# CFTC Letter No. 12-44: No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L12_44

## Section

- **Citation:** CFTC Letter No. 12-44
- **Heading:** No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** CFTC Staff Letters (2008-present) / No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts.

## Text

Summary: No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts.

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581
Telephone: (202) 418-5949
Facsimile: (202) 418-5547
gbarnett@cftc.gov
Division of Swap Dealer and
Intermediary Oversight
Gary Barnett
Director
CFTC Letter No. 12-44
No-Action
December 7, 2012
Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight

Re:
No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for
Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts

The Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (the “Division”) has received
numerous requests for no-action relief from the Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) registration
requirement for operators of vehicles operated as mortgage real estate investment trusts
(“mREITs”).1

Many mREITs use swaps as part of their business model, which were recently included
within the Commission’s jurisdiction as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010.2 This caused the operators of mREITs to fall within the
statutory definition of CPO, and, absent relief from the Division or the Commission, to register
as CPOs.

MREITs are entities that own direct or indirect interests in mortgages on real estate or
other interests in real property.3 The activities of mREITs can vary from acquiring mortgages or
servicing underlying assets to buying whole loans or mortgage backed securities (“MBS”).
MREITs generally use interest rate swaps, swaptions, caps, floors, or collars to hedge interest
rates or foreign exchange swaps to transform income. They may also use certain credit default
swaps to hedge the risk of default on their mortgage-backed securities holdings
n vary from acquiring mortgages or
servicing underlying assets to buying whole loans or mortgage backed securities (“MBS”).
MREITs generally use interest rate swaps, swaptions, caps, floors, or collars to hedge interest
rates or foreign exchange swaps to transform income. They may also use certain credit default
swaps to hedge the risk of default on their mortgage-backed securities holdings.

For an entity to be classified as an mREIT, it must elect to be taxed as a real estate
investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”). To qualify

1 The Division received numerous letters requesting no-action relief for certain mREITs. Specifically, the
Commission received letters on behalf of various clients from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Hunton
& Williams, LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Foley & Lardner, LLP, and Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP. The Division also
received a request for interpretative relief from the Mortgage Bankers Association seeking an interpretative
exclusion from the definition of “commodity pool,” and supplementary information from Morrison & Foerster, LLP.
2 Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124
Stat. 1376, 1666-67, 1672 (2010), 7 U.S.C. 1a(10), 1a(11), 1a(12) (as amended).
3 See 26 U.S.C. 856, 857.

Page 2

2
annually as a REIT, an entity must satisfy two income tests. First, at least 75 percent of the
mREIT’s annual gross income must be derived from certain qualifying real estate related
sources, including, but not limited to, interest generated from mortgage backed securities.4
Second, the Code requires that at least 95 percent of an mREIT’s annual gross income must
consist of items that in combination would satisfy the 75 percent test plus other passive income
such as interest and dividends.5

Under both tests, income from a “qualified REIT hedging transaction” is excluded from
the calculation
t not limited to, interest generated from mortgage backed securities.4
Second, the Code requires that at least 95 percent of an mREIT’s annual gross income must
consist of items that in combination would satisfy the 75 percent test plus other passive income
such as interest and dividends.5

Under both tests, income from a “qualified REIT hedging transaction” is excluded from
the calculation. The Code limits what is a “qualified REIT hedging transaction” to those
transactions:

 Entered into in the normal course of its business primarily to manage the risk of interest
rate, price, or currency fluctuations, and credit risk related to the carrying of qualifying
real estate assets; or
 Entered into primarily to manage the risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any
qualifying income under the two income tests.
Moreover, all qualifying REIT hedging transactions must be identified on the day they
are executed. If income is derived from a transaction that is not considered a “qualified REIT
hedging transaction” under the Code, it is “nonqualifying income,” which cannot exceed 5% of
the mREIT’s annual gross income. If such nonqualifying income exceeds 5% of the mREIT’s
annual gross income, the entity will no longer be eligible for REIT status. Once mREIT status is
lost, the entity will be unable to reclaim mREIT status for a period of 5 years.
Most SEC-registered mREITs are not considered “investment companies” under Section
3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “40 Act”) 6 because they meet the exclusion set
forth in Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 40 Act,which provides an additional qualifying assets test
e for REIT status. Once mREIT status is
lost, the entity will be unable to reclaim mREIT status for a period of 5 years.
Most SEC-registered mREITs are not considered “investment companies” under Section
3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “40 Act”) 6 because they meet the exclusion set
forth in Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 40 Act,which provides an additional qualifying assets test. In
determining whether an mREIT can claim relief under Section 3(c)(5)(C), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has focused on whether at least 55 percent of the issuer’s assets
consist of mortgages or other liens on and interests in real estate, otherwise called “qualifying
interests” by the SEC.7 The SEC has generally viewed the following as “qualifying interests”:
 Assets that represent an actual interest in real estate;
 Loans or liens that are fully secured by real estate;

4 See 26 U.S.C. 856(c)(2) (stating that qualifying real estate related sources include interests in real property, gains
from the disposition of non-dealer property, distributions from other REITs, real estate commitment fees, certain
temporary investment income, interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property, and income from pass
through mortgage certificates,
5 See 26 U.S.C. 856(c)(3).
6 15 U.S.C. 80a-3.
7 76 FR 55300, 55305 (Sept. 7, 2011) (citing various SEC no-action letters).
perty, gains
from the disposition of non-dealer property, distributions from other REITs, real estate commitment fees, certain
temporary investment income, interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property, and income from pass
through mortgage certificates,
5 See 26 U.S.C. 856(c)(3).
6 15 U.S.C. 80a-3.
7 76 FR 55300, 55305 (Sept. 7, 2011) (citing various SEC no-action letters).

Page 3

3
 Assets that are viewed as the functional equivalent of, and provide the same
economic experience as, an actual interest in real estate or a loan or lien fully
secured by real estate; and
 Certain commercial real estate B notes.8
Additionally, the remaining 45 percent of the issuer’s assets will consist primarily of real estate
type interests.9 This has generally meant that SEC staff examines whether at least 25 percent of
the issuer’s assets consist of real estate type assets (subject to reduction depending upon whether
the fund invested more than 55 percent of its assets in “qualifying interests”) and not more than
20 percent of its assets are invested in miscellaneous investments.10
The Division of Trading and Markets, a predecessor to the Division, issued three letters
in 2000 granting no-action relief to the directors of mREITs using futures and options to mitigate
interest rate risk.11 These letters granted relief based on representations from the mREIT that
those REITs would limit the income derived from the mREIT’s futures positions to less than 5
percent of its gross taxable income, and that the mREIT would limit its initial margin and option
premiums to no more than one percent of the fair market value of the mREIT’s total assets.12
In 1981, the Commission proposed and adopted the definition of “pool” in Commission
Regulation 4.10(d), which provided that “pool” means “any investment trust, syndicate or similar
form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests.”13 At that time there
was no statutory definition of a commodity pool
one percent of the fair market value of the mREIT’s total assets.12
In 1981, the Commission proposed and adopted the definition of “pool” in Commission
Regulation 4.10(d), which provided that “pool” means “any investment trust, syndicate or similar
form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests.”13 At that time there
was no statutory definition of a commodity pool.

From the time of its adoption in 1981, the Commission has declined to constrain the
phrase “operated for the purpose of trading” to the narrowest of possible interpretations. The
reasons that the Commission articulated for rejecting a narrow understanding of the phrase were
grounded in its dual concerns for customer and market protection. The Commission noted in the
Preamble to the 1981 rule that commenters were concerned that the definition was overly
broad.14 One commenter suggested a brightline percentage test as a function of commodity
interests to other portfolio holdings to determine whether a collective investment scheme should
be considered a pool. The Commission declined to set a specific percentage as a threshold over
which an entity would be considered a commodity pool due to concerns that an entity which
would not exceed the set trading level could still be marketed as a commodity pool to
participants, who should still be afforded the protections under Part 4 of the Commission’s
regulations.15

8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-49, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶28,100 (Mar. 24, 2000); CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-50,
Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶28,101 (Mar. 24, 2000); CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-53, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH)
¶28,115 (Mar. 24, 2000).
12 Ibid.
13 46 FR 26004, 26014 (May 8, 1981).
14 46 FR 26004, 26005 (May 8, 1981).
15 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-49, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶28,100 (Mar. 24, 2000); CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-50,
Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶28,101 (Mar. 24, 2000); CFTC Staff Letter No. 00-53, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH)
¶28,115 (Mar. 24, 2000).
12 Ibid.
13 46 FR 26004, 26014 (May 8, 1981).
14 46 FR 26004, 26005 (May 8, 1981).
15 Id.

Page 4

4

Several other commenters suggested that the definition should be narrowed to only those
funds whose “principal purpose” was the trading of commodity interests. The Commission
rejected that suggestion because it could “inappropriately exclude from the scope of the Part 4
rules certain persons who are, in fact, operating commodity pools.”16 Thus, the Commission
recognized that there may be entities whose primary business focus may be outside the
commodity interest sphere, yet may still have a significant exposure to those markets, which may
implicate the Commission’s concerns regarding both customer and market protection. The
rejection of the more narrow “principal purpose” language further operated as an additional
indicator of the Commission’s broader understanding of the phrase “operated for the purpose of.”

The Commission recently affirmed and refined this interpretation in the preamble to the
final rule entitled Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: Compliance
Obligations.17 Explaining its amendments to Commission Regulations 4.5 and 4.13(a)(3) to
include swaps in the trading thresholds, the Commission stated, “any swaps activities undertaken
by a CPO would result in that entity being required to register because there would be no de
minimis exclusion for such activity. As a result, one swap contract would be enough to trigger
the registration requirement.”18 This statement is the Commission’s most recent guidance with
respect to the relationship between an entity’s swaps activity and the requirement that its
operator register as a CPO
PO would result in that entity being required to register because there would be no de
minimis exclusion for such activity. As a result, one swap contract would be enough to trigger
the registration requirement.”18 This statement is the Commission’s most recent guidance with
respect to the relationship between an entity’s swaps activity and the requirement that its
operator register as a CPO.

Consistent with the reasoning articulated by the Division of Trading and Markets with
respect to mREITs that invest in futures and/or options, and the Commission’s recent statements
regarding the use of swaps by collective investment schemes, the Division believes that mREITs
are properly considered commodity pools and, absent relief from the Division, an mREIT’s
operator would be required to register as a CPO.19 Based on the representations in the letters
submitted to the Division, however, the Division will not recommend that the Commission take
an enforcement action against the operator of an mREIT provided that the mREIT satisfies the
following criteria:

16 Id. at 26006. The Commission’s conclusion that commodity pools are not limited to those funds whose primary
purpose is trading commodity interests is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act’s recent amendments to the CEA in
Section 4m(3). Section 4m(3) was amended to exempt certain commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”) from
registration provided that their business does not primarily consist of acting as a CTA, and that the CTA does not
serve as a CTA to a commodity pool that is engaged primarily in trading commodity interests. 7 U.S.C. 6m(3)
is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act’s recent amendments to the CEA in
Section 4m(3). Section 4m(3) was amended to exempt certain commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”) from
registration provided that their business does not primarily consist of acting as a CTA, and that the CTA does not
serve as a CTA to a commodity pool that is engaged primarily in trading commodity interests. 7 U.S.C. 6m(3). By
inclusion of commodity pools that engage primarily in trading commodity interests as a factor to differentiate
between those CTAs required to be registered from those not required to register, this statutory exemption for CTAs
recognizes that there may be entities that are properly considered commodity pools that are not engaged primarily in
trading commodity interests.
17 77 Fed. Reg. 11252 (Feb. 24, 2012).
18 Id. at 11258.
19 The Division notes that we remain open to discussions with mREITs to consider the facts and
circumstances of their mREIT structures with a view to determining whether or not they might not be
properly considered a commodity pool.

Page 5

5
 Limits the initial margin and premiums required to establish its commodity
interest positions to no more than 5 percent of the fair market value of the
mREIT’s total assets;

 Limits the net income derived annually from its commodity interest positions that
are not qualifying hedging transactions to less than five percent of the mREIT’s
gross income;

 Interests in the mREIT are not marketed to the public as or in a commodity pool
or otherwise as or in a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity
options, or swaps markets; and

 Either:

o The company has identified itself as a “mortgage REIT” in Item G of its
last U.S. income tax return on Form 1120-REIT; or

o The company has not yet filed its first U.S. income tax return on Form
1120-REIT, but has disclosed to its shareholders that it intends to identify
itself as a “mortgage REIT” in its first U.S
ommodity futures, commodity
options, or swaps markets; and

 Either:

o The company has identified itself as a “mortgage REIT” in Item G of its
last U.S. income tax return on Form 1120-REIT; or

o The company has not yet filed its first U.S. income tax return on Form
1120-REIT, but has disclosed to its shareholders that it intends to identify
itself as a “mortgage REIT” in its first U.S. income tax return on Form
1120-REIT.20

In granting CPOs the relief described herein, the Division seeks to strike the appropriate
balance between the Commission’s regulatory objectives and the operational circumstances
facing certain specialized funds.

This no-action relief is not self-executing. Rather, a CPO that is eligible for the relief
must file a claim to perfect the use of the relief. A claim submitted by a CPO will be effective
upon filing, so long as the claim is materially complete.

Specifically, the claim of no-action relief must:

a.
State the name, main business address, and main business telephone number of
the mREITs for which the relief is being claimed;

b.
Be electronically signed by a person authorized to bind the mREIT; and

c.
Be filed with the Division using the email address dsionoaction@cftc.gov with
the subject line of such email “mREIT” prior to December 31, 2012 (for an
mREIT in operation as of December 1, 2012) or, for an mREIT that begins to
operate after December 1, 2012, within 30 days after it begins to operate as an
mREIT.

20 Nothing in this letter should be construed as foreclosing the ability for an mREIT to rely upon any letter issued by
the Division should the mREIT satisfy the criteria set forth therein.
in operation as of December 1, 2012) or, for an mREIT that begins to
operate after December 1, 2012, within 30 days after it begins to operate as an
mREIT.

20 Nothing in this letter should be construed as foreclosing the ability for an mREIT to rely upon any letter issued by
the Division should the mREIT satisfy the criteria set forth therein.

Page 6

6

This letter, and the positions taken herein, represent the view of this Division only, and
do not necessarily represent the position or view of the Commission or of any other office or
division of the Commission. The relief issued by this letter does not excuse the mREIT or its
operator from compliance with any other applicable requirements contained in the Act or in the
Commission’s regulations issued thereunder. For example, the mREIT and its operator remain
subject to all antifraud provisions of the Act. Further, this letter, and the relief contained herein,
is based upon the representations made to the Division. Any different, changed or omitted
material facts or circumstances might render this letter void.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Olear, Special
Counsel, at 202-418-5283.

Very truly yours,

Gary Barnett

Director,

Division of Swap Dealer

and Intermediary Oversight

cc:
Regina Thoele, Compliance
National Futures Association, Chicago

## Nearby sections

- [CFTC Letter No. 08-03 Eurex Deutschlands Request for No-Action Relief in Connection with the Offer and Sale in the United States of Eight Futures Contracts Based on Security Indices Derived from the Dow Jones STOXX 600 Index.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_03.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-05 Eurex Deutschlands Request for No-Action Relief in Connection with the Offer and Sale in the United States of its Futures Contract Based on the RDXxt USD-RDX Extended Index.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_05.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-11 Euronext Paris SAs request for no-action relief in connection with the offer and sale in the United States of its futures contracts based on the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Europe Index and the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Euro Zone Index.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_11.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-13 Eurex Deutschlands Request for No-Action Relief in Connection with the Offer and Sale in the United States of its Futures Contracts Based on the SLI Swiss Leader Index, the Swiss Market Index Midcap, the Dow Jones Eur...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_13.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-15 The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight granted exemptive relief from certain of the Part 4 regulations to the registered CPO of a commodity pool, whose shares the CPO intended to publicly offer and to lis...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_15.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-17 DCIO received a request for guidance from the Joint Audit Committee concerning FCM regulatory reporting requirements for investments in a money market mutual fund. The fund had announced that its net asset value per s...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_17.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-18 The Division of Market Oversight issued a letter granting no-action relief to permit the Brazilian Derivatives Exchange, BM&F Bovespa S.A. – Bolsa de Valores, Mercadorias e Futuros (BM&F), to make its electronic tradi...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_18.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-19 Thailand Futures Exchange Pcls Request for No-Action Relief in Connection with the Offer and Sale in the United States of its Futures Contract Based on the SET50 Index Futures Contract.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_19.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 08-21 The Division of Market Oversight issued a no-action letter to BNP Paribas confirming that the Division will not recommend that the Commission initiate enforcement action against BNP Paribas or Fortis Bank S.A./N.V., o...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L08_21.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 09-02 The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight provided no-action relief to the general partner of a commodity pool from registering as a CPO under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and allowed an affi...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L09_02.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 09-06 The CPO of a commodity pool requested that DCIO agree to accept the Annual Report for the period from January 1, 2008 through October 31, 2008 as the Pool’s final annual report despite the fact that the Pool had not f...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L09_06.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 09-07 The CPO of a commodity pool with a de minimus amount of its assets embroiled in a bankruptcy requested relief from the ongoing reporting requirements under Part 4. The CPO filed an Annual Report for the Pool for the 2...](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L09_07.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 09-11 The CPO of two commodity pools requested relief to use IFRS in lieu of US GAAP. DCIO granted relief pursuant to Commission Regulations 140.93 and 4.12(a).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L09_11.md)
- [CFTC Letter No. 09-13 The CPO of commodity pool requested relief to use IFRS in lieu of US GAAP. DCIO granted relief pursuant to Commission Regulations 140.93 and 4.12(a).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L09_13.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/CFTC_L12_44. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.