Articles Tagged with Investment Advisers

|

On December 22, 2014, the SEC announced a settlement with F-Squared Investments (“F-Squared”) in which F-Squared will pay a civil penalty and disgorgement for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act by advertising falsely inflated performance numbers of its most successful exchange traded fund (“ETF”) investment strategy. Under the terms of the settlement, F-Squared, the largest U.S. marketer of index products using ETFs, agreed to disgorge $30 million and pay a $5 million penalty.

In October 2008, F-squared, along with its co-founder and former CEO, developed an investment strategy called AlphaSector. AlphaSector used data received from an algorithm to decide whether or not to buy or sell nine industry-focused ETFs. The algorithm was developed by an intern at a private wealth advisory firm, who told F-Squared’s CEO that it had been used before to manage the private wealth advisor’s client assets. The intern sent F-Squared’s CEO three separate data sets of hypothetical, back-tested weekly trends for each of the ETFs. This data was then used by an F-Squared employee to calculate hypothetical back-tested results for AlphaSector from April 2001 to September 2008.
Continue reading ›

|

As the use of social media becomes more prevalent and popular, businesses and financial institutions have begun to utilize the new methods of communication that social media can provide. Many businesses already maintain blogs or interactive accounts like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram as a method of marketing and interacting with clients or prospective customers. However, social media is a relatively new and constantly changing technology that can create unique and unforeseen risks to a businesses image and regulatory compliance policies. These risks are particularly acute for registered investment advisers.

In the broker-dealer world, FINRA has already adopted rules and issued regulatory notices designed to protect investors from false or misleading claims and representations and guide member firms on how to appropriately monitor their social media participation. Although not strictly applicable to pure RIAs, these rules should be viewed as best practices:

  • FINRA Rule 2210 and NASD Rule 3010 govern the supervision of a firm’s social media communications;
  • FINRA Rule 2111 requires that social media communications, if recommending a security, must be considered suitable for the targeted investors; and
  • Record keeping of all social media communications is required under FINRA Rule 4510.

Continue reading ›

|

Proposed legislation designed to create a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers may not be acted on during this Congressional session, according to its sponsor, Rep. Spencer Bachus (D-Ala.). Rep. Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said earlier this week that no consensus has developed regarding any proposal relating to enhancing investment adviser oversight and that, therefore, no action is imminent.

There has been increasing interest and legislative activity over the past several months relating to investment adviser examinations. While there is almost universal agreement that examination coverage should be increased, there is a sharp division among industry members, regulators and legislators about how to accomplish that goal.

Most observers agree that Rep. Bachus’s bill, if passed, would lead to the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) becoming the SRO for investment advisers. Adviser organizations have split over supporting the bill, with the Financial Services Institute (FSI) as a supporter, and the Investment Adviser Association (IAA) and the American Institute of CPAs strongly opposed. Other investment adviser organizations have also come out in opposition to the Bachus bill, as has the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA).
Continue reading ›

|

The Colorado Securities Division recently declined to issue a no-action letter in connection with a company that intends to educate and train people in stock market trading. Mark Espy, owner of MarkEspyMentorin.com, sent a letter to the Colorado Division of Securities on January 17, 2012 asking for either a no-action letter or the Staff’s clarification that he and his company do not need to be licensed as an investment adviser in Colorado. Espy plans to tutor people on how to use various tools in order to trade in the stock market. The course will be taught through webinars, and students will pay a fee to enroll.

According to Espy, the instruction provided in the course will include curriculum designed to teach various techniques and procedures to measure an equity’s viability for trading or investing, portfolio management, the importance of diversification, explanations of indicators, trading strategies, and building a trading plan, among other topics. Espy has also been approved to teach an adult education class on the stock market at a local community college.
Continue reading ›

|

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 ›

|

One year ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff recommended that a uniform fiduciary standard be applied to both broker-dealers and investment advisers. Recently, however, the SEC postponed a corresponding rule proposal for a second time.

In January, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sent a letter to Congressman Scott Garrett, Chairman of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, stating that it needs to gather additional information for an economic analysis of the impact of a standard of care regulation. Although the SEC had previously set it for action in 2011, that time frame has now been changed to “date to be determined.” The SEC has already designated specific time frames for 51 other rules and reports required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the letter to Rep. Garrett, Chairman Schapiro wrote, “SEC staff are drafting a public request for information to obtain data specific to the provision of retail financial advice and the regulatory alternatives. In this request, it is our hope commentators will provide information that will allow commission staff to continue to analyze the various components of the market for retail financial advice.”
Continue reading ›

|

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) released a report last month comparing the cost of the various possible options of different agencies examining investment advisers. This report was conducted as a follow-up to a study released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2011, which created these scenarios based on Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The three possible options would be:

  • Authorizing the SEC to conduct the examinations and fund them by collecting user fees;
  • Authorize a new self-regulatory organization (SRO) to examine the advisers; or
  • Authorize the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to examine the advisers

The economic analysis of the options was based on public research along with more than 40 in-depth interviews with various investment advisory firms. The SEC and FINRA were not interviewed or consulted in this analysis. The report concluded that the creation of enhanced SEC capabilities would cost $240-$270 million, while setting FINRA up as the investment adviser SRO would cost $550-$610 million, and creating a new SRO would cost $610-$670 million. These estimates were developed by projecting setup costs, ongoing mandate costs, and the cost associated with SEC oversight of an SRO.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a National Examination Risk Alert to investment advisers discussing the use of social media. Social media is becoming more widely used as a means to communicate with investors, and advisers need to ensure they are meeting their compliance requirements. The purpose of the alert is to inform advisers of ways they can improve and maintain sufficient compliance practices in using social media websites.

The SEC listed a number of issues for firms to consider as they evaluate the effectiveness of their compliance programs. Among all of the guidelines, some areas firms are encouraged to consider include:

  • Whether they want to create usage guidelines to address which social media networks are appropriate for use and restrictions which may be appropriate for each network;
  • Whether to create content standards to prohibit specific content or impose other restrictions in relation to their social media networks;
  • How their compliance or supervisory personnel can adequately monitor the sites, and how frequently they should be monitored;
  • Whether content must be pre-approved before posting to a site;
  • Whether there are adequate resources dedicated to monitor the activity adequately on the social media sites;
  • Developing criteria for allowing participation by third parties ;
  • Implementing training related to social media-related compliance practices;
  • Whether certification should be required to ensure that those individuals using the social media sites understand and are complying with the firm’s internal policies;
  • Whether to adopt policies distinguishing between personal and professional sites, possibly specifying the types of communication about the firm which are acceptable on a site not maintained by the firm; and
  • How to maintain information security.

Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division last week settled enforcement actions against three mid-sized registered investment advisors for failing to establish, maintain and follow written compliance procedures. Two of the firms had assets under management less than the new $100 million cutoff for federal registration, and the other firm’s assets were just over that amount.

OMNI Investment Advisors, Inc., was a two-advisor firm with 190 accounts and $65 million under management. The SEC found that it had no compliance program in place for over two years, during which time the owner and CCO was out of the country and not actively engaged in the firm’s business. When the SEC announced an examination of the firm in late 2010, the firm apparently purchased an “off-the-shelf” compliance manual designed for both broker-dealers and investment advisors, but did not customize it for its own advisory business. No annual compliance reviews were conducted, and the firm’s advisors were apparently not supervised. The firm’s owner was also found to have backdated and failed to review a number of documents containing his signature, including client advisory agreements. As a sanction, the SEC barred the firm’s owner from the securities industry and fined him $50,000, in addition to censuring the firm.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced earlier this month that it obtained an asset freeze against a Boston-area money manager and his investment advisory firm who allegedly mislead advisers in a quantitative hedge fund and diverted a portion of investor money into his personal bank account.

In its allegations, the SEC claimed that Andrey C. Hicks and Locust Offshore Management, LLC made false representations to “create an aura of legitimacy when selecting individuals to invest in a purported million dollar hedge fund.” Hicks is alleged to have raised $1.7 million from several investors. According to the SEC’s complaint, Hicks misrepresented that he had obtained an undergraduate and graduate degree at Harvard University and that he previously worked for Barclays Capital. He also misrepresented that the hedge fund held more than $1.2 billion in assets, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sterns of the District Court for Massachusetts issued the restraining order and asset freeze.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2987 Clairmont Rd
#200
Atlanta, GA 30329
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design