Investment Advisers

SEC Announces Cybersecurity Enforcement Action Against RIA

October 27, 2015 | Alison Burns

On September 22, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced an important cybersecurity enforcement action that has broad implications to registered investment advisers. In a Settlement Order, the SEC found R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management, a St. Louis-based investment adviser, “willfully violated” the Safeguards Rule. From September 2009 through July 2013, the firm stored unencrypted, sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”) of clients and others on its unencrypted, third party-hosted, web server.

In requiring that brokers-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers guard against cybersecurity breaches, the SEC has relied on its authority under Sections 501, 504, and 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, to create the new regulations. The “Safeguard Rule” is Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P (17 C.F.R. § 248.30(a)). Enforcement actions initiated by the SEC relating to computer security are often grounded in violations of the Safeguard Rule.
Continue reading ›

OCIE Announces 2015 Priorities in Second Round of Cybersecurity Examinations: New Risks for Securities Firms in Cybersecurity Compliance

October 1, 2015 | Alison Burns

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on Sept. 15, 2015 issued Risk Alert to announce its new focus on cybersecurity of securities firms and registered investment advisers. Cybersecurity programs of securities firms had best be strengthened, otherwise they may be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny according to the Risk Alert, which is meant to serve as helpful guidance for firms that need to create or heighten a cybersecurity program. The National Exam Program in 2014 conducted cybersecurity examinations on 106 securities firms. As a follow-up to the 2014 SEC security examinations The Risk Alert highlights certain additional measures the national registered entities need to be aware of when the SEC is conducting examinations.

A sample examination request with a list of information that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations may review in conducting examinations of registered entities regarding cybersecurity matters may be viewed here.
Continue reading ›

SEC Charges Three Investment Adviser Firms with Improper Registration in Wyoming

March 23, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

On February 4, 2015, the SEC issued cease and desist orders against three investment advisers that fraudulently maintained registration with the SEC by listing Wyoming as their principal place of business on their Forms ADV. These three incidences highlight Wyoming’s unusual landscape for investment advisers.

In order to explain the uniqueness of these orders, some background on investment adviser regulation will be provided. Originally, investment advisers were prohibited from registering with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act if it managed under $25 million in assets or met a designated exemption. In July 2011, that threshold was increased to $100 million. If an investment adviser does not meet or exceed the $100 million threshold, it is still required to register with the states in which they maintain their principal place of business. Wyoming is unique in that it does not regulate investment advisers. Any investment adviser with its principal place of business in Wyoming must therefore, according to the amendments to Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act, register with the SEC.
Continue reading ›

SEC Plans to Increase Focus on Asset Managers in 2015

February 19, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

In a speech given at The New York Times Dealbook Opportunities for Tomorrow Conference in New York at the end of 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White detailed an extensive plan to increase the agency’s scrutiny of asset managers. Her speech highlighted many of the important issues currently facing the SEC in regulating the asset management industry and its planned response to those issues.

Chair White began by noting the evolution of the asset management industry and the tools currently utilized to protect investors and their assets. In 1940, when the Investment Advisers Act was first passed, there were a total of $4 billion in assets under management at 51 firms, compared to the now over $63 trillion of assets under management at over 22,000 firms. Chair White also noted that almost half of all U.S. households own mutual funds. In addition to mutual funds, asset managers also increasingly recommend modern, sophisticated products like ETFs and derivatives. Registered funds have significantly increased the size and complexity of derivates used in asset management.
Continue reading ›

SEC to Conduct Presence Exams for Never-Before Examined Investment Advisers in 2015

January 20, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

During the January 7th Practising Law Institute conference on Hedge Fund Compliance and Regulatory Challenges, the Director of the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”), Andrew Bowden, previewed some of the new priorities on which the SEC will focus in 2015. Some of the areas of focus include protecting investors, specifically those in or close to retirement, cyber security, and the use of data analytics to identify potential wrongdoers. One of the other priorities discussed was OCIE’s new initiative to use “presence exams” to examine certain investment advisers that have never been examined. Investment advisers who have been registered with the SEC for three or more years will potentially be selected for a presence exam.

Presence exams are less intensive, shorter exams, taking up about two-thirds the time of a regular SEC examination. These exams tend to be more narrow in scope and focus on specific areas of concern that the SEC may have. In October 2012, SEC staff created presence exams for investment advisers who were required to register with the SEC for the first time because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). These newly required SEC registrants under Dodd-Frank included, for example, hedge fund advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management. Bowden stated that the SEC performed close to 400 of these exams and that OCIE’s goal to examine 25% of the investment advisers required to register with the SEC under Dodd-Frank by 2014 was met.
Continue reading ›

Investment Adviser Settles with SEC Over False Advertising Claims

January 15, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

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 ›

Investment Advisers and Social Media

January 2, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

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.

Bachus SRO Bill Likely Dead This Year; Waters Introduces User Fee proposal

July 26, 2012 | Steve Parker

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 ›

Colorado Refuses to Issue No-Action Letter to Financial Instructor

April 11, 2012 | Steve Parker

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 ›

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 ›