Monthly Archives: April 2009

Discussion with CFTC Regarding Forex Registration

1 Reply

[http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com]

No New Information on Forex Regulations

I have been getting more and more questions regarding forex registration and unfortunately I have not had much to say because there has been little information coming from the CFTC.  The NFA has done a good job of anticipating what those rules will generally look like, but the NFA (like us) must wait for the CFTC to propose (and then adopt) regulations requiring the registration of forex managers.  Accordingly any preliminary guidance from the NFA should be taken as that – preliminary guidance.  The fact that the regulations are coming obviously puts pressure on legal professionals and forex managers alike as we all try to figure out what will need to be done, when and how.

For this reason I have been calling the CFTC to try to figure out when we might hear something.  After calling the CFTC daily for over a week now, today I finally received a call back from a representative of the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight.  Unfortunately, the representative was as tight-lipped about the future regulations as the CFTC has been up to this point.

During the conversation, I asked several questions and did not receive any responses other than what you would expect from a government agency.  The gist of the conversation was that the CFTC is working on the regulations and the reason that it is taking so long is that there are many aspects to the regulations which must be thoroughly reviewed be many different members and parts of the CFTC.   It sounded like the regulations could be quite detailed – the representative stated that it is not just simply these managers with this amount of assets must register, that the regulations will be comprehensive.  Another issue which remains unanswered is whether there will be exemptions from the registration provisions, similar to the current CPO exemptions and CTA exemptions from registration.

So with that being said, there is not much new to report.  Forex managers are still in a bit of a limbo until the CFTC promulgates the proposed regulations.  Until that happens it would be wise for forex managers to consider getting ready for registration by discussing the issue with a forex attorney.  Managers may also decide to move forward and begin taking the Series 3 exam and the Series 34 exam.  Managers (especially forex hedge fund managers) are especially encouraged to talk with their attorney about potential registration requirements under their state commodity codes – I will be posting more on this issue tomorrow.

I know this does not tell you very much, but please feel free to contact me if you have any specific questions or if you would like to find out more about forex CPO, CTA or Introducing Broker registration.

For more articles related to forex law and registration, please visit our forex hedge fund articles page.

CFTC Uncovers More Frauds and Ponzi Schemes

2 Replies

This week alone the Commodities Futures Trading Commission issued 5 separate press releases regarding various frauds and ponzi schemes.   As we have noted many times before investors should make sure they conduct adequate due diligence into their managers.  It also goes without saying, but managers should not engage in fraudulent conduct, make misrepresentations to investors, lie to investors or regulators, or do anything that is contrary to what is stated in the investment program offering documents.  Four of the press releases are reprinted below.

****

Release: 5646-09
For Release: April 9, 2009

New York Court Enters Order Imposing a $240,000 Fine and Other Sanctions against New York State Resident Michael Vitebsky in a Foreign Currency Scam

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it obtained $240,000 in sanctions and a permanent injunction in a consent order against Michael Vitebsky, a resident of New York State, in connection with his participation in an illegal foreign currency (forex) boiler room operation and for violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. The order also imposes permanent trading and registration bans on Vitebsky.

Vitebsky is obligated to pay the $240,000 civil monetary penalty upon satisfaction of a $220,000 forfeiture obligation entered in a parallel criminal proceeding, U.S. v. Vitebsky, E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 04 Cr. 0419.

The order was entered by Judge Leo I. Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and stems from a CFTC complaint filed in 2003 (see CFTC News Release, 4852-03, October 16, 2003). The order enters findings of fact that Vitebsky and others participated in a scheme in which Vitebsky used A.S. Templeton Group, Inc., a company of which he was the president and treasurer, to fraudulently solicit funds from customers for forex transactions.
According to the order, Vitebsky helped divert customer funds for unauthorized purposes and willfully made false representations to customers regarding the profitability of their accounts.

The CFTC would like to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York for their assistance.

The following CFTC staff members are responsible for this case: Sheila Marhamati, Philip Rix, Steven Ringer, Lenel Hickson, Jr., and Vincent McGonagle.

****

Release: 5645-09
For Release: April 9, 2009

CFTC Charges Austin, Texas Resident Steven Leigh Shakespeare and His Company, Guardian Futures, Inc., With Fraud and Unauthorized Trading

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it charged Steven Leigh Shakespeare, and his company, Guardian Futures, Inc., both of Austin, Texas, with fraud and unauthorized trading of customer accounts, resulting in combined customer trading losses of at least $196,000.

The CFTC complaint, filed on April 8, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that Shakespeare engaged in a series of unauthorized transactions and fraudulent acts in the accounts of Plains Grain Company, Inc. and Evans Grain Marketing LLC. The complaint charges that Shakespeare, throughout the course of the unauthorized transactions, made misrepresentations and omitted material facts to customers and to Alaron Trading Corporation, the futures commission merchant to whom Shakespeare had introduced the customer accounts.

On the same day the complaint was filed, the court entered a statutory restraining order preserving books and records and providing the CFTC immediate access to such books and records.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks restitution to customers, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, a permanent injunction, and trading prohibitions, among other sanctions.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff are responsible for this case: Timothy J. Mulreany, David Reed, Michael Amakor, Paul Hayeck, and Joan Manley.

****

Release: 5644-09
For Release: April 9, 2009

William D. Perkins of St. George, Utah Ordered to Pay More Than $2 Million in Sanctions in CFTC Ponzi Scheme Action

Universe Capital Appreciation Commodity Pool, Operated by Perkins, Part of Larger CFTC Action that Has Resulted in More than $45 Million in Judgments

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that it obtained a federal court order against William D. Perkins of St. George, Utah and Tax Accounting Office (TAO), Perkins’ private bookkeeping service, for more than $2 million in an anti-fraud action brought by the CFTC in 2006. The CFTC action alleged that Perkins fraudulently solicited $3.4 million from investors in a commodity pool he operated under the name Universe Capital Appreciation LLC. (See CFTC Release 5240-06 October 5, 2006.)

The opinion and order were entered on March 25, 2009, by U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the District of New Jersey.

Specifically, the order requires Perkins to repay $1.6 million to investors and a civil monetary penalty of $354,462, and prohibits Perkins from engaging in any business activities related to commodity futures or options trading. The court also ordered relief defendant TAO to repay $76,000 of investor money in which TAO had no legitimate interest.

In the opinion, Judge Kugler found that Perkins was reckless to solicit funds for his commodity pool without making a reasonable inquiry into the validity of representations that third parties made regarding the performance of the “superfund”, especially where Perkins had personal experience in three previous failed high yield investment schemes with one of the parties in which they had lost over $2 million of participant funds.

The CFTC complaint alleged that Perkins touted Universe Capital Appreciation LLC as a way for investors with less than $100,000 to participate in a so-called “superfund” that Perkins claimed was making “astonishing” profits of approximately 100 percent annually trading financial futures contracts. In fact, the CFTC complaint alleged that the “superfund” was itself a massive fraud that was the subject of other CFTC actions resulting in over $45 million in judgments. (See CFTC Press Releases 5447-08 February 7, 2008 and 5357-07, July 23, 2007.)

The following Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Elizabeth M. Streit, Joy McCormack, Venice Bickham, Scott R. Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.

****

Release: 5642-09
For Release: April 7, 2009

Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Two Nevada Corporations in $20 Million Commodity Pool Ponzi Scheme Operated by Tennessee Resident, Dennis Bolze

Court Freezes Assets of Centurion Asset Management and Advanced Trading Services; Bolze Is Arrested

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that on April 1, 2009, a federal court judge in Knoxville, Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction against defendant Centurion Asset Management, Inc. (Centurion) and relief defendant Advanced Trading Services, Inc. (ATS), both located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Judge Thomas A. Varlan issued the order that freezes the assets of Centurion and ATS and prohibits Centurion from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, as charged. The court determined that the preliminary injunction was necessary to protect the public from further loss and damage and to enable the CFTC to fulfill its statutory duties.

The order stems from a CFTC complaint filed on March 3, 2009, charging Dennis Bolze of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and Centurion, with fraud and misappropriation in operating a $20 million commodity pool Ponzi scheme. (See CFTC v. Bolze, et. al., No. 09 C 88 [E.D. Tenn. 2009] and CFTC Press Release 5634-09, March 12, 2009).

As alleged, Bolze and Centurion operated a Ponzi scheme for at least six years that defrauded more than 100 investors and caused approximately $20 million in investor losses. ATS was charged as a relief defendant for receiving funds from defendants to which it was not entitled. Bolze and Centurion told investors that they were pooling and investing customer money in S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 stock index commodity futures, but instead misappropriated most of the funds, according to the complaint.

Bolze Arrested on March 12

On March 12, 2009, Bolze was arrested in Pennsylvania by federal authorities in connection with a related criminal complaint. However, Bolze was in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service at the time of the March 31 hearing. As a result, Judge Varlan’s preliminary injunctive order did not address the CFTC’s charges against him.

In the continuing litigation, the CFTC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, return of funds to defrauded participants, repayment of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, and other equitable relief.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff are responsible for this case: Jon J. Kramer, Diane M. Romaniuk, Michael Tallarico, Mary Beth Spear, Ava M. Gould, Scott R. Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard B. Wagner.

Hedge Fund Carried Interest Tax Increase?

3 Replies

Legislation Introduced to Eliminate Carried Interest “Loophole”

As we are all well aware, the partnership structure of hedge funds allows the management companies of these funds to receive an “allocation” of the fund’s income.  Under general partnership taxation principles, this allocation is taxed to the management company (and the other investors in the hedge fund) according to the characteristic of that income (at the partnership level).  That is, if the income was long-term capital gain at the partnership level, such income would be allocated to all partners (including the management company) and would retain such characterization.  Long-term capital gains are currently taxed at 15% (as compared to a 35% tax rate for most ordinary income).

Last week Representative Sander Levin reintroduced legislation to tax the carried interest at ordinary tax rates.  The tax would only apply to the managers of partnerships to the extent that such managers did not have an underlying investment in the fund.  I will not introduce any political opinions regarding such a tax, but I will note that I take issue with the way that the press and lawmakers define the issue.  The most glaring omission in all of these reports is that the carried interest (or performance allocation) is only taxed at long-term capital gains rates if there are underlying long-term capital gains.  These articles (including the press release reprinted below) insinuate that all allocations made to a manager will be subject to long-term capital gains rates.  Not all income to hedge funds is long term capital gain – in fact, many hedge funds have no long-term capital gains at all because their programs focus on short term or intermediate term trades.

We have discussed this issue a number of times before and believe that the best way for this issue to be addressed is through the political process and we hope that all lawmakers involved take a considered and academic approach when crafting any future tax legislation (see Hedge Fund Taxes may Increase Under Obama).

The press release below is from the office of Representative Sander Levin and provides a sort of question and answer regarding the proposed legislation.  I am interested to read your comments on this issue below.

****

For Immediate Release
April 3, 2009

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Hilarie Chambers
Office: 202.225.4961

Levin Reintroduces Carried Interest Tax Reform Legislation

Bill to Tax Fund Managers’ Compensation at Same Rates as All Americans

(Washington D.C.)- Rep. Sander Levin today reintroduced legislation to tax carried interest compensation at the same ordinary income tax rates paid by other Americans.  Currently, the managers of private investment partnerships are able to receive compensation for these services at the much lower capital gains tax rate rather that the ordinary income tax rate by virtue of their fund’s partnership structure.

“This is a basic issue of fairness,” said Rep. Levin. “Fund managers are receiving compensation for managing their investors’ money.  They should not pay the 15% capital gains rate on their compensation when millions of other hard-working Americans, many of whose income is performance-based, pay ordinary rates of up to 35%.  The President’s budget recognizes that this is unfair.  The House of Representatives has recognized that it is unfair, and this year I hope we can act to change the law.”

The legislation clarifies that any income received from a partnership, capital or otherwise, in compensation for services provided by the employee is subject to ordinary tax rates.  As a result, the managers of investment partnerships who receive a carried interest as compensation will pay regular income tax rates rather than capital gains rates on that compensation.  The capital gains rate will continue to apply to the extent that the managers’ income represents a reasonable return on capital they have actually invested themselves in the partnership.

“This proposal is not about taxing investment, it’s about ensuring that all compensation is treated equally for tax purposes.  Anyone who actually invests money in these funds will continue to receive capital gains treatment, including the managers.  So there is no reason to expect that the amount of capital available for these kinds of investments will be reduced,” concluded Levin.

Levin introduced similar legislation in the 110th Congress, which was subsequently included in several tax packages approved by the Ways & Means Committee and the House of Representatives.  A similar proposal is also included in President Obama’s FY 2010 budget request.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Levin Carried Interest Legislation – H.R. 1935

H.R. 1935 would treat the “carried interest” compensation received by investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than capital gains.  In exchange for providing the service of managing their investors’ assets, fund managers often they receive a portion of the fund’s profits, or carried interest, usually 20 percent.  H.R. 1935 clarifies that this income is subject to ordinary income tax rates rather than the much lower capital gains rate.

Carried Interest: The Basics

Why is Congress concerned about this issue?

Many investment funds are structured as partnerships in which investors become limited partners and the funds’ managers are the general partner.  The managers often take a considerable portion of their compensation for managing the funds’ investments as a share of the funds’ profits using a mechanism called “carried interest.”  Partnership profits are taxed not to the partnership; instead partners are taxed on allocations of partnership income, and the nature of that income (capital or ordinary) “flows-through” to the partners.  As a result, the investment managers are able to have income for performance of services taxed at the 15% capital gains rate.  Essentially they are able to pay a lower tax rate on income from their work than other Americans simply because of the structure of their firm.

What does the legislation do?

It clarifies that any income received from a partnership, capital or otherwise, in compensation for services is ordinary income for tax purposes.  As a result, the managers of investment partnerships who receive a carried interest as compensation will pay regular income tax rates rather than capital gains rates on that compensation.  The capital gains rate will continue to apply to the extent that the managers’ income represents a reasonable return on capital they have actually invested in the partnership.

What kinds of investment firms will be affected?

This is part of a broad consideration of tax fairness.  The principle at work is that compensation for services should be treated as ordinary income and taxed accordingly, regardless of its source.  Any investment management firm that takes a share of an investment fund’s profits as its compensation (i.e. in the form of carried interest), will be affected.  This will apply to any investment management firm without regard to the type of assets, whether they are financial assets or real estate.  The test is the form of compensation, not the type of assets the firm is managing, its investment strategy, or the amount of compensation involved.

What is the effective date of the legislation?

This legislation is designed to create a structure under which this income should be taxed.  Decisions on the effective date will be made as part of the legislative process.

Carried Interest: Myths vs. Facts

Myth: This is a tax increase on investment that will hurt economic growth.

Fact: Investors are not affected by this legislation at all.

Any person or institution who invests money in a fund whose managers receive a carried interest will continue to pay the capital gains rate on their profits.  In fact, the bill explicitly protects the investments that fund managers make themselves.  To the extent they have put their own money in the fund, managers still get capital gains treatment, but to the extent they are being compensated for managing the fund, they will have to pay ordinary income tax rates like other service providers.   Since investors are not affected, there is no reason to believe that the amount of capital available for these kinds of investments will be reduced at all.

Myth: Taxing carried interest is just about raising revenue.

Fact: Fairness requires treating all taxpayers who provide services the same.

This proposal would raise revenue, but it is not just an offset.  Congress has a responsibility ensure that our tax code is fair, that it makes sense.  A broad spectrum of experts, including the Chairman of the Cato Institute and senior economic advisors to the last three Republican Presidents, agree that carried interest really represents a performance based fee that investors are paying to fund managers and that it should be taxed accordingly.  Allowing some service providers to pay the 15 percent capital gains rate on their income when everyone else has to pay up to 35 percent risks undermining people’s confidence in our voluntary tax system.

Myth: Fund Managers are just like entrepreneurs who get founder’s stock in their company, so they too should be taxed at the capital gains rate.

Fact: Fund Managers are fundamentally different than the founder of a company.

When someone starts an enterprise, he or she actually owns that business.  Sometimes that business becomes enormously valuable, but quite often it fails altogether and the entrepreneur loses her business. When an investment partnership purchases an asset, be it a stake in a small start-up company, a large corporation that wants to go private, a portfolio of securities, or a piece of real estate, the partnership does truly own those assets.  The general partner or fund manager though is really only an “owner” to the extent he or she has contributed capital to the partnership.  The carried interest the general partner receives for managing the fund’s assets is a right to a portion of the fund’s profit, not to the fund’s actual assets: the manager has no downside risk.  If the fund fails completely and all of the partnership’s assets are lost, the limited partners have lost their money.  The manager has lost the time and energy he has put into the running the fund, and the potential to share in the profits, but he is not actually out of pocket.

Myth: Fund managers deserve capital gains treatment because a carried interest is risky.

Fact: Many other forms of compensation are risky, and they are all ordinary income.

When a company gives its CEO stock options, it is trying to give her an incentive to increase the company’s share price, to growth the value of shareholders’ investment.  If the CEO does a good job and the share price goes up, she pays ordinary income tax rates when she exercises those options.  Real estate agents only make money if they actually sell a house, no matter how hard they work.  Authors receive a portion of their book’s profits.  Waiters get tips based on the quality of the service they provide.  All of these people pay ordinary income tax rates on their compensation.  Only private equity and other fund managers get to pay capital gains rates on their compensation.

Myth: Taxing carried interest will hurt the pension funds that invest in these funds.

Fact: This has nothing to do with pension funds and their returns will not be affected.

One pension trustee, who also happens to be a hedge fund manager, called the idea that this debate is about workers’ pensions “ludicrous.”  As tax-exempt investors, pension fund certainly will not be affected directly, and the assumption that fund managers can charge higher fees than they do today as a result of their having to pay ordinary income rates is extremely questionable. In fact, an attorney representing the hedge fund industry testified before the Ways & Means Committee that investors would be unlikely to accept increased fees.  The National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems has said that its members do not believe this legislation will affect them.

Myth: This change to the taxation of carried interest will harm every “mom and pop” partnership in America.

Fact: The change would only affect those partnerships where service income is being improperly converted to capital gains.

This legislation would have no effect whatsoever on the vast majority of partnerships that are engaged in ongoing businesses and whose profits are already being properly taxed an ordinary income tax rates.  It does apply to investment fund partnerships where the investors in the fund choose to compensate the people managing their assets through a carried interest.  In practice, this means hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds and real estate partnerships.  The reality is that the fund managers and general partners who would be asked to pay ordinary income tax rates on their compensation are a very small, very well-paid group of professionals.  It is also important to note that the bill does not discriminate among partnerships based on the kind of assets they purchase.

(####)

Other related hedge fund tax articles:

Forex Hedge Fund Articles

8 Replies

Below are a list of the articles which are devoted to forex hedge funds and the regulations involved in the off-exchange foreign currency markets.  Please contact us if you would like to start a forex hedge fund or if you would like information related to the forex registration requirements.

Forex Overview

Forex Hedge Funds

Forex Registration

Series 34 Exam


CPOs and CTAs Now Submit Disclosure Documents Electronically

Leave a reply

NFAs Electronic Filing System Went Live Yesterday

The NFAs new electronic filing system for CPO and CTA disclosure documents went live yesterday.  All NFA members are required to use the electronic system for filing their disclosure documents.   While I have not yet used the new system, it is expected to be a big improvement over the previous system which relied on emails to an anonymous system.  The NFA says that this new system should help both the NFA and the Member Firm by speeding up and streamlining the disclosure document approval process.

I will provide an update on whether this system does in fact make the process more efficient.  Also, I will provide updates on how this system works with the new forex registration requirements.  It is expected that forex CPOs and forex CTAs will also use this same electronic submission process for their forex disclosure documents.

****

Notice I-09-09

March 26, 2009

Using NFA’s Electronic Disclosure Document Filing System becomes mandatory for CPOs and CTAs
Effective April 6, 2009, CPOs and CTAs filing a disclosure document with NFA for review will be required to submit the filing through NFA’s Electronic Disclosure Document Filing System. NFA will not accept any disclosure document filings through any other mode (i.e., email, fax, or regular mail) after this date. CPOs and CTAs are encouraged to begin using the new system prior to the effective date to make the transition as smooth as possible.

This new system will benefit NFA’s CPO and CTA Members by creating a more efficient document review process. Electronic filing will allow NFA to identify issues sooner in the review process. Firms will also be able to track the status of their submissions online, in real-time, and will have instantaneous access to NFA’s comment and acceptance letters. Additionally, all correspondence, including filed disclosure documents and NFA’s comment or acceptance letters, will be archived in the system, creating an electronic file cabinet that will be easily accessible to CPOs and CTAs at any time.

To use the new electronic system, a security manager entering the system for the first time must designate himself as a disclosure document user in NFA’s Online Registration System (“ORS”). The security manager can also designate additional users to file disclosure documents through the system. Filers can access the system at https://www.nfa.futures.org/appentry/Redirect.aspx?app=DDOC. Once in the system, filers will be required to enter certain information specific to the filing and to upload the filing in either a PDF or Word format.

NFA also has prepared a web seminar to assist users with the new system. This online seminar is entitled “How to File CPO and CTA Disclosure Documents Electronically with NFA” and is available at: http://video.webcasts.com/events/pmny001/viewer/index.jsp?eventid=29268.
If you have any questions about the new filing system, please contact Susan Koprowski at [email protected] or (312) 781-1288 or Mary McHenry at [email protected] or (312) 781-1420.

****

Other articles related to the CPO and CTA disclosure document filing process:

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009

3 Replies

Congressional Bill Proposed in House

In January we gave significant attention to the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009 and we did not focus at all on a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives.   The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009, introduced on January 27, would change the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require those managers with more than $30 million in assets to register as investment advisors with the SEC (for background, please see 203(b)(3) exemption).  The Hedge Fund Transparency Act takes a decidedly different route to regulation – it would require hedge fund managers, under the Investment Company Act of 1940 , to register as investment advisors and it would also require hedge funds to submit certain information to the SEC.

The fate of both of these bills is currently in question.  It seems as though Congress and the SEC are waiting for President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner to develop a plan for a comprehensive regulatory system.  While we remain in this holding pattern it seems likely that any regulatory changes are months and months away.

The full text of the Registration Act are reprinted below along with a press release announcing the proposed measure.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

****

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 711 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 711

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 27, 2009

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF THE PRIVATE ADVISOR EXEMPTION.

Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) is amended by striking subsection (b)(3).

Source

****

PRESS RELEASE

Capuano, Castle Bill Would Improve Oversight of Hedge Funds

Requires money managers to register with SEC

January 27, 2009

Washington, DC — Today, Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE) and Mike Capuano (D-MA), introduced bipartisan legislation that is intended to close a loophole created in the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which exempts hedge fund managers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have less than 15 clients. The Hedge Fund Managers Registration Act, would require anyone who manages hedge funds to register with the SEC, and therefore improves federal oversight of these investments.

“This measure would require all hedge fund managers to register with the SEC so that their actions on behalf of investors are transparent,” said Rep. Capuano. “I have long advocated this simple step as a way to better understand how hedge fund managers are operating, and how they are investing the resources of their clients. In addition to providing us with basic census information on hedge funds, this measure can be used to detect and deter fraudulent practices and risky behavior before it’s too late.”

“Hedge funds are a $1.5 trillion industry that account for roughly 30 percent of U.S. stock trading, but also have tremendous presence in other areas of our markets. Without greater attention and oversight to protect investors from fraud, hedge funds pose systemic risk to our economy,” said Rep. Castle, senior member on the House Financial Services Committee. “As we work to help regain our economic health, I believe we can and should scrutinize money managers more carefully and begin to reclaim some order in equity markets. I am hopeful that this legislation will work as a tool to help protect investors from becoming victims. This is the first in a series of reforms I intend to strongly advocate in the coming months.”

—

Contact: Alison M. Mills (617) 621-6208
Contact: Stephanie Fitzpatrick (202) 225-4165 (Rep. Castle)

Passing the Series 34 Exam

36 Replies

By Bart Mallon, Esq.
www.series34exam.com

Discussion about How to Take and Pass the Series 34 Exam

On Thursday I took the Series 34 Exam and I passed.  I answered 30 out of 40 questions correctly for a 75% (it takes a 70% score to pass).  This score is not as good as I had hoped for, but it is good for a couple of reasons.  First, it proves that anyone can pass these exams without buying expensive study guides (I created a free Series 34 exam study guide).  Secondly, the exam gave me an opportunity to really see which areas the NFA is going to focus on therefore which areas of the study guide I needed to improve.

Score Breakdown

My scores broke down as follows:

  • Definitions and Terminology   7 of 10 (70%)
  • Forex Trading Calculations   6 of 8 (75%)
  • Risks Associated with Forex Trading   3 of 4 (75%)
  • Forex Market – Concepts, Theories, Economic Factors and Indicators, Participants   6 of 10 (60%)
  • Forex Regulatory Requirements   8 of 8 (100% – did you expect anything else from a forex attorney?)

Total Correct: 30 of 40

Time to complete the exam – approximately 42 minutes

What I exactly did to study for the exam

The way that I studied for the exam is likely to be different than the way that you study for the exam.  The time I spent creating definitions for each test topic can be spent memorizing the concepts and defintions.  As a brief overview, here is how I studied:

1.  Research to create free series 34 study guide.  Initially I researched all of the topics which were listed in the NFA study outline.  This took a good chunk of time as I had to read information from many different forex resources and then synthesize the information into a short description that I could understand and that would hopefully be helpful to forex managers.  Much of this research involved summarizing original NFA sources including NFA rules, interpretive releases and notices to members.  I also read through some of the good forex trading resources and provided links to these resources as appropriate.

2.  Created note cards.  After creating and posting the items on the checklist, I created note cards which were based on the study guide.  After creating the note cards I went through them a few times – I would imagine that it was about 8-10 times all the way through all together.  This is obviously not very much, but by creating the note cards I was able to ingrain the concepts faster.  There were a few concepts which I needed a little extra help with so I would focus on these note cards.

3.  Exam questions.  Two nights before the exam I reviewed the practice questions which I created.  I made a total of 16 fairly tough questions before the exam.  The night before the exam I re-read through all of the exam questions again.

4.  Final review.  On the night right before the exam I did a final real through of the important NFA resources and the forex trading guide.  I also did more drilling with my note cards and reviewed the exam questions a final time.  I also started an overview sheet which I will turn into another quick glance resource for this website.

Why I did not score as high as I would like

I have taken and passed a number of different proficiency exams which are administered by FINRA – the series 3, the series 7, the series 24, the series 63, the series 65, and now the series 34.   For each of these previous exams I prepared much better and accordingly received much higher scores.  Generally my scores were in the high 80% range (I don’t have the print outs anymore).  Here, my scores were not as high and I think it is for a couple of reasons:

1.  I did not do any practice calculations.  There were around five questions which really required the use of a calculator.  These questions included basic and more advanced calculations related to the actual profits and losses on positions.  There was also a question dealing with the price per pip calculation.  I feel that the reason I struggled with this part of the exam is that I did not really do any sort of practice problems on these types of calculations – I simply memorized the example I used in the definition.  I don’t believe that this is good enough if you want to make sure you will pass – because of this, I am going to create more practice questions related to the actual calculations.

Be prepared to use the calculator on the exam.  As an additional tip, do not spend too much time on one single problem – I must have spent a good 10 minutes on one calculation problem and after my calculations, I didn’t even come up with the right answer.  For this question I just had to guess.  There was another calculation problem which I made a more educated guess on as well.

2.  I did not focus really any of my study time on shorting currency pairs.  Because I spent no time even thinking about this, I was a bit unprepared for a couple of problems which discussed this as a possibility.  These questions were generally pretty basic questions and from previous study I was able to answer them correctly (I think).  For these questions I think that the series 3 exam and the series 7 exam helped in terms of general investment management knowledge.

3.  Ambiguously stated regulatory terms.  The exam included at least one question with ambiguously stated regulatory terms.  I believe the question made reference to a Member and Associated Member of some sort of regulated body.  These terms are not precise and do not make sense – there is no such thing as an associated member.  As I have discussed before the NFA is a self regulatory organization (SRO).  Firms must be Members of this SRO and the employees of the firm are termed “Associated Persons” or “Principals.”  I was not sure if this question was making reference to APs of a NFA Member firm.  I cannot remember how this worked out and I may have switched my answer at the very end (something you are not supposed to do).  This is one of the frustrating things about FINRA exams in general – it is not necessarily how much you know, but that you know how to take the exam.  This is more true with regard to the Series 7 and other exams, but it still holds true for this on

4.  Current Account, Capital Account, Balance of Trade and Balance of Payments.  I did not understand these concepts during my studies and still do not understand them.  The one phrase that I remembered is that the BOT is the largest part of BOP….and this was on the exam in some form.  I think there might have been another question on these issues which I likely answered incorrectly.

A note about pacing through the exam

One of the nice things about FINRA exams is that they always follow a very similar pattern.  At the beginning of the exam the questions will be easy and you will probably breeze through the first 5-8 questions.  From there the questions will begin to get tougher and somewhere around questions 20-28ish there are likely to questions which seem impossible.  It is at this point when the despair usually begins to kick in – REMEMBER THIS and keep it all in perspective.  You can miss a lot of questions and still pass.  After you make it though the tougher questions, the end is easy and you will likely breeze through the last 10 questions or so.  Like I said this is a common feature of FINRA exams and I have had the same exact feeling in each exam and really believed that I may not pass.

On the day of the exam

I scheduled my exam for 8:00am.  I always try to schedule these exams for the morning for a few reasons, the most important of which is that I just want to get the exam done with.  If I schedule the exam in the afternoon I am going to spend the day being distracted and trying to get extra studying in – this is just me, you should schedule your exam for the time you think you will be able to do your best.

I woke up at 5:40am, took out the dog, took a shower and was at the coffee shop by about 6:10.  I had a coffee and a bagel with cream cheese and then made my way to the bus stop.  I waited for the bus and went through my note cards on the bus ride down to the exam center.  After I got dropped off and walked to my exam center, it was 7:10am and I had a few minutes to kill before I was supposed to be at the center (FINRA recommends being at the testing center a half hour before the time which the exam starts).  I found a nearby bench and continued to go through my flash cards.  At 7:30am I made my way to the exam center and there were 7 people who were there before me.  I waited for the lady to check me in and I was finally seated by about 8:05am. After the exam I was given my print out and was on my way.  I would recommend eating more than I did; usually I am a bit more prepared but it seems to have turned out ok.

How would I study for the exam knowing what I know now.

The most important thing about this exercise of taking the exam is that I can share my experience with you before you take the exam.  Knowing what I know now, I would have modified my studying a little bit.  By far the easiest part of the exam were the regulatory questions – these were very basic and they could have been made harder.  The regulatory questions which I have included in my practice questions are harder (note: the structure of the regulatory questions may change in the future so I have deliberately made tougher questions with regard to the regulations).  As I said before there was a good mix of calculations which were necessary, so I would have focused on this more – during my study time I did not once touch a calculator.  I would have ingrained the American Terms and European Terms into my head from the beginning (this would have made it easier for me to focus on the concept tested instead of trying to first remember the definition).  These two terms user used to describe exchange rate quotes in many different contexts.  Besides these relatively minor modifications, I would have studied in a very similar matter – that is, making note cards, reading, making study guides, focusing on parts I was not quite as  confident about, etc.

For those persons who have not taken a FINRA exam before I highly recommend purchasing a study guide (or more than one study guide) which includes multiple exam prep questions.  Doing a large number of questions will help you when taking the actual exam.  The good thing is that you will generally take the series 3 exam before you take the series 34 exam and the series 3 is much more difficult than the series 34.  If you passed the 3 you will have an understanding of the pace of the exams, the types and styles of questions, and how to deal with more of the pedantic parts of the exam taking process (like showing up before, signing in, etc).

I would imagine that it would take someone 20 to 30 hours to properly prepare for the exam, spread out over a week or two weeks.  If someone is diligent about putting in this study time, there should be no problem passing the exam.  If you have specific questions, I have tried to answer these in other parts of the website.  Also, please feel free to contact me or leave a question below.

Reason for taking the exam – Forex Attorney and Develop Free Study Guide

As you may know I am an attorney with a practice focused on helping hedge fund managers start their hedge funds.   I also have a related compliance business which focuses on helping forex managers and forex introducing brokers register with the NFA (please see my other site devoted to forex registration information).  Through these ventures, I have clients who are involved in the forex area in many different respects and it is likely that these clients (including forex hedge fund managers) will need to take this test sometime in the future.  I believe that as a lawyer I am more effective if I can give my clients actual advice based on personal experience.

I also wanted to develop a free exam prep guide for the community – there is no reason why you should need to spend money on a study guide for this exam.  I am hoping that members of the community will be able to add to the guide over time and we can develop this into a very useful resource.

Conclusion

The Series 34 Exam is a passable exam and I believe I have provided forex managers with a lot of good information on the exam through these posts and through the free study guide.  Please help me to continue to make this resource and website useful for forex managers.

MFA Releases Sound Practices Guide for Hedge Funds

2 Replies

Guide Focuses on Hedge Fund Risk Management and Other Operational Issues

Unfortunately the new world of hedge fund investing and hedge fund due diligence has become more complicated and hedge fund management companies now need to increase their focus on operational and business issues.  While many managers are happy to attend to their trading strategies and risk management procedures, the managers who will be able to grow their AUM most successfully in the coming years are those managers who focus on many of the business and operational issues which investors are now wholly concerned with.  The updated 2009 Sound Practices guide by the Managed Funds Association (press release below) provides an outline of the major issues which managers should address with respect to their businesses.

Overview of Sound Practices Guide

The Sound Practices guide is similar to the President’s Working Group report Hedge Fund Best Practices, but also includes more information for managers.  I skimmed through the Sound Practices guide (it is 277 pages) and found that much of the information is extremely useful.  One of the overarching themes of the guide is that it does not ask managers to take the “one size fits all” approach, but asks managers to individually assess whether or not a certain practice is appropriate for their particular business.

I found the section dealing with the disclosures and hedge fund offering documents particular good.  As a reminder to hedge fund managers, offering documents should be updated at least annually, or more frequently if there are material changes in the fund’s investment program, structure or management company.  Additionally, any changes to offering documents should be communicated to all existing investors (either by sending out a new PPM or through another type of disclosure).

Other sections I was particularly interested in were: (i) the section dealing with investor letters and communications, (ii) side letters and parallel separately managed accounts (which are becoming more popular), (iii) valuation and policies, (iv) risk management, (v) due diligence, (vi) AML.  A due diligence guide for hedge fund investors was also included, but I felt like this was a pretty weak DD questionnaire – managers are likely to receive much more detailed requests for information.

Recommendation for Hedge Fund Managers

I recommend that hedge fund managers who are immediately seeking capital from institutions and high net worth investors read through this Sound Practices guide and take notes.  Managers should reach each practice and asses whether it applies to their fund operations and, if so, how such a practice should be implemented.  Managers may want to highlight certain items and ask their attorney what they should do.  These sound practices will help managers to create strong businesses which are able to grow over the long run.

[http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com]

****

Managed Funds Association Takes Steps to Restore Investor Confidence with Enhanced Best Practices & Investor Due Diligence Recommendations

WASHINGTON, Mar 31, 2009 — Managed Funds Association (MFA) today took steps to restore investor confidence in the markets with the release of its newly enhanced Sound Practices for Hedge Fund Managers, including a due diligence questionnaire for investors to use as they consider whom to trust with their investments.

The 2009 edition of Sound Practices, MFA’s fifth version of its pioneering guidance that was first published in 2000, incorporates the recommendations provided in the final President’s Working Group’s (PWG) Best Practices for the Hedge Fund Industry Report of the Asset Managers’ Committee plus additional guidance that goes above and beyond the scope of those recommendations.

Richard H. Baker, MFA President and CEO, said, “The hedge fund industry has a strong role in helping to restore financial stability and investor confidence, and to hasten economic recovery. While policy makers consider sweeping regulatory reforms in the U.S. and abroad, and economic leaders gather for the G-20 in London, on April 2, the hedge fund industry is taking steps to restore investor trust through the promotion of sound business practices and tools for investors to use as they conduct ongoing due diligence of money managers.”

Sound Practices is the cornerstone of the Association’s initiative to collaborate with international organizations with the goal of establishing uniform global principles and guidance. MFA, the PWG Asset Managers’ Committee and the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) have committed to providing the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) with a set of unified principles of best practices before April 30, 2009.

“The hedge fund industry recognizes its responsibilities as liquidity providers and risk dispersers in the markets, and continues to take the lead in its approach to disclosure and investor protection as well as active market disciplines such as risk management and valuation which contribute to market soundness and investor protection. This latest edition of MFA’s seminal Sound Practices concludes many months of diligent work by leading hedge fund managers, service providers and MFA staff to provide updates and revisions for voluntary adoption by hedge fund managers.

“MFA has a decade-long tradition of robust Sound Practices. Today, more than ever before, investors will benefit from our due diligence questionnaire as they undertake robust diligence when considering an investment in a hedge fund. Investors can also benefit from reviewing the recommendations in Sound Practices as they consider operational, governance and other matters as part of their diligence when making an investment.” added Baker.

The 2009 edition of Sound Practices provides comprehensive updates in every area of guidance including recommendations for disclosure and responsibilities to investors; valuation policies and procedures; risk management; trading and business operations; compliance, conflicts of interest, and business practices; anti-money laundering; and business continuity and disaster recovery practices.

Major Revisions

Sound Practices is a dynamic blueprint written by the industry, for the industry, to provide peer-to-peer guidance to:

  • Strengthen business practices of the hedge fund industry through a strong framework of internal policies and practices;
  • Encourage individualized assessment and application of recommendations on one size does not fit all; and
  • Enhance market discipline in the global financial marketplace.

The revised edition includes substantially updated and expanded guidance in seven areas:

  • Disclosure and Investor Protection: Establishes practices intended to assist a hedge fund in fulfilling its responsibilities to its investors;
  • Valuation: Establishes a framework, governance and policies and procedures for valuations of assets;
  • Risk Management: Establishes an overall approach to risk monitoring, measurement and management. Also describes types of risk and recommendations on management thereof;
  • Trading and Business Operations: Establishes policies and procedures for management of trading operations including relationships with counterparties, use of service providers, accounting, technology, best execution and soft dollar arrangements;
  • Compliance, Conflicts and Business Practices: Establishes guidance for the adoption of a culture of compliance including a code of ethics, compliance manual, record keeping, conflicts of interest, training/education of personnel and more;
  • Anti-Money Laundering: Updates MFA’s seminal AML guidance; and
  • Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery: Establishes general principles, contingency planning, crisis management and disaster recovery.

Baker noted that, “Ultimately, each hedge fund manager must determine whether and how to tailor these Sound Practices to its individual business. We believe that the strong business practices in Sound Practices are an important complement to a smart regulatory framework and that strong business practices and robust investor diligence are critical to addressing investor protection concerns.”

For a copy of Sound Practices please visit: www.managedfunds.org

About Managed Funds Association

MFA is the voice of the global alternative investment industry. Its members are professionals in hedge funds, funds of funds and managed futures funds, as well as industry service providers. Established in 1991, MFA is the primary source of information for policy makers and the media and the leading advocate for sound business practices and industry growth. MFA members include the vast majority of the largest hedge fund groups in the world who manage a substantial portion of the approximately $1.5 trillion invested in absolute return strategies. MFA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with an office in New York. For more information, please visit: www.managedfunds.org

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include