Monthly Archives: January 2011

CFTC Proposes Increased Registration and Reporting for CPOs and CTAs

Leave a reply

Proposal to Rescind 4.13(a)(3) & 4.13(a)(4) CPO Exemptions

Pursuant to rulemaking required under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC is jointly proposing with the SEC that CPOs and CTAs which are dually registered (that is with the CFTC and as an investment adviser with the SEC) file certain information on a new Form PF.   In addition, the CFTC is proposing to eliminate two widely used exemptions from CPO registration – the 4.13(a)(3) exemption (de minimis futures trading) and the 4.13(a)(4) exemption (the only investors are QEPs).  Another exemption applicable to mutual funds – the 4.5 exemption – may also potentially be rescinded under the proposed rulemaking.  The CFTC is proposing minor changes to regulations in addition to the more onerous registration and reporting requirements.

Rescinding CPO Registration Exemptions

We have discussed the requirements for these and other CFTC registration exemptions in a post on CPO registration.  The CFTC is proposing to rescind the following exemptions:

Regulation 4.13(a)(3) – this exemption is normally utilized by managers who use just a small amount of futures.  In the event that this exemption isrescinded, a large number of managers would be required to register.  This also means that managers could not trade any futures contracts in a fund structure without being registered as a CPO.  Obviously this will increase the regulatory burden for managers and will likely lead some managers to simply cease using futures.

Regulation 4.13(a)(4) – this exemption is normally utilized by those managers who only have investors who are qualified eligible persons.

Note: Rescinding both the (a)(3) and (a)(4) exemptions will likely mean the fund-of-fund managers will also be required to register as CPOs.  Form more information please see our post on fund-of-fund CPO exemptions.

Regulation 4.5 – this exemption applies to mutual funds that have funds which invest in futures.  In general, mutual fund managers who invest in futures do so indirectly and are able to escape registration as a commodity pool operator.  This means that mutual funds, while they must be approved by the SEC, receive no regulatory scrutiny from the CFTC.  Late last year, the NFA submitted a petition to the CFTC asking the CFTC to amend Regulation 4.5 to require those managers that indirectly invest in futures products to register as a CPO.

New Reporting Requirements

The CFTC is proposing that CPOs and CTAs face increased reporting requirements on new forms Form PF, Form CPO-PQR and Form CTA-PRQ.  The increased reporting requirements will apply to two groups of CFTC registrants: (i) dual registrants and (ii) CFTC-only registered firms.

New Forms

Form PF – Form PF was designed to provide government agencies with information about the basic operations and structure of private funds.  The creation of Form PF was required by Section 404 of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The SEC and CFTC are working together to develop Form PF Sections 1 and 2 as those sections are relevant to firms registered with both agencies.

Form CPO-PQR and Form CTA-PQR – these forms will require firms to provide similar information as will be required in Form PF, with appropriate modifications made so that the information is relevant with respect to commodity futures managers.

In general, all forms will allow some information to be treated as confidential.

Dual registrant reporting

Dual registrants are firms which are registered with the SEC (as an IA) and with the CFTC (as a CPO or CTA).  The following are the proposed filing requirements:

Dual registrants with less than $1 billion of AUM:

  • Annual filing of Form PF
  • Complete only Section 1 of Form PF

Dual registrations with less than $1 billion of AUM:

  • Quarterly filing of Form PF
  • Complete Sections 1 and 2 of Form PF

CFTC-Only Registrants

CFTC-only registrants are firms registered with only the CFTC

(as a CPO or CTA).  The amount of information to be required on the new CFTC only forms, and the timing of filing, will depend on the registered firm’s size and AUM.

Forms CPO-PQR and CTA-PQR will be filed directly with the NFA.

Other Proposed Changes

The CFTC is also proposing some other changes:

  • Managers using the Regulation 4.7 exemption will be required to have certified financial statements for any 4.7 exempt pool which they advise.  [Note: currently there is no certification requirement.]
  • Managers using any of the 4.5, 4.13 or 4.14 exemptions will need to annually certify the notice of exemption.  [Note: currently there is no requirement to certify the exemption on an annual basis.]
  • Risk disclosure language to be updated to include discussion of swaps, if appropriate for the manager.
  • Certain changes to make the regulations internally consistent.

The CFTC overview can be found here: CFTC Rescinding Exemption Overview

The CFTC Q&A sheet can be found here: CFTC Rescinding Exemption Q&A

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP  provides comprehensive CFTC and NFA compliance and regulatory support for investment managers.  Bart Mallon, Esq. can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Annual ADV Updating Amendment for IA Firms

Leave a reply

Under SEC and state regulations, a registered investment advisory firm must file its annual amendment to Form ADV within 90 days of the end of its fiscal year.  For most firms this means that the Annual Updating Amendment is due by March 31.  In addition to the traditional updates which firms need to make on Form ADV, advisers will also need to be aware of the new regulations with respect to ADV Part 2 which may require the adviser to complete a new form ADV part 2 during the updating process.  We are making special note of the updating requirement earlier than usual because of the new ADV 2 requirement.

Overview of Major Items on ADV to Update

When a firm completes an annual update to Form ADV, the firm should go through each question and make sure disclosures are accurate and up to date.  In general the firm’s chief compliance officer will complete the update or work with an outside investment adviser compliance firm or law firm to complete the update.

Some of the key items of Form ADV which need to be updated include:

  • Employees (Items 5.A. and 5.B.)
  • Number of clients (Items 5.C. and 5.H.)
  • Number of accounts (Item 5.F.)
  • Assets under management (Item 5.G.)
  • Other material changes can also be disclosed on the Annual Updating Amendment, such as changes to reportable disciplinary and financial disclosures, contact information, custody, and ownership.   [Note: these items need to be updated on Form ADV within 30 days of when they take place.]

While Part 1 of Form ADV can be completed using the online form on the IARD system, the new ADV Part 2 must be filed electronically as a text-searchable PDF.  You will not be able to

submit a PDF file of a scanned copy Part 2 on the IARD system.

New Regulations Regarding ADV Part 2

IA firms applying for SEC registration as of January 1, 2011 and existing firms filing Annual Updating Amendments are now required to use the new Part 2A, the “firm brochure.”  In addition, the SEC has established the following compliance dates regarding Part 2B, the “brochure supplement:”

SEC Compliance Dates for Delivery of Brochure Supplements to Clients

SEC Compliance Dates Extensions*
New/Prospective Clients Existing Clients New/Prospective Clients Existing Clients
New IA registrants Applying as of 01/01/11, deliver upon registering Applying between 01/01/11 and 04/30/11, begin delivering by 05/01/11

Applying after 04/30/11, deliver upon registering

 Applying between 01/01/11 and 04/30/11, deliver by 07/01/11.
Existing IAs Upon filing Annual Updating Amendment Within 60 days of filing Annual Updating Amendment Registered as of 12/31/10 with fiscal year ending 12/31/10 through 04/30/11, begin delivering by 07/31/11

Registered as of 12/31/10 with fiscal year ending after 04/30/11, deliver upon filing Annual Updating Amendment

 Registered as of 12/31/10 with fiscal year ending 12/31/10 through 04/30/11, deliver by 09/30/11

Registered as of 12/31/10 with fiscal year ending after 04/30/11, deliver within 60 days of filing Annual Updating Amendment

*On December 28, 2010, the SEC extended the compliance dates by four months to provide certain IAs more time to deliver the brochure supplement.

Incorporating the New ADV Part 2 for State Registrations

Because not all states have adopted the new ADV Part 2, state-registered IAs should check their state rules to confirm whether they need to use the new form or if they can continue to use the old form.  In many states, the next amendment to Form ADV must include the new ADV Part 2, even if it is not the Annual Updating Amendment.  For example, as of January 1, 2011, states including Alaska, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee are requiring that registered IAs use the new ADV Part 2 as part of any amendment, as well as the required Annual Updating Amendment.

For more information on ADV Part 2, especially with respect to state adoptions, please see our update on new ADV Part 2.

For information on expected costs to prepare the new Form ADV 2, please see this post.

****

Bart Mallon provides investment adviser registration and compliance services through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

NASAA’s Proposed Model Rule to Exempt Private Fund Advisors from State Registration

Leave a reply

One of the consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act is that federal and state jurisdiction over investment advisor firms will change.  In general, fund managers with less than $150 million in AUM will not be subject to registration with the SEC.*  While such managers will not be subject to SEC registration, they may be subject to investment adviser registration in the manager’s state of operation.  Laws from state to state on this issue differ widely but the North American Securities Administrator Association (NASAA) is trying to bring some continuity and certainty with respect to state registration requirements.  NASAA is proposing that states adopt regulations which requires private fund managers to register as investment advisers with the state unless that manager only provides advice to funds which are exempt under Section 3(c)(7).

*note: if a fund manager also has separately managed accounts, the manager will need to be SEC registered unless the manager has less than $100 million in AUM.

Of course it will be up to the states to decide whether or not to adopt the proposed rule, but if the proposal is adopted by any state, it would mean that many more managers would need to register at the state level if such managers were not registered with the SEC (in many, but perhaps not all cases).  I have written a number of times that most state securities divisions do not have the resources to handle an increase in IA registrations so I believe it unlikely that states securities divisions will lobby the legislatures for an increase in registrations under the NASAA proposal (for many states).  This proposal is essentially the first step toward states discussing the larger issue of how the securities laws will change in response to the changes from Dodd-Frank – we are likely to hear more about this story in the coming months as the SEC and states begin to more fully understand how legislative changes will affect their normal operating routines with respect to investment advisers.

Below we have provided some background on the proposed rule and the text of the proposed rule.

****

Background & NASAA’s Proposed Model Rule

Prior to Dodd-Frank, the “private adviser exemption” from SEC registration applied to any investment advisor who during the course of the preceding 12 months had fewer than 15 clients (a fund is counted as one client) and who did not generally hold itself out to the public as an investment advisor.   Most hedge fund managers generally would utilize this exemption from IA registration with the SEC.  Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated this exemption and in its place, created new registration and reporting rules for private fund advisers.

As we noted above, certain managers (including managers to venture capital funds and private equity funds) with less than $150 million in AUM will be exempt from SEC registration.  These managers exempt from SEC registration are called “exempt reporting advisers” (ERAs) and, although exempt from “registration” with the SEC, must still submit reports to the SEC (see Exempt Reporting Adviser Requirements).  In addition, these managers may still be required to register at the state level.

NASAA is proposing that managers of Section 3(c)(7) funds be exempt from state registration and that all other fund managers be subject to registration with the state securities division.  The stated rationale for this proposal is that investors in Section 3(c)(7) funds must be qualified purchasers and therefore do not need managers to be registered with the state securities commission.  To qualify for the NASAA exemption at the state level, the adviser must:

  1. not be subject to a disqualification (which includes various criminal, civil, and regulatory disciplinary events),
  2. solely advise 3(c)(7) fund(s),
  3. file with the state the report that is required by the SEC (the condensed Form ADV, discussed in the Exempt Reporting Advisers article), and
  4. pay applicable fees.

IA representatives associated with the ERA firm would also be exempt from state registration and licensing requirements.

NASAA’s proposed model rule would not apply to advisers of private funds with $150 million or more in AUM which are required to register with the SEC and satisfy any state notice filing requirements.

Request for Comments

NASAA is seeking comments on this proposed model rule.  Comments should be submitted electronically to [email protected] or by mail to NASAA, Attn: Joseph Brady, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 1140, Washington, DC, 20002 by January 24, 2011.

NASAA’a proposed model rules are reprinted below and can be found here.

Our Thoughts

We have not heard states discussing the NASAA proposal.  We also do not think that anything will be happening with this model rule immediately as states will be focusing on trying to figure out how to deal with the expected increase in state applications because of Dodd-Frank.

****

Proposed NASAA Model Rule on Private Fund Adviser Registration and Exemption Rule XXX. Registration exemption for exempt reporting advisers

a. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) herein, an investment adviser solely to one or more private funds, shall be exempt from the registration requirements of Section XXX [identify authority] and shall be considered an exempt reporting adviser in this state if the adviser satisfies the following conditions:

(1) neither the adviser nor any of its advisory affiliates are subject to a disqualification as described in Section 230.262 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto;

(2) the adviser acts as an adviser solely to private funds that qualify for the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940;

(3) the adviser files with the state a copy of each report and amendment thereto that an exempt reporting adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 would be required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to SEC Rule 275.204-4, along with a consent to service of process complying with Section XXX [identify authority]; and

(4) the adviser pays the fees specified in Section XXX [identify authority].

b. A federal covered investment adviser shall not be eligible for this exemption and shall comply with the state notice filing requirements applicable to such advisers.

c. An investment adviser representative is exempt from the registration requirements of Section XXX [identify authority] if he or she is employed by or associated with an adviser that is exempt from registration in this state pursuant to paragraph (a.) above.

d. As used in this rule a private fund means an issuer that would be an investment company as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act.

e. The report filings described in paragraph (a.)(3) above shall be made electronically through the IARD. A report shall be deemed filed when the report and the fee required by Section XXX [identify authority] are filed and accepted by the IARD on the state’s behalf.

****

Bart Mallon is an attorney who works with both state and SEC registered fund managers.  His firm, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, routinely provides regulatory and compliance services to registered investment advisers.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

SEC Study on Uniform Fiduciary Duty for BDs

Leave a reply

Recommendation for Uniform Fiduciary Duty

Under Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC was required to condict a study of the effectiveness of the current legal and regulatory structure for broker-dealer firms and investment advisory firms with respect to the provision of personalized investment advice to retail customers and to comment on any gaps in the legal and regulatory structure.  Essentially Congress wants to know whether retail investors really understand the difference between BDs and IAs.  This issue has been one which many in the industry have strong opinions about, particularly from the investor side and the broker-dealer side.

The following is a brief overview of the SEC study which was recently released.

SEC Recommendations

In the study, the SEC spent considerable time providing a background and overview of the regulatory regimes of both investment advisers and broker-dealers.  The study also discussed retail investors and made many references to other studies which have been conducted on this and similar issues.  Ultimately, the SEC staff was trying to determine what standards should be in place with the understanding that retail investors may have limited understanding of the regulatory structure of IAs and BDs.

Overall, the SEC’s recommendations fall into two categories:

  • Uniform Fiduciary Standard – SEC staff recommended that the SEC should apply a uniform fiduciary duty with respect to both IAs and BDs when such firms provide personalized investment advice regarding securities to retail custodmers [note: the fiduciary standard does not apply to brokers when they are activng in the capcity of a broker with respect to a transaction.]
    • With respect to the uniform standard, the staff noted that the SEC should provide guidance in some form with respect to implementing this standard.  Such guidance should cover, at least, the following items: standards of conduct, duty of loyalth, principal trading, duty of care, personalized investment advice about securities, and investor education.
  • Harmonization of Regulations – in general the SEC staff believes that harmonization, when it adds meaningful investor protection, would be advantageous.  Specifically, the staff discussed the following issues which potentially should have substantially similar rules/regulations for both IAs and BDs:
    • Advertising and other communications
    • Use of finders and solicitors
    • Solicitation
    • Licensing and registration of firms
    • Licensing and continuing education for representatives of BD and IA firms
    • Books and records

[Because of the complexity of the issue, the above is only a gross overview.]

Our thoughts

It seems clear that if two firms are engaged in the exact same activity with respect to retail investors (providing personalized investment advice regarding securities), then such firms should be subject cialis super active to the same standards of care with respect to those activities.  However, it is also clear that implementing this change in regulatory framework will not be easy.Should be a bias toward harmonization when possible and practicle

What we found particularly interesting about the study  was the discussion about state registered investment advisers and the various rules they must adhere to – it seems funny that at the federal level we are trying to harmonize regulations, whereas the report makes clear that each states rules have completely different rules (see report starting at page 85).

Probably the most interesting thing is that the Staff recommended “that the Commission should consider requiring investment adviser representative to be subject to federal continuing education and licensing requirements.”  This means that the SEC  (or potentially a SRO) would be required to create and administer an exam (similar probably to the Series 65 exam for state registered investment adviser representatives) and continuing education (similar to the CE requirements for brokers).

The full report can be found here: Study on Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers.

****

Bart Mallon provides legal advice to both investment advisers and broker-dealers through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, an investment management law firm.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

SEC Study on Enhancing IA Examinations

Leave a reply

Recommendations for Enhancing IA Exams

Under Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC was required to conduct a study with respect to the need for enhanced examination and enforcement resources for investment advisers.  SEC staff recently released the study which is designed to provide Congress with recommendations with respect to the findings of the study.  In general, the study found that the SEC is not currently properly equipped to appropriately handle IA examinations because of capacity issues.  The study presents a number of statistics which show that IA registrations have greatly increased while the funding for the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) has been subject to cutbacks in staff.

To strengthen the IA examination process, the SEC staff recommended that Congress take one of three different courses of action:

  1. Impose user fees on SEC-registered investment advisers
  2. Authorize one or more SROs to examine SEC-registered investment advisers
  3. Authorize FINRA to examine dual registrants (firms registered as both IAs and BDs)

SEC Recommendations

The Study provides three different options that Congress should consider with respect to the issue of instituting the most appropriate infrastructure for IA examinations.  These options and some of the positive and negative implications are discussed below.

1.  User Fees

Congress could authorize the SEC to implement user fees for registration.  These fees would go directly to the OCIE and pay for the IA examination program.

Discussion items:

  • would provide scalable resources (i.e. resources would increase or decrease in proportion to the number of registered investment advisor firms) – these resources would not be subject to the Congressional appropriations process
  • may be less expensive than instituting a new SRO regime and would utilize the existing OCIE staff expertise and knowledge
  • avoid all of the issues which would exist with establishing an SRO structure (inefficiencies, authority, membership, governance, and funding issues)
  • supported by some parts of the IA industry

2.  Delegation to SRO or SROs

Congress could authorize the SEC to delegate examination responsibilities to FINRA or another self regulatory organization(s).

Below are some of the points both for and against delegation to an SRO or multiple SROs:

  • scalable resources (i.e. funded by membership fees)
  • additional rulemaking – IA firms would be subject to laws (Investment Advisers Act of 1940), regulations (SEC Rules) and member (SRO) rules
  • SEC would need to oversee the SRO and subject the SRO to periodic audit/examination
  • an SRO would provide for more examination of IAs – for example, FINRA and NFA have examined more BDs and CPOs/CTAs than the SEC has examined IAs
  • many logistical issues involved with instituting any SRO and/or allowing FINRA to take over these responsibilities
  • multiple SROs (for different types of IAs) would likely create even more logistical issues
  • unclear how the SRO structure would work with state registered IAs
  • potential conflict of interest if the SRO (FINRA) was the same for the buy side and the sell side

3.  Authorize FINRA to examine dual IA-BD registrants

Congress could expand FINRA’s jurisdiction to oversee those firms which are registered as both an IA and as a BD.

  • only marginally helpful – only 5% of IAs are also registerd as BDs and many of these firms are the largest broker-dealer firms
  • gets rid of inefficiency by having two examinations – one from FINRA on the BD side and one from the OCIE on the IA side
  • risk of different interpretation of provisions of the Investment Advisers Act

Conclusion

This study simply states the obvious – the SEC does not have the resources it needs to adequately do its job.  It seems like the major conclusion has already been reached – IA firms are going to need to pay for their oversight because Congress will not pay for it.  The only question is whether managers will be making payments to the SEC (first option) or to FINRA or other SRO(s) (second two options).  Whatever Congress ultimately decides, it is likely that managers will be facing more fees in the future.

The full text can be found here: Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations

****

Bart Mallon is an attorney focused on the investment management industry and provides investment adviser registration and compliance services through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

FINRA Proposes Amendments to Rule 5122

Leave a reply

Proposal to Require Greater Involvement in Private Placements by Broker-Dealers

FINRA recently proposed amendments to Rule 5122 which would increase Broker-Dealer compliance responsibilities with respect to private placements in which the Broker-Dealer “participates.”  FINRA noted that the vast majority of private placements currently remain outside the purview of the rule as it is currently written.  As FINRA’s stated intention is to increase investor protection, the amended rule is designed to combat fraud and abuse, by expanding oversight to all private placements in which a FINRA member participates, subject to certain exemptions.

Current FINRA Rule 5122

In general FINRA Rule 5122 requires a FINRA member firm which acts as the issuer of a private placement to adhere to the following requirements:

  • the private placement offering document must include the indended use of offering proceeds, expenses, and the amount of selling compensation to be paid to the broker-dealer and its associated person;
  • 85% of the offering proceeds must be used for the business purposes described in the offering documents (i.e. only up to 15% of the proceeds from the offering may be used to pay for offering costs, discounts, commissions or any other cash or non-cash sales incentives); and
  • the offering documents must be submitted to FINRA for review at or prior to the time the offering documents are provided to any prospective investor (but the firm does not need to delay the offering until it receives a “no-objections” letter from FINRA).

There are various exemptions available under the rule including if the private placement offering is sold to:

  • Institutional accounts
  • Qualified purchasers
  • Qualified institutional buyers
  • Investment Companies
  • Banks
  • Employees of the issuers

In addition, certain private placements are not subject to the rule.

Major Part of Proposal

In general the major part of the proposed amendment is to apply the requirements of the rule to broker-dealers who “participate” (within the meaning of FINRA Rule 5110(a)(5), see below) in a private placement offering as opposed to only those broker-dealers (and control entities) who act as the cheap celebrex online issuer in a private placement.  The proposal will significantly expand the scope of the current rule – third-party marketers who enter into selling arrangements with respect to private fund interests will now be subject to greater oversight with respect to these arrangements.

Participation

Rule 5110(a)(5) defines “participation” as the following:

Participation in the preparation of the offering or other documents, participation in the distribution of the offering on an underwritten, non-underwritten, or any other basis, furnishing of customer and/or broker lists for solicitation, or participation in any advisory or consulting capacity to the issuer related to the offering, but not the preparation of an appraisal in a savings and loan conversion or a bank offering or the preparation of a fairness opinion pursuant to SEC Rule 13e-3.

The proposal also would remove the wholesaling exemption (i.e. selling through affiliated broker-dealers) for member firms.

Conclusion

It is not clear now how this would affect the business of third-party marketers and whether this will have a chilling affect on selling agreements.  This proposed amendment also highlights FINRA’s aggressive expansion of regulatory oversight.

If you have specific comments on the proposal, especially with respect to certain elements (investor protection, filing requirements, burdens/efficiencies, 85% of offering proceeds go to the use of proceeds), you should submit comments on the proposal by March 14, 2011

For more information, please see FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-04.

Other good information for broker-dealers FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-22.

****

Bart Mallon is an attorney focused on the investment management industry and provides regulatory and compliance services to the broker-dealer community through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

New Form ADV Part 2 Update & Overview

Leave a reply

Registered investment advisers (both SEC and state) will need to file their annual form ADV update within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year, which for most firms will be March 31, 2011.  For many firms this will mean that they will also need to draft and submit the new Form ADV 2 which was adopted by the SEC in July of 2010 (see previous post). As many firms have had many questions about the new form, including what new content is required and how long it will take to complete the new form, this article will provide a summary of:

  • Background on the new Part 2
  • The structure and disclosure items of the Firm Brochure (Part 2A)
  • The structure and disclosure items of the Brochure Supplement (Part 2B)
  • Overview of states which have adopted new Part 2

Background

On July 21, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a new Part 2 that became effective October 12, 2010.  The old Part II (and Schedule F which qualifies much of the information on the old Part II) contained a series of check-the-box options and also provided much of the same information which is also provided on Form ADV.  The new Part 2 will no longer be in the check-the-box format.  Instead, it will take the form of a narrative brochure written in plain English–the purpose of which is to provide clients with a more clear disclosure of the adviser’s business practices, conflicts of interest, and background.

The new Part 2 consists of three parts:

  1. The “Firm Brochure” (Part 2A)
    • SEC-registered firms and firms registered in states that have adopted the new Part 2 must complete.
    • Filed electronically on the IARD system.
    • Publicly available.
  2. A Wrap Fee Program Brochure (Part 2A, Appendix 1)
  3. The “Brochure Supplement” (Part 2B)
    • SEC-registered firms and firms registered in states that have adopted the new Part 2 must complete.
    • Not filed electronically.
    • Not publicly available.

The SEC has not provided a specific form that IAs must use when preparing the new Part 2.  The following provides general guidelines on how to structure the Firm Brochure and Brochure Supplement, as well as what content to include.  A full version of the new Part 2 instructions is available here.  Firms applying for SEC registration for the first time after January 1, 2011 are required to use the new Part 2.  Existing SEC-registered firms may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2 between October 12, 2010 and December 31, 2010.  However, beginning January 1, 2011, firms will have to use the new Part 2 for their 2011 annual updating amendment.

More information about the filing and delivery deadlines for the new Part 2A and 2B are available here.

Firm Brochure (Part 2A)

The Firm Brochure requires an adviser to provide information about the firm’s business practices and conflicts of interest. Many of the disclosure items are similar to those required in the old Part II, such as a discussion of the advisory business and the types of clients.  However, new disclosure items include a discussion of material changes since the last annual amendment as well as a discussion of potential conflicts of interest and how the firm will address such conflicts.

The Brochure consists of 18 separate disclosure items for SEC-registrations and additional items specifically for state-registrations.  Each item must be addressed, even if it is not applicable to the adviser.  The adviser may simply state it is not applicable.  The following is a summary of the disclosure items in the Firm Brochure:

  • Item 1 – Cover Page
    • Firm name, business address, contact information, website (if any) and the date of the Brochure.
    • Specific disclaimer stating the Brochure was not approved by the SEC or any state authority.
    • If the firm refers to itself as a “registered investment adviser,” a specific disclaimer that registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training.
  • Item 2 – Material Changes
    • If the firm is making an annual update, the Brochure must discuss material changes in the Brochure since the last annual update in a summary.  The summary can also be a separate document attached to the Brochure.
  • Item 3 – Table of Contents
    • Must be detailed enough so that clients can locate topics easily.
    • Must list items in the same order as they are listed in the Brochure, and contain the same headings.
  • Item 4 – Advisory Business
    • Describe the firm, how long it’s been in business, and identify the principals.
    • Describe the types of advisory services offered.
      • If the firm specializes in a particular type of services, e.g. financial planning, quantitative analysis, etc. provide greater detail.
      • If the firm provides investment advice only with respect to limited types of investments, explain and disclose that advice is limited in such way.
    • Explain whether the firm tailors advisory services and whether clients can impose restrictions on investments.
    • If the firm participates in wrap fee programs, describe the differences in how such accounts are managed versus other accounts and disclose that the firm receives a wrap fee.
    • If the firm manages client assets, disclose the amount managed on a discretionary basis and the amount managed on a non-discretionary basis.
  • Item 5 – Fees and Compensation
    • Describe how the firm is compensated and provide a fee schedule.  Note: This requirement is not required for Brochures delivered solely to qualified purchasers.
    • Provide other compensation-related disclosures: whether fees are deducted from client assets or whether clients will be billed for fees; any other types of fees (custodian fees, mutual fund expenses, brokerage/transaction costs); payment of fees in advance or arrears; and asset-based sales charges or service fees.
  • Item 6 – Performance-Based Fees and Side-By-Side Management
    • Discuss whether the firm charges performance-based fees or supervised persons manage accounts that pay such fees; and discuss how the fees are charged.
    • In addition, if the firm or supervised persons also manage accounts that do not charge such fees, discuss the potential conflicts of interest and how the firm will address such conflicts.
  • Item 7 – Types of Clients
    • Describe the firm’s clients.
    • Describe any requirements for opening/maintaining an account.
  • Item 8 – Methods of Analysis, Investment Strategies and Risk of Loss
    • Describe the methods of analysis and investment strategies used to formulate investment advice.  Disclose that investing in securities involves risk of loss.
    • For significant investment strategies or methods of analysis, discuss material risks involved with such strategies and methods.  If there are significant or unusual risks, discuss in detail.  If strategies involve frequent trading, discuss how frequent trading affects performance.
    • If the firm recommends primarily a particular type of securities, explain the material risks.  If there are significant or unusual risks, discuss in detail.
  • Item 9 – Disciplinary Information
    • Disclose material facts about legal or disciplinary events about the firm or a management person.  This item lists events that are presumed to be material if they occurred in the prior 10 years, unless (1) the event was resolved in the firm’s or the management person’s favor, or was reversed, suspended or vacated, or (2) the firm rebutted the presumption of materiality to determine that the event is not material.
    • In the interest of full and fair disclosure of material facts, disclose events not on the list, events not presumed material, and/or events that are more than 10 years old.
    • The Firm can rebut events that are presumed material.
  • Item 10 – Other Financial Industry Activities and Affiliations
    • Discuss whether the firm or management persons are registered or have pending applications to register as broker-dealers, broker-dealer reps, FCMs, CPOs, CTAs, or associate persons.
    • Describe material relationships with related financial industry participants (e.g. broker-dealers, registered reps of broker-dealers, investment companies or other pooled investment vehicles, FCMs, CPOs, CTAs, accounting firms, law firms, real estate brokers, etc.).
    • Describe material conflicts of interest that arise from such relationships and how those conflicts are addressed.
    • If the firm selects or recommends other investment advisers for clients, the firm must disclose compensation arrangements (if any) with those advisers and any other business relationships with such advisers, as well as any material conflicts of interest and how the firm address them.
  • Item 11 – Code of Ethics, Participation or Interest in Client Transactions and Personal Trading
    • Include a summary of the code of ethics and state a copy is available upon request.
    • If the firm or a related person:
      • (i) recommends to clients, or buys or sells for client accounts, securities in which the firm or a related person has a material financial interest;
      • (ii) invests in the same securities (or related securities, e.g., warrants, options or futures) that the firm or a related person recommends to clients; or
      • (iii) recommends securities to clients, or buys or sells securities for client accounts, at or about the same time that the firm or a related person buys or sells the same securities for the firm’s own (or the related person’s own) account, then the firm must describe the practice and discuss conflicts of interest (including how such conflicts are addressed).
  • Item 12 – Brokerage Practices
    • Describe how the firm selects brokers and determines the reasonableness of brokers’ compensation
    • If the firm receives research or other products or services other than execution from a broker-dealer or a third party in connection with client securities transactions (“soft dollar benefits”), disclose the firm’s practices and discuss the conflicts of interest they create.  Provide more detail for products/services that do not qualify under the Section 28(e) safe harbor.
    • If the firm considers, in selecting or recommending broker-dealers, whether the firm or a related person receives client referrals from a broker-dealer or third party, disclose this practice and discuss the conflicts of interest it creates.
    • If the firm routinely recommends, requests or requires that a client direct the firm to execute transactions through a specified broker-dealer, describe the firm’s practice or policy.
    • If the firm permits a client to direct brokerage, describe the practice.
    • Describe whether and under what conditions the firm aggregates the purchase or sale of securities for various accounts.
  • Item 13 – Review of Accounts
    • If the firm periodically reviews client accounts, describe the frequency and nature of review, as well as the titles of the persons who conduct the review.
    • If accounts are reviewed on other than a period basis, describe what triggers review.
    • Describe the content and indicate the frequency of regular reports.
  • Item 14 – Client Referrals and Other Compensation
    • If a non-client provides economic benefit to the firm for providing investment advice or services to clients, describe the arrangement, potential conflicts of interest and how such conflicts are addressed.
    • If the firm or related persons compensate any non-supervised persons for referrals, describe the arrangement and compensation.
  • Item 15 – Custody
    • If the firm has custody of client assets and a qualified custodian sends quarterly, or more frequent, account statements directly to your clients, explain that clients will receive account statements from the broker-dealer, bank or other qualified custodian and that clients should carefully review those statements.
    • If the firm also provides statements, urge clients to compare such statements with those provided by the qualified custodian.
  • Item 16 – Investment Discretion
    • If the firm has discretionary authority over accounts, disclose this, along with any limitations clients may place on that authority.
    • Discuss procedures before discretionary authority is assumed.
  • Item 17 – Voting Client Securities
    • Describe voting policies for client securities, if any.  Discuss any conflicts of interest and how such conflicts are addressed.  Explain that a copy of the policies are available upon request.
    • If the firm does not vote client securities, disclose that fact.
  • Item 18 – Financial Information
    • If the firm requires or solicits prepayment of more than $1,200 in fees per client, 6 months or more in advance, include a balance sheet for the most recent fiscal year.
    • If the firm has discretionary authority over client assets, custody of client funds or securities, or require prepayment discussed above, discuss any financial conditions that purchase nolvadex are reasonably likely to impair the ability to meet contractual commitments with clients.
    • Discuss any bankruptcy petitions during the past 10 years.
  • Item 19 – Requirements for State-Registered Advisers
    • Identify and describe the formal education and business background of principal executive officers and management persons.
    • Describe any business in which the firm is actively engaged (other than the provision of investment advice) and amount of time spent.
    • In addition to the fees discussed in Item 5, if the firm or a supervised person is compensated for advisory services with a performance-based fee, explain how the fees are calculated and discuss the conflict of interest.
    • Disclose material facts about certain disciplinary items and other financial industry relationships or arrangements.

Brochure Supplement (Part 2B)

The Brochure Supplement requires an adviser to provide information about the certain advisory personnel.  The following is a summary of the disclosure items in the Brochure Supplement.

The Firm must prepare a Brochure Supplement for (i) any supervised person who formulates investment advice for the client and has direct client contact and (ii) any supervised person who has discretionary authority over the client’s assets.  A Supplement is not required if the supervised person has no direct client contact and has discretionary authority over client assets only as part of a team. Note: If investment advice is provided by a team of more than five supervised persons, Brochure Supplements only need to be prepared for the five supervised persons with the most significant responsibility for the day-to-day advice.

  • Item 1 – Cover Page
    • Identify the advisory firm and the supervised persons covered in the Supplement (include name, business address, and phone number).
    • Standard disclaimer similar to the one in the Firm Brochure.
  • Item 2 – Educational Background and Business Experience
    • Describe the supervised person’s formal education and business background for the past 5 years.
    • Include professional designations, if any.
  • Item 3 – Disciplinary Information
    • Discuss the material facts related to any legal or disciplinary events that are material to a (prospective) client’s evaluation of supervised persons. This item lists events that are presumed to be material if they occurred in the prior 10 years, unless (1) the event was resolved in the supervised person’s favor, or was reversed, suspended or vacated, or (2) the firm rebutted the presumption of materiality to determine that the event is not material.
    • In the interest of full and fair disclosure of material facts, disclose events not on the list, events not presumed material, and/or events that are more than 10 years old.
    • The Firm can rebut events that are presumed material.
    • Disclose any event for which the supervised person has ever resigned or otherwise relinquished a professional attainment, designation or license in anticipation of it being suspended or revoked (other than for suspensions or revocations for failure to pay membership dues), if the firm knows or should have known that the supervised person relinquished his or her designation or license.
    • Note: If a Brochure Supplement is delivered electronically, the firm may disclose that a supervised person has a disciplinary event and provide a ink to BrokerCheck or IAPD (along with an explanation of how the client can access the disciplinary history).
  • Item 4 – Other Business Activities
    • If the supervised person is actively engaged in any investment-related business, including registration (or pending registrations) as a broker-dealer, registered representative of a broker-dealer, futures commission merchant (“FCM”), commodity pool operator (“CPO”), commodity trading advisor (“CTA”), or an associated person of an FCM, CPO, or CTA, disclose this fact and describe the business relationship.
  • Item 5 – Additional Compensation
    • If a non-client provides an economic benefit to the supervised person, describe the arrangement (not including regular salary).
  • Item 6 – Supervision
    • Discuss how supervised persons are supervised, including how the firm monitors advice provided to clients.
    • Provide the name, title, and phone number of the person responsible for supervising the supervised persons.
  • Item 7 – Requirements for State-Registered Advisers
    • Disclose material facts about certain disciplinary items.
    • Discuss any bankruptcy petitions.

[Note: the SEC recently extended the date for compliance with Part 2B.]

States That Have Adopted the New Part 2

The following states have followed suit and adopted the new Part 2 or informally indicated an intent to do so.

  • Alaska – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – December 31, 2010: IA applicants and currently registered IAs may use either the old Part II or new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants are required to use the new Part 2 and registered IAs must file the new Part 2 by no later than the registrant’s next amendment filing or its annual updating amendment filing, whichever comes first.
  • Arizona – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – January 1, 2011: currently registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants must use the new Part 2.
  • California – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – January 1, 2011: IA applicants and currently registered IAs may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants will have to file the new Part 2 and registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.
  • Colorado – will require but not sure starting when
  • Connecticut – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2011 – December 31, 2010: IA applicants and currently registered IAs may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants will have to use the new Part 2 and registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IAs registered on or before December 31, 2010 should file the new Part 2, no later than June 1, 2011.
  • Illinois – will require but not sure starting when
  • Indiana – adopted the new Part 2 (timelines may have been updated) (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – January 1, 2011: IA applicants and currently registered IAs may use either the old Part II or new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants are required to use the new Part 2 and registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.
  • Maine – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – January 1, 2011: IA applicants and currently registered IAs may use either the old Part II or new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2010: IA applicants must use the new Part 2 and registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.
  • Maryland – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • As of October 12, 2010: IA applicants must use the new Part 2 as part of its initial application and any amendment.
    • October 12, 2010 – December 31, 2010: currently registered IAs and those pending registration as of October 12, 2010 may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2 for any amendments
    • As of January 1, 2011: registered IAs must file the new Part 2 by no later than the registrant’s next amendment filing or its annual updating amendment filing, whichever comes first.
  • Massachusetts – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – December 31, 2010: currently registered IAs are required to file the registrant’s next annual updating amendment using the new Part 2; until such time, the registrant may use the old Part II for regular amendment filings.
  • Ohio – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here)
    • October 12, 2010 – December 31, 2010: IA applicants and currently registered IAs filing amendment may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: currently registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.  IA applicants are required to use the new Part 2.
    • As of April 30, 2011: registered IAs must have converted to the new Part 2.
  • Oregon – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here).
    • October 12, 2010 – January 1, 2011: IA applicants and currently registered IAs filing amendment may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: IA applicants must use the new Part 2 and registered IAs will need to incorporate the new Part 2 as part of any amendment or required annual update.
  • Tennessee – adopted the new Part 2 (more information available here).
    • October 12, 2010 – December 31, 2010: IA applicants and currently registered IAs filing amendment may use either the old Part II or the new Part 2.
    • As of January 1, 2011: applicants must use the new Part 2 and registered IAs must file the new Part 2 by no later than the registrant’s next amendment filing or its annual updating amendment filing, whichever comes first.
  • Texas – currently in comment period, final approval expected in mid-2011, encouraging use of the new Part 2 (more information available here).

****

Bart Mallon Esq. is a hedge fund attorney and provides hedge fund compliance services through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

NFA Annual Compliance Overview 2011

Leave a reply

CTA and CPO firms which are registered with the CFTC will need to make sure that they are completing all necessary annual compliance items in accordance with CFTC regulations and NFA rules.

Below we have provided a list of the major items which registered firms should address with respect to annual compliance.  Many registered CTA and CPO firms have compliance manuals which address (or should address) these items.

****

Rule 2-46 Quarterly Report (CPO only)

  • Due 2/14/2011
  • The following information must be submitted to the NFA:
    • Summary of Itemized Balances
    • Key Relationships
    • NAV
    • Monthly Performance – Rates of Return
    • Schedule of Investments
  • More information:
  • Once the report has been filed, complete and keep the Acknowledgment of Quarterly Report Filed (Rule 2-46) form and any related documents with your books and records.

Quarterly Review of Emails

  • Registered CPO and CTA firms are responsible for supervising employees and should periodically review employee emails.  It is a good idea to complete a quarterly review of employee emails, document the review and keep the documentation as part of the firm’s books and records.

Yearly Review of Email Procedures

  • The firm’s compliance officer should review the effectiveness of the firm’s email review procedures on a yearly basis.  The compliance office should document the review and keep the documentation as part of the firm’s books and records.

Compliance Manual Review

  • The compliance officer should review the firm’s compliance manual on an annual basis.  After the compliance manual has been reviewed and updated as necessary, the compliance officer should have each Principal, Associated Person, and Agent certify that he or she has read and understands the compliance manual and has complied with its requirements.

NFA Self-Examination Checklist

  • The NFA self-examination needs to be completed on a yearly basis.  The compliance office will need to review the firm’s operations using the NFA’s Self-Examination Checklist (http://www.nfa.futures.org/nfa-compliance/publication-library/self-exam-checklist.HTML), document the self-examination and keep the documentation as part of the firm’s books and records.
  • Mallon P.C. has provided an overview of the NFA Self-Examination process.

Privacy Policy

  • All firms should provide each fund investor or client with a copy of the firm’s Privacy Policy within 30 days of the close of the fiscal year.  If the firm provides monthly or other periodic statements, the firm might want to include the Privacy Policy with such normal communication.

Ethics Training

  • The firm’s compliance officer should review the firm’s ethics training program.  If the program changes, the compliance officer must make sure that all Principals, APs and Agents have completed the appropriate ethics training.  If the policy has not changed, this is a good time to confirm all Principals, APs and Agents have completed all appropriate ethics training.

Annual Report (CPO only)

We have outlined the reporting requirements for CPOs before which include an annual reporting requirement.  The CPO will need to provide, within 90 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year (or within 90 days of the cessation of trading if the fund closes), an annual report to (i) each investor in the fund and (ii) the NFA.  The annual report must be presented and computed in accordance with GAAP consistently applied and must be audited by an independent public accountant.  [Please note that some CPOs may be able to request a waiver from the annual audit requirement.]

The report must include:

  • Fund NAV for the preceding two fiscal years
  • Total value of investor’s interest in the fund at the end of the preceding two fiscal years
  • Statement of Financial Condition for the fund’s fiscal year and preceding fiscal year
  • “Statement of operations” and “Statement of changes in net assets”
  • Footnotes if required to make statements not misleading (including certain information on underlying funds if the fund invests in other commodity pools)
  • Certain information if there is more than one ownership class or series.

Bunched Orders Allocation (CTA only)

  • CTA firms should periodically review the allocation of bunched orders.  Many firms will have a policy to review these allocations on a quarterly basis.  For more information, please see our post on CTA Bunched Orders.

Other Important Items

  • Annual Questionnaire – the annual questionnaire is due within 1 year of the date of registration.  This form is available through the NFA’s ORS (Online Registration System).  For more information see our post on this topic.
  • Annual Registration Update – the annual registration update is due within 1 year of the date of registration.  This form is available through the NFA’s ORS (Online Registration System).  In general the NFA will send a letter (and email) and invoice for annual fees and dues.
  • Other – some firms have policies regarding their Disaster Recovery Program which may need to be revisited during the annual review process.  Additionally, both CTA and CPO firms should take the opportunity to review their disclosure documents and see if any revisions to those documents should be made.  Other business issues, like bank reconciliations and general bookkeeping matters, should be reviewed in light of the firm’s compliance policies.

****

The above list is not indended to be exhaustive and each firm has different compliance requirements depending on unique circumstances.  If your firm would like help with developing a compliance program or if you have questions with respect to these topics, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP provides comprehensive compliance and regulatory support for CTAs and CPOs.  Bart Mallon, Esq. can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

NFA Provides Guidance for CPOs on Performance Fees

Leave a reply

Notice to Members I-11-01

As many CFTC registered entities understand, having disclosure documents approved by the NFA can be a lengthy and frustrating process.  While the NFA has done a decent job explaining to firms that disclosure documents must meet all of the requirements under the CFTC’s Part 4 Regulations, it can feel as though the NFA has a target which is constantly moving.  As we explained earlier in a post describing the NFA Changes after the CFTC audit (see also CFTC Report on NFA Registration Process, the CFTC will occasionally communicate to the NFA certain items which the CFTC would like to see emphasized or changed in the disclosure documents.

Recently, the CFTC provided guidance to the NFA with respect to incentive or performance fee arrangements in CTA and CPO  investment programs.  Essentially the CFTC asked the NFA to make sure that all disclosure documents for programs with performance fees include a discussion of the conflicts of interest involved with performance fee arrangements.  Specifically:

[The CFTC] staff’s guidance prescribes that every CPO or CTA that charges a typical incentive fee include in its Disclosure Document a discussion that the incentive fee may encourage a CPO or CTA to take excessive risks to earn an outsized incentive fee, and that such risk-taking may place the interests of the CPO and CTA in conflict with the interests of its clients. Furthermore, [CFTC staff] has indicated that the fact that Regulations 4.24(i) and 4.34(i) require the disclosure of fees and expenses (from which conflicts of interest frequently arise) does not mitigate or lessen the required discussion of conflicts of interest.

Many firms will have already provided this information in the disclosure documents.  For those groups who have not, this means that the disclosure document will need to be amended and reviewed by the NFA according to normal amendment procedures.

The full notice to members is reprinted below and can be found here.

****

Notice I-11-01

January 05, 2011

NFA provides guidance for disclosure of conflicts of interests arising from Typical Incentive Fee Arrangements by commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors

In 1997, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) delegated the review of Disclosure Documents submitted by commodity pool operators (CPO) and commodity trading advisors (CTA) to NFA. The Division levaquin cipro of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight (DCIO) performs periodic oversight of NFA’s implementation of its delegated authority. As part of these reviews, DCIO staff has recently communicated to NFA by letter dated December 2, 2010 its position as to the disclosure of conflicts of interests that arise from typical incentive fee arrangements. NFA is providing the following guidance based upon DCIO’s letter to assist members in complying with the requirements as they relate to the disclosure of conflicts of interests.

CFTC Regulations 4.24(j) and 4.34(j) require CPOs and CTAs to include in their respective Disclosure Documents a “full description of any actual or potential conflicts of interest” regarding “any aspect” of their pools or trading programs as it concerns an enumerated list of entities, including the CPOs and CTAs themselves.

DCIO staff’s guidance relates specifically to the conflicts of interests arising from the collection of incentive fees by CPOs and CTAs. The typical incentive fee collected by a CPO or CTA is usually a fixed percentage of new profits that exceed a pool’s or an account’s previous high-water mark. DCIO stated that from one perspective, the typical incentive fee can be viewed as aligning the interests of the CPOs and CTAs with the interests of their clients as the fee ensures that CPOs and CTAs are compensated in proportion to their clients’ gains, which plainly incentivizes CPOs and CTAs to pursue investment strategies that will seek to maximize returns for their clients. DCIO further states that the typical incentive fee can also be viewed as placing the interests of CPOs and CTAs in conflict with the interests of their clients. From this perspective, the incentive fee could encourage a CPO or CTA to take excessive risks in an attempt to earn an outsized incentive fee. Because the typical fee is generally paid quarterly and is not subject to clawbacks for poor long-term performance, the typical incentive fee can be viewed as an incentive for CPOs and CTAs to take greater short-term risks, which may conflict with their clients’ long-term interests.

DCIO staff’s guidance prescribes that every CPO or CTA that charges a typical incentive fee include in its Disclosure Document a discussion that the incentive fee may encourage a CPO or CTA to take excessive risks to earn an outsized incentive fee, and that such risk-taking may place the interests of the CPO and CTA in conflict with the interests of its clients. Furthermore, DCIO has indicated that the fact that Regulations 4.24(i) and 4.34(i) require the disclosure of fees and expenses (from which conflicts of interest frequently arise) does not mitigate or lessen the required discussion of conflicts of interest.

CPOs and CTAs are encouraged to review their existing Disclosure Documents in light of DCIO’s guidance and make any necessary changes prior to submitting subsequent filings of the document. If you have any questions concerning this notice or Disclosure Documents generally, please contact Mary McHenry, Senior Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1420) or Susan Koprowski, Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1288).

****

Other related hedge fund law articles:

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP provides comprehensive hedge fund start up and regulatory support for commodity pool operators.  Bart Mallon, Esq. can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.