CCO Tag Archives — RIA Compliance Blog

Growing RIAs Beware: SEC Issues Risk Alert Relating to Compliance Rule Failures

December 15, 2020 | Steve Parker

In conjunction with a speech delivered by its Director last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) issued a Risk Alert discussing significant compliance deficiencies its examination staff had identified relating to Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 (the “Compliance Rule”). The alert followed on the heels of prior Risk Alerts that addressed Compliance Rule deficiencies, among others, as having been the frequent subject of compliance-related findings by OCIE staff. Many of the deficiencies discussed in the Risk Alert are particularly relevant to growing RIAs who are attempting to assure that their compliance programs evolve and improve as they continue their growth.

The Compliance Rule requires, among other things, that RIAs must design, adopt and put into place written procedures and policies designed to prevent and detect violation of the Advisers Act and its rules. The Compliance Rule also requires the RIA to review the adequacy of those procedures annually. It also requires the RIA to appoint a competent Chief Compliance Officer who is empowered with the responsibility to develop and enforce policies that are appropriate to the firm.

The Risk Alert listed many examples of the types of deficiencies noted during examinations, including inadequate allocation of compliance resources. As we have discussed before, an RIA must assure that the CCO has sufficient time and resources to do the job. This means, for many small and growing RIAs, that the CCO’s compliance role should be exclusive and noncompliance tasks should be reallocated to other employees. There is no prohibition on the CCO having other roles within the organization, but where there are compliance deficiencies, the inability of a CCO to commit sufficient time to compliance will usually be cited as a structural deficiency. The CCO must be permitted, if not encouraged, to obtain additional training and to hire extra compliance staff when needed. Outside consultants or law firms are encouraged when necessary to enable the firm to meet its compliance obligations.

SEC Examination Director Discusses Importance of Empowering the CCO

December 2, 2020 | Steve Parker

In a speech last month, Peter Driscoll, the director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), stressed that registered investment advisers must take steps to grant authority to their Chief Compliance Officers, pointing out that the failure to do so is often cited as a deficiency following RIA audits. Driscoll explained that CCOs must be supported and empowered by an RIA’s upper management and that OCIE examiners are looking closely to determine whether that is or is not happening at a particular firm.

Driscoll’s speech comes on the heels of the SEC’s upholding a FINRA enforcement action against the CCO of a broker-dealer who was fined $45,000 and given a 90-day suspension for failing to follow up on “red flags” that the broker-dealer was making payments to a firm owned by a barred broker. A federal appellate court recently affirmed that decision. The speech seemed designed, in part, to allay concerns by CCOs that they are at risk of becoming frequent enforcement targets. Consistent with prior SEC guidance, Driscoll’s speech highlighted that compliance failures are more often the result of other senior firm officers not sufficiently fulfilling their roles to assure that the compliance function is adequately staffed and complied with. Compliance should not fall entirely “on the shoulders of the CCO,” he said.

Too often, says Driscoll, OCIE sees firms take a “check-the-box” approach to their CCO position, meaning they are given just enough authority to complete the bare minimum compliance tasks but aren’t fully integrated into the ongoing operations, direction, or major decisions of the company. He notes that in many examination meetings, the CCO stays quiet as the company’s other senior executives dominate answers to core compliance questions. In other instances, he says, firms try to use the CCO as a “scapegoat” to cover failings by other firm personnel to follow clear policies or guidance. When OCIE notices that the CCO is turned into a target for every compliance problem identified, while CEOs take no responsibility, it is an indication that the firm has not set the proper tone and the top that is critical to all good compliance programs.

SEC Settles Charges with Robo Adviser for Making False Statements About Investment Performance

January 15, 2019 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On December 21, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against Hedgeable, Inc., a registered investment adviser. Hedgeable utilizes a “robo adviser” program, which it offers to individuals, small business owners, trusts, corporations, and partnerships through both its website and social media. The SEC’s Order alleges that from about 2016 through April 2017, Hedgeable made various misleading statements in advertising and performance data. Hedgeable submitted an offer of settlement in order to resolve the proceeding.

According to the Order, Hedgeable launched a so-called “Robo-Index” to present comparisons of its performance against that of two unaffiliated robo advisers. These comparisons were featured on both Hedgeable’s website and various social media sites. The SEC found that Hedgeable’s method of preparing the Robo-Index had significant material issues. For example, the SEC found that data from 2014 and 2015 only featured data from a small pool of Hedgeable client accounts and excluded over 1,000 other client accounts. The SEC alleged that, because of the small sample sizes, the data likely reflected “survivorship bias,” stemming from the fact that the sample size likely only contained clients who received higher than average returns compared to Hedgeable’s other clients. The SEC also determined that Hedgeable’s calculation methods did not correctly estimate expected returns for a standard client of the other two robo advisers. Hedgeable allegedly produced the data in the Robo-Index using estimations of the other robo advisers’ trading models rather than using the robo advisers’ actual models. Continue reading ›

Recent SEC Order Clarifies CCO and Other Firm Manager Liability

December 10, 2018 | Parker MacIntyre

The SEC routinely hears appeals arising from FINRA disciplinary proceedings, and in turn issues “Adjudicatory Orders” announcing its decisions. To the extent that these Orders are issued by vote of the full Commission, they stand as highly useful guidance to industry players on the thoughts of the SEC’s ultimate leadership. In a recent Adjudicatory Order, the SEC articulated its current position on Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) liability for securities regulatory violations, as well as the liabilities of other members of a securities firm’s senior management for failure to supervise the CCO. See Application of Thaddeus J. North for Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by FINRA, Order of the Commission, Rel. No. 34-84500 (Oct. 29, 2018).

The facts of the case involve findings by FINRA that the CCO (Mr. North) of a multi-office 50+ representative brokerage firm violated FINRA rules by failing to establish a reasonable supervisory system for the review of electronic correspondence, failing to reasonably review electronic correspondence, and failing to report a relationship with a statutorily disqualified person. Specifically, despite being the person responsible for reviewing the firm’s electronic communications, the record showed that for a roughly two-year period North completely failed to review any Bloomberg messages/chats (such messages making up 85% of the firm’s electronic communications). North testified that he “did not understand” his firm’s Smarsh e-mail retention/retrieval system, and further attributed his failure to review electronic communications to that activity being “boring.” Separately, North failed to either independently investigate or report to FINRA his knowledge of a material relationship between one of his firm’s registered representatives and a statutorily-disqualified person. This particular failure came despite North’s knowledge that the representative had paid the disqualified person over $150,000, had executed a services agreement with that person, and that FINRA was actively investigating the matter.

On these facts, the SEC upheld FINRA’s disciplinary action as “clearly appropriate” in light of North’s “egregious” conduct in “fail[ing] to make reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities of his position.” Notably, “North ignored red flags and repeatedly failed to perform compliance functions for which he was directly responsible.”

FINRA Regulatory Notice Announces Commencement of 2019 Renewal Program

November 7, 2018 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On October 31, 2018 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority published Regulatory Notice 18-37, which announces the commencement of the 2019 Renewal Program for registered investment advisers and broker-dealers. The 2019 Renewal Program is set to begin on November 12, 2018. On that day, FINRA will release Preliminary Statements to all registered firms via E-Bill. Firms are required to remit full payment of their Preliminary Statements by December 17, 2018.

The Preliminary Statements contain various fees for renewal of state registrations and notice filings. For individuals who are renewing their broker-dealer registrations, FINRA will assess a fee of $45. For investment adviser firms and their representatives who are renewing their registrations, any IARD system fees will be featured on their preliminary statements. For FINRA-registered firms that have one or more branch offices, FINRA will assess a renewal fee of $20 per branch. FINRA will, however, waive one branch renewal fee for each FINRA-registered firm.

Firms may pay their Preliminary Statement fees via E-Bill, a wire transfer, or a check. FINRA’s preferred method of payment is E-Bill. If a firm does not pay the Preliminary Statement fees by December 17, it will be charged a late renewal fee. The late fee will amount to either 10 percent of a firm’s final renewal assessment or $100, whichever is greater, but the late fee can be no more than $5,000. FINRA also warns firms that failure to pay the Preliminary Statement fees by the December 17 deadline could result in the firms becoming unable to do business in the areas where they are registered.

SEC Approves FINRA’s Capital Acquisition Broker Rules (“CAB Rules”)

November 7, 2016 | Parker MacIntyre

A new limited broker/dealer classification framework at the federal level has been created as the result of a recent SEC Order approving a FINRA rule proposal seeking to address the longstanding industry desire for augmented exemptive relief and/or limited registration classifications for broker/dealers that restrict their activities to certain designated corporate finance transactions. The new federal broker/dealer registration category known as Capital Acquisition Brokers (“CABs”), which some observers have dubbed a “lite” form of broker/dealer registration, is the latest development in this area of securities regulation, and follows a recent string of federal and state no-action letters providing exemptive relief to so-called Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) Brokers. However, enthusiasm for the new CAB Rules should be tempered somewhat in that: (1) the CAB Rules do not provide exemptive relief—i.e., they do not allow firms to avoid registration but instead set up a form of registration that is meant to be somewhat less onerous; (2) CAB registration still requires that CAB firms adhere to many of the same strictures required of full broker/dealers; and (3) opting to be regulated as a CAB may require reassessment as time goes on to the extent that a firm’s business activities change. While formally approved by the SEC, FINRA’s CAB Rules are not as yet effective. FINRA will publish the effective date in an upcoming Regulatory Notice. The full set of CAB Rules approved by the SEC may be found online at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/SR-FINRA-2015-054-amendment-2.pdf.

FINRA Sanctions Personnel for Compliance Failures

May 4, 2016 | Steve Parker

A compliance advisor working for City Securities Corporation (“City Securities”) has agreed to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) in a FINRA enforcement case alleging deficiencies in the way the advisor performed his compliance duties at the broker-dealer. John Walter Ruggles, who first became registered in 1993 and became associated with City Securities in May 2014, was charged with failing to generate monthly Municipal Continuing Disclosure Reports (MCDs), which are required in order to comply with the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board’s (MSRB) disclosure requirements. More specifically, among Ruggles’ tasks were to populate the MCDs with transaction data on behalf of City Securities’ customers and to email the data to the private client group, who would then routinely use the information contained in Ruggles’ emails to prepare customer satisfaction letters to City Securities’ clients regarding recent municipal bond trading activity.

The AWC alleges that Ruggles’ supervisor confronted Ruggles with the fact that he had not received the MCDs due for February 2015, and asked Ruggles to produce documentation showing that Ruggles had performed the tasks going back to June 2014. Ruggles provided six printed emails to his supervisor in response to the supervisor’s request. Those emails contain the trade details that were supposed to have been included in the MCDs. The supervisor, however, attempted to verify the data contained in Ruggles’ printed emails, but in investigating the situation found (1) that City Securities’ email backup files did not contain any of the emails that Ruggles provided, (2) that several of the execution dates referenced on the bond trades in the emails were different from the actual execution dates as reflected in the transaction data, (3) that for a period of approximately five months, the firm’s compliance system showed that Ruggles had not opened and viewed the MCDs from which he was supposed to have taken the data, and (4) that the falsified emails contained erroneous dates in the subject lines.

Investment Adviser Charged with Misleading SEC Regarding Examination

November 12, 2015 | Steve Parker

In August of this year the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled an administrative proceeding that related to statements an investment adviser made during the SEC’s on-site examination. The adviser at issue, Parallax Capital Partners, LLC, is a registered investment adviser that focuses primarily on mortgage-backed bonds and other similar fixed income securities. Parallax also advises a private fund in addition to providing advisory services to individuals and other entities. During an examination of Parallax that the SEC conducted in April 2011, the firm’s Chief Compliance Officer represented to the examination staff that he had performed and documented the annual compliance review required by Adviser’s Act Rule 206(4)-7 for the year 2010. The CCO further represented that the review and documentation had been conducted in February 2011, and provided the examination staff with a memorandum purportedly documenting the compliance review for 2010 that stated: “This memo documents that I have performed the review and reported significant compliance events and material compliance matters.”

The SEC examination staff was able to determine, by a review of the metadata attached to the compliance memorandum, that it had not been drafted in February 2011 as the CCO had represented, but instead that it had been created and completed in April 2011, just three days prior to the onsite examination and after Parallax received notice of the impending examination.
Continue reading ›

SEC Judge Rules on the Extent of Liability for Compliance Officers

October 6, 2015 | Alison Burns

On August 5th, 2015 in a decision that has implications for registered investment advisers and broker-dealers, SEC judge Cameron Elliot ruled on an enforcement action regarding the extent of liability for Compliance Officers in In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, available here. Sanctions were not imposed against Ms. Wolf due to the violation being “decisively outweighed by the remaining public interest factors: egregiousness, degree of harm, and deterrence.” However, it was found that Wolf purposefully lied about her records violation.

In In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, Judge Elliot stated he believed the further sanction against Wolf would be pursuit of “the low-hanging fruit” that is compliance officers.
Continue reading ›

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 ›