US SEC expected to drag its feet on new wave of crypto ETFs
Send a link to a friend
[February 27, 2024] By
Suzanne McGee and Hannah Lang
(Reuters) - Buoyed by the successful launch of U.S. bitcoin
exchange-traded funds (ETFs), asset managers are lining up to list a
second wave of more complex crypto products, setting the stage for
another tussle with the U.S. securities regulator.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected spot bitcoin ETFs
for more than a decade, hoping to protect investors from market
manipulation. But the SEC was forced to approve them last month after
Grayscale Investments won a court challenge. A federal appeals court
ruled that the SEC had not sufficiently detailed its reasoning for
rejecting the products.
That decision encouraged 12 asset managers, including Grayscale,
ProShares, VanEck, Invesco, Fidelity and Ark Investments to file
applications to launch 25 next-generation cryptocurrency ETFs.
Many are complex products that would use options to amplify bitcoin's
volatility. Others would track the price of ether, the No. 2
cryptocurrency after bitcoin.
Investors hope the new products will help drive crypto further into the
mainstream. Bitcoin hit $50,000 on Feb. 12 for the first time in over
two years and ether has climbed more than 12% this year on hopes the SEC
will approve the spot products.
Yet the SEC remains uncomfortable with cryptocurrencies and complex
exchange-traded products, and lawyers and industry sources said they
expect the agency to move cautiously. The legal status of ether is also
ambiguous, they noted.
"It doesn't seem like there's a rush to approve a second wave of
products," said Yesha Yadav, a professor focusing on digital asset
regulation at Vanderbilt University, adding the SEC would have to
"grapple with" how much risk it can stomach.
SEC Chair Gary Gensler remains a crypto critic, and when approving the
bitcoin ETFs, he warned they were highly risky and said the decision did
not signal the SEC was willing to approve listing standards for crypto
assets more broadly.
An executive at one issuer said it was unclear whether SEC approval of
the bitcoin ETFs would pave the way for other products.
Some applications before the SEC are for products designed for day
traders: Leveraged exchange-traded bitcoin products would seek to juice
returns by further amplifying the cryptocurrency's significant
volatility. Other applications are for inverse products that allow
speculators to bet on a decline in the price.
The SEC has approved many inverse and leveraged ETFs, but has been
cautious after a volatility-tracking exchange-traded note went bust in
2018, costing investors $2 billion in losses. In 2020, it capped ETF
leverage at 200%, and the agency is due to review its rules on ETF risks
this year, according to its regulatory agenda.
Gensler and Democratic SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw have also
warned about risks of inverse and leveraged ETFs. The SEC would only
formally stop these products from launching if it found their
disclosures to be materially misleading, people familiar with the matter
said, but they added it could delay the effective date of a filing or
suggest an issuer withdraw it if staff have concerns.
[to top of second column] |
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler
testifies before a House Financial Services Committee oversight
hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. September 27, 2023.
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
James Angel, associate professor of finance at Georgetown
University, said the SEC would likely avoid outright rejection of
applications, which could invite a legal challenge.
"I think they will look for every possible detail or excuse they can
to delay the process," he added.
There is no clear process for SEC approval of options on the bitcoin
ETFs, which have usually been approved days after an ETF launch, so
approval could take months going forward, Reuters reported this
month.
ProShares, Invesco, Fidelity and Ark Investments declined to comment
or did not respond to requests for comment.
ETHER CLASH?
Because the spot ether ETFs would be a new product and require a
rule change, the SEC must approve or deny them by a set deadline.
VanEck's filing is first in line for a decision on May 23, while the
deadline for Grayscale's ether application is June 18.
The SEC has yet to engage substantively with issuers on the
applications, but is expected to begin meetings next month, said two
other people familiar with the matter. The agency has not yet
disclosed meetings on the products in its public log.
Asked about the spot ether ETF filings this month, Gensler told CNBC
the SEC's five commissioners would review them. Both Democrat
commissioners voted against the bitcoin ETFs, while the two
Republicans voted for them. That means Gensler would likely have the
deciding vote.
The arguments Grayscale used to defeat the SEC in its bitcoin ETF
suit could apply to the ether products because the circumstances are
similar. But some regulatory experts and issuers said Gensler could
argue ether is a different type of asset.
The SEC has said bitcoin is a commodity, but has not made a
determination on ether. Unlike bitcoin, ether is traded on a
so-called "proof-of-stake" blockchain that allows users to earn
yield in exchange for locking up tokens for a period of time.
Gensler has questioned whether this setup resembles a traditional
security.
"There are different circumstances the SEC will consider. The
biggest circumstance is that they consider bitcoin to be a commodity
and not a security," said Frank Borger Gilligan, a securities
attorney at Dickinson Wright who said the SEC would want assurances
that any new products had investor safeguards.
Asked by CNBC last week if it will take another lawsuit to force the
SEC to approve ether ETFs, Grayscale CEO Michael Sonnenshein said it
was "too early to say."
(Reporting by Suzanne McGee and Hannah Lang in Washington; editing
by Michelle Price and David Gregorio)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|