Apr. 06, 2019
Re: File Number S-7-30-18 Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds Question 1 - The proposal does not provide enough clarity for firms to determine whether they qualify for the exclusion from the banking entity definition because the provisions are too broad in providing any agreement or documents that would substantiate the exclusion. It is suggested that in defining the term such as banking entity that it is uniformly used to depict the concept set out in its definition. That is one of the most important skills in efficient drafting of regulations. The draftsperson must first have very definite concepts and then must manifest an ability to employ proper words, phrases, clauses and sentences which clearly convey the scope and limitations of such concepts. Then, these well-delimited concepts, by means of appropriate nomenclature and phraseology, must be uniformly applied throughout the chapter. Question 2 – The proposal does not provide efficient clarity for firms to determine whether a hedge fund or private equity firm sponsored by a banking entity is permitted to share the same name or variation of the same name with an affiliated banking entity because many times we see, in areas where an individual person or legal entity competent to contract, will attempt to disenfranchise from the meaning at hand by using similar terms to disguise their true identity. This could be by using words or terms such as Banque (Fr), Banco (Es), Banc (Cy) or Ripae (Lat) etal to masquerade as a banking entity and purported to be set apart from the actual operating company. Certainly, those who have a reasonably broad knowledge of modern regulatory reform would consider these and all comments in the proceedings. Respectfully submitted, Bruce D. Grimm [redacted]