Author Archives: CFM Admin

CTA Advertising and Marketing Issues to Consider

By Bart Mallon, Esq. (www.colefrieman.com)

Marketing for Small CTAs

For small commodity trading advisory (CTA) firms, marketing and advertising the expertise of the principals is a central way to gain new clients and make more money. This overview is for the CTA Expo 2009 program entitled Marketing for Small CTAs. The program was sponsored by Traderview and featured Frank Pusateri of Adirondack Portfolios as well as Bucky Isaacson of Future Funding Consultants. While I was unable to catch this beginning session of the CTA expo 2009, I was able to catch the last ten to fifteen minutes of the session, which I found to be particularly helpful (for small and start up CTAs) as well as interesting. It seemed like many of the participants were engaged as well.

General Background on CTA Advertising

CTAs are allowed to market and advertise their services. Unlike hedge fund managers, who are prohibited from marketing pursuant to Regulation D and other federal and state regulations, CTA advertising has the potential to reach a large portion of the investing population – CTAs can and should take advantage of such marketing rules. [Note: we will be providing information at a later date regarding some of the legal and compliance issues that CTAs should be aware of when developing a marketing program.]

A good marketing program will be multi-faceted and will include a website (including potentially a blog), direct email campaigns, listings in CTA databases, and networking events among other items. The rest of this article will focus on CTA websites.

CTA Websites and Visitor Information

One way for CTAs to advertise is to put up a good and effective website advertising the manager’s services. While it will take the manager some time to create the initial content and layout of the website, there is relatively little additional time needed to maintain the webiste. Many of the updating functions can be outsourced as well, so the manager can concentrate on trading.

Frank noted that he had one CTA ask him what he thought about their website which cost $50,000. Frank said that it looked good but that the CTA firm did not ask for the visitor’s name, address or telephone number and that there was no place on the website to collect that information. This represents a lost opportunity because, presumably, visitors come to your website to find out more information about you – you in essence know that the people visiting your site are potential investors. Having visitors provide you with their basic contact information is equivalent to a warm lead and if you don’t even have a way to collect this then you are wasting opportunities.

Question Period

Frank was able to answer questions from the audience. One participant asked if Frank could name a CTA firm which did a good job at marketing themselves. He mentioned that he thought Northfield Trading did a pretty good job with much of their literature and marketing materials.

Many of the same issues, which were touched on during my brief time at this session, are discussed in later sessions in greater depth. We will examine these in turn.

The next article discusses Compliance in a Changing Environment which is sponsored by Woodfield Fund Administration and which featured Kate Dressel of Strategic Compliance Solutions as well as Patty Cushing of the National Futures Association.

****

This article was first printed on the CTA Expo Blog. Mr. Mallon also runs the hedge fund law blog and is committed to providing useful and easy to understand information for CTAs and CPOs which can be found in our CTA and CPO Registration and Compliance Guide. For more information on CTA registration or compliance services please contact Bart Mallon, Esq. at 415-868-5345.

CTA Expo 2009

1 Reply

Commodity Trading Advisor Conference

Next week there will be a conference for Commodity Trading Advisors held in Chicago at the Hotel Monaco. The conference, entitled the CTA Expo 2009, will be held on Wednesday and will feature a variety of topics of interest to CTAs. The agenda includes:

Continental Breakfast
Marketing for Small CTAs
Compliance in a Changing Environment
Purchased Lead Lists and How to Use Them
Web Site Development and Internet Marketing
Marketing to Introducing Brokers
Keynote Speaker
An Outsiders View of Managed Futures
Managing Electronic Executions
Executing on the Electronic Markets
The Media and the CTA
Closing Cocktail Party

I will be representing my firm, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, at the conference and I look forward to meeting with the different traders and service providers at the event. Each entrant will also receive a CTA Directory which will include a “tear sheet” on all of the groups which attended. Please see the Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP description of CTA services.

****

Event information can be found here. There is also a CTA Expo LinkedIn Group.

CTA EXPO 2009
October 21, 2009
Hotel Monaco Chicago, Illinois

CTA EXPO consists of a day of roundtables and seminars for Commodity Trading Advisors on marketing strategy combined with an all day schedule of thirty minute presentations by individual CTAS to small groups of professional money raisers, asset allocators and interested clients who are seeking to identify additional trading talent.

The debut conference in 2008 sold out in advance and was attended by over thirty-five CTAs and over sixty people who registered as professional money raisers and asset allocators. We have increased capacity for 2009 and interest in this year’s event has already been tremendous and we are anticipating another sold out event.

****

The hedge fund law blog is committed to providing useful and easy to understand information for CTAs and CPOs which can be found in our CTA and CPO Registration and Compliance Guide. For more information on registration or compliance services please contact Bart Mallon, Esq. at 415-868-5345.

OTC Derivatives Markets Act of 2009 Passes House Committee Vote

1 Reply

CFTC Chairman Gensler Applauds “Historic Progress”

In a first step towards increased regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives markets, the House Financial Services Committee approved the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009. The act is one of several initiatives to increase regulatory oversight of the financial markets and if passed by Congress would be signed into law by President Obama. Among other things the act would require Swap dealers and major swap participants to register with either the CFTC or the SEC.

Below I have reprinted press releases from both the House Financial Services Committee and the CFTC.

UPDATE: The Securities Industry Financial and Markets Association (SIFMA) just issued a press release reposted below as well.

****
Financial Services Committee Approves Legislation to Regulate Derivatives

Committee completes work on a key element of President Obama’s plan to bring accountability and responsibility to Wall Street

Washington, DC – {The House Financial Services Committee today approved legislation that would, for the first time ever, require the comprehensive regulation of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives marketplace. Today’s bill, which was approved by a vote of 43-26, represents a key part of a broader effort by Congress and President Obama to modernize America’s financial regulatory system in response to last year’s financial crisis.

Under the bill, all standardized swap transactions between dealers and large market participants, referred to as “major swap participants,” would have to be cleared and must be traded on an exchange or electronic platform. A major swap participant is defined as anyone that maintains a substantial net position in swaps, exclusive of hedging for commercial risk, or whose positions creates such significant exposure to others that it requires monitoring. OTC derivatives include swaps, which are contracts that call for an exchange of cash between two counterparties based on an underlying rate, index, credit event or the performance of an asset.

The legislation then sets out parallel regulatory frameworks for the regulation of swap markets, dealers, and major swap participants. Rulemaking authority is held jointly by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which has jurisdiction over swaps, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has jurisdiction over security-based swaps. The Treasury Department is given the authority to issue final rules if the CFTC and SEC cannot decide on a joint approach within 180 days. Subsequent interpretations of rules must be agreed to jointly by the Commissions.

Description of the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009

Clearing

The legislation provides a mechanism to determine which swap transactions are sufficiently standardized that they must be submitted to a clearinghouse. For transactions that are clearable, clearing is a requirement when both counterparties are either dealers or major swap participants. Clearing organizations must seek approval from the appropriate regulator—either the CFTC or the SEC—before a swap or class of swaps can be accepted for clearing.

Transactions in standardized swaps that involve end-users are not required to be cleared. Such customized transactions must, however, be reported to a trade repository.

Mandatory Trading on Exchange or Swap Execution Facility

A standardized and cleared swap transaction where both counterparties are either dealers or major swap participants must either be executed on a board of trade, a national securities exchange or a “swap execution facility”—as defined in the legislation. If none of these venues makes a clearable swap available for trading, the trading requirement would not apply. Counterparties would, however, have to comply with transaction reporting requirements established by the appropriate regulator. The legislation also directs the regulators to eliminate unnecessary obstacles to trading on a board of trade or a national securities exchange.

Registration and Regulation of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants

Swap dealers and major swap participants must register with the appropriate Commission and dual registration is required in applicable cases. Capital requirements for swap dealers’ and major swap participants’ positions in cleared swaps must be set at greater than zero. Capital for non-cleared transaction must be set higher than for cleared transactions. The prudential regulators will set capital for banks, while the Commissions will set capital for non-banks at a level that is “as strict or stricter” than that set by the prudential regulators.

The regulators are directed to set margin levels for counterparties in transactions that are not cleared. The regulators are not required to set margin in transaction where one of the counterparties is not a dealer or major swap participant. In cases where an end user is a counterparty to a transaction, any margin requirements must permit the use of non-cash collateral.

Reporting and Public Disclosure of Swap Transactions

Reporting and recordkeeping is required for all over-the-counter derivative transactions. Clearing organizations must provide transaction information to the relevant Commission and a designated trade repository. Swap transactions that are not cleared and for which no trade repository exists, must be reported directly to the relevant Commission. The legislation also provides for public disclosure of aggregate data on swap trading volumes and positions—in a manner that does not disclose the business transactions or market position of any person. Large positions in swaps must also be reported directly to regulators.

Swap Execution Facilities

Swap execution facilities, or facility for the trading of swaps that are not Boards of Trade or National Securities Exchanges, must register with the relevant regulator as a swap execution facility (SEF). SEFs must also adhere to core regulatory principles relating to enforcement, anti-manipulation, monitoring, information collection and conflicts of interest, among others. The CFTC and SEC are required to prescribe joint rules governing the regulation of swap execution facilities. A Commission may exempt a SEF from registration if it is subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation by another regulator.

****

Statement of Chairman Gary Gensler on House Financial Services Committee Passage of OTC Derivatives Regulatory Reform Legislation

October 15, 2009

Washington, DC – U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler today commented on the OTC Derivatives Markets Act of 2009, passed this morning by the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services.

Chairman Gensler said:

“Today’s vote by the House Financial Services Committee represents historic progress toward comprehensive regulatory reform of the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace. The Committee’s bill is a significant step toward lowering risk and promoting transparency. Substantive challenges remain. I look forward to building on this Committee’s hard work with Chairman Frank, Chairman Peterson and others in the House and Senate to complete legislation that covers the entire marketplace without exception and to ensure that regulators have appropriate authorities to protect the public.”

****

Release Date: October 15, 2009

Contact: Andrew DeSouza, (202) 962-7390, [email protected]

SIFMA’s Bentsen Statement on Committee Passage of Derivatives Regulation

October 15, 2009, Washington, DC—The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association today released a statement from Ken Bentsen, Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy in response to the House Financial Services Committee’s passage of the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009.

“Bringing greater regulatory transparency and oversight to derivatives markets and products is a key component of reforming our financial system. That oversight must also recognize the important role these risk management tools play for countless companies across the country and for our broader economy. Mandating particular transaction modes, as this bill does, could raise transaction costs while not necessarily reducing risk in a commensurate amount—results that we believe are contrary to our shared reform goals. As the legislative process continues we look forward to working with the Congress toward a bill that strikes a balance between the need for transparency and risk management efficiency.”

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association brings together the shared interests of more than 550 securities firms, banks and asset managers. SIFMA’s mission is to promote policies and practices that work to expand and perfect markets, foster the development of new products and services and create efficiencies for member firms, while preserving and enhancing the public’s trust and confidence in the markets and the industry. SIFMA works to represent its members’ interests locally and globally. It has offices in New York, Washington D.C., and London and its associated firm, the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, is based in Hong Kong.

****

IARD Fee Waiver for 2010

Hedge Fund Regulation IT Solutions

1 Reply

Technology Solutions for Registered Hedge Fund Managers

http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com

It is the final quarter of this year’s political season and it has become clear that the earlier clamor for hedge fund registration has been overshadowed by larger political issues – namely health care legislation and the cap and trade bill. Recent events, however, have shown that the registration issue is not dead and the venture capital industry has been able to potentially secure an exemption from the registration provisions. Even though we don’t know where regulation will take us in the next 6 to 18 months, it is likely that many hedge fund managers will need to institute compliance and IT programs as a result of forthcoming laws and regulations.

The article below, submitted by Meyer Ben-Reuven, CEO of Chelsea Technologies, details some issues which managers will need to be ready to handle once legislation and regulations go into effect. State registered investment advisors should take note as they may already be required (under state law) to maintain such compliance programs.

****

How is President Obama’s New Hedge Fund Regulation Plan affecting you?
By Meyer Ben-Reuven, CEO Chelsea Technologies

The challenging question Hedge Fund Managers should ask themselves is what should they be doing to be compliant with President Obama’s Hedge Fund Regulation Plan? There are many questions and many tasks to accomplish, but most important is to understand the main points of the plan, what needs to be done and what are the costs associated. In this paper I present you with a summary of the President’s plan and what a Chief Compliance Officer needs to face in conjunction with the IT department to be compliant with regulations. Costs are important, but I will keep them away from this paper.

Obama’s New Hedge Fund Regulation Plan

In June 2009, President Obama presented a proposal for new regulations that affect Hedge Funds and fund managers. The most important part of this new regulation will be to require Hedge Fund, Private Equity, and VC Fund Managers to register with the SEC as investment advisors.

Although it is a proposal, all fund managers will have to start thinking about the re-registration and the process to keep the fund compliant.

The plan’s 5 main goals are:

Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms.
Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets.
Propose comprehensive regulation of all OTC derivatives.
Protect customers and investors from financial abuse.
Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.

The idea is to require advisers to report financial information on their fund and its management and thus have the ability to assess whether the fund poses a threat to the stability of the financial system and at the same time strengthen investor protection.

The specific goals regarding hedge funds are as follows:

Data collection
SEC should conduct regular, periodic examinations of hedge funds
Reporting AUM and other fund metrics to the SEC
SEC would have ability to assess whether the fund or fund family is so large, highly leveraged, or interconnected that it poses a threat to financial stability

How will IT Departments have to help keep the funds within regulation rules?

As of February 2006, Hedge Fund Advisors were obliged to comply with SEC Rule 203(b)(3)-2 requiring registration under the Investment Advisor Act. Under these rules, the Hedge Funds were advised to retain all internal and external email and IM business communications. In June 2006, the Goldstein ruling against the SEC pushed several funds to de-register. With the failure of the financial system since the end of 2007, the new administration has been poised to regulate the industry more than ever.

What needs to be done?

Take a look at all the ways communications are conducted in the fund
What are the devices used to communicate
Always be on the lookout for new technologies

Afterwards, insure you have control over the different communication methods. As stated, all electronic communication in and out of the fund has to be retained for future review. This means that if it cannot be controlled and retained, it must be prohibited.

All internal rules have to be specified in IT policies and procedures, otherwise no one can be held accountable.

The following is how data needs to be archived for SEC purpose audits:

Incoming/Outgoing Data must be kept in its original form
Data has to be easily retrievable and searchable
Data has to have a date and time stamp
Data has to be retained in the main office for first 2 years
Data has to be retained for 5 years
Data has to be put into tamper proof media (meaning non-rewritable and non-erasable)
Data has to be stored in a secondary backup location (preferably away from the same grid)
Be able to produce data promptly (within hours)
Be able to provide data in its original format in either view or print form
Implement annual review of the system

It is highly recommended that data be tested for integrity including testing retrieval and searching, as well as accuracy. The test should be conducted on a yearly basis, but better if on a more frequent basis.
Although the IT department is in charge of conducting the process, it is ultimately the Chief Compliance Officer who is responsible for this area. The Chief Compliance Officer needs to dictate the test frequency as well as to advise everyone in the firm about the policies and make sure everyone understands the consequences of failure to comply.

All these internal policies have to be in writing and any violations have to be documented and fixed. The regular testing and reviews have to be documented and be ready for presentation in case of an audit.

NOTE: TAPE BACKUP IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR MESSAGE ARCHIVING

What are the different communication venues that exist and can be controlled and thus archived?

Email and IM from Exchange
Email and IM from Bloomberg and Reuters
Blackberry archiving of Pin-to-Pin , SMS, Call Detail logs
E-Faxes
Blogs
Chat Rooms
Message Boards
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Since all of the above require certain technologies and software for archiving and retaining, you have to make an effort to comply with the regulations or otherwise prohibit the usage of such technologies in the work place.

How do you implement compliance?

There are two schools of thought to achieve compliance:

Build an in-house system
Use a third party system

The in-house system is more complex and often requires a larger upfront investment to build and maintain. Keep in mind you will have to have the following:

Servers, storage, and software
Backup Servers, storage, and software in a location out of the main location grid
Replication system
Maintain both the main and backup location

The responsibility and costs can escalate, but depending on the size of the firm, it might be the most cost efficient.

The third party systems, which have built an infrastructure that is scalable, keep on growing as more clients join their list. The time to implement is a fraction of building an in-house system. Depending on the third party provider, there are several ways of getting the data:

Have the data arrive to the email server and from there delivered to the third party provider
Have the data arrive to the third party provider and then to the email server

Both methods of delivery have issues of their own. The first method requires you to be diligent about monitoring the email flow and ensure data is routed to the archiving provider – the responsibility is shifted completely to you. The second method, where the provider requires the email to be routed through their system before it arrives to your server, usually poses a different challenge where emails might get delayed at the provider.

If you decide on any of the above systems, you should try to utilize an external anti-spam solution to keep your storage usage to a minimum as well as to make sure that non-account emails do not reach your email server. These measures will keep all spam from being part of your retention data.

References and information used from the following sources: Global Relay, Zantaz, LiveOffice, NextPage, Hedge Fund Law Blog

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you are a current hedge fund manager with questions about ERISA, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Purchasing an ERISA Fidelity Bond

4 Replies

Information on How to Buy ERISA Bond

Purchasing an ERISA Fidelity Bond is essentially the same as purchasing a fidelity bond for an investment advisory firm and this article is meant to serve as guide as to cost and timing to secure one of these bonds.

Overview

Generally a manager will need to make sure that the bond is for 10% of the amount of the ERISA assets (subject to a minimum bond requirement of $1,000). This means that if the ERISA assets in the fund are $1MM, the manager will need to have a bond for at least $100,000.

However, the maximum bond amount with regard to any one plan is $500,000. This means that if the manager has ERISA assets in the fund (from one plan) of $6MM, the manager will only need to have a bond in the amount of $500,000 with respect to that plan.

Generally, if the manager had two plans in his fund – one with $6MM in assets and one with $2MM in assets, the manager would need to have $700,000 worth of coverage ($500,000 and $200,000 respectively). The best way to accomplish this is to have separate bonds for the separate ERISA plans invested in the fund.

Cost of ERISA Bond

A bond consultant or insurance broker will generally be able to provide a quote for the ERISA coverage needs. The costs are fairly reasonable – generally around $200 to $400 for every $100,000 of coverage per year. For newly formed management companies, the amount of the bond may be based on the personal credit score of an officer of such management company.

Application Process and Timing

ERISA bonds are fairly easy to purchase and can be delivered quickly. The application process is generally pretty basic – applications will require basic information about the management company, the fund and/or the officer(s) of the management company. Different bond companies will require different information or have different application processes or procedures.

In my experience, managers have been able to secure a bond within about a week of submitting an application. If you are a manager that is likely to receive an allocation from an ERISA plan, the best practice is to have the bond in place prior to the time that the ERISA assets are wired to the fund account. Accordingly, the manager should take care to make sure the bonding company has all necessary information in order to place the bond by the necessary time.

Other Notes

As with other sensitive areas of hedge fund law (like taxation) managers should take extra care when dealing with ERISA investors and ERISA requirements. I always recommend discussing any ERISA issues with an ERISA specialist.

Please also see our disclaimer with regard to the information presented on this website.

****

NFA Rule Compliance Rule 2-45 Approved

1 Reply

CPOs Prohibited From Taking Loans From Commodity Hedge Funds

The CFTC just recently approved a new NFA compliance rule which prohibits commodity pool operators (CPOs) from taking loans from the commodity pools which they manage. Additionally, if a CPO currently has some sort of a loan arrangement with their fund, such CPO will have until October 22, 2009 to notify the NFA of the arrangement and surrounding facts and circumstances.

With regard to this new rule, we urge CPOs to take the following notes:

If you currently have a loan arrangement with your fund, please contact an attorney immediately. If you have such an arrangement and do not disclose this to the NFA within the allowed time frame, you will be subject to significant action in the future if it is found that you did not comply with this requirement.
CPOs should think about updating their commodity pool offering documents to include a discussion of this new prohibition (if it is not already discussed in the pool offering documents).
CPOs should update their compliance manuals and procedures to specifically address this issue – it is likely that this will be a specific examination item in the near future and a well prepared CPO should have procedures in place to ensure compliance.

Below we have reprinted the notice announcing the new rule as well as the interpretive release which provides color on the new rule. If you have any questions on this new rule and its applicability to you CPO or your commodity pool, please contact us. Related article:

NFA Cracks Down on Loans to CPOs

****

Notice I-09-17

September 22, 2009

Effective Date of NFA Requirements Prohibiting Loans by Commodity Pools to CPOs and Related Entities

NFA has received notice that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has approved new NFA Compliance Rule 2-45. This Rule and its accompanying Interpretive Notice, which both became effective September 11, 2009, prohibit commodity pools from making direct or indirect loans or advances of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

CPOs that currently have existing loan or advance arrangements between their pools and the CPO, the CPO’s principals, or related entities must notify NFA of these arrangements by October 22, 2009. The written notification to NFA should describe the reason for the loan or advance; indicate the interest the CPO is paying, if any; provide evidence that the loan or advance is secured by marketable, liquid assets; explain arrangements the CPO has made to pay back the loan or advance, if any; and include an executed copy of the loan or advance agreement. In addition, the CPO must provide NFA with written evidence that pool participants were informed about the loan or advance through a disclosure contained in the disclosure document, offering memorandum or other correspondence.

NFA will review the information provided to ensure, among other things, that participants received a full disclosure of the arrangements and that the loans and advances are secured by marketable liquid assets. Depending on the results of the review, NFA will determine if a CPO needs to take any additional steps regarding a particular loan or advance. NFA may also recommend disciplinary action if warranted by our review of the circumstances.

More information about NFA Compliance Rule 2-45, and the accompanying Interpretive Notice, can be found in NFA’s August 26, 2009 Submission Letter to the CFTC. Questions concerning these changes should be directed to Mary McHenry, Senior Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1420) or Tracey Hunt, Senior Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1284).

****

August 26, 2009

Via Federal Express

Mr. David A. Stawick
Office of the Secretariat
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Re: National Futures Association: Prohibition of Loans by Pools to Commodity Pool Operators and Related Parties – Proposed Adoption of Compliance Rule 2-45 and Interpretive Notice*

Dear Mr. Stawick:

On May 27, 2009, National Futures Association (“NFA”) submitted proposed new Compliance Rule 2-45 to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) for its review and approval. NFA hereby withdraws that submission and, pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, hereby resubmits the proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 and related Interpretive regarding prohibition of loans by pools to CPOs and related parties.

Compliance Rule 2-45 was approved by NFA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on May 21, 2009, and the Interpretive Notice was approved by the Board on August 20, 2009. NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and will make these proposals effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposals for approval.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
(additions are underscored)
COMPLIANCE RULES

* * *
PART 2 – RULES GOVERNING THE BUSINESS CONDUCT OF MEMBERS REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION
* * *

RULE 2-45. PROHIBITION OF LOANS BY COMMODITY POOLS TO CPOS AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

No Member CPO may permit a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

* * *
INTERPRETIVE NOTICES
* * *

COMPLIANCE RULE 2-45: PROHIBITION OF LOANS BY COMMODITY POOLS TO CPOS AND RELATED ENTITIES

NFA has recently taken a number of Member Responsibility Actions (MRAs) against commodity pool operators (CPOs) and CPO principals who directly or indirectly loaned or advanced pool assets to themselves or an affiliated person or entity. Many of these arrangements were used by these principals to purchase luxury items, while others went to related entities that did not have sufficient assets to repay the loans. In each case, the transaction resulted in significant losses to participants’ funds.

The Board of Directors has determined that direct or indirect loans or advances from pools to their CPOs, the CPO’s principals, or related entities should be prohibited. Therefore, NFA Compliance Rule 2-45 prohibits CPOs from permitting a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

NFA understands that a few pools may have made these types of loan or advance arrangements prior to Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date. These CPOs are required to notify NFA of these existing arrangements within thirty (30) days of Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date.

These arrangements violate NFA’s existing compliance rules if the arrangements are not consistent with the pool’s current disclosure document or offering materials and both the loan(s) or advance(s) and the conflict of interest are not fully disclosed to participants. Existing arrangements also violate NFA’s rules if the loan or advance is not secured by marketable, liquid assets (e.g. a CPO participant’s pro-rata interest in the pool’s liquid assets) and, therefore, the arrangement could have a material effect upon the pool’s ability to meet its obligations to participants.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

In February, NFA took two Member Responsibility Actions (“MRAs”) against three NFA Member commodity pool operators (“CPOs”). Although the basis of both MRAs was the CPOs’ failure to cooperate with NFA in an investigation, the limited investigation that NFA was able to perform revealed that the CPOs had misappropriated pool funds through improper loans from pools to the CPOs or related entities. The CFTC charged all three of the CPOs with misappropriating pool assets through improper loans, and all three were charged criminally with fraud.

These two matters are not the first instances of CPOs misappropriating pool participant funds through direct or indirect loans from a pool to the CPO or a related entity. Over the years, there have been a number of regulatory actions involving this type of fraud. Given the significant losses suffered by pool participants as a result of these improper loans, NFA is proposing to prohibit direct or indirect loans from commodity pools to the CPO or any affiliated person or entity.

NFA staff discussed this matter with NFA’s CPO/CTA Advisory Committee, which supported prohibiting loans because it believes that absent extraordinary circumstances there is no legitimate reason for a pool to make a direct or indirect loan to its CPO or a related party.

At its May 2009 meeting, the Board approved Compliance Rule 2-45. Although the rule provides for a complete prohibition, the Board was somewhat concerned that there might be some unforeseen very limited circumstances where a carve-out to this prohibition would be appropriate. As a result, the Board instructed staff to handle these situations on a case-by-case basis, with the CPO seeking no-action relief from NFA.

After NFA submitted the proposed rule to the Commission for approval, Commission staff informed NFA that although they supported the overall concept, they had concerns regarding NFA’s granting of no-action relief. In light of the Commission’s concerns and the fact that there are few, if any, foreseeable situations in which NFA should permit a loan arrangement, the Board reconsidered its original position regarding no-action relief.

Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there are a few loan arrangements currently in place that have been fully disclosed and are adequately collateralized. Therefore, the Interpretive Notice provides that CPOs will not be required to immediately sell other assets to repay these existing loans. CPOs will, however, be required to notify NFA of any such current arrangements within 30 days of Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date. NFA will review these arrangements to ensure, among other things, that participants were provided with full disclosure of the arrangements and that the loans are secured by marketable, liquid assets. Moreover, as NFA has done in several recent MRAs, we will not hesitate to recommend disciplinary action if we find those loans involve fraud, inadequate disclosure or are not properly collateralized.

As mentioned earlier, NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act. NFA intends to make proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 and the related Interpretive Notice regarding the prohibition of loans by pools to CPOs and related parties effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission, unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposal for approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Sexton
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel
_________
* The proposed adoption of Compliance Rule 2-45 and Interpretive Notice became effective September 11, 2009.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about the CPO or CTA registration process, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

IA Compliance Fall Conference 2009

1 Reply

Over the past few months I have written extensively about the new regulatory environment and the likelihood that many hedge fund managers will need to register with the SEC within the next year or so (assuming that Congress passes one of many proposed registration bills). Anticipating this requirement, my team and I at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP have been preparing for registrations and as part of that preparation I am attending the IA Compliance Fall Conference today at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel.

The conferne is designed to provide lawyers and compliance professionals with more context on how firms need to deal with compliance issues in this hype-sensitive environment. Today’s conference hosts a number of renowned speakers, including top SEC officials:

John Walsh – SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspectrions and Examinations
Gene Gohlke – OCIE’s Associate Director
Andrew Donohue – director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management

There are a number of items on the adgenda which I am particularly excited to hear about and discuss with my colleagues including some of the hot-button issues and recent reports from SEC examinations. I will be taking notes throughout the event and will be writing blog posts about the conference in the coming days. I will also be providing more information on Mallon P.C.’s investment adviser registration and compliance services for hedge fund managers.

Other attendees include representatives from: The Carlyle Group; Westover Capital Advisors, LLC; Oppenheimer Funds, Inc; State Street; Penbrook Management, LLC; Trilogy Capital; Bridgewater Associates; AXA Investment Managers; Strategic Value Partners, LLC; Pershing Square Capital Management; Guggenheim Advisors, LLC; Lone Pine Capital; Parkway Advisors; Vicis Capital LLC; The Swathmore Group; Abbott Capital Management, LLC; Redwood Investments; Tocqueville Asset Management; RNK Capital LLC among others.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Section 13(d) Filings and Section 13(g) Filings

1 Reply

Section 13(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 requires any person who beneficially owns 5% or more of a class of equity securities of a publicly traded company to file a report with the SEC within 10 days of reaching the 5% ownership threshold. SEC Rule 13d-1 provides more detailed guidance on the reporting requirements.

Generally those persons who are subject to this rule will need to file a Schedule 13D (discussed in greater detail below) with the SEC. Because Schedule 13D is fairly detailed (the SEC estimates that it will take 14.5 hours to complete the form), the SEC has provided an alternate form and alternate reporting procedures for those persons who acquire 5% but who are generally not purchasing the securities with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer.

Schedule 13D

The following discussion is from the SEC website and can be found here.

Schedule 13D is commonly referred to as a “beneficial ownership report.” The term “beneficial owner” is defined under SEC rules. It includes any person who directly or indirectly shares voting power or investment power (the power to sell the security).

When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. (Depending upon the facts and circumstances, the person or group of persons may be eligible to file the more abbreviated Schedule 13G in lieu of Schedule 13D.)

Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. The schedule is filed with the SEC and is provided to the company that issued the securities and each exchange where the security is traded. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. The schedule is often filed in connection with a tender offer.

You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. You can learn how to use EDGAR to find information about companies. You can find an HTML version of the Schedule and download a PDF version for easier printing.

Schedule 13G Filing Categories

As discussed above, there is an alternative to the Schedule D filing requirement if the hedge fund manager falls within certain categories desicribed below. If the manager does fall within these categories, the manager can file the less onerous Schedule 13G.

Rule 13d-1(b) – provides that Schedule G can be filed, in lieu of filing Schedule D, within 45 days of the end of the calendar year in which the 5% threshold was exceeded if: (i) generally the person has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect of, changing or influencing the control of the issuer and (ii) the person is one of a number of enumerated persons (i.e. broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, investment companies, etc).

Rule 13d-1(c) – provides that Schedule G can be filed, in lieu of filing Schedule D, within 10 days of the date which the 5% threshold was exceeded if: (i) generally the person has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect of, changing or influencing the control of the issuer; (ii) the person is not a certain enumerated person; and (iii) the person does not directly or indirectly own 20% or more of the class of equity securities.

Rule 13d-1(d) – requires Schedule G be filed within 45 days after the end of the calendar year in which the 5% threshold was exceeded if the person meets certain requirements.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or if you are interested in starting a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about the Schedule D or Schedule G filing process, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Raising Hedge Fund Capital is Not Easy