RIA Compliance Blog

SEC Enforcement Action Underscores Importance Of Gift Policies

September 16, 2015 | Steve Parker

A recent enforcement action settled in an administrative proceeding brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) underscores the importance for investment advisers to adopt and follow rules designed to prohibit inappropriate gifts to and from clients by investment adviser personnel. In a matter previously discussed on our blog, Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC (“Guggenheim”) settled charges, without admitting or denying any violations that it had failed to adopt, or implement reasonable compliance procedures as required by Rule 206(4)-7 under the Investment Adviser’s Act designed to regulate gifts and entertainment provided to and from the adviser or its personnel.

More specifically, the SEC’s Order instituting administrative proceedings recited that Guggenheim’s compliance manual adopted a rule that required supervised persons to seek and obtain approval of the Chief Compliance Officer before personnel could receive any gift above an established de minimis value that was defined in the manual as being $250.00 or less. Despite this policy, between 2009 and 2012 at least seven Guggenheim employees took 44 or more flights on private planes of Guggenheim clients, none of which were reported to the Chief Compliance Officer as required by the policy. The compliance log reflected only one such flight that was only recorded because the flight had been mentioned to the Chief Compliance Officer after the flight occurred. The Commission found that Guggenheim failed to enforce its own policies with respect to gifts and entertainment and failed to implement compliance policies and procedures regarding gifts and entertainment.
Continue reading ›

Investment Adviser Settles Charges of Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

September 4, 2015 | Steve Parker

Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that registered investment adviser Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC had consented to settle charges that it breached its fiduciary duty to its clients in connection with a $50 million loan made by a client to one of Guggenheim’s senior executives. Specifically, Guggenheim failed to disclose the existence of the loan and the conflicts of interests created by the loan, to its clients. Guggenheim agreed to pay a total of $20 million dollars to settle the charges.

According to the order instituting the administrative proceeding, the senior executive borrowed the funds from an advisory client so that he could make a personal investment in another corporation that was being acquired by Guggenheim’s parent company. The client who made the loan was one of several advisory clients of Guggenheim that invested, at Guggenheim’s recommendation, in two unrelated transactions. The client who made the loan, however, was permitted to invest in the unrelated transactions on different terms than the investors who had not made a loan to Guggenheim.
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 ›

FINRA Amendments to Relax Filing Rules Governing Retail Communications

July 24, 2015 | Shay Virtue

FINRA has recently released Regulatory Notice 15-16 which contains proposed amendments to the rules currently governing public communications they will make reporting by FINRA member firms regarding public communications less onerous due to more lenient filing requirements. If the proposed amendments are adopted, the rules proposed to be amended are FINRA Rules 2210, 2214 and 2213.

FINRA Rule 2210 relates to communications of a firm with the public. Under the current regime new firms are required, at least 10 days prior to making any retail communications, to file such communications with FINRA for the first year of the firm’s membership. Under the proposed amendment, new firms would only be required to file their websites and any material changes thereto within 10 days of first use of the website for the first year of the firm’s membership. This proposed change was prompted by FINRA’s recognition that the primary form of retail communications is now done through the firm’s websites and that the 10-day waiting period served no significant investor protection function.
Continue reading ›

Proposed SEC Amendments to Form ADV and Rules Under the Investment Advisers Act

July 15, 2015 | Shay Virtue

Amendments have been proposed to form ADV and certain rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that would have significant effects on reporting requirements for investment advisers. In addition to codification of “umbrella registration” which was initially proposed in an SEC no action letter to the American Bar Association in 2012, new information would be required regarding separately managed accounts and general advisory business.

Umbrella Registration
Larger investment managers to private funds or other pooled vehicles are often comprised of many legal entities conducting a single advisory business. The proposed modifications to form ADV, which are a codification of the SEC no action letter, would if approved allow for umbrella registration which would permit multiple private fund investment advisers that operate as a single business, on an affiliate basis, to register on a single form ADV as opposed to individual registrations. This new codification would require that the principal office of the filing investment adviser be located within the United States, that each investment adviser operate under a single code of ethics under the Advisers Act, that each adviser be subject to the Advisers Act (and therefore subject to SEC examination), and that the filing advisor and each relying advisor would advise only private funds or qualified clients (as defined in Rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act). While this is a more efficient method of reporting, as only one Form ADV would be required to be submitted by the filing adviser, it would require additional information on proposed Schedule R to Form ADV which includes more detailed information on the ownership structure of each relying investment adviser falling under the umbrella of the filing investment adviser submitting the Form ADV. Under proposed Schedule R each relying adviser would be required to provide identifying information, basis for registration and ownership information.
Continue reading ›

Investment Adviser and Principals Sanctioned for Compliance Failures

July 9, 2015 | Shay Virtue

In a matter underscoring how important it is for investment advisers to dedicate sufficient resources and attention to their compliance program, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has sanctioned a firm for multiple compliance failures. On June 23, 2015 the SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Pekin Singer Strauss, a registered investment advisor firm boasting approximately $1.07 billion in AUM which primarily serves high-net-worth clients.

Among the violations cited, the order states that Pekin Singer failed to conduct timely annual compliance program reviews in 2009 and 2010 and failed to implement and enforce provisions of its policies and procedures and code of ethics during this same period. The firm has been ordered to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $150,000.
Continue reading ›

SEC Issues Guidance Update on Cybersecurity

May 29, 2015 | Steve Parker

Last month, the SEC division of Investment Management released Investment Management Guidance in which it discusses a number of measures that investment advisers may wish to consider when addressing cybersecurity risks. This guidance is just the last in a long list of guidance and alerts issued by the SEC and other regulators as to the need for financial firms to improve their policies and procedures dealing with cybersecurity threats.

Among the recommendations made in the current IM are that firms:

• Conduct a periodic assessment of the nature, sensitivity and location of information, what types of cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities exist, what security controls and processes are currently in place, the impact that would occur in the event of compromise of information, and the effectiveness of the current structure confirms current structure for managing cyber security risks

Questions Surround Impact Of Labor Department Fiducuary Rule for Financial Advisers

May 22, 2015 | Steve Parker

In the wake of the re-proposal by the U.S. Department of Labor of its so-called “Fiduciary Rule,” there are a number of questions regarding how the rule if adopted, will impact those providing financial advice to employee benefit plans and other retirement plans including IRAs and ERISA plans in general. The most obvious impact of the rule would be to bring those not currently fiduciaries, including registered representatives of securities broker-dealers and the broker-dealer firms themselves, into the realm of fiduciary advice providers. The higher standard of care that would apply necessarily implies a need for more thorough disclosures of potential conflicts of interest, including incentivized compensation such as commissions, 12b-1 fees and the like.
Continue reading ›

LPL Financial Ordered by FINRA to Pay $11.7 Million

May 15, 2015 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) announced that it had fined LPL Financial (“LPL”) $10 million for lack of supervision in several areas of its operations, including sales of ETFs, variable annuities, REITs, and other complex products. In addition, FINRA found LPL failed to monitor trades and failed to report them to FINRA and failed to deliver more than $14 million in trade confirmations to customers. FINRA also ordered LPL to repay certain customers $1.7 million in restitution relating to the purchases of ETFs. Among FINRA’s findings were that the firm did not have a system that monitored how long customers were holding ETFs in their accounts, information that would be important in formulating advice as to whether the ETFs should have been purchased in the first place and how long the client should be recommended to hold the ETFs in their portfolios. Additionally, even though LPL had created policies limiting the concentration of ETFs in customer accounts, it failed to enforce the limits it had established and had not trained its registered representatives on the risks of those products.

With respect to variable annuities, FINRA found that in several instances, LPL had permitted said annuities to be sold without proper disclosure of surrender fees. Additionally, although LPL employed an automated surveillance system, that system failed to adequately review transactions commonly known as mutual fund “switches,” which involve a redemption of one mutual fund in order to purchase another.
Continue reading ›