Tag Archives: hedge fund

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.

Upcoming Hedge Fund Industry Events 2009

Hedge Fund Events in September, October & November 2009

  • September 23, 2009 – Southeastern Hedge Fund Association Meting
  • October 7, 2009 – Bay Area Hedge Fund Roundtable
  • October 8, 2009 – South Florida Hedge Fund Managers
  • October 21, 2009 – Portland Alternative Investment Association
  • November 5, 2009 – Connecticut Hedge Fund Association
  • November 12, 2009 – Seattle Alternative Investment Association (Northwest Hedge Fund Society)

More information can be found below.

****

SEHFA

Dear Members and Guests:

Remember to save the date: September 23rd, 2009 for the upcoming SEHFA meeting.

Meeting will be held at the Buckhead Club located at 3344 Peachtree Road NE, Ste 2600, Atlanta, GA 30326

The meeting will start promptly at 7pm after a brief happy hour from 6pm-7pm.

The speaker for the event is Mr. Andy Redleaf, Founding Partner and CEO with Whitebox Advisors.  An original founder of the Deephaven Market Neutral Fund and the creator of Whitebox Advisors, Mr. Redleaf brings a refreshing combination of insight, energy and humor to managing a highly successful and creative family of hedge funds; bearing in mind his 30 years experience as an Options Trader.  He graduated from Yale University in three years with a BA and MA in Mathematics.  He was recognized as the top mathematics student of his graduating year.  Mr. Redleaf is a great resource and will share insightful information at the meeting.

Members are welcome to bring guests to SEHFA meetings.  The guest fee for regular meetings will be $30 and will be credited against dues if the guest becomes a member.  We ask that the guest reservation be made by the member.  Please make all checks payable to the “Southeastern Hedge Fund Association, Inc.

We look forward to seeing everyone at the event.  Please remember to save this date as more information will be distributed in the near future.

****

BAHFRT

Save the Date!
Bay Area Hedge Fund Roundtable
Join our leading panelists as they discuss
important topics that impact our industry
October 7, 2009  ♦  3:30 pm  ♦  San Francisco, CA
Sens Restaurant
4 Embarcadero Center
Promenade Level

[email protected]

****

SFHFM

Cleared OTC Products Are Here…

Are You Ready?

The Emerging Importance of Exchange Cleared Financial and Commodity Derivatives

Thursday October 8, 2009  |  Conrad Miami

We invite you to join fellow managers and industry professionals for the SFHFM Future of OTC Products Forum on October 8, 2009 in Miami.

Attendees will enjoy an open bar and hors d’oeuvres for a registration fee of  $150.  Seating is limited, register early.  (Two-for-one registration before September 14, 2009).

Preliminary Agenda and Topics:

* Michael Corcelli, Principal, Alexander Alternative and SFHFM.org – Opening Remarks
* Richard Strait, Marketing Director, Triland USA  – The importance of commodities and regulated futures in your portfolio and dangers of political manipulation in an otherwise secure market
* Tim Pickering, President, Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd.- Commodity Diversification: The tools to participate effectively: The significance of commodities, ETFs and diversification in your portfolio
* Tom Holleran, CME Director, Energy Products – Utilizing “Clearport” OTC derivative clearing in the world of tight credit and demands for increased transparency
* Keith Murphy – Executive Director, Petro-Diamond Risk Management  – Using cleared OTC products in commercial applications

****

PAIA

October 21st, 2009

Location: To Be Announced
Address – MAP
Time: To Be Announced
Panel Event

http://www.pdxai.org/node/2

****

CHFA

Global Alpha Forum 2009 – Green Shoots & Animal Spirits
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Hyatt Regency Greenwich, 1800 E. Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, CT 06870

Global Alpha ForumThe Connecticut Hedge Fund Association (CTHFA) is the premier association of alternative investment professionals operating in the center of the global hedge fund industry. The CTHFA is a professional society open to all stakeholders in Connecticut’s hedge fund industry. On November 5, 2009 CTHFA will host the Global Alpha Forum (GAF) which is the hedge fund industry’s annual meeting and is our answer to the World Economic Forum in Davos. Read more…
Register Now

Registration:

If you were in attendance at last year’s Global Alpha Forum in Greenwich last September, you are well aware of the outstanding educational sessions we offered, including the riveting keynote sessions delivered by both former Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and Larry Summers, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the current Director of the White House’s National Economic Council. If you didn’t attend last year’s Forum, then this is your chance to see what you have been missing!

We are developing a world-class curriculum that will feature:

* A session on lessons learned from the financial crisis
* A currency crisis panel to share best practices on how to adapt to today’s economic climate
* A Regulatory Roundtable that will examine new and pending legislation
* Prominent and riveting keynote speakers

This year’s forum will be held on Thursday, Novtember 5, 2009 at the Hyatt Regency in Greenwich. Early bird registration is available and we encourage you to register now, as seats are limited and filling up quickly. I look forward to your participation.
Read More.

Sponsorship Opportunities

If your firm has an interest in sponsoring the 2009 Global Alpha Forum, please call 866.992.7921 (toll free) or 860.586.7577 to inquire about sponsorship packages.  To complete a sponsorship application Click here .

http://www.cthedge.org/Events/global.html

****

NWHFS

Thursday, November 12, 2009
Registration: 5:15-6:00pm
Program: 6:00-7:30pm

Distressed Investing
Panel Event

Location:
Downtown Seattle venue to be determined.  Please check back for updates!
• Free for Members
• Non-member fee: $75

Event Details:

Moderator: Michelle Celarier, Editor in Chief, AR Alpha Magazine

Speakers:

Steve Persky, Principal, Dalton Investments, LLC

Jonathan Rosenthal, Partner, Saybrook Capital, LLC

Peter Stein, Managing Director, Pacific Alternative Asset Management Company

Fourth panelist to be determined

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.

Inspector General’s Madoff Report

SEC’s Madoff Investigation = Stunning Failure

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General has released a 450 page report on the SEC’s stunning failure to uncover the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.  Below I have republished some of the more interesting items from the summary portion of the report (emphasis mine).  While we have heard many of the details before, the description of the “egregious” incompetence is still almost unbelievable.

To access the whole report, please see OIG Madoff Report.  Chairman Shapiro’s comments, reprinted below, can be found here.

****

Selected sections of the Inspector General’s summary

The OIG investigation did find, however, that the SEC received more than ample information in the form of detailed and substantive complaints over the years to warrant a thorough and comprehensive examination and/or investigation of Bernard Madoff and BMIS for operating a Ponzi scheme, and that despite three examinations and two investigations being conducted, a thorough and competent investigation or examination was never performed. The OIG found that between June 1992 and December 2008 when Madoff confessed, the SEC received six [arguably 8] substantive complaints that raised significant red flags concerning Madoff’s hedge fund operations and should have led to questions about whether Madoff was actually engaged in trading. Finally, the SEC was also aware of two articles regarding Madoff’s investment operations that appeared in reputable publications in 2001 and questioned Madoff’s unusually consistent returns.

****

One effort was made to verify Madoff’s trading with an independent third-party, but even after they received a very suspicious response, there was no follow-up. The Assistant Director sent a document request to a financial institution that Madoff claimed he used to clear his trades, requesting records for trading done by or on behalf of particular Madoff feeder funds during a specific time period. Shortly thereafter, the financial institution responded, stating there was no transaction activity in Madoff’s account for that period. Yet, the response did not raise a red flag for the Assistant Director, who merely assumed that Madoff must have “executed trades through the foreign broker-dealer.” The examiners did not recall ever being shown the response from the financial institution, and no further follow-up actions were taken.

****

At a crucial point in their investigation, the Enforcement staff was informed by a senior-level official from the NASD that they were not sufficiently prepared to take Madoff’s testimony, but they ignored his advice. On May 17, 2006, two days before they were scheduled to take Madoff’s testimony, the Enforcement staff attorney contacted the Vice President and Deputy Director of the NASD Amex Regulation Division to discuss Madoff’s options trading. The NASD official told the OIG that he answered “extremely basic questions” from the Enforcement staff about options trading. He also testified that, by the end of the call, he felt the Enforcement staff did not understand enough about the subject matter to take Madoff’s testimony. The NASD official also recalled telling the Enforcement staff that they “needed to do a little bit more homework before they were ready to talk to [Madoff],” but that they were intent on taking Madoff’s testimony as scheduled. He testified that when he and a colleague who was also on the call hung up, “we were both, sort of, shaking our heads, saying that, you know, it really seemed like some of these [options trading] strategies were over their heads.” Notwithstanding the advice, the Enforcement staff did not postpone Madoff’s testimony.

****

During his testimony, Madoff also told the Enforcement investigators that the trades for all of his advisory accounts were cleared through his account at DTC. He testified further that his advisory account positions were segregated at DTC and gave the Enforcement staff his DTC account number. During an interview with the OIG, Madoff stated that he had thought he was caught after his testimony about the DTC account, noting that when they asked for the DTC account number, “I thought it was the end game, over. Monday morning they’ll call DTC and this will be over . . . and it never happened.” Madoff further said that when Enforcement did not follow up with DTC, he “was astonished.”

This was perhaps the most egregious failure in the Enforcement investigation of Madoff; that they never verified Madoff’s purported trading with any independent third parties. As a senior-level SEC examiner noted, “clearly if someone … has a Ponzi and, they’re stealing money, they’re not going to hesitate to lie or create records” and, consequently, the “only way to verify” whether the alleged Ponzi operator is actually trading would be to obtain “some independent third-party verification” like “DTC.”

A simple inquiry to one of several third parties could have immediately revealed the fact that Madoff was not trading in the volume he was claiming.

****

The OIG summary concludes that:

As the foregoing demonstrates, despite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff’s trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had these efforts been made with appropriate follow-up at any time beginning in June of 1992 until December 2008, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme well before Madoff confessed.

The OIG’s matter of fact concluding statement that “the SEC could have uncovered” the fraud rings hollow, especially for the people who lost life savings needlessly.

****

Chairman Shapiro’s Statement

Statement by SEC Chairman:
Statement on the Inspector General’s Report Regarding the Bernard Madoff Fraud
by
Chairman Mary L. Schapiro
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
September 4, 2009

Today we are releasing the Inspector General’s 450-page report regarding the Bernard Madoff fraud and the many missed opportunities to discover it.

As I stated earlier this week, it is a failure that we continue to regret, and one that has led us to reform in many ways how we regulate markets and protect investors.

In the coming weeks we will continue to closely review the full report and learn every lesson we can to help build upon the many reforms we have already put into place since January.

# # #

A list of the SEC’s many reforms undertaken is available at
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/secpostmadoffreforms.htm.

The Inspector General’s report is available at
http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf.

SEC Chairman Schapiro’s September 2 statement is available at
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2009/spch090209mls-2.htm.

http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2009/spch090409mls.htm

****

Other Hedge Fund Law Blog related to the Madoff scandal:

Investment Advisory Fees | Hedge Fund Performance Fees and Management Fees

Review of State Investment Advisory Fee Rules

One of the things I have tried to emphasize within this blog is that there is no “one size fits all” legal solution to hedge fund formation.  Each client/manager has a unique set of circumstances and will be subject to a potentially different sets of laws or regulations depending on those circumstances.  This is especially true with regard to those managers who must register in a state that requires hedge fund manager registration.  Because no two sets of state laws and regulations are the same, the manager must make sure that he understands the rules which are specific to his state.

High Asset Management Fees and Disclosure

One issue which comes up every now and again is whether or not disclosure will be required when the manager charges an annual asset management fee in excess of 3% of AUM.  Generally regulators will require that certain disclosures be made to investors through the manager’s disclosure documents (generally in both the Form ADV and the hedge fund offering documents).  Sometimes the regulator will require such disclosures based on a general provision (see CO IA fee rule discussion below) or on more explicit provisions (see 116.13(a) of the Texas Administrative Code).  In either case managers will generally be required to make a prominent disclosure to investors that a 3% (or higher) annual asset management fee is in excess of industry norms and that similar advisory services may be obtained for less (whether or not this is true).  While such a disclosure would, in most instances, be a best practice, managers should be aware that it may also be required if they are registered with a particular state.

State Performance Fee Rules

Like management fee disclosures, the rules for performance fees may differ based on the state of registration.  For example, here are how four different states deal with performance fee issue:

Texas – Like most states, Texas allows state-registered investment advisers to charge performance fees only to those investors in a fund which are “qualified clients” as defined in Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act. This means that a hedge fund manager can only charge performance fees to investors in the fund which have a $1.5 million net worth or who have $750,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the fund and through other accounts).  See generally  116.13(b) of the Texas Administrative Code reprinted below.

New Jersey – Many states adopted laws and regulations based on the 1956 version of the Uniform Securities Act and have yet to make the most recent update to their laws and regulations (generally those found in the 2002 version of the Uniform Securities Act).  Under the New Jersey laws a manager can charge performance fees to those clients with a $1 million net worth.

Indiana – similar to New Jersey, Indiana has laws which allow a manager to charge performance fees to those investors with a $1 million  net worth.  Additionally, Indiana allows a manager to charge performance fees or to those investors who have $500,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the hedge fund and through other separately managed accounts).  Indiana also has an interesting provision which specifies the manner in which the performance fee may be calculated – it requires that the fee be charged on a period of no less than one year.  This rule is based on an earlier version of SEC Rule 205-3.  What this means, essentially, is that managers who are registered in Indiana cannot charge quarterly performance fees, but must charge their performance fees only on an annual basis (or longer).

Michigan – Unlike any other state, Michigan actually forbids all performance fees for Michigan-registered investment advisors.  The present statute is probably an unintended consequence of some sloppy drafting.  Nonetheless, it is a regulation on the books.  Hedge Fund Managers registered with Michigan, however, should see the bright spot – Michigan is in the process of updating its securities laws and regulations.  This means that sometime in late 2009 or early 2010 it should be legal for investment advisors in Michigan to charge their clients a performance fee under certain circumstances (likely to mirror the SEC rules).

New York – Sometimes, states will have some wacky rules.  In the case of New York, there are no rules regarding performance fees.

Other Issues

With regard to performance fees, the other issue which should be discussed with your hedge fund lawyer is whether or not the state “looks through” to the underlying investor to determine “qualified client” status.  Generally most states will follow the SEC rule on this issue and look through the fund to the underlying investors to make this determination.

While these cases are just a couple of examples of the disparate treatment of similarly situated managers, they serve as a reminder that investment advisor (and securities) laws may differ wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Managers should be aware of the possibility of completely different laws and should be ready to discuss the issue with legal counsel.

The various rules discussed above have been reprinted below.

****

Texas Rule

The full text of the Texas IA fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

§116.13.Advisory Fee Requirements.

(a) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge 3.0% or greater of the assets under management must disclose that such fee is in excess of the industry norm and that similar advisory services can be obtained for less.

(b) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge a fee based on a share of the capital gains or the capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of a client must comply with SEC Rule 205-3 (17 Code of Federal Regulations §275.205-3), which prohibits the use of such fee unless the client is a “qualified client.” In general, a qualified client may include:

(1) a natural person or company who at the time of entering into such agreement has at least $750,000 under the management of the investment adviser;

(2) a natural person or company who the adviser reasonably believes at the time of entering into the contract:  (A) has a net worth of jointly with his or her spouse of more than $1,500,000; or (B) is a qualified purchaser as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, §2(a)(51)(A) (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(51)(A)); or

(3) a natural person who at the time of entering into the contract is: (A) An executive officer, director, trustee, general partner, or person serving in similar capacity of the investment adviser; or (B) An employee of the investment adviser (other than an employee performing solely clerical, secretarial, or administrative functions with regard to the investment adviser), who, in connection with his or her regular functions or duties, participates in the investment activities of such investment adviser, provided that such employee has been performing such functions and duties for or on behalf of the investment adviser, or substantially similar function or duties for or on behalf of another company for at least 12 months.

CO Rule

The full text of the Colorado laws and regulations can be found here.  The fee discussion is reprinted below.

51-4.8(IA) Dishonest and Unethical Conduct

Introduction

A person who is an investment adviser or an investment adviser representative is a fiduciary and has a duty to act primarily for the benefit of its clients. While the extent and nature of this duty varies according to the nature of the relationship between an investment adviser and its clients and the circumstances of each case, an investment adviser or investment adviser representative shall not engage in dishonest or unethical conduct including the following:

J. Charging a client an advisory fee that is unreasonable in light of the type of services to be provided, the experience of the adviser, the sophistication and bargaining power of the client, and whether the adviser has disclosed that lower fees for comparable services may be available from other sources.

New Jersey

The full text of the New Jersey performance fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

13:47A-2.10 Performance fee compensation

(b) The client entering into the contract subject to this regulation must be a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, who the registered investment advisor (and any person acting on the investment advisor’s behalf) entering into the contract reasonably believes, immediately prior to entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, whose net worth at the time the contract is entered into exceeds $1,000,000. The net worth of a natural person shall be as defined by Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/bos/bosregs.htm

Indiana

The Indiana rule can be found here and is reprinted below.

(f) The client entering into the contract must be either of the following:

(1) A natural person or a company who immediately after entering into the contract has at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) under the management of the investment adviser.

(2) A person who the investment adviser and its investment adviser representatives reasonably believe, immediately before entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company whose net worth, at the time the contract is entered into, exceeds one million dollars ($1,000,000). The net worth of a natural person may include assets held jointly with that person’s spouse.

Michigan

The current law (until October 1, 2009) can be found here and is copied below.

451.502 Investment adviser; unlawful practices.

(b) It is unlawful for any investment adviser to enter into, extend, or renew any investment advisory contract unless it provides in writing all of the following:

(1) That the investment adviser shall not be compensated on the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client.

New York

No laws regarding performance fees for state registered investment advisers.

****

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, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, 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.

Hedge Funds and TV Tokyo

One of the interesting aspects about having a hedge fund blog is that it provides me with the opportunity to connect with many people in the hedge fund industry whom I would normally not have a chance to meet.  I also have the opportunity to talk with various media publications regarding hedge funds.  The two inquiries below come from TV Tokyo who is spotlighting the Lehman crises and doing a report on how hedge funds are currently fairing.  I have received two inquiries now, so if you are interested in talking with them, I am happy to pass along the appropriate contact information.

Any other media organizations who wish to discuss hedge funds or the legal and regulatory aspects of hedge funds are welcome to contact me directly to discuss.

****

Hi, I’m from TV Tokyo, Japanese TV production. I’m working on the story about what is going on hedge fund industory after Lehman crises. For our segment,  I’m looking for the indivisual investor who put their money into hedge fund due to due to improved transparency and liquidity terms.and I would like to ask the investor to have our taped interview in next week. If you know someone, please let me know. Thank you so much for taking your time to read this message.

****

Dear Bart,

I am a producer at TV Tokyo, a Japanese television network. I am producing a documentary about recovery in financial institutions and markets.  Over the past year or two, markets plunged and many financial institutions, including hedge funds, were bankrupted or merged out of existence.  In a relatively brief time, however, certain markets and financial institutions demonstrated surprising resilience and a return to profitability. This recovery is in marked contrast to the decade long process of recovery in Japan.

In the documentary, I will focus on how financial institutions, markets and exchanges have managed to again make profits in such short period. Among markets, I will focus on the commodity market, which has benefitted from economic expansion in emerging markets and concerns about inflation elsewhere.  As part of that examination, I would also like to feature the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE). Much of the volume in recent commodities trading has occurred on ICE, however, many of our viewers are unfamiliar with it.

I am seeking individuals to interview for the documentary who can speak authoritatively about the above topics.  If you can address these topics on camera, please contact me.

My deadline for filming is the end of August/beginning of September.
I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

[Producer]

About TV Tokyo:
TV Tokyo is one of Japan’s six television networks and is a subsidiary of Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei), Japan’s premier financial journal. We produce Japan’s only daily business and economic news programs, World Business Satellite and News Morning Satellite. Their combined audience averages 5-6 million viewers daily, including Japanese business leaders and influential politicians. A recent study showed our audience to be the most affluent and highly educated in Japan. Past guests include: Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda; Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers; professors Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel laureate), Jeffrey Sachs, and Alan Blinder; CEOs Michael Eisner, Steve Forbes, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Jack Welch, Jeffrey Immelt, Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy; investor Jim Rogers, George Soros, Warren Buffett and numerous Japanese business and political leaders.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles:

Hedge Fund Investors Asking for More Meaningful Communication

Clients are demanding that investment managers communicate more than just data

The following white paper was released by BK Communications Group, a company which provides outsourced marketing and client communications solutions for the asset management industry.  According to a recent survey of institutional hedge fund investors, clients largely prefer that managers take the call for transparency one level further and communicate to them in a meaningful way that explains what they’re doing with the funds.  Popular forms of communication adopted by investment firms include pitch-books, websites, and personal contact.  According to a report by McKinsey & Co., providing full transparency and enhancing communication efforts can be useful in client retention and future asset gathering.

The executive summary and highlights of the paper is re-printed in full below as well as a link to the paper.

****

BKCG White Paper
June 2009
The New Transparency: Words

Clients are demanding that investment managers communicate more than just data

Executive Summary

Transparency has typically been equated with access to data (trade, exposure, valuation, etc.), but the financial crisis and fund scandals have led clients, investors, as well as regulators to demand more. Major surveys and anecdotal evidence indicate communication is now in demand. Clients want managers to put the numbers in context, to explain what they’re doing, to communicate on a clear and meaningful basis. This expanded transparency can help retain clients and strategically position a firm for future asset gathering, both by building a brand associated with full transparency and by ensuring that all touchpoints – from pitchbooks to websites to personal contact – are fully in place and high quality. Investment firms must carefully examine how they currently communicate, decide on any adjustments that must be made, and determine whether they have the internal capabilities and resources to execute on those adjustments.

Highlights

  • Communication is the new transparency. Data alone is no longer sufficient. Clients want managers to put the numbers in context, to explain what they’re doing, to communicate on a clear and meaningful basis
  • SEI/Greenwich Associates’ global survey of institutional investors finds investors will “intensify their scrutiny of investment processes” and increasingly emphasize client reporting and communications.
  • Preqin’s survey of 50 institutional hedge fund investors finds that events of the past 12 months have led 43% of respondents to expect “increased transparency and understandable strategy.”
  • Providing full transparency can be a way of helping to retain clients and strategically position a firm for future asset gathering. McKinsey & Co’s major report (“The Asset Management Industry in 2010”) concludes that “winning asset managers will be those who forge a superior reputation and capabilities for service and sophisticated advice.”
  • Communications transparency can be approached strategically, to ensure an investment firm’s brand is associated with openness and clarity, and to establish a reputation for thought leadership, as this is associated with mastery of core competence.
  • Communications transparency can also be approached tactically by making sure that all touchpoints – from pitchbooks to websites to personal contacts – are fully in place and high quality.
  • Many investment firms are shedding internal resources that are not profit centers, including communications personnel, or are hesitant to bring on those resources – leaving them without the necessary skills, or bandwidth, for an appropriate level of communications.

For the full report, please see BKCG Transparency White Paper

****

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

Hedge Fund Operational Issues and Failures

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Releases White Paper

We’ve published a number of thoughtful pieces on this blog from Chris Addy, president and CEO of Castle Hall Alternatives (see, for example, article on Hedge Fund Auditors).  Today we are publishing a press release which announces a new white paper from Castle Hall detailing the various reasons which hedge funds fail.  The press release also describes a new web database called HedgeEvent which was created by Castle Hall and details a number of hedge fund operational failures over the last few years.

I found the white paper to be interesting.  I would imagine that some fund of funds and other types of hedge fund investors would find the information useful.  A couple of interesting facts from the whitepaper:

  • The most common causes of operational failure in hedge funds are (i) theft and misappropriation and (ii) existence of assets (i.e. Ponzi schemes).
  • Long/short equity and managed futures are the strategies which are most likely to be subject to operational failure.

****

Castle Hall Alternatives Publishes White Paper on Hedge Fund Operational Failures: Launches “HedgeEvent” Database

MONTREAL–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Castle Hall Alternatives, the hedge fund industry’s leading provider of operational due diligence, today published its latest White Paper, ‘From Manhattan to Madoff: the Causes and Lessons of Hedge Fund Operational Failure.’ The Paper’s analysis and findings are based on HedgeEvent, a comprehensive, web-based database of more than 300 operational events, now available to Castle Hall’s due diligence clients. HedgeEvent supplements HedgeDiligence, the firm’s existing client web portal.

The White Paper may be downloaded from www.castlehallalternatives.com/publications.php

Chris Addy, Castle Hall’s CEO, said “the colossal fraud perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, together with a number of other recent cases, has made investors acutely concerned by the risk of operational ‘blow ups’. However, there has been little systematic study of operational failure, meaning that investors have limited guidance as to the extent of this problem.”

“The creation of HedgeEvent, which has taken more than two years to compile, has enabled us to summarize key metrics related to hedge fund operational failure” said Addy. “From Manhattan to Madoff analyzes operational events by number, estimated loss, causal factor and by the strategy of the funds involved.”

HedgeEvent contains 327 cases of hedge fund operational failure through June 30, 2009. Madoff, with an estimated financial impact of $64 billion, is by far the largest; the remaining cases have an aggregate estimated financial impact of approximately $15 billion. Of the 327 operational events, 121 have an estimated impact of $10 million or more, and 31 of at least $100 million.

“While operational failures are material – Madoff spectacularly so – it does not seem that fraud is pervasive in the hedge fund industry” said Addy. “Investors should, however, be very focused on the lessons which can be learned from those hedge funds which did generate large losses. Many of these were well established firms which attracted capital from reputable investors.”

Across all Events, the most common causes of operational failure are theft and misappropriation followed by existence of assets (the manager claimed to own fake securities or operated a Ponzi scheme where reported assets did not exist). The most common strategies subject to operational failure are long / short equity followed by managed futures. It is notable that investors have traditionally viewed these strategies, holding largely exchange-traded securities, as straightforward with low operational risk.

“HedgeEvent is an invaluable tool for both Castle Hall and our clients” said Addy. “A lot can be learned from historical events: better knowledge can help investors avoid the losses, both monetary and reputational, of hedge fund operational failure.”

About Castle Hall Alternatives

Castle Hall Alternatives helps leading institutional investors, fund of funds, family offices and endowments identify and manage hedge fund operational risk. Castle Hall’s team draws on more than 30 years of direct due diligence experience and is the industry’s largest, dedicated provider of operational due diligence. More information is available at www.castlehallalternatives.com

Contacts

Castle Hall Alternatives
Chris Addy, President and CEO, +1 450 465 8880
[email protected]

****

Other related hedge fund law and start up articles include:

For more information, please call Bart Mallon, Esq. at 415-296-8510