RIA Compliance

Arizona Adviser’s Outside Business Activity Constituted Unlicensed Sale of Securities

February 9, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On December 13, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) affirmed an Arizona Superior Court’s decision finding that Patrick Shudak, an investment adviser, violated the Arizona Securities Act by acting as an unregistered securities salesperson or dealer in connection with the sale of interests in a real estate venture.

From January 2008 through July 2009, Shudak sold membership units in a company known as Parker Skylar & Associates, LLC (PSA). Neither Shudak nor PSA was registered as a securities salesperson or dealer under the Arizona Securities Act. Shudak stated in PSA’s promotional materials that the money invested in PSA would “be used to purchase and develop real property.” In reality, however, Shudak placed the money that investors put into PSA into his personal account, the personal accounts of others such as his girlfriend, and business accounts of other business that Shudak owned or had some affiliation with.

In December 2009, investors started to grow worried when Shudak stopped returning phone calls and replying to the investors’ demands for information. As a result, Shudak was obligated to stop serving as PSA manager and to give up his PSA membership. He subsequently filed for bankruptcy in April 2010.

DOL Issues Additional Guidance as Enforcement Date of Fiduciary Rule Approaches

January 26, 2017 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued two new sets of FAQ guidance regarding the revised definition of fiduciary investment advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), as well as the new prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs). The first set of guidance is directed to retirement investors, not advisers, and answers basic questions investors may have regarding the new rule and how it will work. The second set of guidance is aimed at financial service providers and focuses mainly on the revised definition of fiduciary investment advice and the situations in which fiduciary duties will or will not attach under the new rule.

While the first set of FAQ guidance is not necessarily aimed at financial service providers, it did provide a few useful insights that I will briefly discuss here. The DOL stated that the new rule does not require advisers to indiscriminately move clients from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts, and instead requires advisers to act in the client’s best interest when deciding what type of account to recommend. Regarding the best interest requirement, the DOL clarified that providing investment advice in a client’s best interest does not mean that advisers have a duty to find the best possible investment product for clients out of all the investments available in the marketplace. Continue reading ›

SEC Sanctions Investment Adviser for Breaking Promises to Correct Deficiencies

January 17, 2017 | Steve Parker

Most deficiencies identified in the course of investment adviser examinations can be remedied by the adviser simply taking corrective measures. This can be true even with regard to deficiencies that are somewhat serious violations, but only if corrective action is taken and sustained.

In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) starkly demonstrated the importance of following through with promises advisers make to the SEC Examinations Staff. Because they did not make promised corrections, Moloney Securities Co., Inc. and Joseph R. Medley, Jr. were forced to consent to the entry of an Order Instituting Proceedings that required them, among other things, to pay civil penalties and to hire an independent compliance consultant to monitor and report certain aspects of the firm’s compliance program. Continue reading ›

Federal Court Denies Motion to Block DOL Fiduciary Rule

November 28, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently denied a motion brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities (NAFA) to enjoin the implementation of the new Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule. This is the first court decision on a legal challenge to the rule. There are currently several other lawsuits against the DOL seeking to overrule the new DOL fiduciary rule that await decision.

NAFA is an insurance trade association that represents insurance companies, independent marketing organizations, and individual insurance agents. NAFA has been very vocal in its opposition to the new DOL fiduciary rule, stating that the new rule will have “catastrophic consequences for the fixed indexed annuities industry” and that meeting the April 2017 deadline is “almost an impossibility for the industry.” Along with other opponents to the rule, NAFA believes the rule will lead to higher compliance costs and will greatly increase litigation risk.

DOL Issues First Set of Rolling FAQ Guidance Regarding New Fiduciary Rule

November 9, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently released its first set of rolling FAQ guidance regarding its new rules expanding the definition of fiduciary investment advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), adopting new prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs), and amending certain previously existing PTEs. The DOL answered questions regarding the new PTEs and the amendments to existing PTEs under ERISA and the Code. The DOL also reaffirmed the applicability date of April 10, 2017, stating that this date provided adequate time for financial service providers to adjust to the rule changes.

One common area of confusion regarding the new rules was the extent to which the new Best Interest Contract (BIC) exemption would be available for use by discretionary investment managers. One of the conditions to use of the BIC exemption is that the fiduciary not have any discretionary authority or control with respect to the recommended transaction. This excludes a large portion of investment advisers that serve as discretionary investment managers. However, there are limited circumstances in which they can receive protection under the BIC exemption.

Massachusetts Issues Regulatory Guidance for State Investment Advisers Who Use Third-Party Robo-Advisers

October 3, 2016 | Elizabeth Dalziel

The Massachusetts Securities Division (the “Division”) recently issued regulatory guidance for state investment advisers who use third-party robo-advisers to provide advisory services to clients. Robo-advisers have enjoyed a significant growth in popularity in the financial services industry based on perceived simplicity, ease of accessibility, and ability to service investment advisory clients who may not have sufficient assets to begin a relationship with a traditional investment adviser. As discussed previously, the Division issued a policy statement in April 2016 declaring that because automated robo-advisers cannot provide fiduciary duties to clients as traditional human investment advisers can, the Division will evaluate their Massachusetts registration applications on a case-by-case basis.

The new regulatory guidance provides that to the extent a state-registered investment adviser (“state-registered adviser”) uses a third-party robo-adviser’s services to provide asset allocation and trading functions to clients, the state-registered adviser must meet a minimum of six requirements. These six requirements are as follows: Continue reading ›

Louisiana Adopts Amendments to Written Examination Requirements for Investment Adviser Representatives

September 29, 2016 | Elizabeth Dalziel

The Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions recently adopted amendments to the written examination requirements that enable investment adviser representatives to be registered with the Louisiana Securities Commissioner. These amendments became effective on September 1, 2016. The Office of Financial Institutions explained that the amendments were adopted to ensure that all investment advisers are properly qualified to provide investment advice to Louisiana’s citizens.

The amendments that the Office of Financial Institutions made are detailed in LAC 10:XIII.1301-1311, Investment Adviser Registration Procedure. The amendments are as follows: Continue reading ›

Investment Advisers Charged for Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Arising From Receipt of Forgivable Loans

September 27, 2016 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On July 18, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled charges against two SEC-registered investment advisers (“investment advisers”). The investment advisers, Advantage Investment Management, LLC (“AIM”) and Washington Wealth Management, LLC (“WWM”) failed to disclose receipt of revenue from third-party broker-dealers in the form of forgivable loans and the consequent conflicts of interest.

Investment advisers are prohibited from engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business that operates as a fraud upon any client or prospective client under Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). They are also prohibited from making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting any material fact in any report filed with the SEC under Section 207 of the Advisers Act. Continue reading ›

SEC Continues Increased Focus on RIA Performance Advertising

September 19, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The F-Squared Investments matter continues to have far-reaching consequences for those investment advisers who used F-Squared’s falsely inflated and improperly labeled backtested performance results in advertisements. As discussed previously, in November of 2015 Virtus Investment Advisers was fined $16.5 million for including the false and misleading performance results in its own advertisements and filings with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). More recently, the SEC charged Cantella & Co. (“Cantella”), a Boston-based investment adviser that licensed F-Squared’s Alpha Sector strategy, with securities violations for employing F-Squared’s false track record in its marketing materials.

F-Squared is an investment adviser that creates and markets index products using exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). It sub-licenses these indexes to various unaffiliated investment advisers who manage assets pursuant to those indexes. In 2014 F-Squared admitted in a settled SEC administrative proceeding that it had materially misrepresented the performance results of its largest ETF strategy, AlphaSector, by labeling these results as actual results from a seven-year period when they were in fact hypothetical results derived through backtesting. In addition, F-Squared claimed that the strategy had outperformed the S&P 500 Index from 2001 to 2008 when in fact the hypothetical data contained a calculation error that falsely inflated results by 350 percent. F-Squared agreed to pay disgorgement of $30 million and a penalty of $5 million to settle the claim.

Court Affirms SEC’s Sanction of Investment Adviser Over Fraudulent Performance Advertising

September 7, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently denied a petition to review an order of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) imposing sanctions against Raymond J. Lucia and investment adviser Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (“Lucia Companies”) for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the advertising rule thereunder, Rule 206(4)-1. In denying the motion, the DC Circuit affirmed the SEC’s broadened views on the use of back-tested performance in marketing and advertising materials.

As discussed previously, this case involves the improper use by an investment adviser of back-tested performance data in retirement-planning seminars. Raymond J. Lucia, and Lucia Companies allegedly used a hypothetical inflation rate that was lower than actual historical rates to make their performance results more favorable. In addition, the performance data allegedly failed to reflect the deduction of advisory fees and was not calculated in a manner fully consistent with the advertised investment strategy. As a result, the SEC barred Raymond J. Lucia from the securities industry and imposed civil penalties of $300,000.