Securities Compliance Sentinel - Analysis of Cutting Edge Securities Industry Issues

The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations announced that it will increase their examinations of newly registered private fund advisers starting this summer. 

These examinations are being done in conjunction with those hedge fund and private equity advisers previously registered with the Commission as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The SEC Staff made it abundantly clear that these newly registered advisers will be examined, pursuant to a set of risk factors and not by the traditional OCIE exam cycle.  The OCIE Staff will also look at the level of risk and determine the number of times new registrants will be examined in the future.  For this determination, the SEC Staff will look at past regulatory or legal violations; aberrational performance; the size of the fund determines the risk; the advisors complexity; problems internally; when the last exam occurred; and significant changes and assets for business.  Nonetheless, the SEC Staff cautioned that they will look at both quality and quantity factors, and that these risk factors are very similar to those already in place for previous registrants. 

In short, OCIE intends to utilize risk based assessment examinations in the future.

Recently, the SEC's newest commissioner, Commissioner Daniel Gallagher, discussed certain of his beliefs, including, among other things, that the SEC should use its exemptive authority derived from the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to provide some relief for hedge fund and private equity investment mangers from the registration provisions of said Act. 

Gallagher believes that the full registration regime should not have been imposed upon investment managers for hedge fund and private fund advisers.  Essentially, he believes that the SEC should use its exemptive power to provide some "balm" to their predicament.  He also indicated that the SEC should rethink certain registration requirements if it does not promote capital formation.

Additionally, Commissioner Gallagher commented on the recent case of Theodore Urban, and his belief that the Commission should clarify when it believes that legal personnel are considered supervisors.  As many may know, the Commission deadlocked over the case, requiring the dismissal of the charges.  Commissioner Gallagher believes that it is important for the SEC to provide the standard for charging in-house counsel and other legal personnel in these matters.  Commissioner Gallagher hopes that the SEC will clarify this position through a Section 21A Report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  He, however, said that there has not been a suitable case to do so as of yet. 

Commissioner Gallagher also has indicated that he believes that the SEC needs to provide a better framework to work with in-house legal and compliance officers of broker-dealers and investment advisers.  He believes that the SEC should utilize these individuals to accomplish its mission.  He also thinks that, if these individuals are engaged, as opposed to challenging them, or causing them liability, the SEC would be more likely to uncover fraud and protect investors.

Finally, as we move forward, it will be interesting to see if Commissioner Gallagher will influence the SEC to change.

Much has happened in nearly one since since the Dodd-Frank Act became effective, and much more remains.  According to the recent thoughts of one commentator, Kyle Colona of Compliance EX, Dodd-Frank may be doomed to fail as it faces it first year of existence.

Colona noted five factors working against the full implementation of the law: (1) the CFTC and SEC are far behind schedule; (2) the regulatory authority under the Act is shared by too many entities; (3) recent comments from the Federal Reserve Bank suggest that the Volcker Rule may not become law because of its impossibility to implement; (4) the financial services industry has unleashed a full-scale effort to defeat the full implementation of the Act; and (5) certain banks are trying to influence the public that implementation of the Volcker Rule would be bad.

I think that there is now a sixth factor that may work against the full implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act; namely, a presidential election this fall.  With the politicalclimate becoming more and more focused on the election, it is only natural that there would be less attention devoted to a law that the financial services industry is committed to pealing back or doing away with altogether.  If the President loses the election, there are some who believe that Dodd-Frank may be in trouble.  Even if the President prevails, it is unlikely that there will be full implementation because attention will surely be focused elsewhere.

Although it is unlikely that there may ever be full implementation of the Act, we need to still anticipate that many provisions of the Act will come to pass.  For example, at some point, the SEC will finally commit to the adoption of the uniform fiduciary duty rule and there will be a decision on who will serve as the SRO for investment advisors.  Dodd-Frank is not dead; it just may limp along for the next year.

FINRA recently commented on its enforcement actions and fines over 2011.  If anything, the statistics show that broker-dealers are on notice of two things: (1) FINRA is aggressively pursuing enforcement actions; and (2) FINRA is seeking larger fines in enforcement proceedings.  As such, now is as good a time as ever for broker-dealers to revisit their compliance programs to ensure that they are running a tight ship in an effort to avoid an unfriendly call from big brother. 

FINRA' issued $68 million in fines in 2011, up from $45 million in 2010.  The greatest component of these fines was found in a surge from penalties for improper advertising, comprising $21.1 of the total fines issued.  The report FINRA issued also reflects a step-up in enforcement proceedings.  There were 1,488 disciplinary actions in 2011, compared to 1,310 for 2010.  In addition, FINRA increased the number of barred brokers from 288 in 2010 to 329 for 2011.

The easy answer for this step-up in enforcement actions and fines if that FINRA is continuing to address the regulatory failings arising out of the Maddoff and Stanford ponzi schemes.  In essence, this increased activity is a reflection of prior criticisms that FINRA was a paper tiger.  So what does this mean for broker-dealers.

For one, FINRA's report shows that particular attention should be devoted to firm advertising.  Firms should take a critical look at what they are internally telling their registered representatives versus what is being told to the public.  Moreover, with the increased use in social media, firms need to ensure that any use of social media conforms with the firms' advertising and document retention policies.  Finally, with the adoption of Rule 2111, firms should also focus more on suitability, because FINRA will certainly look to determine if firms are complying with the new rule. 

FINRA's report clearly shows that firms must be ever vigilant when it comes to compliance.  If not, you too may be the subject of an enforcement proceeding and fines.

The new SEC Rule 13h-1, the large trader reporting rule, became effective. 

Starting on April 30, 2012, broker dealers will be required to maintain records of large trader trading, similar to records maintained relating to the electronic blue sheet system.  Further, supplemental information will also be required.

This new large trader rule could implicate investment advisers, banks, broker dealers, insurance companies and foreign entities.  All may be required to self-identify by filing a Form 13H with the SEC, and provide unique information to the SEC.  Broker dealers will also be required to maintain information relating to these trading records supplemented with the time of order, execution and the trader’s ID number if the SEC so requests.  Broker dealers will also be required to file a Form 13H if they are large traders.

Although the definition of a large trader is enunciated in the rule, there is some factual assessment that goes into it.  That is, it relates to any person, who directly or indirectly, exercises investment discretion over one or more accounts through NMS securities and registered broker dealers in a certain activity level.  The large trader must file an initial Form 13H promptly after it crosses the trading thresholds, and it has been considered that promptly means within ten days.  There are also annual filings that must be done within 45 days after each calendar year.  Confidentiality was also critical in assessing this information, and the SEC expects firms to realize that it will maintain the confidentiality of said information.  However, it may have an obligation to disclose it to Congress, other federal agencies and pursuant to a federal court order. 

Accordingly, firms should be aware that these issues may arise, and should be ready to file and maintain the appropriate records.

The SEC published a small entity compliance guide for investment advisers relating to the new Form PF.  These new reporting requirements affect SEC registered investment advisers with at least $150 million dollars in assets under management.  Some of these new guidelines will also apply to CFTC commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisers.

The SEC registered advisers will be divided into 2 groups, small advisors and large advisers.  The definitional requirements for large advisers are specific and may require certain calculations, however.  Clearly, large advisers have assets under control of anywhere between a billion dollars and more.  For the purposes of the Form PF, all other advisers would be considered small private advisers.

Generally, an investment adviser is a small business pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act if it has assets under management of less than $25 million dollars.  As such, these advisers will, generally, have no reporting requirements on a Form PF.  However, for those advisers, who are not defined as a small business, there may be certain reporting requirements.  For example, advisers with over $150 million dollars in private fund assets under management, but are not large advisors must file a Form PF once a year within 120 days at the end of the fiscal year.  Large private advisers must file a Form PF within 60 days.  Moreover, the requirements for advisers with over $150 million dollars, but who are not large advisers, are less than those of large private fund advisers.  Essentially, the more money you have under management, the more information you must provide.

In short, advisers should consult with securities counsel to ensure accurate reporting in the future.

FINRA recently announced that, in the first quarter, it will issue a risk control assessment survey to all member firms.  Although this is a voluntary program, member firms should strongly consider their participation.  Your efforts on the front-end may alleviate the work you would otherwise perform during an examination.

The purpose of the survey is for FINRA to better understand member firm business models, the risks attendant with those models and the controls intended to manage those risks.  According to FINRA, responses to this survey will afford it the ability to conduct more focused examinations.  In other words, the program will give examiners a better understanding of your firm before arriving on site and allow the examiners to streamline the examination.

According to FINRA, firms who do not participate will not suffer negative consequences.  However, those non-participating firms should expect FINRA to spend more time during an examination.  FINRA plans to conduct this survey on an annual basis; the content will change as new risks emerge and as priorities evolve.

Even though answering the survey will take time to complete, streamlining the examination process is a laudable goal.  If the time spent on completing the survey results in a more focused and shorter examination, it seems to me that the decision to participate in the survey should be a forgone conclusion.

Although the SEC’s rulemaking deferral regarding the uniform fiduciary standard has gained much press, the SEC's other rulemaking initiatives pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act march on, and will have a significant effect on broker dealers and investment advisors in the upcoming year.

In particular, the SEC has scheduled a joint SEC-CFTC report to Congress on stable value contracts, and the adoption of rules pertaining to trade reporting, data elements and real time public reporting for security-based swaps.  Further, the SEC and CFTC will define key terms for swap products and intermediaries as well as security-based swap clearing agencies.  The SEC will also look to register and regulate security swap based data repositories and for mandatory clearing of security-based swaps.  Additionally, the SEC will look at the end user exceptions for the mandatory clearing of security-based swaps. 

The SEC will also consider a permanent rule to register municipal advisors this year.  However, certain controversial rules relating to conflict materials rule finalization and resource extraction disclosures as well as corporate governance rules relating to executive compensation claw backs, performance disclosure pay, compensation ratio and hedging policies have been pushed forward to the first part of this year.  Moreover, the SEC still has not set up certain offices that the Dodd-Frank Act required including, but not limited to, the credit ratings and municipal securities oversight function offices.  Currently, the SEC believes these functions are being performed by its Division of Trading and Market's Staff. 

In sum, the SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act rule making is still ongoing and will continue as it moves forward.

The GAO has indicated to the SEC that it should consider the codification of the analyst conflict pact it entered into with other regulators in 2003.

As many recall, in 2003, a group of regulators, including the SEC, struck a deal with a number of Wall Street firms concerning their equity research analyst's conduct.  These firms agreed to pay $1.4 billion in penalties and disgorgement.  The GAO is now recommending that the SEC codify this pact (although at the time, the NASD and NYSE finalized rules relating to this pact), in the SEC’s rules and regulations. 

The SEC responded through its Director of Trading and Markets Division, who indicated that the SEC Staff believes this recommendation makes sense, and will plan accordingly. 

The SEC's delay in adopting an uniform fiduciary duty will only be prolonged but yet another analysis that the SEC will commission.  Chairman Schapiro recently announced plans to issue a public request for information regarding "retail financial advice and the regulatory alternatives".  With respect to the adoption of the uniform fiduciary duty standard, the SEC suggested that it was still in the information gathering stage of rule-making.  Interpretation; the SEC is no closer to adopting a uniform fiduciary duty standard.  Although the SEC has not ruled rule-making for 2012, it is not likely.

The SEC has advised the House Financial Services CapitalMarkets subcommittee that it has three economists working on the initiative.  Among other things, the economists have reviewed available market information for the retail financial advice market, including the differences between broker-dealers and registered investments advisers.  Notwithstanding the work of the economists to date, the SEC noted that the rule-making associated with the uniform fiduciary duty will require an analysis of information that may not be publicly available such that it will be particularly important for the SEC to solicit the public to provide information and/or empirical data.

Of the information that the SEC will seek in its public request for information, broker-dealers should expect that some of the data sought will cover a cost-benefit analysis of whether the adoption of a uniform standard will outweigh the cost of doing so.  Although delayed, the SEC is, it appears, trying to have a full and complete analysis to ultimately justify a uniform fiduciary duty.  In light of the manner in which many courts and arbitration panels treat broker-dealers, this whole exercise could be seen as making something "official" that has already been in place for many years.  The question that remains is whether the cost to make the standard an "official" one is worth it considering the prevailing view of many that it may already exist.

For anyone reading this post, you appreciate the value of social media.  It looks as though FINRA is finally prepared to do so as well.

FINRA recently proposed changes to its rules governing communications with investors.  In doing so, FINRA has proposed easing its requirements of pre-approval for a broker-dealer's use of social media.  Chief among the proposed changes would be the authorization of registered representatives communicating with clients via social media without a supervisor's prior approval.  Without pre-approval, a registered representative could engage in interactive , real-time communications with customers via a social media site.

Assuming this proposal is adopted, this is a positive step for FINFRA.  Nevertheless, I think that broker-dealers and registered representatives still must be wary of using social media to communicate in real-time with their clients.  First, the member firm will surely still be required to maintain copies of these communications consistent with its record retention obligations.  Keeping track of the potential volume of such communications creates a record-keeping nightmare.  Second, broker-dealers should consider restricting their registered representatives from making investment recommendations through interactive social media because of suitability concerns.  The risk of an investment recommendation being disseminated via social media is that anyone accessing that source could argue that it was an investment recommendation made by the firm and pursue a claim against the firm in the event of a loss. 

In my experience defening member firms and registered representatives, the types of claims asserted are only limited by the creativity of the lawyers.   Do not be a victim.  If FINRA specifically endorses inter-active communciations via social media without pre-approval, be certain that you have meaningful policies, procedures and protocols to maintain proper records and avoid open-ended recommendations to the public.

Although the use of social media has been embraced by many industries, it is of particular concern for investment advisors and broker-dealers.

In many situations, the use of these outlets touch upon several areas.  For investment advisors and broker-dealers, the advertising requirements under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and certain Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provisions may be implicated when one uses social media, including various features on Linked In or Facebook.  Additionally, recordkeeping is a critical function required by both acts since this information must be maintained.  Further, it is likely that those who work for either and use social media sites, may require supervision.  Additionally, when one uses these types of communications, there are various regulations that require the firms to monitor these third party communications to ensure that, among other things, non-public information is not disclosed.  Firms would also be required to apply their audit function to these media policies and procedures internally, to determine if the procedures are effective.  Moreover, the SEC, FINRA and the states may begin to regulate these types of social media in amore forceful manner. 

As such, although social media venues may present certain benefits, the risk is palpable.

FINRA proposed a rule for SEC approval that would require FINRA’s membership, involved in a private stock offering, to provide detailed information on the transaction to investors prior to the sale, as well as to file such information with FINRA 15 days before the first sale.

This proposed Rule 5123 would require that offering materials used in these offerings, as well as the amount and type of compensation provided to a variety of people, be filed with FINRA.  Further, any amendments would have to be filed with FINRA within 15 calendar days after the date the document is provided to a current or prospective investor.  This new rule is also to be used in conjunction with Rule 5122, requiring certain disclosures in private placement offerings issued by the FINRA member or its affiliates.  Nonetheless, the proposed Rule 5123 would exempt certain types of private placements sold to certain purchasers, including, but not limited to, institutional accounts, qualified purchasers, qualified institutional buyers under the Securities Act of 1933, Rule 144(a), and investment companies.

In sum, FINRA is taking an aggressive approach on reviewing private placements, thus, this or some variation of this new rule is likely to be approved by the SEC.

FINRA, recently, announced that it was developing a cross market surveillance system that will allow it to detect and stop improper conduct.  This was reported by FINRA Chief Executive Officer, Richard Ketchum. 

This new system will expand FINRA’s surveillance and enforcement of the New York Stock Exchange, as well as its own order audit trail system to include New York Stock Exchange data.  FINRA believes that, with the combination of both, it will be able to effectively monitor equity trades and data to allow it to see patterns ahead of or in conjunction with the market, as opposed to reviewing it after the fact.  Ketchum suggested that this new surveillance system would possibly assist FINRA in achieving the SEC’s goal for a consolidated audit trail system. 

This new system may significantly reduce FINRA’s expenditures on examinations, and bring to light unscrupulous activity in the market in time to protect those effected.

The Securities Industry and Financial Market Association (“SIFMA”) indicated to its membership that those who engage expert networks – entities referring paid industry professionals to third parties for fees – should have in place policies, procedures, and training for their employees or others who engaged those services.  These expert networks have drawn regulatory attention, especially in insider trader investigations. 

These expert networks have found themselves in certain insider trading cases where it was alleged they tipped hedge funds or other investors in return for a cash payments.  Of course, this is more the breach than the rule, and the vast majority of expert networks would never do such a thing.  However, expert networks have become important in the financial system since they assist broker-dealers to design or implement investment strategies.  Nonetheless, broker-dealers should take precautions, as well as devise procedures to ensure that there is not even an appearance of impropriety. 

In sum, SIFMA believes that its membership should have policies to find and detect “red flags.”  These red flags will allow broker-dealers to ensure that their policies are being followed, especially, regarding material non-public information.  See Best Practices for Use of Expert Networks at http://www.sifma.org/uploaded files uploadedfiles/issues/legal_compliance_and_administration/expert_networks/expert-network-policy-bestpractices.pdf.

Recently, an unregistered broker-dealer was able to retain its finder’s fees in a lawsuit brought by a SEC Receiver.  The Receiver was appointed as a result of an SEC action brought against an investment advisory group.  The Receiver sought to recover a finder’s fee, claiming that the party was acting as an unregistered broker-dealer for the defendant charged in the SEC action. 

The court, ultimately, ruled that the Receiver’s action was untimely, and had violated the statute of limitations.  The Receiver was unable to convince the court that the action should have been equitably tolled because the Receiver had not been appointed before the statue of limitations had run.  Essentially, the court determined that, although the defendant was not a registered broker-dealer, the defendant in the SEC case could have determined if the finder was a registered broker-dealer, and, since there was no allegation of fraud, the court allowed the finder to keep the finder’s fee because it would not run afoul of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

This action is interesting because not all cases involving unregistered broker-dealers will result in the forfeiture of finder’s fees.  In this case, the SEC Receiver was unsuccessful in convincing a court to force repayment.  Unfortunately, however, the SEC did not comment on this action.  Nonetheless, this matter may be indicative of future matters involving unregistered broker-dealers or finders, and the retention of their fees.

Recently, UBS announced that it had terminated a former trader, who was also arrested by British police.  Apparently, this rogue trader cost UBS over to $2.25 billion.  UBS was in the process of eliminating a number of jobs to save money on its balance sheet, but this loss will likely wipe out the savings.

However, the real lesson from this scandal is that firms, such as, UBS, need to be ever vigilant in their compliance and regulatory programs. Such losses are hard to keep secret unless it is apparent that the person engaging in such conduct kept this information from his or supervisors.  UBS will undoubtedly undergo an audit, and the findings will be used to prevent this from reoccurring.  Nonetheless, many in the industry should learn from UBS' mistakes, and pounce on the opportunity to review their compliance programs in an effort to ensure procedures are in place to detect such conduct.

In sum, firms have an obligation to not only detect this type of fraud, but to prevent it from occurring in the first instance.  The only way to avoid such issues is to prepare before they occur.

Reuters recently reported that the SEC and FINRA were asking trading firms specific details regarding their trading strategies and/or their secret computer codes. 

This new effort by the SEC and FINRA is part of a joint investigation into suspicious market activity as well as to examine compliance with securities regulations.  The specific requests relating to computer code, obviously, have irked many in the industry since the requests have to do with targeting stock trading firms and hedge funds.  These inquiries relate to trading information and computer coding information that may have been shared or “borrowed” with others, and used for illegal activity.  Clearly, the SEC and FINRA are focusing on this information to better understand the trading markets, but, of course, if they find anything of an illegal nature, it may result in enforcement examinations.

FINRA executives, recently, told a SIFMA conference that FINRA did not make these requests “lightly.”  However, this worries many since the information is privileged and proprietary, and may find its hands into competitors.  Although, the SEC and FINRA both have policies in place to protect such information, once the information is out, companies may find themselves in a predicament.  Counsel should certainly handle these particular issues.

By way of overview of the currently regulatory environment, FINRA highlighted that member firms have an obligation to maintain records of business communications regardless if those communications appear on social media. FINRA also reminded member firms that the use of static social media for a business purpose requires pre-approval by member firm. Conversely, interactive electronic forums do not require member firm pre-approval, but the firms have to adopt risk-based supervisory procedures that utilize post-use review. With respect to links to third-party sites, FINRA cautioned that a member firm cannot establish a link with a site that the firm knows or has reason to know contains false or misleading information. Finally, FINRA reminded member firms that they must adopt procedures to manage data feeds to their own websites to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in such data feeds.

In response to specific questions, FINRA reminded firms that firms and associated persons cannot sponsor a social media site or use a communication device that automatically erases or deletes its content. Such a site or device is counter to the record retention obligations of Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-4. Likewise, the use of a personal device for business purposes must be set up to allow for the retention of regulated communications. Moreover, the record retention obligation does not vary if a firm or registered person is using a static or interactive website.

As to the debate between interactive and static content, FINRA cautioned that interactive content can become static if it is copied or posted to a static forum. In that instance, there must be pre-approval of the posting. Similarly, a material change of static content will require new approval by the member firm.

Finally, FINRA provided guidance where member firms co-brand a third-party site such as where a member firm places a logo on a third-party site. In that scenario, FINRA stated that a member firm is responsible for the content of the entire third-party site. A firm would not be responsible for the content of a third-party site where the firm does not adopt or become entangled with the content of that site and the firm does not know or have reason to know that the site contains false or misleading information.

I believe that all of this guidance, although helpful, is serving as nothing more than a warning to member firms. Either have proper supervision in place for the use of social media, or the full weight of FINRA will come to bear. It is critical that member firms have a uniform compliance system to ensure regulatory compliance and reasonable supervision over the use of social media by the firm and associated persons or be forewarned that FINRA may be coming to visit.

In January 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recommended the implementation of a uniform fiduciary duty standard for broker-dealers and registered investment advisors. Significant debate has followed regarding the potential parameters and scope of such a duty. Recently, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), a lobbying group for large broker-dealers, proposed a framework for a uniform fiduciary duty.

Although SIFMA reiterated its support for such a standard, it also recommended against applying the fiduciary duty found in the Investment Adviser Act of 1940 to broker-dealers, stating that it would adversely impact “choice, product access and affordability of customer services”. Among other things, SIFMA proposed a new fiduciary duty for broker-dealers to accommodate broker-dealer conduct that would otherwise be in violation of the 40 Act.

In doing so, SIFMA recommended that, in its rulemaking, the SEC “provide the necessary rule-based guidance regarding when the fiduciary duty begins and ends and what disclosures and consents, if any, are necessary to satisfy the duty where a broker-dealer gives “advice involving principal trading, structured products, hybrid accounts, complex investment strategies, concentrated positions, and receipt of commissions and differential loads for different products.” To implement this standard, SIFMA proposed that it be articulated in the initial customer agreement. SIFMA also recommended that the fiduciary duty apply on an account-by-account basis.

By implementing a new fiduciary duty standard unique to broker-dealers, SIFMA believes that the SEC will properly take into account the distinctions in the law between registered investment advisers and broker-dealers while taking customer service into account. It remains to be seen if SEC heeds this call to action, or if the SEC simply rubbers stamps the 40 Act fiduciary duty standard to broker dealers.