RIA Compliance Blog

SEC Issues Report on Review of Definition of “Accredited Investor”

June 14, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) must review the definition of “accredited investor” every four years to determine whether it needs to be modified or adjusted. The SEC staff recently conducted its first review and issued a Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor.”

The report provides an in-depth examination of the history of the “accredited investor” definition and discusses possible alternative approaches. The report also responds to comments on the existing definition received from various financial services industry participants, including the Investor Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. Lastly, the report provides recommendations for potential updates and/or modifications to the existing definition.

Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Signal Shift Towards Closer Scrutiny on Chief Compliance Officers

June 3, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Chief Compliance Officers (“CCOs”) play an important role in registered investment adviser firms, as they are responsible for ensuring the firm is developing adequate compliance programs and following its compliance policies and procedures. In the past, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has generally avoided second-guessing the professional judgment of CCOs. However, recent SEC enforcement actions show a clear trend towards growing scrutiny over the conduct of CCOs and towards enforcement actions being taken against them.

Two high-profile cases from 2015 illustrate the shift in the SEC’s tone towards CCOs. First, in an April enforcement action against BlackRock Advisors the SEC charged the firm with failing to disclose the outside business interests of one of the firm’s portfolio managers to its board of directors or advisory clients, as well as failing to adopt any policies and procedures addressing outside business activities. In addition, the SEC also charged the then-CCO for causing BlackRock’s compliance-related violations by failing to ensure the firm adopted the required policies and procedures. BlackRock settled the charges with a $12 million penalty, while the then-CCO paid $60,000.

SEC Issues No-Action Letter Lessening Custody Rule Requirements for Sub-Advisers

May 31, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently released a no-action letter allowing sub-advisers in certain situations to avoid the annual surprise examination requirement of Rule 206(4)-2 for investment advisers with custody of client funds or securities. Going forward, sub-advisers who do not have actual custody of client assets but are deemed to have custody because they are related to the qualified custodian and primary adviser will no longer have to comply with this burdensome requirement, so long as certain conditions are met.

As a review, custody is defined by Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 as the holding, directly or indirectly, of client funds or securities, or having any authority to obtain possession of them. This includes situations where a “related person,” or a person controlled by you or under common control with you, has custody of client funds. Pursuant to SEC Rule 206(4)-2, investment advisers with custody of client funds must take certain steps to safeguard such client assets. Those steps include: 1) maintaining assets with a qualified custodian; 2) notifying clients about the qualified custodian; 3) ensuring that the qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements to client; and 4) obtaining an annual surprise examination by an independent public accountant.

Investment Adviser Accused of Raising Operating Capital From Clients by False and Misleading Statements

May 26, 2016 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted an administrative proceeding against Blue Ocean Portfolios, LLC (“Blue Ocean”), an SEC-registered investment advisor with approximately $106 million in regulatory assets under management, and its Principal, CEO and Chief Compliance Officer, James A. Winkelmann, Sr. According to the allegations, Blue Ocean and Winkelmann began raising capital from clients of Blue Ocean in order to generate business proceeds for Blue Ocean in April, 2011. The adviser raised the funds by issuing a number of what it called “Royalty Units,” which were in fact interests that paid a minimum return to the investors with the prospect of a higher return if Blue Ocean’s advertising investment yielded successful new customers with annually recurring revenue.

SEC Issues Investor Bulletin on Performance Claims in Advertising

May 24, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy recently released an investor bulletin educating investors on investment performance claims in investment adviser advertising and pointing out specific things they should consider prior to investing. This bulletin and newsletter highlight the increasing emphasis regulators have been placing on performance claims in recent years.

Performance advertising is regulated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-1. Pursuant to Section 206 of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-1, it is considered fraudulent 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. The SEC has issued specific guidance regarding performance claims in advertising that all investment adviser firms must follow in order for their performance advertising to be considered non-fraudulent.

SEC Fines, Suspends Accounting Firm Over Deficient Audits

May 20, 2016 | Steve Parker

Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought and simultaneously settled administrative proceedings against accounting firm Santos, Postal & Co. P.C. (“SPC”) and one of its accountants, finding that SPC and the accountant conducted deficient surprise audits of investment adviser SFX Financial Advisory Management Enterprises (“SFX”). The surprise examinations were conducted pursuant to the SEC custody rule and are designed to confirm the adviser’s appropriate handling of assets under their custody and to uncover, to the extent possible, fraudulent activity of the advisers.

As background to this enforcement action, under Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2, investment advisers with custody of client funds or securities must maintain certain controls, commonly known as “safekeeping procedures,” to protect those assets. State-registered advisers must comply with rules that vary from state to state, but the model rule of the North American Securities Administrators Association is substantially similar to the SEC rule. Since approximately March 2010, the Rule has required advisers that have custody other than because of an ability to deduct client fees to obtain an annual surprise exam by an independent public accountant to verify all client assets. Another basic requirement of the rule applicable to all advisers with custody is having a reasonable basis for believing that a qualified custodian or the adviser sends quarterly account statements to each client for which custody was maintained. Advisers that advise hedge funds or pooled investment vehicles may satisfy the audit requirement and other safekeeping provision by having an audit completed by a PCOAB auditing firm and timely delivering audit results to the fund’s shareholders.

New Registration Requirements for Developers & Supervisors of Algorithmic Trading Strategies

May 13, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently approved a proposed Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rule change which will require associated persons responsible for the design, development, and significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies, or the supervision of such activities, to register as Securities Traders. This development highlights the increasing regulatory and enforcement focus FINRA & the SEC are placing on the use of trading algorithms in the financial services industry.

Currently, associated persons are required to register as Securities Traders if they are engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities with respect to off-exchange transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities. FINRA is expanding this requirement to include associated persons who are: 1) primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies; or 2) responsible for the day to-day supervision or direction of such activities.

SEC Fines Investment Adviser Over Lack of Heightened Supervision

May 13, 2016 | Steve Parker

Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted and simultaneously settled an administrative enforcement case in which a civil penalty of $225,000.00 was assessed against Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc. (Cambridge). The action illustrates the importance of designing and implementing effective heightened supervision programs for investment adviser representatives who have a history of allegations of rules violations or other misconduct or disclosure items on the Form U-4.

The case stemmed from an incident that was the subject of a separate SEC proceeding filed in 2013 against Richard P. Sandru, who was an investment adviser representative operating from Cambridge’s Perrysburg, Ohio branch office. In that proceeding, Sandru was found to have forged clients’ signatures on financial planning agreements or, in some cases, adding client charges to the agreements without the clients’ knowledge and without obtaining additional signatures from the clients authorizing the additional charges. Sandru’s conduct, which the SEC characterized as a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate client funds, took place between 2009 and 2011 and potentially affected 47 advisory clients, from whom Sandru allegedly misappropriated “at least $308,850.00.” Sandru was, at this time, an OSJ of Cambridge and supervised two other Cambridge representatives and other administrative assistants.

FINRA Provides Effective Practices for Digital Investment Advice

May 10, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently released guidance on effective practices for financial services firms that provide digital investment advice services. While the report analyzed rules of the securities industry that relate to such services, it discusses effective practices that “may be valuable to financial professionals generally,” including registered investment advisers. With the increasing use of digital investment advice tools in the financial services industry, FINRA undertook to review a broad range of these tools to ensure broker dealers as well as investment advisers are complying with their legal obligations.

The digital investment advice tools FINRA is referring to include both financial professional-facing tools and client-facing tools. These tools typically perform the necessary functions involved in managing an investor’s portfolio, including customer profile development, asset allocation, portfolio selection, trade execution, portfolio rebalancing, and tax-loss harvesting. Client-facing tools which perform these functions are commonly known as “robo advisors.” Financial professional-facing tools usually include portfolio analysis capabilities in addition to those listed functions.

Proposed Rule 147 Still in Limbo

May 6, 2016 | Bob Terry

In 1974 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted Rule 147 as a “safe-harbor” for intrastate offerings under Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act.”) On October 30, 2015, the SEC proposed sweeping changes to Rule 147. Notably, the proposed Rule 147 would be “decoupled” from Section 3(a)(11), instead being proposed under the SEC’s general exemptive authority in Section 28 of the Act.

Substantively, the proposal – while still limited to offerings entirely within one state – significantly liberalizes the restrictions on intrastate offerings contained in the current Rule 147 and Section 3(a)(11). First, it allows general solicitation across state lines (i.e., using the Internet), whereas such solicitation is now widely seen as problematic due to the current statutory and regulatory prohibition against offers outside the offering state. The new rule does not prohibit interstate offers, but simply requires that all sales be made to residents of one state.

Also, the current Rule 147 provides that an issuer can make offers or sales only (i) in the state in which it is incorporated or organized; (ii) in the state where its principal office is located; (iii) in the state in which it earns 80% or its revenues and has 80% of its assets; and (iv) if 80% of the proceeds of the offering are used in the state. The proposed Rule 147 basically requires only one of these standards to be met. The proposal also eliminates the requirement that the issuer be incorporated in the state.