SEC Tag Archives — Page 21 of 23

Final Rule on Advisers Charging Performance Fees

February 21, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released Final Rule No. IA – 3372 which changes the qualifications for advisers who charge performance fees. We discussed the proposed amendment to the rule in a previous blog post, Performance Based Fee Threshold Increase Sought by SEC in Proposed Order. These amendments are required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and will take effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is anticipated shortly. Until then advisers can rely on the grandfather provisions.

While advisers are generally unable to accept performance fees, there are exceptions. For example under certain circumstances, a client may become a “qualified client,” under Rule 205-3, meaning he or she is deemed to be capable of bearing the risks associated with performance fee arrangements. Under the new rule, an adviser may charge performance fees to “qualified clients” who have at least $1 million of assets under management for that definition to apply. Under the previous rule, $750,000 in assets were required to be under management. Also, the net worth of an investor may also be a qualification for an exception. The amended rule raises the minimum net worth standard for qualified clients from $1 million to $2 million. (The other “qualified client” basis includes clients who immediately before entering the advisory contract are either executive officers, directors, trustees, general partners of the adviser or employees of the adviser and who have participated in the adviser’s investment activities for at least twelve months. This definition has not changed with the amendment.)
Continue reading ›

New Registration Requirements for Non-U.S. Advisers

February 15, 2012 | Steve Parker

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed on July 21, 2010, there have been significant reforms applicable to non-US advisers conducting business in the United States, including new registration requirements under the Advisers Act (the “Act”).

Non-U.S. advisers may need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to conduct future business within the United States. A non-U.S. adviser is defined in the Advisers Act as an investment adviser that:

Has no place of business in the United States;
Has a total of less than 15 U.S. clients and investors in private funds;
Has less than $25 million in assets under management associated with the U.S. clients and investors; and
Does not hold itself out generally as a U.S. investment adviser.

SEC Charges Hedge Funds and Individuals In Insider Trading Scheme

February 2, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a proposed settlement, subject to court approval, for insider trading violations against seven fund managers and analysts along with two multi-billion dollar hedge fund advisory firms, Diamondback Capital Management LLC and Level Global Investors LP. According to the SEC, individuals with both firms received nonpublic, material information about Dell Inc. and Nvidia Corp. The cases charge illicit gains exceeding $62.3 million for the Dell trades and $15.7 million for the Nvidia trades.

The seven individuals named in the SEC complaint are Sandeep Goyal, Jesse Tortora, Todd Newman, Spyridon Adondakis, Anthony Chiasson, Jon Horvath and Danny Kuo. Goyal is charged with obtaining quarterly earnings information from an insider at Dell and telling Diamondback Analyst Tortora, who in turn tipped his portfolio manager Newman. Tortora also allegedly tipped three other people: Horvath, Kuo, and Adonakis, an analyst at Level Global who tipped his manager, Chiasson. In turn, Kuo allegedly obtained nonpublic, material information about Nvidia and tipped Tortora and Adondakis. SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami said, “These are not low-level employees succumbing to temptation by seizing a chance opportunity. These are sophisticated players who built a corrupt network to systematically and methodically obtain and exploit illegal inside information again and again at the expense of law-abiding investors and the integrity of the markets.”
Continue reading ›

SEC Postpones “Fiduciary Duty Rule” Again

February 1, 2012 | Steve Parker

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 ›

SIFMA To FINRA: Change Punishment for Unpaid Promissory Notes

January 30, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a letter sent to the Financial Industry Regulator Authority (FINRA) last November, the Securities Industry and Financial Market Association (SIFMA) wants FINRA to give harsher punishments to brokers who have failed to pay back promissory notes to firms. It specifically sought to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The purpose of the notes is to provide cash for recruiting and retention incentives. They are typically designed as forgivable loans as long as the broker stays at the firm for a specified amount of time. If the brokers choose to leave early, then they are required to pay back the note.

As a result of not paying the promissory note back, firms have gotten more aggressive in filing arbitration claims for repayment, and in most cases the firm wins. In 2011, there were 778 promissory note cases filed which is a decrease from 2010 during which 1,152 cases were filed. If a broker does not pay the promissory award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. Once a monetary award has been issued in a FINRA arbitration proceeding, the broker has 30 days to pay the award. If the broker can show an inability to pay back the note; however, he/she will not be suspended and can continue to work for another firm.
Continue reading ›

FINRA Amends Proposed Social Media Rule

January 26, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a previous blog, we discussed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA’s) proposed Rule 2210 regarding social media. FINRA responded to comments by amending the proposed rule, and filing it with the SEC for approval. The amended rule was designed to respond to concerns about whether certain types of communications should be considered correspondence or public appearances.

In the rule as originally proposed, interactive social media communications would be classified as public appearances such as television interviews, and would have to be filed with regulators. As a result of comments to the proposal, FINRA amended the rule to exclude messages on online interactive forums from a post-use filing requirement.

FINRA explains that the reasoning behind this change is due to the belief that participation in online forums occur in real-time, that it is not practical to require pre-use approval of such postings by a principal, and that these types of communications should be classified as retail communications. According to FINRA, “retail communication would include any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-day period. ‘Retail investor would include any person other than an institutional investor, regardless of whether the person has an account with the member.'” This means that the retail communication category would instead be supervised by broker-dealers in the same manner as correspondence.
Continue reading ›

BCG Report Claims FINRA Cost Will Exceed SEC Cost as RIA SRO

January 17, 2012 | Steve Parker

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 ›

SEC Issues Investment Adviser Risk Alert on Social Media

January 16, 2012 | Steve Parker

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.

Social Media Scam Artist Shut Down by SEC

January 9, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently filed a cease-and-desist order against an Illinois man, Anthony Fields, for scamming investors with a fictitious securities offering. Fields attempted to sell more than $500 billion in securities using various social media websites, including LinkedIn.

Fields claimed to be a representative of a “leading institutional broker-dealer” through his firms: Anthony Fields & Associates and Platinum Securities Brokers. He was not registered as a broker/dealer with the SEC nor was he licensed as an associate with a registered broker/dealer.

The SEC has claimed that Fields violated numerous securities regulations. Allegedly, he promoted fictitious bank guarantees by setting up an unfunded investment adviser and an unfunded broker-dealer. He registered both of these with the SEC; however, he did so by filing false applications in March 2010. He also failed to maintain adequate books and records or carry out proper compliance procedures. Finally, he overstated his assets under management by claiming he had $400 million when, in actuality, he had none.
Continue reading ›

Financial Advisors Should Note More Restrictive Accredited Investor Definition

January 6, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted a new rule that redefines the standard for “accredited” investors. Required by the Dodd-Frank legislation enacted in 2010, the accredited investor standard is intended to protect less sophisticated investors in less regulated investments. The rule change, which eliminates an investor’s principal residence from consideration in determining accredited status, may dramatically affect whether some potential investors remain eligible for Regulation D offerings.

Most of the accredited investor qualification criteria remain the same, but the net worth criteria has changed. In order to qualify as an accredited investor, the qualifying net worth amount remains $1,000,000; however, the value of the investor’s principal residence must now be excluded from the calculation of the investor’s assets. In addition, subject to some exceptions, the amount of the mortgage debt on the principal residence is also excluded from the investor’s liability calculation. The overall purpose of the changes is to insure that accredited investor status is determined without regard to the value of any equity in the principal residence.
Continue reading ›