RIA Compliance Blog

Industry Opposes Both SEC Proposals to Regulate Money Market Funds

February 24, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking into two new proposals to stabilize money market funds. One of Chairman Mary Schapiro’s goals is to address the core structural weaknesses of the market. She stated, “Funds remain vulnerable to the reality that a single money market fund breaking of the buck could trigger a broad and destabilizing run.” The SEC is hoping to put both plans out for public comment, but it believes that it may adopt only one of the plans. If it chooses to adopt one, then the SEC will propose it before the end of March.

The SEC’s first proposal is to adopt a floating net asset value instead of the traditional $1 share price. This idea was also mentioned back in 2009; however it was not implemented. The second proposal would require funds to maintain a 1% capital cushion designed to absorb potential losses and to hold back at least 3% of client redemptions for 30 days.
Continue reading ›

Obama’s New Proposed Budget Seeks Increased SEC Funding

February 22, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Obama administration released a proposed budget last week that will boost the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) budget for the next fiscal year. The SEC claims the need for an increased budget stems from the mandatory creation of 100 rules which is required by the Dodd-Frank Act and the need to hire new examiners to regulate the market more efficiently. The proposed budget would increase the SEC’s funding by 18.5 percent from $1.32 billion to $1.57 billion.

Prior to the release of the Obama administration budget, the SEC submitted a budget request which stated that the new budget would allow for 222 new examiners. That request estimated that in 2013 it will be responsible for examining 10,000 advisers with $44 trillion in assets under management. Currently, it only has 10 examiners per $1 trillion in assets under management, a decrease since 2005 when it had 19 examiners for every $1 trillion in assets under management. The SEC is capable of reviewing only eight percent of registered advisers each year. Investment advisers have also shown a preference to be regulated by the SEC as opposed to FINRA or another self regulatory authority (SRO), as we discussed in a previous blog, BCG Report Claims FINRA Cost Will Exceed SEC Cost as RIA SRO.
Continue reading ›

Final Rule on Advisers Charging Performance Fees

February 21, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released Final Rule No. IA – 3372 which changes the qualifications for advisers who charge performance fees. We discussed the proposed amendment to the rule in a previous blog post, Performance Based Fee Threshold Increase Sought by SEC in Proposed Order. These amendments are required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and will take effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is anticipated shortly. Until then advisers can rely on the grandfather provisions.

While advisers are generally unable to accept performance fees, there are exceptions. For example under certain circumstances, a client may become a “qualified client,” under Rule 205-3, meaning he or she is deemed to be capable of bearing the risks associated with performance fee arrangements. Under the new rule, an adviser may charge performance fees to “qualified clients” who have at least $1 million of assets under management for that definition to apply. Under the previous rule, $750,000 in assets were required to be under management. Also, the net worth of an investor may also be a qualification for an exception. The amended rule raises the minimum net worth standard for qualified clients from $1 million to $2 million. (The other “qualified client” basis includes clients who immediately before entering the advisory contract are either executive officers, directors, trustees, general partners of the adviser or employees of the adviser and who have participated in the adviser’s investment activities for at least twelve months. This definition has not changed with the amendment.)
Continue reading ›

The Economist Wants Your Kids Run Over In the Name of Laissez-Faire

February 19, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a hilariously naïve opinion piece called Over-regulated America, the February 18, 2012 edition of The Economist makes “a plea for simplicity” to replace what it characterizes as the U.S.’s overly regulated financial system. In place of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, it proposes that regulations not contain specific rules but rather merely “lay down broad goals” and “leave the regulators to enforce them.”

This is the so-called “principles-based regulation” that they have in Europe – the envy of the world when it comes to banking. America should return to its European roots, The Economist is saying. After all, the U.S. is “the home of laissez-faire.” (You would think the editors could have sent a fact-checker through the Chunnel to the Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne, but the point is not lost for the error). According to The Economist, there is nothing wrong with the American banking system that a big dose of European regulation won’t cure.

So instead of having a regulations manual that says, for instance, banks cannot engage in specified levels of leverage in proprietary trading, The Economist thinks it would be good enough to have a regulation that says to banks: “don’t put your capital at risk.” Although we tried that already, let’s humor (or humour) The Economist and pretend we haven’t. What would that be like?

FINRA Warns Firms on High Yield Products

February 17, 2012 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a letter addressing broker-dealer’s practices in recommending high-yield products to clients. The letter states, “FINRA is informing its examination priorities against the economic environment that investors have faced since 2008, as these circumstances have steadily contributed to conditions that foster an increased risk of aggressive yield chasing, inappropriate sales practices, unsuitable product offerings, and misappropriation and fraud.” The purpose of the letter is to warn broker-dealers not to engage in practices intended to beat the market and instead to promote what is suitable for the investor.

Investors are being urged by their brokers to engage in yield chasing, which means they are seeking higher returns on their investments. The investors in this situation may not completely understand the risk versus reward tradeoffs by investing in this manner especially when brokers are recommending more complex products as discussed in a previous blog, FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products. FINRA’s concerns include the full disclosure of material risks, mispricing and overcharging issues, and the suitability of products based on those underlying risks. It urged firms to increase their supervisory systems to ensure that firms are complying with regulations.
Continue reading ›

California Extends Public Comment Date on Its Proposed Private Fund Exemption Rule

February 16, 2012 | Steve Parker

The California Department of Corporations has extended the comment period for a proposed rule to amend Rule 260.204.9 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, which exempts private advisers from registration under certain circumstances. The public comment period for this exemption was extended from February 20, 2012 to March 25, 2012. To date, there are no public hearings scheduled; however comments may be mailed to the Department of Corporations.

The amended proposed rule significantly changes the current rule in place. Currently, the rule provides for an exemption for any adviser that:

Has had fewer than 15 clients in the preceding 12 months;
Does not hold itself out to the public as an investment adviser;
Does not act as an investment adviser to a registered company or a company that has elected to be a business development company; and
Either has assets under management of $25 million or more or provides investment advice solely to one or more venture capital companies.

New Registration Requirements for Non-U.S. Advisers

February 15, 2012 | Steve Parker

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed on July 21, 2010, there have been significant reforms applicable to non-US advisers conducting business in the United States, including new registration requirements under the Advisers Act (the “Act”).

Non-U.S. advisers may need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to conduct future business within the United States. A non-U.S. adviser is defined in the Advisers Act as an investment adviser that:

Has no place of business in the United States;
Has a total of less than 15 U.S. clients and investors in private funds;
Has less than $25 million in assets under management associated with the U.S. clients and investors; and
Does not hold itself out generally as a U.S. investment adviser.

FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products

February 8, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a move that signals the need for heightened due diligence and supervision among financial advisory firms, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Regulatory Notice 12-03 in relation to complex products last month. It is intended to guide firms to increase their supervision of activity involving complex products such as structured notes, reverse convertibles, inverse or leveraged exchange traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products. FINRA has already brought a number of enforcement actions against firms relating to complex products, charging inadequate supervision, unsuitable recommendations and misleading price sales.

Among the problems noted by FINRA is the uncertainty of how these products will behave in the market, as opposed to theoretical projections. The notice states, “Regulators have expressed concern about complex products because the intricacy of these products can impair the ability of registered representatives or their customers to understand how the product will perform in a variety of time periods and market environments, and can lead to inappropriate recommendations and sales.”

FINRA chose not to define a complex product in the notice due to the ever changing innovation in the marketplace; however, the notice states that “any product with multiple features that affect its investment returns differently under various scenarios is potentially complex.” The notice goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of examples of complex products. FINRA advises firms that are unsure whether a product is complex to err on the side of applying their procedures for enhanced oversight to the product.
Continue reading ›

Breakaway Advisers See Financial Benefits

February 6, 2012 | Steve Parker

According to a survey conducted by Cogent Research and sponsored by Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services (Fidelity), 76% of new independent financial advisers claim to be better off financially, and 64% of them were able to make that claim in the first six months of going independent. These numbers are based on a survey of 173 advisers who went independent in the last five years. They were unaware that Fidelity was sponsoring the research.

Eighty-six percent of the advisers claimed that all or most of their clients moved with them. It was reported that thirty-nine percent of their clients were immediately supportive of their decision, forty-three percent were initially surprised but then supportive, and eighteen percent were initially concerned but ultimately became supportive of the decision.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Securities Commissioner Proposes Rule Amendments

February 3, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Georgia Commissioner of Securities has proposed twelve amendments to investment adviser and broker-dealer rules it promulgated late last year under the Georgia Uniform Securities Act. Although some of the amendments deal with housekeeping issues and typographical errors, several are substantive and of interest to industry participants and their counsel.

A proposed change to Rule 590-4-2-.03 would clarify that Rule 505 Form D filings under the Uniform Limited Offering Exemption must be made within 15 days after the first sale of securities in the state, rather than 15 days prior to the sale, as required by the rule as originally adopted.

The second proposed amendment applies to registration of securities by non-profit entities under Rule 590-4-2-.07, often used for so-called “church bonds.” Under the rule as originally adopted, the application of NASAA Statements of Policy relating to church bonds was permissive rather than mandatory: “The Statements of Policy … may be applied, as applicable, to the proposed offer or sale of a security …” and “may serve as the grounds for the disallowance of the exemption” provided by the Act. Under the amendment, the use of the NASAA Policies is now mandatory, the “may” having been replaced by “shall” in both cases.
Continue reading ›