Category Archives: new hedge fund regulations

IA Compliance Fall Conference 2009

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:

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 investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Investment Adviser Pay to Play Rules

SEC Proposal Would Ban Third Party Solicitors from Seeking Public Monies

Back in July there was much discussion about new “pay to play” rules proposed by the SEC.  The proposed “pay to play” rules would limit the ability of investment managers (including hedge fund managers) to make political contributions and would also limit the ability of third party marketers to raise capital for managers from state and federal pension plans.

There have been many interesting comments on these proposed rules so far, and, as some have noted, it seems to me that these rules may hinder the first-amendment rights of these money managers.  The comment period ends October 6, 2009 and the SEC may choose to vote on the rule thereafter, but I would not expect for any rule to be finalized before the end of this year.  However, hedge fund managers may want to review their investment advisory compliance manual to make sure they have discussed this issue.  Hedge fund managers who are not yet registered with the SEC as investment advisers will likely deal with this issue when they register.

I have included below (i) a definition of pay to play below, (ii) the SEC press release announcing the proposal, and (iii) a discussion of pay to play from 1999, the last time the SEC had a proposal to regulate these activities.

Mallon P.C. will be commenting on the proposal so please let us know your opinions below.

****

Pay to Play Definition (see old SEC release, reprinted below)

When I refer to pay-to-play, I am talking about the practice of requiring, either expressly or implicitly, municipal securities participants to make political contributions to municipal officials in order to be considered for an award of underwriting, advisory, or related business from the municipality. In most cases these practices do not amount to outright bribery – which is already prohibited under state and federal law, since there is no express quid pro quo – but it is simply an understanding that if you don’t give, you don’t get business.

****

SEC Proposes Measures to Curtail “Pay to Play” Practices

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-168

Washington, D.C., July 22, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to propose measures intended to curtail “pay to play” practices by investment advisers that seek to manage money for state and local governments. The measures are designed to prevent an adviser from making political contributions or hidden payments to influence their selection by government officials.

The proposals relate to money managed by state and local governments under important public programs. Such programs include public pension plans that pay retirement benefits to government employees, retirement plans in which teachers and other government employees can invest money for their retirement, and 529 plans that allow families to invest money for college.

To help manage this money, state and local governments often hire outside investment advisers who may directly manage this money and provide advice about which investments they should make. In return for their advice, the investment advisers typically charge fees that come out of the assets of the pension funds for which the advice is provided. If the advisers manage mutual funds or other investments that are options in a plan, the advisers receive fees from the money in those investments.

Investment advisers are often selected by one or more trustees who are appointed by elected officials. While such a selection process is common, fairness can be undermined if advisers seeking to do business with state and local governments make political contributions to elected officials or candidates, hoping to influence the selection process.

The selection process also can be undermined if elected officials or their associates ask advisers for political contributions or otherwise make it understood that only advisers who make contributions will be considered for selection. Hence the term “pay to play.” Advisers and government officials who engage in pay to play practices may try to hide the true purpose of contributions or payments.

“Pay to play practices can result in public plans and their beneficiaries receiving sub-par advisory services at inflated prices,” said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. “Our proposal would significantly curtail the corrupting and distortive influence of pay to play practices.”

Andrew J. Donohue, Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, added, “Pay to play serves the interests of advisers to public pension plans rather than the interests of the millions of pension plan beneficiaries who rely on their advice. The rule we are proposing today would help ensure that advisory contracts are awarded on professional competence, not political influence.”

The rule being proposed for public comment by the SEC includes prohibitions intended to capture not only direct political contributions by advisers, but other ways advisers may engage in pay to play arrangements.

Restricting Political Contributions

Under the proposed rule, an investment adviser who makes a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser would be barred for two years from providing advisory services for compensation, either directly or through a fund.

The rule would apply to the investment adviser as well as certain executives and employees of the adviser. Additionally, the rule would apply to political incumbents as well as candidates for a position that can influence the selection of an adviser.

There is a de minimis provision that permits an executive or employee to make contributions of up to $250 per election per candidate if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate.

Banning Solicitation of Contributions

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from coordinating, or asking another person or political action committee (PAC) to:
1. Make a contribution to an elected official (or candidate for the official’s position) who can influence the selection of the adviser.
2. Make a payment to a political party of the state or locality where the adviser is seeking to provide advisory services to the government.

Banning Third-Party Solicitors

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from paying a third party, such as a solicitor or placement agent, to solicit a government client on behalf of the investment adviser.

Restricting Indirect Contributions and Solicitations

Finally, the proposed rule would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from engaging in pay to play conduct indirectly, such as by directing or funding contributions through third parties such as spouses, lawyers or companies affiliated with the adviser, if that conduct would violate the rule if the adviser did it directly. This provision would prevent advisers from circumventing the rule by directing or funding contributions through third parties.

* * *

Public comments on today’s proposed rule must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The full text of the proposed rule will be posted to the SEC Web site as soon as possible.
# # #
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-168.htm

****

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Speech by SEC Staff:
Pay-To-Play and
Public Pension Plans
Remarks of
Robert E. Plaze
Associate Director, Division of Investment Management,
U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission

At the Annual Joint Legislative Meeting of
The National Association of State Retirement Administrators,
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems and
The National Council on Teacher Retirement, Washington, D.C.

January 26, 1999

The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or of the author’s colleagues upon the staff of the Commission.

Thank you for inviting me to address this meeting of the group of state pension administrators. My father was a state retiree and lived on his pension for a number of years. I know how the importance the security of a pension plan is to millions of persons like my Dad, and how important your jobs are.

I am a member of the staff of the Commission. But my remarks this afternoon are my own, and I am not speaking for the Commission or my colleagues on the staff.

When Arthur Levitt became Chairman almost six years ago, among his goals was the reform of the municipal securities markets. Since then, a series of initiatives have improved investor disclosure in the municipal securities markets. A second area of reform – and one most relevant to why you have invited me here today – has been the curbing of pay-to-play practices.

When I refer to pay-to-play, I am talking about the practice of requiring, either expressly or implicitly, municipal securities participants to make political contributions to municipal officials in order to be considered for an award of underwriting, advisory, or related business from the municipality. In most cases these practices do not amount to outright bribery – which is already prohibited under state and federal law, since there is no express quid pro quo – but it is simply an understanding that if you don’t give, you don’t get business.

Chairman Levitt, and several SEC officials have been involved in the municipal securities markets. They knew that pay-to-play practices had been pervasive and corrupting to the market for municipal securities. And if you ask them, they will tell you stories about checks left on the table at a dinner. They may even know the minimum required contributions in a particular jurisdiction to be eligible for public contracts.

Pay-to-play creates the impression that contracts for professional services are awarded on the basis of political influence rather than professional competence. It harms the citizens of the municipality and the investing public asked to purchase the securities. It brings discredit on the businesses and professionals who participate in the practice.

In 1993, the first in a series of steps to end pay-to-play practices began when a group of investment banks voluntarily agreed to swear off making contributions for the purpose of obtaining municipal business. In 1994, the SEC approved MSRB rule G-37 – which is known as the pay-to-play rule.1

G-37 prohibits municipal securities dealers from engaging in the municipal securities business with an issuer two years after contributions are made to an official of an issuer by the dealer or its employees engaged in municipal finance business. The prohibition applies equally to officials who are incumbents and those who are candidates. There is a de minimis exception, which permits contribution of up to $250 to candidates for whom they can vote.

The rule was met with howls of protest from some state and municipal officials. Some argued that it violated their First Amendment rights to make and solicit political contributions. These claims were soon tested in the federal courts, and in an important decision, a federal court of appeals held that G-37 was a constitutionally permissible restraint on free speech – because it serves a compelling governmental interest of rooting out corruption in the market for municipal securities.2

As we meet this afternoon, the American Bar Association is considering proposals to bar the practice of lawyers obtaining business through political contributions. Deans of 47 law schools across the country have joined Chairman Levitt in calling for an end to what the San Francisco Chronicle called “a sleazy practice that costs taxpayers.” 3 We hope that my profession will adopt a strong and effective ban.

Bringing an end to pay-to-play practices thus has been a step-by-step process.

Recently, Chairman Levitt has asked my Division to look into the question of whether the Commission needed to address pay-to-play in the public pension area. We are now in the fact-gathering stage of this project, which could very well lead to a rule proposal.

What have we found? So far, we see strong indicators that pay-to-play can be a powerful force in the selection of money managers of public pension plans. There are public reports of pay-to-pay problems with the management of public money in 12 states – and many of these are the largest states.

* In one small state a former state treasurer raised over $73,000 in campaign contributions, virtually all from contractors for the state retirement system 4

* The controller of a large state has raised $1.8 million from pension fund contractors, many of which are out-of-state 5

* In another state, a former state treasurer raised contributions from contractors, one of whom received a five-fold increase in the custody fees it charged. The treasurer’s candidate lost and the contract was terminated by the new treasurer.6

* The Executive Director of the MSRB has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that “the conflicts of interest in the [public pension business] are as bad as anything we’ve seen in the muni-bond market.7

* An elected state official has told me that she thought that G-37 has resulted in the movement of some pay-to-play activity over to the public pension area. Phone calls from some advisers have confirmed this.

Claims that pay-to-play really isn’t a problem are refuted by the findings of states and plans that have taken on the issue. Vermont and Connecticut have enacted legislation.8 Both were concerned that awards of advisory contracts were being made on the basis of political favoritism rather than expertise. They concluded that even where no actual corruption occurred, the appearance of impropriety was intolerable.

CalPERS has acted in California, and the records of its rulemaking proceeding and subsequent litigation are particularly instructive about how pay-to-play works and its insidiousness.

It is heartening to see some of the plans and jurisdictions putting an end to the culture of pay-to-play. As you know, it takes two to tango, and it takes two to participate in these practices – the payer and the payee. Our concern is with the activities of the payers – investment advisers, whom we regulate under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.9

The Advisers Act imposes a federal fiduciary duty on advisers with respect to their clients and prospective clients.10

* When the process of the selection of an investment adviser is corrupted, the duties of an adviser to his client are compromised.

* When the selection process is corrupted and advisers are selected based not on their merit but on the amount or their political contributions, the ultimate clients of advisers – the pension pools they manage – are harmed and the benefits of retirees threatened.

A similar harm occurs when advisers are not chosen because they have not made the requisite amount of contributions.

We at the Commission believe that G-37 is working pretty well. And I have to believe, based on the evidence we have collected so far, that the burden will fall on those who argue that the Commission should not apply the core principles of G-37 to investment advisers and the public pension plan area.

We have spoken with your representatives from NASRA, and we have discussed the matter with some of your colleagues. They have described the difficult position in which a professional manager is placed when it becomes apparent that the decision-making process is being skewed by considerations of political contributions. You have a unique perspective from which to help us understand the issues.

I look forward to further discussions with you and look forward to hearing your views.

Thank you.

1 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-33868 (Apr. 7, 1994).

2Blount v. SEC , 61 F.3d 938 (1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1119 (1996).

3A Sleazy Practice That Costs Taxpayers , San Francisco Chron., Aug. 1, 1997, at A26.

4See Office of Vermont State Treasurer James H. Douglas, If You Play, You Pay: New Campaign Finance Legislation Prohibits Contracts for Wall Street Firms Contributing to State Treasurer Races, a Provision Pushed by Douglas (06/16/97) http://www.state.vt.us/treasurer/press/pr970616.htm.

5 Clifford J. Leavy, Firms Handling N.Y. Pension Fund Are Donors to Comptroller , N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, 1998, at A16)

6See Steve Hemmerick, See You in Court,’ Bank Tells Its Client: State Street Sues over Custody Contract, Pens. & Inv., Feb. 23, 1998, at 2.

7 Charles Gasparino and Jonathan Axelrod, Political Money May Sway Business of Public Pensions , Wall St. J., Mar. 24, 1997, at C1.

8 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333 o (1997); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 109 (1997).

9 15 U.S.C. 80b.

10SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. , 375 U.S. 180 (1963).

http://www.sec.gov/news/speeches/spch2501.htm

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start 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 investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Series 79 Questions and Answers | Investment Banking Exam

Q&A For New FINRA Exam License

We have fielded a number of questions regarding the new Series 79 exam for investment banking professionals.  We are creating this question and answer page as a service to our readers.  We will attempt to answer questions as best as possible and our understanding the 79 exam license and the way it will be utilized in practice will develop over time so we expect this resource to become more valuable over time.  Please help us to make this a valuable resource by adding your questions, responses or comments below.

****

Question: While the series 79 makes sense in allowing investment bankers to focus on more pertinent test questions,  do the principal requirements for a boutique (i.e. 3 person) investment banking shop remain the same.  In other words,  is a small shop doing only investment banking still required to  be a BD with series 24 and series 27 registered principals which are tested extensively on managing a full Reg Rep not a Ltd Rep as in series 79?  Thanks!

Answer: I believe you are asking whether a small BD, which is only engages in investment banking activities, needs to continue to have a General Securities Profession (Series 24) and a Financial and Operations Principal (Series 27) – if so, then yes.  Additionally, such a firm will need to make sure that the Series 24 licensed principal also has a Series 79 license.  Generally all Series 24s will have the Series 7 as well so the Series 24 principal will need to opt-in to the Series 79 license prior by May 3, 2010.

To opt-in, a Series 7 licensed representative or principal will need to amend their Form U4 to request the Investment Banking representation.  The opt-in period will not begin until November 2, 2009 and will run until May 3, 2010.  After May 3, 2010, if a Series 7 licensed individual has not opted-in to the Series 79, then the individual will need to take the exam in prior to participating in investment banking activities.  The Form U4 will be amended to include this new registration category.

—-

Question: I have been a business brokers in [state] under the Real Estate license. Will I be required [to have] a Series 79 license in order to continue my [business] broker practice whereby assets are sold through every transaction?  Thanks.

Answer: This question is basically asking whether a business broker will need to be registered as a broker-dealer if the broker is only advising on the sale of assets (and not the securities of a company).  This question is fact specific and the answer will depend on the specific facts of the situation and the various state laws which may be implicated.  You should discuss this issue with an attorney.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start 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 Series 79 or investment banking activities, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

CFTC to Discuss Cap and Trade Regulation

Carbon Emission Trading Likely to See Future Regulation

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill which was passed in Congress earlier this year (currently waiting for Senate approval) has had a number of interested parties discussing what cap and trade regulation in the U.S. will look like and how the various government agencies will regulate the new system.  The CFTC is jockeying for position to be the agency to regulate the carbon emission markets and the CFTC Advisory Comittee is meeting to discuss the manner in which the agency may regulate the markets.   We will report any news on this event and will continue to report how the cap and trade legislation will fit into the alternative investment industry and how it may affect hedge funds.

The CFTC press release is reprinted in full below and can be found here.

****

Release: 5716-09
For Release: September 14, 2009

CFTC Advisory Committee to Discuss Energy and Environmental Markets

Committee to provide views on emissions trading markets and relevant energy issues.

Washington, DC – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) will convene the second meeting of its expanded Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee (EEMAC) at 8:00 a.m. EDT, on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at the CFTC’s New York Regional Office, 140 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005.

The Committee will focus on recent CFTC hearings on position limits and hedge exemptions, regulatory reform and legislative proposals, and carbon and other emissions trading markets.

Bart Chilton, the Committee’s Chair, stated that “As Congress once again takes up the important topic of cap and trade legislation, the issue of regulatory oversight in these markets becomes even more critical. The CFTC has a longstanding history of federal regulation of derivatives trading—from monitoring exchange activity to ensuring financial responsibility to carrying out disciplinary and enforcement actions, and it’s very important to have the federal oversight of the entire market as seamless as possible. These markets will be so big, and their impact so large, that the oversight needs to be done right—from the outset.”

The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight will present an update on energy and environmental markets, the Office of Legislative Affairs will present an update on current legislation and several Committee members will present their views on specific issues. The Commission has invited staff from other federal agencies to attend as observers.

The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be webcast via the internet and audio of the hearing will be available via a listen-only conference call. Individuals may also view the hearing via teleconference at the Commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.; and the Commission’s Chicago Regional Office, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100.

What: Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee Meeting

Location: CFTC New York Regional Office, Hearing Room, 140 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005

Date: September 16, 2009

Time: 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. EDT

Viewing/Listening Information:

The CFTC has made available the following options to access the hearing:

1. Watch a live broadcast of the meeting via Webcast on www.cftc.gov.

2. Call in to a toll-free telephone line to connect to a live audio feed.

Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. Conference call information is listed below:

Domestic Toll Free: (888) 691-4252
International Toll: (404) 537-3379
The conference ID: 20577008
Call leader name: Bart Chilton
Last Updated: September 14, 2009

****

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.  Mr. Mallon is also helps managers to register with the regulatory bodies including the SEC and CFTC.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you need to register with the SEC or CFTC, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

SEC Budget to Double Under Schumer Proposal

Embarrassed Agency Would Get Much Needed Funding

“The SEC’s failure to catch Bernie Madoff shows a level of incompetence unseen since FEMA’s handling of Hurricane Katrina” — Charles Schumer

To say that the SEC is or should be embarrassed about the Madoff scandal is an understatement (please see our most recent discussion on the SEC and Madoff).  However, we have to recognize that the SEC has always been (and potentially always will be) hampered by a limited government budget.  Budget size affects the ability of the SEC to be an effective enforcer in a number of key ways – not the least of which is the SEC’s (in)ability to train and retain staff who are able to understand the nuance and intricacies of the investment management industry.  The budget issue may soon become a non-issue if a proposal by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer makes its way through congress.  The Schumer proposal would provide the SEC with badly needed additional funding by allowing the agency to collect fees from the institutions it oversees.  According to Schumer’s press release, reprinted in full below, “In 2007, though the SEC brought in $1.54 billion in fees, it secured just $881.6 million in funding. Had the agency simply been able to hold onto all the fees it collected, it would have represented a 75 percent increase over the budget it was allotted through the appropriations process.”

We fully stand behind the Schumer proposal and believe that the SEC needs significantly more funding (than it currently receives) in order to do its job effectively.  Additional funding is also needed because of the likely increase of the scope of the SEC’s oversight responsibilities.  As we have reported before President Obama is calling for increased financial regulation and members of the Senate and Congress have been quick to propose a handful of bills which would completely burden the SEC if it was not appropriated more funds.  We also would like to point out that the CFTC has similar budget concerns and should also be appropratiated more funds.

We urge Congress to move forward with the Schumer proposal and to pass a similar bill for the benefit of the CFTC.

****

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 3, 2009

IN WAKE OF EXPLOSIVE REPORT ON FAILURE TO CATCH MADOFF… SCHUMER PROPOSES ALLOWING SEC TO KEEP ALL FEES IT COLLECTS IN ORDER TO AFFORD BETTER-TRAINED PERSONNEL—LEGISLATION COULD RESULT IN NEAR-DOUBLING OF AGENCY BUDGET

Yesterday’s Inspector General Report Faulted SEC
Staff’s Lack of Expertise and Experience For Failure To Discover Madoff Ponzi Scheme

Schumer’s Proposal Would Give SEC Access To Millions In Badly-Needed Funds To Recruit And Retain Higher-Caliber Examiners

Schumer Bill Would Treat Investor Protection Agency Like Fed and FDIC, Which are Already Allowed To Keep Fees They Collect

On the heels of an explosive independent report that blamed the failure to catch Bernie Madoff’s fraud scheme on widespread incompetence at the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced Thursday that he is drafting legislation to allow the agency to keep all of the fees it collects so it can afford to recruit and retain better-trained personnel.

Schumer’s proposal, to be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, would, on average, bolster the SEC’s budget by hundreds of millions on an annual basis, enabling the agency to attract professionals with the expertise required to uncover complex financial fraud. In recent years, the size of the financial markets has grown rapidly while the SEC’s budget has remained essentially flat. The new funding scheme Schumer is proposing would treat the SEC in the same way as Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, both of which are funded through fees it collects from institutions it oversees.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has already signaled her support for Schumer’s proposal.

“The SEC’s failure to catch Bernie Madoff shows a level of incompetence unseen since FEMA’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. It is clear the SEC needs a bigger, more reliable funding stream so it can retain and recruit the top talent that has fled the agency of late,” Schumer said. “Under the current system, the agency’s rank-and-file personnel are struggling to keep up with the more sophisticated actors in the market. We cannot keep starving the SEC’s budget or the agency will remain a shadow of its former self.”

Schumer’s proposal comes after the SEC released a damning report by the Inspector General yesterday. According to a summary of the report, the SEC had enough evidence against Madoff to merit an investigation into the dealings of his investment firm, but the agency simply didn’t see what was happening right in front of them. The report repeatedly cites the lack of experience and expertise of the SEC personnel assigned to investigate Madoff, finding that they “failed to appreciate the significance of the analysis” in the complaints about Madoff and “failed to follow up on inconsistencies.”

Schumer said the agency’s ability to retain experienced personnel is an ongoing problem since Wall Street firms are increasingly able to lure the agency’s experts with higher salaries. Schumer said the SEC’s chronic under-funding must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Currently, the SEC raises millions more dollars every year in registration and transaction fees (not including enforcement penalties or settlements) than it is allocated through the appropriations process, but its budget is limited to the amount approved by Congress.  In 2007, though the SEC brought in $1.54 billion in fees, it secured just $881.6 million in funding. Had the agency simply been able to hold onto all the fees it collected, it would have represented a 75 percent increase over the budget it was allotted through the appropriations process.

The SEC is one of only two financial regulators in the U.S. that must go through the annual Congressional appropriations process.  U.S. banking regulators such as the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, on the other hand, can use what they collect in fees, deposit insurance and interest income to fund their operations.

Under Schumer’s proposal, the SEC will fund its own operations by using the transaction and registration fees it collects in place of a Congressionally-mandated budget.  Self-funding will give the SEC access to millions more than is allocated through the Congressional appropriations process. Shapiro has suggested that hiring hundreds of new employees over the next few years for the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Compliance, Inspection, and Examination will give the SEC the human and technological resources it needs to keep up with a vast and expanding market.

The SEC’s staff of approximately 3,650 oversees 35,000 entities.  Securities trading volume has increased 261% between 2003 and 2008, but the SEC staff grew only 15% over that period of time.  The number of registered investment advisors has grown by 47%, and the assets they manage have increased by 105%.  Meanwhile, the SEC examination staff charged with overseeing this portion of the financial system has grown by only 13% in that same time.  The number of tips and complaints received by the SEC has increased by 146%, but the enforcement staff has expanded by only 23%.  The SEC does not have the technology to track such a large market with so many players, and currently the SEC has limited capabilities to analyze data and identify market and trading risk.
###

****

Other hedge fund law articles related to increased hedge fund regulation:

Outstanding Congressional Bills increasing financial regulation:

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, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Obama on Financial Reform

President Discusses Future Financial Regulations in Advance of G20

Earlier today President Obama gave a speech in New York discussing the administration’s future plan for greater regulation of the financial markets in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008/2009.  Speaking strongly the President said:

So I want everybody here to hear my words:  We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.

And we intend to pass regulatory reform through Congress.

Of course no political speech about the financial crisis will fail to take a swipe at the hedge fund industry.  Obama took this opportunity to say that hedge funds “can operate outside of the regulatory system altogether.” Oft-repeated statements like these not only grossly mischaracterize the current regulatory system, but also unjustly serve to cast hedge funds as a progenitors of the financial crisis. [HFLB Note to President Obama – if you give me a call I am happy to give you a brief overview of how hedge funds are currently regulated under the securities laws.]

While there is really nothing new in this speech, it does drive home that increased financial regulation is likely coming soon.  I have reprinted the entire speech below and it can also be found here.

****

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 14, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON FINANCIAL RESCUE AND REFORM

Federal Hall
New York, New York

11:59 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  It is wonderful to be back in New York after having just been here last week.  It is a beautiful day and we have some extraordinary guests here in the Hall today.  I just want to mention a few.

First of all from my economic team, somebody who I think has done extraordinary work on behalf of all Americans and has helped to strengthen our financial system immeasurably, Secretary Tim Geithner — please give him a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Somebody who is continually guiding me and keeping me straight on the numbers, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer is here.  (Applause.)  We have an extraordinary economic recovery board and as chairman somebody who knows more about the financial markets and the economy generally than just about anybody in this country, Paul Volcker.  Thank you, Paul.  (Applause.)  The outstanding mayor of the city of New York, Mr. Michael Bloomberg.  (Applause.)  We have Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is here, as well; thank you.  (Applause.)

We have a host of members of Congress, but there’s one that I have to single out because he is going to be helping to shape the agenda going forward to make sure that we have one of the strongest, most dynamic, and most innovative financial markets in the world for many years to come, and that’s my good friend, Barney Frank.  (Applause.)  I also want to thank our hosts from the National Park Service here at Federal Hall and all the other outstanding public officials who are here.

Thanks for being here.  Thank you for your warm welcome.  It’s a privilege to be in historic Federal Hall.  It was here more than two centuries ago that our first Congress served and our first President was inaugurated.  And I just had a chance to glance at the Bible upon which George Washington took his oath.  It was here, in the early days of the Republic, that Hamilton and Jefferson debated how best to administer a young economy and ensure that our nation rewarded the talents and drive of its people.  And two centuries later, we still grapple with these questions — questions made more acute in moments of crisis.

It was one year ago today that we experienced just such a crisis.  As investors and pension-holders watched with dread and dismay, and after a series of emergency meetings often conducted in the dead of the night, several of the world’s largest and oldest financial institutions had fallen, either bankrupt, bought, or bailed out:  Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia.  A week before this began, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been taken over by the government.  Other large firms teetered on the brink of insolvency.  Credit markets froze as banks refused to lend not only to families and businesses, but to one another.  Five trillion dollars of Americans’ household wealth evaporated in the span of just three months.  That was just one year ago.

Congress and the previous administration took difficult but necessary action in the days and months that followed.  Nonetheless, when this administration walked through the door in January, the situation remained urgent.  The markets had fallen sharply; credit was not flowing.  It was feared that the largest banks — those that remained standing — had too little capital and far too much exposure to risky loans.  And the consequences had spread far beyond the streets of lower Manhattan.  This was no longer just a financial crisis; it had become a full-blown economic crisis, with home prices sinking and businesses struggling to access affordable credit, and the economy shedding an average of 700,000 jobs every single month.

We could not separate what was happening in the corridors of our financial institutions from what was happening on the factory floors and around the kitchen tables.  Home foreclosures linked those who took out home loans and those who repackaged those loans as securities.  A lack of access to affordable credit threatened the health of large firms and small businesses, as well as all those whose jobs depended on them.  And a weakened financial system weakened the broader economy, which in turn further weakened the financial system.

So the only way to address successfully any of these challenges was to address them together.  And this administration, under the outstanding leadership of Tim Geithner and Christy Romer and Larry Summers and others, moved quickly on all fronts, initializing a financial — a financial stability plan to rescue the system from the crisis and restart lending for all those affected by the crisis.  By opening and examining the books of large financial firms, we helped restore the availability of two things that had been in short supply:  capital and confidence.  By taking aggressive and innovative steps in credit markets, we spurred lending not just to banks, but to folks looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses.  Our home ownership plan has helped responsible homeowners refinance to stem the tide of lost homes and lost home values.

And the recovery plan is providing help to the unemployed and tax relief for working families, all the while spurring consumer spending.  It’s prevented layoffs of tens of thousands of teachers and police officers and other essential public servants.  And thousands of recovery projects are underway all across America, including right here in New York City, putting people to work building wind turbines and solar panels, renovating schools and hospitals, repairing our nation’s roads and bridges.

Eight months later, the work of recovery continues.  And though I will never be satisfied while people are out of work and our financial system is weakened, we can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break.  In fact, while there continues to be a need for government involvement to stabilize the financial system, that necessity is waning.  After months in which public dollars were flowing into our financial system, we’re finally beginning to see money flowing back to taxpayers.  This doesn’t mean taxpayers will escape the worst financial crisis in decades entirely unscathed.  But banks have repaid more than $70 billion, and in those cases where the government’s stakes have been sold completely, taxpayers have actually earned a 17 percent return on their investment.  Just a few months ago, many experts from across the ideological spectrum feared that ensuring financial stability would require even more tax dollars.  Instead, we’ve been able to eliminate a $250 billion reserve included in our budget because that fear has not been realized.

While full recovery of the financial system will take a great deal more time and work, the growing stability resulting from these interventions means we’re beginning to return to normalcy.  But here’s what I want to emphasize today:  Normalcy cannot lead to complacency.

Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment.  Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we’re still recovering, they’re choosing to ignore those lessons.  I’m convinced they do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s.  So I want everybody here to hear my words:  We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.  Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

And that’s why we need strong rules of the road to guard against the kind of systemic risks that we’ve seen.  And we have a responsibility to write and enforce these rules to protect consumers of financial products, to protect taxpayers, and to protect our economy as a whole.  Yes, there must — these rules must be developed in a way that doesn’t stifle innovation and enterprise.  And I want to say very clearly here today, we want to work with the financial industry to achieve that end.  But the old ways that led to this crisis cannot stand.  And to the extent that some have so readily returned to them underscores the need for change and change now.  History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

So what we’re calling for is for the financial industry to join us in a constructive effort to update the rules and regulatory structure to meet the challenges of this new century.  That is what my administration seeks to do.  We’ve sought ideas and input from industry leaders and policy experts, academics, consumer advocates, and the broader public.  And we’ve worked closely with leaders in the Senate and the House, including not only Barney, but also Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby, and Barney is already working with his counterpart, Sheldon [sic] Bachus.  And we intend to pass regulatory reform through Congress.

And taken together, we’re proposing the most ambitious overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression.  But I want to emphasize that these reforms are rooted in a simple principle:  We ought to set clear rules of the road that promote transparency and accountability.  That’s how we’ll make certain that markets foster responsibility, not recklessness.  That’s how we’ll make certain that markets reward those who compete honestly and vigorously within the system, instead of those who are trying to game the system.

So let me outline specifically what we’re talking about.  First, we’re proposing new rules to protect consumers and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to enforce those rules.  (Applause.)  This crisis was not just the result of decisions made by the mightiest of financial firms.  It was also the result of decisions made by ordinary Americans to open credit cards and take on mortgages.  And while there were many who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford, there were also millions of Americans who signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth.

This is in part because there is no single agency charged with making sure that doesn’t happen.  That’s what we intend to change.  The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will have the power to make certain that consumers get information that is clear and concise, and to prevent the worst kinds of abuses.  Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about loan contracts designed to be unintelligible, hidden fees attached to their mortgage, and financial penalties — whether through a credit card or a debit card — that appear without warning on their statements.  And responsible lenders, including community banks, doing the right thing shouldn’t have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated competitors.

Now there are those who are suggesting that somehow this will restrict the choices available to consumers.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The lack of clear rules in the past meant we had the wrong kind of innovation:  The firm that could make its products look the best by doing the best job of hiding the real costs ended up getting the business.  For example, we had “teaser” rates on credit cards and mortgages that lured people in and then surprised them with big rate increases.  By setting ground rules, we’ll increase the kind of competition that actually provides people better and greater choices, as companies compete to offer the best products, not the ones that are most complex or the most confusing.

Second, we’ve got to close the loopholes that were at the heart of the crisis.  Where there were gaps in the rules, regulators lacked the authority to take action.  Where there were overlaps, regulators often lacked accountability for inaction.  These weaknesses in oversight engendered systematic, and systemic, abuse.

Under existing rules, some companies can actually shop for the regulator of their choice — and others, like hedge funds, can operate outside of the regulatory system altogether.  We’ve seen the development of financial instruments — like derivatives and credit default swaps — without anyone examining the risks, or regulating all of the players.  And we’ve seen lenders profit by providing loans to borrowers who they knew would never repay, because the lender offloaded the loan and the consequences to somebody else.  Those who refused to game the system are at a disadvantage.

Now, one of the main reasons this crisis could take place is that many agencies and regulators were responsible for oversight of individual financial firms and their subsidiaries, but no one was responsible for protecting the system as the whole — as a whole.  In other words, regulators were charged with seeing the trees, but not the forest.  And even then, some firms that posed a “systemic risk” were not regulated as strongly as others, exploiting loopholes in the system to take on greater risk with less scrutiny.  As a result, the failure of one firm threatened the viability of many others.  We were facing one of the largest financial crises in history, and those responsible for oversight were caught off guard and without the authority to act.

And that’s why we’ll create clear accountability and responsibility for regulating large financial firms that pose a systemic risk.  While holding the Federal Reserve fully accountable for regulation of the largest, most interconnected firms, we’ll create an oversight council to bring together regulators from across markets to share information, to identify gaps in regulation, and to tackle issues that don’t fit neatly into an organizational chart.  We’ll also require these financial firms to meet stronger capital and liquidity requirements and observe greater constraints on their risky behavior.  That’s one of the lessons of the past year.  The only way to avoid a crisis of this magnitude is to ensure that large firms can’t take risks that threaten our entire financial system, and to make sure that they have the resources to weather even the worst of economic storms.

Even as we’ve proposed safeguards to make the failure of large and interconnected firms less likely, we’ve also created — proposed creating what’s called “resolution authority” in the event that such a failure happens and poses a threat to the stability of the financial system.  This is intended to put an end to the idea that some firms are “too big to fail.”  For a market to function, those who invest and lend in that market must believe that their money is actually at risk.  And the system as a whole isn’t safe until it is safe from the failure of any individual institution.

If a bank approaches insolvency, we have a process through the FDIC that protects depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system.  This process was created during the Great Depression when the failure of one bank led to runs on other banks, which in turn threatened the banking system as a whole.  That system works.  But we don’t have any kind of process in place to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or AIG or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country.

And that’s why, when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world’s biggest companies — companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding trillions of dollars of assets — took place in hurried discussions in the middle of the night.  That’s why we’ve had to rely on taxpayer dollars.  The only resolution authority we currently have that would prevent a financial meltdown involved tapping the Federal Reserve or the federal treasury.  With so much at stake, we should not be forced to choose between allowing a company to fail into a rapid and chaotic dissolution that threatens the economy and innocent people, or, alternatively, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.  So our plan would put the cost of a firm’s failures on those who own its stock and loaned it money.  And if taxpayers ever have to step in again to prevent a second Great Depression, the financial industry will have to pay the taxpayer back — every cent.

Finally, we need to close the gaps that exist not just within this country but among countries.  The United States is leading a coordinated response to promote recovery and to restore prosperity among both the world’s largest economies and the world’s fastest growing economies.  At a summit in London in April, leaders agreed to work together in an unprecedented way to spur global demand but also to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep and lasting global recession.  And this work will continue next week in Pittsburgh when I convene the G20, which has proven to be an effective forum for coordinating policies among key developed and emerging economies and one that I see taking on an important role in the future.

Essential to this effort is reforming what’s broken in the global financial system — a system that links economies and spreads both rewards and risks.  For we know that abuses in financial markets anywhere can have an impact everywhere; and just as gaps in domestic regulation lead to a race to the bottom, so do gaps in regulation around the world.  What we need instead is a global race to the top, including stronger capital standards, as I’ve called for today.  As the United States is aggressively reforming our regulatory system, we’re going to be working to ensure that the rest of the world does the same.  And this is something that Secretary Geithner has already been actively meeting with finance ministers around the world to discuss.

A healthy economy in the 21st century also depends on our ability to buy and sell goods in markets across the globe.  And make no mistake, this administration is committed to pursuing expanded trade and new trade agreements.  It is absolutely essential to our economic future.  And each time that we have met — at the G20 and the G8 — we have reaffirmed the need to fight against protectionism.  But no trading system will work if we fail to enforce our trade agreements, those that have already been signed.  So when — as happened this weekend — we invoke provisions of existing agreements, we do so not to be provocative or to promote self-defeating protectionism, we do so because enforcing trade agreements is part and parcel of maintaining an open and free trading system.

And just as we have to live up to our responsibilities on trade, we have to live up to our responsibilities on financial reform as well.  I have urged leaders in Congress to pass regulatory reform this year and both Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, who are leading this effort, have made it clear that that’s what they intend to do.  Now there will be those who defend the status quo — there always are.  There will be those who argue we should do less or nothing at all.  There will be those who engage in revisionist history or have selective memories, and don’t seem to recall what we just went through last year.  But to them I’d say only this:  Do you really believe that the absence of sound regulation one year ago was good for the financial system?  Do you believe the resulting decline in markets and wealth and unemployment, the wrenching hardship that families are going through all across the country, was somehow good for our economy?  Was that good for the American people?

I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free market.  I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea.  I believe that the role of the government is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle markets, but to provide the ground rules and level playing field that helps to make those markets more vibrant — and that will allow us to better tap the creative and innovative potential of our people.  For we know that it is the dynamism of our people that has been the source of America’s progress and prosperity.

So I promise you, I did not run for President to bail out banks or intervene in capital markets.  But it is important to note that the very absence of common-sense regulations able to keep up with a fast-paced financial sector is what created the need for that extraordinary intervention — not just with our administration, but the previous administration.  The lack of sensible rules of the road, so often opposed by those who claim to speak for the free market, ironically led to a rescue far more intrusive than anything any of us — Democratic or Republican, progressive or conservative — would have ever proposed or predicted.

At the same time, we have to recognize that what’s needed now goes beyond just the reforms that I’ve mentioned.  For what took place one year ago was not merely a failure of regulation or legislation; it wasn’t just a failure of oversight or foresight.  It was also a failure of responsibility — it was fundamentally a failure of responsibility — that allowed Washington to become a place where problems — including structural problems in our financial system — were ignored rather than solved.  It was a failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks that they couldn’t afford to take. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street, and across America that led to the near-collapse of our financial system one year ago.

So restoring a willingness to take responsibility — even when it’s hard to do — is at the heart of what we must do.  Here on Wall Street, you have a responsibility.  The reforms I’ve laid out will pass and these changes will become law.  But one of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than it was before is to rebuild trust stronger than before — and you don’t have to wait for a new law to do that.  You don’t have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers.  You don’t have to wait for legislation to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote.  You don’t have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains.

The fact is, many of the firms that are now returning to prosperity owe a debt to the American people.  They were not the cause of this crisis, and yet American taxpayers, through their government, had to take extraordinary action to stabilize the financial industry.  They shouldered the burden of the bailout and they are still bearing the burden of the fallout — in lost jobs and lost homes and lost opportunities.  It is neither right nor responsible after you’ve recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity.

So I want to urge you to demonstrate that you take this obligation to heart.  To put greater effort into helping families who need their mortgages modified under my administration’s homeownership plan.  To help small business owners who desperately need loans and who are bearing the brunt of the decline in available credit.  To help communities that would benefit from the financing you could provide, or the community development institutions you could support.  To come up with creative approaches to improve financial education and to bring banking to those who live and work entirely outside of the banking system.  And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not resist it.

Just as we are asking the private sector to think about the long term, I recognize that Washington has to do so as well.  When my administration came through the door, we not only faced a financial crisis and costly recession, we also found waiting a trillion dollar deficit.  So yes, we have to take extraordinary action in the wake of an extraordinary economic crisis.  But I am absolutely committed to putting this nation on a sound and secure fiscal footing.  That’s why we’re pushing to restore pay-as-you-go rules in Congress, because I will not go along with the old Washington ways which said it was okay to pass spending bills and tax cuts without a plan to pay for it.  That’s why we’re cutting programs that don’t work or are out of date.  That’s why I’ve insisted that health insurance reform — as important as it is — not add a dime to the deficit, now or in the future.

There are those who would suggest that we must choose between markets unfettered by even the most modest of regulations, and markets weighed down by onerous regulations that suppress the spirit of enterprise and innovation.  If there is one lesson we can learn from last year, it is that this is a false choice.  Common-sense rules of the road don’t hinder the market, they make the market stronger.  Indeed, they are essential to ensuring that our markets function fairly and freely.

One year ago, we saw in stark relief how markets can spin out of control; how a lack of common-sense rules can lead to excess and abuse; how close we can come to the brink.  One year later, it is incumbent upon us to put in place those reforms that will prevent this kind of crisis from ever happening again, reflecting painful but important lessons that we’ve learned, and that will help us move from a period of reckless irresponsibility, a period of crisis, to one of responsibility and prosperity.  That’s what we must do.  And I’m confident that’s what we will do.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
12:29 P.M. EDT

****

Other hedge fund law articles related to President Obama and increased hedge fund regulation:

Outstanding Congressional Bills increasing financial regulation:

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, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Pension Security Act of 2009

At the very beginning of this year a bill was introduced to change the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to require defined benefit plans to disclose their interest in hedge funds.  The definition of hedge fund for the purposes of the act is very broad and would likely include private equity funds, VC funds, real estate hedge funds and other pooled investment vehicles.  In the event that this bill was passed the DOL is likely to issue regulations providing more color on how and in what manner the disclosures will be made.

The Pension Security Act of 2009 was part of a broader flurry of bills introduced this year which are designed to increase regulation of the investment management industry in general, and hedge funds specifically.  I have included the full text of the act below and have also provided links to the various other bills which have been introduced since the recession began.

A hat tip to Doug Cornelius at Compliance Building for reporting this story a couple of weeks ago.

****

Pension Security Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 712 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 712

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require in the annual report of each defined benefit pension plan disclosure of plan investments in hedge funds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 27, 2009

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require in the annual report of each defined benefit pension plan disclosure of plan investments in hedge funds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Pension Security Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE IN ANNUAL REPORT OF INVESTMENTS IN HEDGE FUNDS BY DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS.

(a) In General- Section 103(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1023(b)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking `value;’ and inserting `value, including, in the case of a defined benefit pension plan, a separate schedule identifying each hedge fund (as defined in paragraph 5) in which amounts held for investment under the plan are invested as of the end of the plan year covered by the annual report and the amount so invested in such hedge fund;’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(5) For purposes of paragraph (3)(C), the term `hedge fund’ means an unregistered investment pool permitted under sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(1), (7)) and section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(2)) and Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17 CFR 230.506).’.

(b) Effective Date; Regulations- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to annual reports for plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, shall issue initial regulations to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

****

Other bills introduced into Congress:

Other hedge fund law articles related to ERISA and hedge funds:

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, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Commodity Pool Operators Scrambling After Surprise CFTC Decision

CFTC Withdraws Two No-Action Letters

In a surprise move the CFTC has withdrawn two no-action letters which is had just recently issued.  Under the new Chairman Gary Gensler, the CFTC has made an about face on this issue with regard to two commodity pool operators who were relying on the no-action letters issued in 2006.  Under the no-action letters, the CFTC provided no-action relief to the CPOs from certain speculative position limits.  According to the release reprinted below, the reason for the change is because Chairman Gensler “believe[s] that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced.”  While we generally believe that rules should be applied uniformly, we also believe that the governmental agencies (the CFTC and the SEC) should not make it a practice of revoking previously issued no-action letters.  We also believe that the CFTC and the SEC should not be in the business of express politicking, which may have been the case here – it sets a horrible precedent for new/changing administrations.  Additionally, we believe that the same “tough line” on position limits could have been effected in a less onerous manner.

The release states that the CFTC will work with the affected CPOs, but the damage has been done – how are businesses supposed to operate when these governmental agencies are constantly moving the target?

The no-action letters can be found here:

****

Release: 5695-09
For Release: August 19, 2009

CFTC Withdraws Two No-Action Letters Granting Relief from Federal Speculative Position Limits on Soybeans, Corn and Wheat Contracts

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced that it is withdrawing two no-action letters that provided relief from federal agricultural speculative positions limits set forth in CFTC regulations (17 C.F.R §150.2).

“I believe that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. “Position limits promote market integrity by guarding against concentrated positions.”

In CFTC Letter 06-09 (May 5, 2006), the agency’s Division of Market Oversight (DMO) granted no-action relief to DB Commodity Services LLC, a commodity pool operator (CPO) and commodity trading advisor (CTA), permitting the DB Commodity Index Tracking Master Fund to take positions in corn and wheat futures that exceed federal speculative position limits set forth in CFTC Regulation 150.2. Subsequently, in CFTC Letter 06-19 (September 6, 2006), DMO granted similar no-action relief to a CPO/CTA employing a proprietary commodity investment strategy that includes positions in Chicago Board of Trade corn, soybeans and wheat futures contracts. Among other things, DMO’s no-action position in both cases stated that any change in circumstances or conditions could result in a different conclusion. DMO has previously stated that the trading strategies employed by these entities would not qualify for a bona fide hedge exemption under the Commission’s regulations.

DMO will work with each of these entities as they transition to positions within current federal speculative limits. The withdrawal of these no-action positions is very specific and limited and does not affect any other no-action or regulatory positions taken by the CFTC or its staff with regard to these entities or other market participants.

Last Updated: August 19, 2009

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start 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 becoming registered as a CPO or CTA, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009

Obama Administration to Regulate Derivatives Markets

Today the Treasury announced that the Obama Administration proposed a bill named the “Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009”.  The bill proposes to amend a number of the securities laws (including the Commodity Exchange Act, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), to regulate the OTC derivatives markets.  A summary of the release is reprinted below.  For the full legislation, please see Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009.

****

August 11, 2009
TG-261

Administration’s Regulatory Reform Agenda Reaches New Milestone: Final Piece of Legislative Language Delivered to Capitol Hill

For the legislative language, visit link.

Acting on its commitment to restoring stability in our financial system, the Administration delivered legislative language to Capitol Hill today focusing on the regulatory reform of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. One of the most significant changes in the world of finance in recent decades has been the explosive growth and rapid innovation in the markets for credit default swaps (CDS) and other OTC derivatives.  These markets have largely gone unregulated since their inception.  Enormous risks built up in these markets – substantially out of the view or control of regulators – and these risks contributed to the collapse of major financial firms in the past year and severe stress throughout the financial system.

Under the Administration’s legislation, the OTC derivative markets will be comprehensively regulated for the first time.  The legislation will provide for regulation and transparency for all OTC derivative transactions; strong prudential and business conduct regulation of all OTC derivative dealers and other major participants in the OTC derivative markets; and improved regulatory and enforcement tools to prevent manipulation, fraud, and other abuses in these markets.

Today’s delivery marks an important new milestone, as the Administration has now delivered a comprehensive package of financial regulatory reform legislation to Capitol Hill.  Less than two months since the release of its white paper, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation,” on June 17, the Administration has successfully translated all of its proposals into detailed legislative text – a remarkable effort in both speed and scope.  The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to pass a comprehensive regulatory reform bill by the end of the year.

As part of the Administration’s proposed legislation, credit default swap markets and all other OTC derivative markets will be subject to comprehensive regulation in order to:

  • Guard against activities in those markets posing excessive risk to the financial system
  • Promote the transparency and efficiency of those markets
  • Prevent market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other market abuses
  • Block OTC derivatives from being marketed inappropriately to unsophisticated parties

These goals will be reached through comprehensive regulation that includes:

  • Regulation of OTC derivative markets
  • Regulation of all OTC Derivative dealers and other major market participants
  • Preventing market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other market abuses
  • Protecting unsophisticated investors

Regulation of OTC Derivative Markets

Require Central Clearing and Trading of Standardized OTC Derivatives:

  • To reduce risks to financial stability that arise from the web of bilateral connections among major financial institutions, the legislation will require standardized OTC derivatives to be centrally cleared by a derivatives clearing organization regulated by the CFTC or a securities clearing agency regulated by the SEC.
  • To improve transparency and price discovery, standardized OTC derivatives will be required to be traded on a CFTC- or SEC-regulated exchange or a CFTC- or SEC-regulated alternative swap execution facility.

Move More OTC Derivatives into Central Clearing and Exchange Trading:

  • Through higher capital requirements and higher margin requirements for non-standardized derivatives, the legislation will encourage substantially greater use of standardized derivatives and thereby will facilitate substantial migration of OTC derivatives onto central clearinghouses and exchanges.
  • The legislation proposes a broad definition of a standardized OTC derivative that will be capable of evolving with the markets.

o An OTC derivative that is accepted for clearing by any regulated central clearinghouse will be presumed to be standardized.
o The CFTC and SEC will be given clear authority to prevent attempts by market participants to use spurious customization to avoid central clearing and exchange trading.

Require Transparency for All OTC Derivative Markets:

  • Accordingly, all relevant federal financial regulatory agencies will have access on a confidential basis to the OTC derivative transactions and related open positions of individual market participants.
  • In addition, the public will have access to aggregated data on open positions and trading volumes.

Regulation of All OTC Derivative Dealers and Other Major Market Participants

Extend the Scope of Regulation to Cover all OTC Derivative Dealers and other Major Participants in the OTC Derivative Markets:

  • Our legislation will require, for the first time, the federal supervision and regulation of any firm that deals in OTC derivatives and any other firm that takes large positions in OTC derivatives.

Bring Robust and Comprehensive Prudential Regulation to all OTC Derivative Dealers and other Major Participants in the OTC Derivative Markets:

  • Under the legislation, OTC derivative dealers and major market participants that are banks will be regulated by the federal banking agencies.  OTC derivative dealers and major market participants that are not banks will be regulated by the CFTC or SEC.
  • The federal banking agencies, CFTC, and SEC will be required to provide robust and comprehensive prudential supervision and regulation – including strict capital and margin requirements – for all OTC derivative dealers and major market participants.
  • The CFTC and SEC will be required to issue and enforce strong business conduct, reporting, and recordkeeping (including audit trail) rules for all OTC derivative dealers and major market participants.

Preventing Market Manipulation, Fraud, and other Market Abuses

Provide the CFTC and SEC with the Tools and Information Necessary to Prevent Manipulation, Fraud, and Abuse:

  • The legislation gives the CFTC and SEC clear, unimpeded authority to deter market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other abuses in the OTC derivative markets.
  • The CFTC and SEC will be given the authority to set position limits and large trader reporting requirements for OTC derivatives that perform or affect a significant price discovery function with respect to regulated markets.
  • The full regulatory transparency that the legislation will bring to the OTC derivative markets will assist regulators in detecting and deterring manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other abuses.

Protecting Unsophisticated Investors

Better Protect Unsophisticated Investors from Abuse in the OTC Derivative Markets:

  • The legislation will tighten the definition of eligible investors that are able to engage in OTC derivative transactions to better protect individuals and small municipalities.

###

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start 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 investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Mallon P.C. Comments on Proposed Investment Adviser Custody Rule

In May we reported that the SEC was requesting comments on the new Proposed Investment Adviser Custody Rules.  The SEC’s comment period ended this past week with a flurry of activity before the submission deadline.  As we reported previously, there has been a general industry backlash against the rule because it does not provide any substantive protection for investors and creates significant additional costs for investment advisory firms – including the requirement of a surprise audit for those adviser which directly debit advisory fees from the client’s brokerage account.

Mallon P.C. participated in this discussion by submitting the following Comment on Proposed Investment Adviser Custody Rule.  Specifically we found that there would be no good reason to institute the rule as written and believe that it would harm small investment advisory firms disproportionately.  Additionally, we urged the SEC to consider alternatives to the proposed rule which would have more effective investor protections with less impact on the business aspects of the investment advisers who would be subject to the rule.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start 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 investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.