This report was approved on February 10, 2021 by the Market Structure Subcommittee of the Market 

Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC). The views, analyses, and conclusions expressed herein reflect the work 

of the Market Structure Subcommittee of the MRAC, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

MRAC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or its staff, or the U.S. government. Reference to 

any products, services, websites, organizations, or enterprises, or the use of any, organization, trade, 

firm, or corporation name is for informational purposes only and does not constitute endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE “MADE 

AVAILABLE TO TRADE” (MAT) PROCESS

Report of the Market Structure Subcommittee,

Market Risk Advisory Committee of the 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Acting Chairman Rostin Behnam, Sponsor 

Stephen Berger & Lisa A. Shemie, Co-Chairmen

VOTING DRAFT FOR MRAC CONSIDERATION ONLY
February 10, 2021 Page 1 

Background & Introduction

The scope of the “trade execution requirement” – the obligation to trade certain cleared swaps on swap 

execution facilities or designated contract markets (hereinafter referred to collectively as “SEFs”) – is 

currently set through the “made available to trade” (“MAT”) process.

At present, under Commission rules § 37.10 and 38.12 (see Appendix A), SEFs themselves and alone are 

provided with the authority to make a MAT determination, and by extension, determine the scope of 

swaps subject to the trade execution requirement (see Appendix B).

The overall appropriateness, efficacy, and sustainability of the current MAT process has been examined 

at length since its initial adoption, and myriad proposals to revise the framework have been advanced, 

including at/via:

• The CFTC Division of Market Oversight’s Public Roundtable Regarding the Made Available to Trade

Process held on July 15, 2015 (see Appendix C);

• The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s “Capital Markets” Report, published in October 2017 (see

Appendix D); and

• The CFTC’s Proposed Rule on SEFs and the Trade Execution Requirement (published on November 30,

2018 though largely withdrawn on December 8, 2020) and in over 25 comment letters submitted in

response to the proposal received on or about March 15, 2019 (see Appendix E).

Notwithstanding these past in-depth discussions of revisions to the MAT process, a consensus blueprint

among market participants has not been put forward. Through these proposed recommendations, the 

Market Structure Subcommittee aims to provide such a blueprint. In particular, the Subcommittee’s 

proposed recommendations would: 

1. Provide the Commission with the authority through its rulemaking process to determine that a swap

is made available to trade;

2. Enhance the criteria used when either the Commission or SEFs make a MAT determination;

3. Modify the length of time between when a MAT determination is made and when the trade execution

requirement becomes effective; and

4. Create additional avenues for certain existing MAT swaps to no longer be subject to the trade

execution requirement, when and where appropriate.

VOTING DRAFT FOR MRAC CONSIDERATION ONLY
February 10, 2021 Page 2 

The Subcommittee believes that these proposed recommendations will help address a range of concerns 

that have been expressed since the current MAT framework was adopted, including:

• That all SEFs have refrained from making any new MAT determinations since late 2013, which has

raised questions about the suitability and future viability of the current MAT process;

• The potential conflict of interest that exists when SEFs have the sole authority to determine the scope

of swaps that must trade exclusively on SEFs, particularly when the potential exists for a given SEF to

direct all trading onto its own platform if it is the only SEF to list a swap that is then covered by a MAT

determination;

• The inconsistency between the US regime, where SEFs set the scope of the trade execution

requirement, and relevant international regimes, where regulators set the scope of the trading

obligation – and by extension, the question of how the alignment of the scope of the trading obligation 

can best be maintained going forward; and

• How will the current scope of swaps subject to the trade execution requirement be efficiently updated

and revised given that all the existing MAT determinations reference LIBOR swaps (and other IBOR

swaps).

Recommendations

1. Provide The Commission With The Authority to Determine That A Swap Is “Available To Trade”

The current MAT process, which relies on SEFs to make a MAT determination and submit it to the 

Commission for approval or self-certification under the Commission’s Part 40 rules, should be 

complemented by a Commission-initiated process that equally establishes that a swap is considered 

“available to trade”, and by extension, is subject to the trade execution requirement under Section 2(h)(8) 

of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). 

Such a Commission-initiated process would consider the same factors that are outlined in current 

Commission rule § 37.10 (as modified by our second recommendation below), and would allow for a 

standard public notice and comment period. Notably, this process for setting the scope of swaps subject 

to the trade execution requirement would also more logically parallel the process the Commission uses 

for setting the scope of swaps subject to the clearing obligation.
February 10, 2021 Page 3 

2. Enhance the MAT Criteria

The criteria laid out in Commission rule § 37.10 which are used to determine whether or not a swap is 

“available to trade” should be enhanced such that:

• The “shall consider, as appropriate” standard for consideration is strengthened to “must consider”;

• Clarify that all factors must be evaluated, rather than just one or a subset;

• The number of SEFs that list the swap is added as a factor, and at least two SEFs list the swap; and

• A minimum amount of trading history is required (e.g., that a swap has been listed for at least 90

days).

3. Effective Date

The length of time between when a MAT determination is made through a SEF rule filing or a Commission 

rulemaking and when the trade execution requirement becomes effective should be lengthened from 30 

days (currently) to 90 days.

If a swap is removed from MAT scope (pursuant to our fourth recommendation or otherwise), the 

effective date of the trade execution requirement no longer applying to it should be immediate. 

4. De-MAT Process

A process should be developed to remove a swap from the MAT scope (beyond simply a swap no longer 

being listed on any SEF). The process for doing so should generally be symmetric with the process for 

making a MAT determination in the first instance – both in terms of procedural pathways (SEF rule 

certification and/or Commission-initiated process) as well as an assessment against the relevant factors 

in Commission rule § 37.10 – though could follow a more expedited timeline. 

Areas for Future Consideration

5. Creation of an Industry Advisory Body

The Commission should consider whether an industry advisory body should be created to provide 

recommendations to both the Commission as well as SEFs on swaps that should be added to or removed 

from the list of swaps that are deemed to be “available to trade” and thus subject to the trade execution 

requirement. The advisory body should have appropriate expertise and balanced representation, 

including from the buy-side, the sell-side, and other stakeholders. 
February 10, 2021 Page 4 

6. Application of MAT Determinations to Outright Transactions vs. Package Transactions

The Commission should further consider whether a determination that a swap is “available to trade” 

means that only “outright” transactions in that swap are subject to the trade execution requirement or 

that any and all “package” transactions that include that swaps are subject to the trade execution 

requirement. The current approach, which does not delineate between “outright” and “package” 

transactions, has necessitated a series of no action relief letters to tailor the application of trade 

execution requirement for different types of “package” transactions. An alternative approach would be 

make MAT determinations specific to different transaction types (e.g., outrights, curves, butterflies, 

spread-over-Treasuries, etc.).

7. Temporary Suspension of the Trade Execution Requirement

The Commission should consider the implications that a temporary outage at one or more SEFs or a 

major market disruption would have for swaps subject to the trade execution requirement.
February 10, 2021 Page 5 

Appendix A: CFTC Final Rule: Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To

Make a Swap Available to Trade

• Adopting Release:

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013

-12250a.pdf

• Full text of § 37.10:

§ 37.10 Process for a swap execution facility to make a swap available to trade.

(a)(1) Required submission. A swap execution facility that makes a swap available to trade in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section, shall submit to the Commission its determination with respect to such swap as a 

rule, as that term is defined by § 40.1 of this chapter, pursuant to the procedures under part 40 of this 

chapter.

(2) Listing requirement. A swap execution facility that makes a swap available to trade must demonstrate that

it lists or offers that swap for trading on its trading system or platform.

(b) Factors to consider. To make a swap available to trade, for purposes of section 2(h)(8) of the Act, a swap

execution facility shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors with respect to such swap:

(1) Whether there are ready and willing buyers and sellers;

(2) The frequency or size of transactions;

(3) The trading volume;

(4) The number and types of market participants;

(5) The bid/ask spread; or

(6) The usual number of resting firm or indicative bids and offers.

(c) Applicability. Upon a determination that a swap is available to trade on any swap execution facility or

designated contract market pursuant to part 40 of this chapter, all other swap execution facilities and

designated contract markets shall comply with the requirements of section 2(h)(8)(A) of the Act in listing or

offering such swap for trading.

(d) Removal—(1) Determination. The Commission may issue a determination that a swap is no longer available

to trade upon determining that no swap execution facility or designated contract market lists such swap for

trading.

(2) Delegation of Authority. (i) The Commission hereby delegates, until it orders otherwise, to the Director of

the Division of Market Oversight or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from

time to time, the authority to issue a determination that a swap is no longer available to trade.

(ii) The Director may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated in

this section. Nothing in this section prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority

delegated in this section.
February 10, 2021 Page 6 

Appendix B: Current “Made Available to Trade” Determinations

• Summary Chart:

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@otherif/documents/file/swapsmadeav

ailablechart.pdf

• “Made Available to Trade” Submissions:

SEF Filings 

trueEX https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=%20SwapsMadeAvailableToTradeDeter

minationAD&Key=26597

TradeWeb https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=%20SwapsMadeAvailableToTradeDeter

minationAD&Key=26597

Javelin https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=%20SwapsMadeAvailableToTradeDeter

minationAD&Key=26422

MarketAxess https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=%20SwapsMadeAvailableToTradeDeter

minationAD&Key=26601

Bloomberg https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=ProductTermsandConditionsAD&Key=2

8230
February 10, 2021 Page 7 

Appendix C: CFTC Division of Market Oversight Public Roundtable Regarding the Made Available to 

Trade Process (July 15, 2015)

• Meeting Website: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff071515

• Meeting Transcript:

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/transcript0

71515.pdf

• SIFMA Meeting Summary: https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/cftc-roundtable-on-matdeterminations/

• SIFMA AMG Comment Letter: https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sifma-amgsubmits-comments-to-the-cftc-on-made-available-to-trade-determinations.pdf

• Greenwich Associates Commentary – “Putting the CFTC in charge of the MAT process”:

https://www.greenwich.com/blog/putting-cftc-charge-mat-process

• Clarus Financial Technology – “How to Fix the Broken MAT Process”:

https://www.clarusft.com/how-to-fix-the-broken-mat-process/
February 10, 2021 Page 8

Appendix D: Treasury Capital Markets Report (October 2017)

• Full report: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/A-Financial-SystemCapital-Markets-FINAL-FINAL.pdf

• Relevant excerpt from pages 144-45:

“CFTC rules permit a SEF to make a MAT determination on consideration of six specified factors,

which triggers the trade execution requirement for a class of swaps. Many market participants have 

commented that the six factors that SEFs must consider before making a MAT determination

are not robust enough to demonstrate sufficient liquidity for mandatory trading. CFTC Chairman

Giancarlo has stated that, “Since the MAT process is platform-controlled, a nascent SEF attempting 

to gain a first-mover advantage in trading liquidity may force certain swaps to trade exclusively

through the SEF’s restrictive methods of execution (i.e., order book or RFQ-3 system), potentially

before sufficient liquidity is available to support such trading.” Commenters have recommended

giving the CFTC greater control over the MAT determination process by empowering the CFTC,

rather than SEFs, to trigger the trade execution requirement.”
February 10, 2021 Page 9 

Appendix E: Relevant Comments on the CFTC Proposed Rule on SEFs and the Trade Execution 

Requirement

• Full comment file: https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=2936

• 26 commenters addressed the proposed revisions to the MAT process:

Trade Associations

o MFA

o SIFMA AMG

o ACLI

o AIMA

o ICI

o ISDA

o SIFMA

o CMC

o FIA

o GFXD

Market Participants

o Vanguard

o Wellington

o Citadel

o T. Rowe Price

o FHLBs

o Chatham

o Blackrock

o Farmer MAC

SEFs

o Bloomberg

o Tradeweb

o 360T

o Refinitiv

Others

o Better Markets

o IHS Markit

o Capitalab

o Derivative Path
February 10, 2021 Page 10 

Members of the MRAC Market Structure Subcommittee

Name Entity Representing Title

1. Stephen Berger

(Co-Chair)

Citadel Managing Director and Global Head of 

Government & Regulatory Policy

2. Lisa Shemie

(Co-Chair)

Cboe Global Markets Associate General Counsel, Chief Legal 

Officer – Cboe FX Markets and Cboe SEF

3. B. Salman Banaei IHS Markit Executive Director, Global Head of 

Clearance and Settlement

4. Lee Betsill CME Group Managing Director and Chief Risk Officer

5. Peter Borish Quad Group Chief Strategist

6. Biswarup Chatterjee Citigroup Managing Director, Global Head of 

Innovation, Markets & Securities Services

7. Shelly Goodwin BP IST Global Americas Compliance Director, Refining & Products 

Trading Americas and Global Crude

8. Graham Harper Futures Industry Association –

Principal Traders Group

Head of Public Policy and Market Structure 

at DRW

9. Frank Hayden Calpine Corporation Vice President, Trading Compliance

10. Annette Hunter Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta Senior Vice President and Director of 

Accounting Operations

11. Eileen Kiely BlackRock Managing Director, Deputy Head of 

Counterparty Risk

12. Derek Kleinbauer Bloomberg SEF LLC Global Head of Fixed Income & Equities 

Electronic Trading, Bloomberg LP and Vice 

President, Bloomberg SEF LLC

13. Laura Klimpel The Depository Trust & Clearing 

Corporation

Managing Director

14. Craig Messinger Virtu Financial Vice Chairman

15. Robert Mangrelli Chatham Financial Director

16. Dr. Sam Priyadarshi Vanguard Principal, Global Head of Portfolio Risk 

Management and Derivatives
February 10, 2021 Page 11 

Members of the MRAC Market Structure Subcommittee

Name Entity Representing Title

17. Jonathan Raiff Nomura Global Financial Products, 

Inc.

Senior Managing Director, Head of Global 

Markets Americas

18. Tyson Slocum Public Citizen Director, Energy Program

19. Sujatha Srinivasan Goldman Sachs Co-Head of Market Risk Specialists, 

Securities Division

20. Janine Tramontana1 Federal Reserve Bank of New York Vice President and Senior Counsel

21. Nadia Zakir2 Pacific Investment Management 

Company LLC (PIMCO)

Executive Vice President and Deputy 

General Counsel

22. Scott Zucker Tradeweb Chief Administrative Officer

1 Ms. Tramontana, in representing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is a non-voting member. In this capacity, 

she did not provide advice and recommendations on this report. 2 Ms. Zakir, as the Chair of the MRAC, is a non-voting member.