Industry News

SEC Releases Examination Priorities for 2016

February 9, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently released its Examination Priorities for 2016. These examination priorities provide valuable insight into what OCIE perceives to be the greatest risk to investors and what it will be focusing its efforts on throughout the year. This year its overall goals stayed approximately the same as last year: 1) protecting investors saving for retirement; 2) assessing market-wide risks; and 3) using data analytics to identify and examine illegal activity.

In regards to its goal of protecting investors saving for retirement, OCIE intends to continue its Retirement-Targeted Industry Reviews and Examinations (“ReTIRE”) initiative which focuses on the suitability of investment recommendations made to investors, supervision and compliance procedures, conflicts of interest, and marketing practices. It will also continue to review the supervision procedures of branch offices of SEC-registered entities and fee selections which can lead to reverse churning. New areas of focus include exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) which OCIE intends to examine for compliance with various regulatory requirements. It will focus on sales strategies, trading practices, disclosures, excessive portfolio concentration, and suitability, and will pay particularly close attention to niche or leveraged/inverse ETFs. In addition, variable annuities have become a large part of many investors’ retirement plans and OCIE intends to assess the suitability of these sales as well as the adequacy of disclosures. Lastly, OCIE will examine public pension advisers to ensure these advisers are not engaging in any pay-to-play activities or giving undisclosed gifts in return for appointments or other favors.

SEC Publishes Guidance on Avoiding Mischaracterization of 12b-1 Fees

February 3, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently published guidance on the characterization of mutual fund fees, specifically 12b-1 distribution fees and sub-accounting fees, as part of their ongoing Distribution-in-Guise Initiative. Pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, payments made by mutual funds (“funds”), to financial intermediaries from fund assets for the distribution of fund shares must be paid pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan that has been approved and adopted by the fund’s shareholders and Board of Directors (“Board”). In recent years the SEC has noticed that there are various fees being paid to intermediaries, in addition to distribution fees, that are being characterized as non-distribution-related fees and are not being paid pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan. Those fees include sub-transfer agent fees, administrative sub-accounting fees, and other shareholder servicing fees (collectively “sub-accounting fees”).

While these sub-accounting fees may in some cases be valid non-distribution-related fees, if they directly or indirectly compensate at all for any distribution-related activities, they are improperly labeled. Because of the importance of this issue given that fund fees directly impact investor returns and inherently involve conflicts of interest, the SEC has published guidance to assist funds in ensuring that distribution-related fees are being properly labeled and disclosed in a Rule 12b-1 plan as required. This potential problem was brought to the SEC’s attention after a recent sweep examination of various market participants including mutual funds, investment advisers, transfer agents, and broker-dealers.

Hedge Fund Manager Settles Charges with SEC for Overcharging on Fees and Overvaluing Assets

January 26, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

A Denver-based alternative fund manager was recently charged by the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with engaging in fraudulent behavior regarding the handling of its futures fund, The Frontier Fund (“TFF”). The alternative fund manager, Equinox Fund Management LLC (“Equinox”), allegedly overcharged management fees to its investors and overvalued certain assets.

Equinox is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and thus owes its investors certain fiduciary duties, one of which is to act in the best interests of its investors by being accurate and complete with its registration statements and SEC filings. Equinox, however, allegedly failed to meet those duties by misrepresenting in their TFF registration statements that management fees were based on the net asset value of the assets, when in reality they were based on the notional trading value of the assets. The notional trading value takes into account both the amount invested and the amount of leverage used in the underlying investments, and is significantly higher than net asset value.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Form ADV Annual Updates

January 22, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Filing annual updating amendments to Form ADV is an important requirement for all registered investment advisers. All information contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Form ADV must be both accurate and complete. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and state regulators have not hesitated in bringing enforcement actions against investment advisers who misrepresent or fail to disclose certain information in their annual filings and amendments.

Based on 1170 routine state-coordinated investment adviser examinations in 2015, as reported by the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”), the most common errors that are routinely found on Form ADVs include inconsistencies between Form ADV Part 1 and Part 2, inconsistencies between fees charged and fees listed on the ADV, inconsistencies between services provided and services described in ADV, misrepresentations in business description, overstatements or understatements of assets under management, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

SEC Clarifies RIA Performance Advertising Obligations: The Virtus & Alpha Fiduciary Matters

January 19, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Last week we discussed the Lucia matter and the parameters it added for investment advisers to consider prior to utilizing performance advertisements. Today we will discuss two more administrative proceedings involving performance advertisements and the practical implications which can be taken from these cases.

The matter of Virtus Investment Advisers revolved around one of Virtus’ sub-advisers, F-Squared Investments. F-Squared was an investment adviser that had previously been fined by the SEC for allegedly advertising false inflated performance numbers of its most successful investment strategy, AlphaSector. AlphaSector consisted of an algorithm-based sector rotation strategy which traded nine industry exchange-traded funds from the S&P 500 Index. Virtus’ assets under management which utilized this strategy grew from $191 million at the end of 2009 to 11.5 billion by 2013. Unfortunately, F-Squared allegedly falsely stated that the AlphaSector strategy had a history dating back to 2001 and that it had historically outperformed the S&P 500 Index from 2001 to 2008. The SEC found that no assets had tracked the strategy from 2001 to 2008 and its back-tested performance data was miscalculated and substantially overstated results.

SEC Clarifies RIA Performance Advertising Obligations: The Lucia Matter

January 12, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Pursuant to Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-1, it is considered fraud for a registered investment adviser to publish, circulate, or distribute any advertisement which contains any untrue statement of material fact or which is false or misleading. One type of advertising that has been the focus of recent regulatory activity is performance advertising.

Performance advertisements are generally used by investment advisers to portray their past performance results to prospective clients. In order to be avoid misleading the prospective client, all material facts regarding the performance data and how it was calculated must be disclosed. This includes disclosing any material market conditions, the amount of advisory fees or other expenses that were deducted, whether results portrayed include reinvested dividends and other earnings, the investment strategies which were used to obtain the results, and any other material fact which may have impacted the results in any way.
Continue reading ›

SEC Targets NY-Based RIA for Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

January 6, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Investment advisers continue to get into regulatory trouble when it comes to failing to disclose conflicts of interest and related party transactions as required by both federal and state investment adviser law. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated proceedings against Fenway Partners, a New York-based registered investment adviser which served as adviser to three private equity funds. The conflicts arose around two related entities: Fenway Partners Capital Fund III, L.P., an affiliated fund, and Fenway Consulting Partners, an affiliate largely owned by the executives and owners of Fenway Partners.

Fenway Partners and Fenway Consulting Partners were both owned and managed in large part by respondents Peter Lamm, William Smart, Timothy Mayhew, and Walter Wiacek. The fund in question, Fund III, was operated by an Advisory Board consisting of independent limited partner representatives, pursuant to its organizational documents. According to the SEC allegations, the respondents failed to disclose several conflicts of interest and related party transactions to both the Advisory Board of Fund III and their fund investors.
Continue reading ›

Texas Securities Board Approves Advisory Payments to Retiring Advisers

December 28, 2015 | Steve Parker

In a letter dated December 11, 2015, the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) granted a no-action request by Managed Financial Service Corporation, Inc. (“MFSC”) that paves the way for a retiring investment adviser representative to receive continuing compensation after retirement. The Board confirmed that it would not commence or seek enforcement proceedings against either MFSC or a specified retiring investment adviser representative if certain procedures were followed. MFSC and its retiring representative requested the no-action letter in order to implement a plan under which the retiring representative would continue to receive compensation derived from the residual value of the work as an investment adviser for certain accounts.

The no-action was requested based on a concern, predominant in the investment adviser industry, that receipt by a retired adviser representative of ongoing advisory fees or a portion of advisory fees received by a successor adviser or firm would subject the retired representative to discipline for conducting business without registration.

The no-action relief granted by the Board is similar to the practice in the brokerage industry that has been codified in FINRA Rule 2040 (b) in which, prior to that date, was sanctioned by a FINRA no-action letter issued to Merrill Lynch in March 2012.
Continue reading ›

New Amendments to Regulation A

August 14, 2015 | Bryan Gort

On June 19, 2015, new amendments to Regulation A took effect which should increase capital raising options of some smaller businesses. Formerly, the Regulation A exemption was limited to $5 million. The new amendments provide an avenue for businesses to raise up to $50 million of capital. As a result of the new amendments, Regulation A is now divided into two tiers, “Tier 1” and “Tier 2.”

In Tier 1 offerings, companies can raise up to $20 million over a one year period, with not more than $6 million in offers by selling security-holders that are affiliates of the issuer. Under Tier 1, the offering must pass state securities regulation in any state where investors are located.

In Tier 2 offerings, companies can raise up to $50 million over a one year period, with not more than $15 million in offers by selling security-holders that are affiliates of the issuer. A Tier 2 offering has the significant advantage of being exempt from many state registration requirements.
Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Actions Against Corporate Officers – Targeting or Responsible Monitoring?

July 31, 2015 | Shay Virtue

In SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White’s opening statement to about 1,000 broker-dealer compliance officials at the Annual Broker-Dealer Compliance Outreach Program, she was clearly dismissing a growing sense that compliance professionals are being singled out by the SEC enforcement program, “To be clear, it is not our intention to use our enforcement program to target compliance professionals” she said, adding “We have tremendous respect for the work that you do. You have a tough job in a complex industry where the stakes are extremely high.” White also drew on the close similarities between the SEC and compliance officials, “Like you, much of our work at the Commission centers on protecting investors. We want to support you in your efforts and work together as a team.”

White’s statement came shortly after a public difference of opinion between commissioners Daniel Gallagher and Luis Aguilar. Gallagher, who issued dissents in the SEC’s cases against BlackRock Advisors in April and SFX Financial Advisory Investment Management in June, argued that the SEC rules governing compliance officials issued in 2003 are vague and leave too much uncertainty “as to the distinction between the role of CCOs and management in carrying out the compliance function.” In addition to the ambiguity in the rules, the only rule interpretations which have been provided by the SEC have come in the form of enforcement actions which Gallagher wrote “are undoubtedly sending a troubling message that CCOs should not take ownership of their firm’s compliance policies and procedures, lest they be held accountable for conduct that is the responsibility of the adviser itself.” Gallagher suggested that the SEC consider either amending the rules or providing commission-level guidance which would help clarify what is expected of compliance officers in their roles.
Continue reading ›