The passage of Dodd-Frank did not end the lobbying in Washington. In fact, it pushed it to a different plane, as the Wall Street lobbyists turned their attention to the rule-making process at the SEC and the CFTC.

The results for the industry have been decent when it comes to derivatives regulations, as the industry successfully preserved certain order rules, notably the RFQs, and shaped the overall debate. One big issue has been whether the new trading rules aimed at creating a less risky market should apply to nonfinancial companies, that is, end users that are in the market presumably to hedge as opposed to speculate.

A recent report from Keybridge Research, the release of which was timed with various hearings, suggested that applying margin and other requirements would zap 130,000 jobs. But the New York Times took a look and discovered that the report was anything but objective and not the work of esteemed economists that advise Keybridge.

Several of these economists asked that their names be taken off the website after the controversy broke. One of the esteemed economists who distanced himself from the firm ended up criticizing it. "The argument they make is particularly foolish," he told the paper.

So, this is one case where the industry's lobbying efforts may have backfired. Economists have been deployed for lobbying in ways that have raised brows--not unlike medical researchers. It may be that all studies and reports by research firms will undergo the same scrutiny as medical research. More people seem to want disclosure of which firms are behind the studies.

For more:
- here's the article

Related Articles:
CFTC plan on derivatives will save banks billions
Derivatives market of the future takes shape
OTC derivatives reform will require large IT investments