Knowing firm requirements as set forth in the Investment Advisers Act is essential, and learning from the mistakes of others in this area can be a valuable and motivating tool for striving for compliance in the financial services industry. In an atmosphere where Chief Compliance Officers (CCO) are being added to disciplinary proceedings, learning and taking immediate corrective action is the name of the game. No longer is the firm the only name blasted across SEC complaints; regulators will ensure that individuals are equally held responsible. Read More…
Last month, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued a Risk Alert regarding examinations that will focus on broker-dealers’ compliance with Regulation Best Interest. The SEC wanted to make clear that the Regulation Best Interest compliance date of June 30, 2020 will not be extended. The OCIE will begin examinations with the program and will continue to add this element as part of exams for one year after the implementation date.
Investment Adviser Principal and Agency Cross Trading practices was the topic of a recent OCIE Risk Alert. The Investment Adviser’s Act Principal Transactions Section 206(3) indicates “Investment Adviser’s acting as a principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining consent of the client to such transaction” are prohibited unless the appropriate disclosures and consent procedures are addressed and completed according to the compliance requirements.
In June, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) passed “Regulation Best Interest: The Broker Dealer Standard of Conduct” and “Form CRS Relationship Summary; Amendments to Form ADV”. This legislation, Regulation Best Interest and CRS Relationship Summary, is the cumulation of many attempts to mesh the “fiduciary standard” for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealer Representatives. The objective of this legislation and its requirements are to educate investors through disclosures regarding any conflicts, fees, costs, and whether the investment opportunities being offered are suitable for the investor. This legislation will impose new documentation requirements for both Investment Advisors and Broker-Dealer Representatives.
It is evident that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) are constantly putting efforts forward to navigate the unchartered waters of cryptocurrency. Just days before Blockstack’s Reg A+ token offering received SEC approval, the SEC and FINRA issued a joint statement to provide guidance and encourage innovation and ongoing discussions with market participants on the idea of the custody of cryptocurrency for broker-dealers.
If you are a private fund adviser (i.e. hedge fund or pooled investment vehicle), do you know if you are deemed to have custody? If so, is your Form ADV Part I completed correctly? Custody for private fund advisers is regarded by the SEC as an extremely important topic and should be reviewed frequently by your firm.
Since there is a significant increase in compliance responsibilities for firms that have custody of client funds and/or securities, it’s critical that you consider whether or not your firm will be deemed to have custody.
In August 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced that it has adopted amendments to Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in an effort to enhance transparency in the municipal securities market. The SEC has stated that the commission believes the amendments will provide investors access to important information relating to obligated persons by increasing the amount of information that is publicly disclosed about Read more about SEC Adopts Amendments to Rule 15c2-12 to Improve Municipal Securities Disclosure[…]
As you may remember from our earlier blogs on registered investment advisers (RIAs), whether a firm should be registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or with a state is typically determined by the amount of regulatory assets the firm has that receive continuous and regular supervision or management (collectively known as a firm’s “regulatory assets under management” or “regulatory AUM”); with some exceptions, firms that have over $100 million of regulatory AUM must register with the SEC, while smaller advisers must register with state securities authorities instead. But, what if a new investment adviser doesn’t currently have over $100 million of regulatory AUM, but expects to soon? Is the firm required to wait until it has over $100 million of regulatory AUM to register with the SEC?
As you may remember from our earlier post on the subject, under SEA Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4, a broker-dealer is required to make and keep books and records relating to its business and may maintain and preserve records by means of “electronic storage media.” The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released guidance in response to a letter received from FINRA regarding contractual arrangements between broker-dealers and third-party recordkeeping service providers – more specifically, contractual arrangements that include provisions permitting the third-party recordkeeping service providers to delete or discard the broker-dealer’s records, typically due to non-payment by the broker-dealer of fees due under the contract. FINRA recapped the guidance received from the SEC in its Regulatory Notice 18-31.