Tag Archives: CTA

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:

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.

CTA and CPO Registration and Compliance Guide

20 Replies

Practical guidance for CTA and CPO firms

Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) and Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) have been contacting me with greater regularity and we have decided to provide those firms with more detailed information on their registration and compliance requirements. Over the course of the next few weeks we will be continually updating this page with more legal and business guidance for CTAs and CPOs. Specifically, we will be providing information on the following topics:

CTA and CPO Registration – this article discusses the how-to’s of registration with the CFTC. The article details the general requirements for firms, principals, and associated persons. Included in this discussion is information on CTA/CPO exam requirements and an overview of the registration process through the NFA’s electronic registration system.

CTA and CPO Registration Exemptions – while the Commodities Exchange Act will generally require CTA and CPO firms to register with the CFTC, there are some important exemptions from the registration provisions. Review this article to see if your firm might be able to claim an exemption from the registration provisions.

CTA and CPO Compliance Overview – CTAs and CPOs are subject to a number of laws, regulations and rules. Not only must CTAs and CPOs follow CFTC laws and regulations, but as Members of the NFA, these groups must also follow all of the rules developed by the NFA. We will be discussing compliance best practices, major examination issues, major deadlines and the CTA/CPO compliance manual. Being prepared for an NFA examination is of great importance.

Recent NFA Actions against CTA and CPO Managers – the NFA and the CFTC have been quite active lately. In this article we will be discussing some of the most recent actions against NFA member firms. This article will also provide common-sense advice on what managers can do the protect themselves from examination deficiencies.

Important NFA Rules for CTA and CPO Firms – there are a number of rules which the NFA has regarding the conduct of CTAs and CPOs. In general CTAs and CPOs must hold themselves out with the utmost professionalism. This article will detail this and other important NFA rules.

CTA and CPO advertising – there are a number of important rules regarding advertising for CTAs and CPOs. CPOs, especially, must be careful about advertising because of the restrictions under Rule 506 of Regulation D, an exemption that many CPOs utilize in offering their fund interests. Websites will be touched upon in this post and will also be discussed in greater depth in a subsequent posting.

CTA and CPO websites – many CTA firms utilize the internet to advertise their services. CPO firms will also sometimes have a (minimal) internet presence. This article will detail the considerations that both CTA and CPO firms face when creating and maintaining an internet presence and how to deal with internet based inquiries from potential investors.

NFA Exam Requirements for CTAs and CPOs – individuals of NFA member firms will generally need to have a Series 3 exam license and potentially a Series 30 exam. Some individuals may need to have a Series 31 exam license and, potentially in the future, forex CTAs and CPOs will need to have a Series 34 exam license. This article will discuss these exams and the process an individual will go through in order to register to take the exams.

CTA Expo Blog – the unofficial blog of the CTA Expo most recently held in October of 2009.  Information for CTA managers on business, legal and compliance issues.  Included is a directory of CTA firms and service providers.

Forex CTAs and CPOs – the regulatory light has been focused on retail spot forex managers recently. Read this article to get up to speed on recent CFTC and NFA pronouncements regarding this area of the industry. We will also provide information on Forex IBs and Forex FCMs.

In addition to the above topics we are hoping to add others over time. We welcome all feedback and encourage you to leave comments below. We will also attempt to answer CTA and CPO frequently asked questions.

If you are a manager or firm that needs to register as a CTA or CPO, or if you are contemplating registration, please contact Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP at 415-868-5345.

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:

****

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.

NFA Proposes New Amendments to Bylaw Governing NFA Membership

Leave a reply

Proposes Amendments to Bylaw 301(a)(iii)

On June 9th, 2009, the National Futures Association (NFA)  submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(ii) regarding eligibility for membership.  The proposed addition states that if any member fails to have at least one principal that is registered as an “associated person”, the NFA shall deem that member’s failure to be a request to withdraw from NFA membership and shall notify that member accordingly. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that NFA has jurisdiction over at least one principal of every member, and the proposed amendment calls for an assumption of membership withdrawal for any member that terminates its last associated person or principal.

The full NFA proposal can be viewed below.

****

June 9, 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: Eligibility for Membership: Proposed Amendments to NFA Bylaw 301(a)(iii)

Dear Mr. Stawick:

Pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), as amended, National Futures Association (“NFA”) hereby submits to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(iii) regarding eligibility for membership. This proposal was approved by NFA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on August 21, 2008.

NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and will make this proposal 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.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
BYLAWS
CHAPTER 3
BYLAW 301. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. David A. Stawick June 9, 2009

(a) Eligibility for Membership

(iii) No person, unless eligible for membership in the contract market category, shall be eligible to become or remain a Member unless at least one of its principals is registered as an “associated person” under the Act and Commission Rules.

(1) If any Member fails to have at least one principal that is registered as an “associated person” NFA shall deem that Member’s failure to be a request to withdraw from NFA membership and shall notify that Member accordingly.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

NFA Bylaws currently require that each NFA Member must have an associated person who is also a principal (“AP/Principal”). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that NFA has jurisdiction over at least one principal of every Member. However, the Bylaws are silent regarding what should happen if, after NFA membership is granted, the Member no longer has an AP/Principal affiliated with it. To prevent the situation in which an approved Member no longer has a principal over whom NFA has jurisdiction, the proposed amendment to Bylaw 301(a)(iii) provides that any NFA Member that terminates its last AP/Principal will be deemed to have requested withdrawal of its NFA membership.

As mentioned earlier, NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act. NFA intends to make the proposed amendments to NFA’s Bylaw 301(a)(iii) regarding eligibility for membership 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
Vice President and General Counsel

****

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

Series 30 Exam Information

4 Replies

Overview of Series 30 Exam

The Series 30 exam is a National Futures Association sponsored exam which is required for those persons who are branch office managers of a NFA member firm (see our post on CPO and CTA Branch Office Information).  Generally if a NFA Member firm (such as a CPO or CTA) has a branch office (any place of business other than the main office), the firm will need to make sure that a branch office manager is employed at each such branch office.

Exam Specifics

  • Branch Manager Examination.
  • 50 True/False and Multiple Choice questions.
  • One hour long.
  • $70.
  • 70% correct answers required to pass

Signing up for the Exam

The Series 30, like all of the other exams sponsored by the NFA, is administered by FINRA.  Accordingly, an applicant will need to first register to take the exam by completing a FINRA Form U-10.  After the U-10 has been completed, submitted and processed, the applicant will be “in the FINRA system” and will be able to sign up for an exam time at either a Prometric or Pearson testing facility.  Applicants can determine available times and locations by visiting these websites.  The test is generally given a number of times a day, six days a week.

Series 30 Exam Topics

BRANCH MANAGER EXAM—FUTURES

SERIES 30

The following is a general listing of the major subject areas covered by the examination and does not represent an exhaustive list of the actual test questions.

A. General

  • Books and records, preparation and retention
  • Order tickets, preparation and retention
  • Written option procedures
  • Handling of customer deposits
  • NFA Compliance Rule 2-9, supervision of employees
  • Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan
  • Registration requirements—who needs to be registered, sponsor verifi cation, NFA Bylaw 1101, AP termination notices, temporary licenses
  • NFA disciplinary process
  • Reportable positions
  • NFA Arbitration Rules
  • On-site audits of branch offices
  • Bona fide hedging transactions
  • Trading on foreign exchanges

B. CPO/CTA General

  • Registration requirements
  • Books and records to be maintained
  • Reports to customers
  • Bunched orders

C. CPO/CTA Disclosure Documents

  • Management and incentive fees
  • Performance records
  • How long a CPO or CTA can use a disclosure document
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Pool units purchased by principals
  • Business backgrounds of principals
  • Amendments to disclosure documents
  • Disclosure of disciplinary actions
  • NFA review of document before each use

D. NFA Know Your Customer Rule

  • Client information required
  • Responsibility to obtain additional client information
  • Risk disclosures

E. Disclosure by CPOs and CTAs Required for Costs Associated with Futures Transactions

  • Disclosure of upfront fees and expenses
  • Effect of upfront fees and organizational expenses on net performance

F. Disclosure by FCMs and IBs Required for Costs Associated with Futures Transactions

  • Explanation of fees and charges to customers

G. IB General

  • Accepting funds from customers
  • Guarantee agreements
  • Responsibilities of guarantor FCM
  • Minimum net capital requirements
  • Time stamping of order tickets
  • Books and records to be maintained

H. General Account Handling and Exchange Regulations

  • Risk Disclosure Statement
  • Margin requirements
  • Stop loss orders
  • Preparing orders
  • Proprietary accounts
  • Positions limits and reporting requirements
  • Trade confirmations

I. Discretionary Account Regulation

  • Requirements relating to discretionary accounts
  • Supervision and review of discretionary accounts

J. Promotional Material (Compliance Rule 2-29)

  • Definition of promotional material
  • Standardized sales presentations
  • Use of a third-party consulting or advertising firm
  • Reprints of articles from industry publications
  • Recordkeeping of promotional material
  • Past performance
  • Hypothetical trading results
  • Written procedures for promotional material
  • Supervisory review of promotional material

K. Anti-Money Laundering Requirements

  • Developing policies, procedures and internal controls
  • Customer identification program and recordkeeping
  • Detection and reporting of suspicious activity
  • Training staff to monitor trading activity
  • Recordkeeping
  • Designation of individual or individuals (“compliance officer”) to be responsible for overseeing the program
  • Employee training program Independent audit function

Other NFA Information

The NFA also has this to say about the Series 30 exam:

Branch Manager Examination – Futures (Series 30)

NFA must receive evidence that individuals applying to be a branch office manager have passed the Series 30. However, NFA will not require evidence that they have passed the Series 30 if, since the date they last ceased acting as a branch office manager, there has not been a period of two consecutive years during which they have not been registered as an AP. Additionally, individuals whose sponsor is a registered broker-dealer may, in lieu of the Series 30, provide proof that they are qualified to act as a branch office manager or designated supervisor under the rules of FINRA.

Please contact us if you have a question on this issue or if you would like to start a hedge fund, CPO or CTA.  If you would like more information, please see our articles on starting a hedge fund.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

CPOs and CTAs Now Submit Disclosure Documents Electronically

Leave a reply

NFAs Electronic Filing System Went Live Yesterday

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

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

****

Notice I-09-09

March 26, 2009

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

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

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

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

****

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

Bunched Orders and Separately Managed Accounts

1 Reply

Separately Managed Account Managers May Bunch Orders for Better Execution

One reason why the hedge fund structure is so popular with investment managers is that a single investment strategy can be implemented in one account.  Separately managed account managers, however, often have multiple accounts and need to execute the same transaction in each of those separate accounts.  Not only is this more time consuming than entering a single trade, there is the possibility that some accounts would receive poorer execution than other accounts (if the trades cannot all be executed for the same prices).  To combat this problem, many brokers offer “bunched” orders which allow a manager to enter into a trade (or series of trades) and then allocate those trades to individual accounts pursuant to a pre-defined allocation method.  In this way trades are allocated to accounts in what may be deemed a more “fair” way.

Types of Bunched Account Allocation Methods

In the event a bunched order is not filled at one total price (called a “partial fill”), there are two central ways to allocate trades to individual accounts from a bunched order – average pricing or high-low.

Average Pricing

Under the average pricing method, the broker’s back end will add up all of the buys or sells at their particular price levels, multiply the trades by the number of contracts (or securities) at each particular price level, and divide by the total number of contracts (or securities) to determine an average price for the whole bunched order.  The trades are allocated to the individual accounts and the price for the trade will reflect the average price.

High low

Under the high-low method, the higher fill prices will be allocated to the higher account numbered clients for both buys and sells, and the lower fill prices to the lower account numbered clients for both purchases and sales.

Issues for CTAs and Investment Advisors

Generally, separately managed accounts fit within the realm of commodity trading advisors and investment advisors.  However, many hedge fund managers are beginning to take on separately managed account clients as well.  The central issue for any of these managers is going to be how the allocation process is described in the investment advisory brochure/contract, disclosure documents or offering documents.  Managers will need to make sure that this issue has been discussed with both the attorney and the broker so that everyone is aware of the actual mechanics of the allocation.  Additionally, I recommend that the broker’s back office review the disclosure documents to ensure that the allocation language is accurate and precise.  If the offering documents state one method and the broker uses another method, there may be some liability for the manager.  Additionally, if the manager is ever subject to examiniation by the SEC, NFA or state securities division, this could be a topic for review.

For hedge fund investors, part of your due diligence process should be to find out whether a hedge fund manager also manages separately managed accounts with the same investment program as the fund.  If so, the investors should ask the manager to explain the allocation process for trades.  While this should be disclosed in the offering documents I have a hunch that this issue is often overlooked by many funds – especially those funds which enter into the SMA agreements after the fund has been in business for a period of time.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions on this article or if you are interested in starting a hedge fund.  Other related articles include:

Four CFTC Actions against CPOs and CTAs

Leave a reply

This past week and a half has proven to be a busy time for the CFTC’s enforcement divisions as a number of actions have been released to the public.  The four actions below showcase the unlawful and unsavory behavior of four groups.  Specifically, two of the actions below provide details of two more Ponzi schemes and the other two actions involve misrepresentations and lies.  As we’ve discussed before hedge fund investors have many tools to protect themselves from these sorts of actions.  Simple hedge fund due diligence will go a long way towards protecting an investment.

****

Release: 5612-09
For Release: February 11, 2009

CFTC Orders Former Bank Trader and New York City Resident to Pay $360,000 Penalty in Connection with False Trading Reports Submitted to His Former Employer, Bank of America

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today settled charges against Michael Moster for submitting false reports to the Bank of America in Chicago, where he once worked as a trader, and ordered Moster to pay a $360,000 civil penalty.

The CFTC issued an order on February 11, 2009, which finds that, during a three-day period in January 2004, Moster, a former proprietary trader for the Bank of America, falsely reported to the bank that he purchased 4,000 Treasury futures contracts to conceal the risk associated with large unauthorized positions in Treasury bonds that he established over the same time period, by making it appear as if the long futures position hedged the Treasury bond risk. By the following week, the fictitious trades inflated the value of his trading book by over $12 million, the order finds. The sale of Moster’s unauthorized Treasury bond position resulted in a loss of approximately $12.2 million to the Bank of America.

Based upon the same conduct, Moster pled guilty on September 18, 2008, to a one-count violation of making false entry into the books and records of a bank in the Southern District of New York. Under the criminal sentencing guidelines, Moster will be required to make full restitution of the over $12 million loss he caused to the Bank of America. The CFTC’s order recognizes the restitution made in the context of the criminal case and provides that Moster must pay and satisfy any criminal restitution obligation before his payment of the CFTC civil monetary penalty.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Ken Koh, Todd Kelly, Peter Haas, Paul Hayeck, and Joan Manley.

****

Release: 5610-09
For Release: February 10, 2009

CFTC Seeks Freeze of Assets in Oklahoma Ponzi Scheme Involving Over $30 Million

Mark Trimble of Edmond, Oklahoma Posted Profits, While Losing Millions in Phidippides Capital Hedge Fund

Washington, DC – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that today it filed an enforcement action against Mark S. Trimble, of Edmond, Oklahoma, and his company, Phidippides Capital Management LLC (PCM), with offices in Oklahoma City. Trimble, who controlled Phidippides, also managed a private hedge fund named Phidippides Capital LP, which the CFTC’s complaint alleges was a Ponzi scheme.

CFTC Seeks Court Order Freezing Defendants’ Assets

In conjunction with the filing of the complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the CFTC is seeking a statutory restraining order freezing defendants’ assets and preserving records. Trimble has consented to the entry of an asset freeze order.

The CFTC’s complaint alleges that, from at least 2005 to the present, Trimble and PCM operated a $34 million hedge fund with approximately 60 investors and traded partly in the name of Phidippides Capital, a Delaware company incorporated by Trimble. Since at least October 2007, Trimble and PCM allegedly issued false account statements, failed to disclose the fund’s actual multi-million trading losses, and operated the fund as a Ponzi scheme, paying participant redemptions based on the fund’s fabricated profitability. Additionally, defendants allegedly received over $1 million in management fees based on false reports of trading profits.

Trimble Used Email to Notify Investors that He Had Not Been “Honest” About the Fund’s Trading Results

According to the complaint, Trimble’s activities were exposed in late January 2009, after Trimble provided the Federal Bureau of Investigation a fictitious 2008 year-end trading account showing millions of dollars in trading profits that did not square with actual trading statements issued by Trimble’s brokerage firm that disclosed millions of dollars in trading losses. Trimble subsequently stated in an email sent to his brokerage firm, and addressed to “Family, Friends, and Clients,” that he had not been “honest” about the hedge fund’s trading results, explaining: “The reason our balances are off is because I could not look myself in the mirror and face all of you and notify you that in the last quarter of 2008 we lost all the profits for the year and then some.”

Stephen J. Obie, CFTC Acting Director of the Division of Enforcement commented: “Through the swift action of CFTC staff, millions of dollars have been frozen, which ultimately we will seek to return to the victims Trimble deceived by his scheme. The CFTC continues to zealously prosecute these lecherous schemes, so that as many assets can be preserved as possible as we fulfill our vital mission to protect customers from fraud and abuse.”

The CFTC’s complaint seeks civil monetary penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution to defrauded customers, and injunctive relief, among other sanctions.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Rosemary Hollinger, Scott Williamson, Richard Wagner, and Ken Hampton. CFTC Auditors Thomas J. Bloom, Shauna Wright-Regas, and Lauren Corn also are working on this matter.

****

Release: 5609-09
For Release: February 6, 2009

CFTC Obtains Judgment Against Albert E. Parish and Parish Economics LLC for Operating a Commodity Pool Scam in CFTC Anti-Fraud Action

Parish Currently Serving a Sentence of More than 24 years in Federal Prison for Related Criminal Violations

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that the Honorable David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina entered an order settling charges alleging that Albert E. Parish and Parish Economics LLC, both of Charleston, South Carolina, lied to customers and misappropriated millions of dollars in customer funds (see CFTC Press Release 5320-07, April 19, 2007).

According to the order entered on February 2, 2009, between 1986 and March 2007, Parish and Parish Economics fraudulently solicited approximately $40 million in investments for their commodity futures pool. Parish and Parish Economics misrepresented to pool participants that funds would be invested in commodity futures when, in reality, Parish misappropriated the vast majority of funds for his personal use. Parish and Parish Economics also provided false futures account statements to pool participants and failed to provide required pool disclosure documents.

The order permanently bars Parish and Parish Economics from further violating certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s regulations and from engaging in any commodity-related activity. Parish is currently serving a sentence of more than 24 years in federal prison for related criminal violations. In lieu of an award of restitution and civil monetary penalties, the order recognizes that Parish will be subject to a criminal judgment restitution obligation in excess of $40 million.

The CFTC would like to thank James A. Rue of the Securities and Exchange Commission and John H. Douglas of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina for their assistance in this matter.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Jo Mettenburg, Jeff Le Riche, Charles Marvine, Donald Nash, Rick Glaser, and Richard Wagner.

****

Release: 5608-09
For Release: February 5, 2009

CFTC Charges Minnesota Resident Charles “Chuck” E. Hays and His Company, Crossfire Trading, LLC, with Running a $5.5 Million Ponzi Scheme

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed an enforcement action today against Charles “Chuck” E. Hays and Crossfire Trading, LLC (Crossfire), both of Rosemount, Minnesota, charging them with fraud and misappropriation in connection with a commodity pool Ponzi scheme.

In conjunction with the filing of the complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the CFTC is seeking a statutory restraining order freezing defendants’ assets and preserving records.

The CFTC’s complaint alleges that, from January 2006 to the present, Hays and his company, Crossfire, a purported commodity pool, fraudulently solicited and accepted more than $5.5 million from at least three individuals and a charitable foundation for the purpose of trading stock index and crude oil futures.

Hays, according to the complaint, convinced at least one person to invest in Crossfire by representing verbally and in fabricated account statements — issued on Crossfire’s letterhead — that Crossfire earned consistent profits trading commodity futures with no losing months. However, as charged in the complaint, Crossfire has never had an active commodity futures trading account. Additionally, in an attempt to alleviate at least two investors’ suspicions as to what Hays was actually doing with their money, Hays provided an account statement for the Crossfire pool fabricated to appear as if it were issued by a legitimate brokerage company by using that brokerage’s letterhead. This false account statement indicated that Crossfire maintained a trading account at the brokerage with over $37 million. As alleged, that account is nonexistent.

Furthermore, the complaint charges Hays with misappropriating investor funds to purchase a $4 million yacht, and for other purposes.

“Hays ran his Ponzi scheme from his yacht, but was grounded when the tide turned as Federal authorities exposed this egregious fraud,” said CFTC Acting Director of Enforcement Stephen J. Obie.

The CFTC complaint seeks orders requiring the defendants to provide the CFTC with continuing access to books and records and to make an accounting with information necessary to determine the actual amounts of net contributions and profits or losses. The CFTC also requests that the court issue orders of preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants, a return of alleged ill-gotten gains, repayments to defrauded investors, monetary penalties, and other relief.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, the Department of Justice, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this action. Hays was arrested this morning by Federal authorities.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff is responsible for this case: Susan Gradman, Neville Hedley, Judith McCorkle, Venice Bickham, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.

Annual Reminder for CPOs and CTAs

2 Replies

Commodity Firms Need to Complete Annual Regulatory Information

The NFA recently released a regulatory reminder to firms which are registered as commodity pool operators and/or commodity trading advisors.  The reminder reminds CPOs and CTAs that there are certain annual regulatory items which a firm must complete in order to remain in good standing with the NFA.  I have reprinted these two releases below.  As a summary, the reports emphasize:

  1. Firms must complete an annual update and questionnaire.  Firms must pay of yearly dues to the NFA (which can be done online).  Firms should also make sure that all employees are appropriately registered as Associated Persons, as necessary.
  2. Firms should review the NFA Self Exam checklist to ensure compliance.
  3. Firms should send Privacy Policy to all investors/ clients.
  4. Firms should review and test the Disaster Recovery Plan.  If necessary, adjustments should be made.
  5. Firms should review Ethics Training Procedures.   If necessary, appropriate ethics training should be provided.
  6. Firms should file any new exemption notices with the NFA, if necessary.
  7. Firms should review their Disclosure Document.  As a reminder, the Disclosure Document must be no more than 9 months old and reviewed by the NFA.  If the CPO or CTA firm also trades in the off-exchange forex markets, the Disclosure Document must incorporate the new forex rules which were adopted on November 30, 2008 (see NFA Compliance Rule 2-41 on post regarding NFA to Begin Regulating Forex).
  8. (For CTAs) If the firm places bunched orders, the firm must conduct (and document) quarterly analysis of the of order allocation method.  The order allocation method must be fair and equitable.
  9. (For CPOs)  Firms must distribute the pool’s Annual Report to investors; Annual Report must also be submitted to the NFA.

Many of the above items can be done online.  Many of the above items should be overseen by a hedge fund/ securities attorney or an experienced NFA compliance consultant.  Please contact us if you would like more information on our annual NFA compliance packages which can be modified based on your needs.  We can also provide compliance support on an hourly basis. Continue reading →

NFA Proposes that all CPO and CTA Disclosure Documents be Filed Online

Leave a reply

CFTC Responds by Proposing Changes to CFTC Regulations Regarding Disclosure Documents

The CFTC recently proposed a change to its regulations based on a request from the NFA.  The proposed regulations would require CPO and CTA disclosure documents to be submitted only online to the NFA for approval.  The CFTC is requesting comments on this proposal which must be recieved on or before December 26, 2008.  The Hedge Fund Law Blog will be sumitting comments on this proposal.  We believe that this is a good change.  We may also ask for clarification to make sure that such requirement will also apply to Forex CTOs and Forex CTAs.  Please let us know if you have any comments to the proposed rules which are reprinted in their entirety below.

Continue reading →