs confirm that all their accounts 
have the correct allocation of contracts; and
    (6) at least once a month, these CTAs analyze each trading 
program to ensure that the allocation method has been fair and 
equitable. If divergent performance results exist over time, then 
such results must be shown to be attributable to factors other than

[[Page 25474]]

the CTA's trade allocation or execution procedures. Additionally, a 
CTA must document its internal audit procedures and the results of 
its monthly analysis and maintain these audit procedures and results 
as firm records subject to review during an NFA audit.
    An FCM which relies in good faith on the above certification 
would be deemed to be in compliance with CFTC Regulation 1.35. The 
CTA must also file a copy of that certification with NFA at least 
thirty days prior to implementing these procedures. This time period 
will provide NFA with an opportunity to review and verify the 
information contained in the certification.
    For most block orders, the pre-filing of allocation instructions 
is the most practicable and preferred course of action. The 
procedure described herein relating to the contemporaneous filing of 
instructions via electronic transmission is an alternative available 
to those relatively few CTAs that can demonstrate a need for this 
alternative and meet the requirements of the certification. Each CTA 
availing itself of this alternative must not only adhere to the 
requirements of this Notice, but also demonstrate on a continuing 
basis to the appropriate regulator or self-regulator both its need 
to use this alternative and that the information in the 
certification is correct. If a CTA utilizes this alternative, it 
must adhere to this Notice's requirements or may face disciplinary 
action for its failure to do so. If any Member has questions 
concerning how this Interpretive Notice would apply to its 
operations, please contact NFA's Compliance Department.

IV. Commission Guidance

    In any instance in which a CTA bunches multiple orders for 
different accounts into a single order for placement and execution, the 
antifraud provisions of Sections 4b and 4o of the Commodity Exchange 
Act may be violated if the resulting allocation is not fair, equitable 
and consistent in its treatment of the accounts included in the order. 
A CTA may bunch orders and provide, at the time of order placement with 
an executing registrant,\5\ an allocation designator, as defined 
herein, that the Commission will find to constitute compliance with the 
account identification requirement of Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i) for 
the accounts included in the order, by the CTA or the executing 
registrant, respectively, provided that, consistent with the NFA Notice 
and the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Executing registrant'' refers to the registrant with whom 
the CTA places the bunched order for execution, and may be either an 
FCM or a floor broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The CTA provides to each carrying FCM to which fills are to be 
allocated, either by prefiling allocation procedures or (consistent 
with the guidance set forth in the NFA Notice) contemporaneously 
providing allocation instructions with the placement of the order, a 
methodology to allocate contracts to customer accounts that identifies 
the ultimate customer account numbers and includes procedures for 
allocating prices and quantities for split and partial fills to those 
customers;
    2. The order pertains to a group of specified accounts previously 
or contemporaneously identified to the carrying firm(s); and
    3. The order is intended to provide fills for all accounts included 
in a single trading program.
    4. The executing registrant documents the order as follows:
    a. For purposes of the documentation required pursuant to this 
paragraph 4., an allocation designator means a symbol which represents 
all or any portion of the following information not reflected on the 
floor order as may be necessary to identify the ultimate customers, 
quantities and prices: that is, the trading program and the allocation 
procedures or methodology, including procedures for allocating prices 
and quantities for split and partial fills among carrying firms and/or 
among ultimate customers.
    b. If the bunched order is to be allocated to customer accounts at 
one carrying FCM, prior to the time the order is executed, the floor 
order must reflect (1) the carrying FCM, (2) the order quantity, and 
(3) an allocation designator.
    c. If the bunched order is to be given up for allocation to 
customer accounts at more than one carrying FCM, prior to the time the 
order is executed, the floor order must reflect (1) each carrying FCM, 
(2) the quantity to be given up to each such FCM, and (3) an allocation 
designator.\6\ Consistent with the guidance provided in the NFA Notice, 
allocation instructions may be provided by electronic transmission to 
the executing registrant contemporaneously with order placement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If the allocation instructions are provided 
contemporaneously with order placement to a floor trading desk or 
floor broker's clerk, the person receiving the order may immediately 
transmit the order's terms (that is, contract, quantity and price) 
to the executing broker, either by hand signals, verbal or written 
communication, while continuing to record the allocation information 
on the floor order. Order execution need not be delayed while such 
information is being recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Alternatively, if the bunched order is to be given up for 
allocation to customer accounts at more than one FCM and the CTA has 
prefiled, consistent with exchange rules,\7\--with the NFA, a 
designated clearing member, an executing registrant, or an exchange--a 
set of allocation procedures which (1) Identifies each FCM to which 
trades will be given up, (2) identifies a methodology to determine how 
many contracts each FCM would receive, and (3) identifies an allocation 
designator, prior to the time the order is executed, the floor order 
must reflect the order quantity and the allocation designator 
identifying the prefiled procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Any exchange which permits the prefiling of procedures with 
the NFA or an exchange pursuant to this interpretation of Regulation 
1.35(a-1)(2)(i) must have procedures in place for their executing 
members to confirm that CTA allocation procedures, including 
designators, are in fact prefiled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Prefiled procedures ordinarily would be standing procedures that 
would remain unchanged for a reasonable period of time.
    5. Any time a CTA prefiles allocation procedures as provided herein 
and the CTA, rather than the executing or clearing registrant, provides 
specific allocations, after the execution of an order, implementing 
those prefiled procedures, the CTA must provide those allocations as 
soon as practicable.
    Consistent with the NFA Notice, if an executing registrant has 
notice, based upon the information available to that registrant, that 
(1) allocation procedures are not prefiled, (2) the CTA's instructions 
do not conform to the prefiled procedures of (3) the give up and/or 
split and partial fill procedures or instructions result in allocations 
that are not being made in a fair, equitable and consistent manner, 
either by quantity or price, the executing registrant must make 
reasonable inquiry into the matter and, if appropriate, refer the 
matter to the proper regulatory authorities.

V. Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, FCMs, IBs, CTAs, their respective APs, and 
FBs who handle bunched orders for multiple accounts shall be deemed to 
be in compliance with the account identification requirement of 
Commission Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2)(i) if such orders are placed, 
recorded, executed, given up to multiple clearing firms, if applicable, 
and allocated to customer accounts in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in the NFA Notice and in compliance with the above-stated 
Commission guidance.
    This Interpretation and Approval Order is based upon the 
Commission's understanding that (1) affected registrants, consistent 
with their responsibilities as set forth herein, will maintain 
documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the procedures thus 
authorized are in fact followed and (2) affected registrants, exchanges 
and the NFA will have effective systems in place to monitor compliance 
and to address apparent noncompliance with

[[Page 25475]]

the terms hereof. The Commission intends to monitor the procedures and 
practices followed pursuant hereto, including through review of the 
results of audits of registrants handling bunched orders. Based 
thereon, the Commission may provide further guidance as appropriate.

    Dated: May 5, 1997.

    By the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-12161 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M