Securities Compliance Sentinel - Analysis of Cutting Edge Securities Industry Issues

The battle lines are being drawn over Congressman Bachus' bill which would authorize one or more self-regulatory organizations for investments advisers.  Many have believed that FINRA would be the obvious choice to take on this new role.  Not Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the second-highest ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee; she favors the SEC keeping oversight over investment advisers.  Her stated preference is to properly fund the SEC so that it can effectuate proper oversight of investments advisers.

Congresswoman Waters thinks that the SEC charging a reasonable user fee would be the most cost effective approach.  This approach was also endorsed through the cost analysis of Boston Consulting Group who concluded that funding a new SRO or having FINRA serve in that capacity would be significantly more expensive than properly funding the SEC.  Conversely, FINRA has circulated its own cost analysis, which attacks the Boston Consulting Group study arguing that it underestimated FINRA's ability to leverage existing staff, district offices and technology.  In other words, the ramp-up costs for FINRA to be the SRO are not as great as that being claimed.

As the debate heats up, cost will likely be a driving factor to the decision regarding who will serve as the SRO for investment advisers.  Considering the institutional knowledge that the SEC has over investment advisers, it seems to me that the most likely and cost effective approach will be a better funded SEC serving as the SRO.  The one thing that has remained clear throughout the debate, however, is that investment advisers will have an SRO at some point.  That will surely be a reality.

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.

The SEC issued an alert intending that firms detect and prevent unauthorized trading in brokerage and advisory accounts. 

This release related to certain risks the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations found in its investigations and examinations.  OCIE had reports of unauthorized trades and rogue trading by traders, portfolio managers, brokers and others.  The SEC warned firms that they must take action to ensure that such trading does not occur in the future.

Accordingly, firms must be cognizant that the SEC is looking at these issues, and will bring actions if need be.

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.

The Co-Chief of the SEC’s Asset Management Enforcement Unit, recently, informed the public that the Staff will be paying particular attention to private equity firms.

The SEC Staff will be using the information it compiled from its risk assessment review of private equity firms in this endeavor.  These reviews will take note of valuations as well as other items including fees charged, broker dealer fees and tax and audit fees allocated to funds and investors.  No doubt much of the Asset Management Unit's focus will be a review of investment advisers/managers as well as fund structures.   

Nonetheless, the unit will, specifically, use the Aberrational Performance Initiative, the study that flagged hedge fund performance that appeared inconsistent with a fund's strategy or benchmarks.  The SEC Staff believes that this initiative will allow it to detect fraud earlier or prevent it, as the case may be.  The SEC Staff also warned that investment advisers with less than $25,000,000 in assets under management still must have strong compliance programs.  Essentially, the SEC Staff is suggesting no one is exempt.

In sum, we should expect to see more private equity funds on the SEC Staff's radar in the future.

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.

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.

Among other criticism lodged against the SEC was its inability to conduct routine examinations of investments advisors beyond a small sampling in any given year.  Dodd-Frank required an analysis of whether investments advisors should have their own self-regulatory organization to conduct some examinations because the SEC lacked the resources to comprehensively examine them.  Three options are being considered; (1) provide additional funding to the SEC; (2) give the responsibility to FINRA; or (3) create a new SRO.

A recent study by the Boston Consulting Group has found that it would cost investment advisors twice as much money to pay an SRO than it would to properly fund the SEC.  In a related study, BCG found that the overwhelming majority of investment advisors surveyed preferred to have continued SEC oversight than have FINRA act as their SRO regardless if it cost more to properly fund the SEC.  Investment advisors even preferred the creation of a new SRO over giving oversight responsibility to FINRA.

The key take away from this study is economics.  In this age where the public is clamoring for more oversight, the least expensive avenue to pursue that oversight is to have the SEC funded in a manner that would allow it to conduct more meaningful examinations across a greater sector of investment advisors.  Plus, this course avoids the unnecessary overlap, bureaucracy and increased costs if FINRA's jurisdiction is expanded to include investment advisors.  Where money talks, investment advisors should expect that the SEC will maintain oversight over you.  But do not expect the status quo; you should expect increased funding and a dramatic increase in examinations over a greater segment of investment advisors.  In the end, the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know.

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.

Ernest Badway will be speaking at a Citrin Cooperman event on October 27, 2011, on the topic of Advisors and Fund Managers. Please contact Alyssa Parrilla, 212.697.1000 Ext. 1838, aparrilla@citrincooperman.com, to RSVP. 

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.