Tag Archives: Investment Advisor

Form U4 and Form U5 Amendments

2 Replies

NASAA Requests Comments on Proposed Changes

Form U4 is the form used by Investment Advisory firms to register investment advisor representatives with their firm.  It is also used by broker-dealers to register reps with their firms.  Form U5 is used by both IA and BD firms to terminate a representative’s employment with such firm.  While I have not reviewed the changes to the forms in depth, the summary discussion (reprinted below) sounds reasonable.  We may be submitting comments on these proposals in the future as we discuss with other industry participant – please let us know if you have strong thoughts one way or another on the proposed changes.

The press release and discussion are both reprinted below.  For more information, please visit the NASAA site here.   Please also review our recommended articles at the very bottom of this page.

****

Notice for Request for Comment on Amendments to Forms U4 and U5 and Proposed Guidance for Filings by Investment Adviser Representatives

The NASAA CRD/IARD Steering Committee and the CRD/IARD Forms and Process Committee have worked with FINRA, regulators, and representatives of the financial services industry in developing amendments to the Form U4 and Form U5.

The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment.  On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes. NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this notice includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for 14 days. Accordingly, all comments should be submitted on or before June 23, 2009.

****

NOTICE FOR REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION OR TRANSFER (FORM U4), THE UNIFORM TERMINATION NOTICE FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION (FORM U5), AND PROPOSED GUIDANCE FOR FILINGS BY INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES.

The NASAA CRD/IARD Steering Committee and the CRD/IARD Forms and Process Committee have worked with FINRA, regulators, and representatives of the financial services industry in developing amendments to the Form U4 and Form U5.  The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment.  On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes.  NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this memo includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

Questions or comments regarding the revised forms should be directed to the following individuals:
Melanie Lubin
Office of the Attorney General
Division of Securities
200 Saint Paul Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2020
(410) 576-6360
[email protected]

Pam Epting
Office of Financial Regulation
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0372
(850) 410-9819
[email protected]

Joseph Brady
NASAA
750 First Street, NE
Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20002
202-737-0900
[email protected]

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for fourteen (14) days.  Accordingly, all comments should be submitted to the individuals noted above on or before June 23, 2009.

Summary of Proposed Changes to Registration Forms

The SEC recently approved amendments for Forms U4 and U5 (“the Forms”).  These changes fall into the following categories.

  1. Willful Violations.  Additional questions have been added to Form U4 in order to enable regulators to identify more readily individuals and firms subject to a particular category of statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 15(b)(4)(D) of the Exchange Act.
  2. Revision to Arbitration and Civil Litigation Question.  Changes were made to the text of the question on the Form U4 regarding disclosure of arbitrations or civil litigation to elicit reporting of allegations of sales practice violations made against a registered person in arbitration or litigation in which that person was not named as a party to the arbitration or litigation.
  3. Revision to Monetary Threshold.  The monetary threshold for reporting settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or civil litigation on the Forms has been raised from $10,000 to $15,000.
  4. Date and Reason for Termination.  The definition of “Date of Termination” in the Form U5 has been revised in order to enable firms to amend the “Date of Termination” and the “Reason for Termination” subject to certain conditions.
  5. Technical Amendments.  Certain technical and clarifying changes were made to the Forms.

The SEC approved these amendments effective May 18, 2009, except the new disclosure questions regarding willful violations, which become effective 180 days later on November 14, 2009.  Firms will be required to amend Form U4 to respond to the new disclosure questions the first time they file Form U4 amendments for registered persons after May 18, 2009, at which time they may provide provisional “no” answers.  However, firms must provide final answers to the questions no later than November 14, 2009.

Revisions Regarding Willful Violations.

The amendments modify the Forms to enable regulators to query the CRD system to identify persons who are subject to disqualification as a result of a finding of a willful violation.  Specifically, the amendments add additional questions to existing Questions 14C and 14E on Form U4.  Question 14C, which inquires about SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulatory actions, adds three new questions regarding willful violations.  Similarly, Question 14E, which concerns findings by a self-regulatory organization, adds three identical questions.  The Form U4 Regulatory Action Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP) will continue to elicit specific information regarding the status of the events reported in response to these questions.

Adding new disclosure questions to Form U4 requires firms to amend such forms for all their registered persons. To ensure that firms have appropriate time to populate the forms accurately, the SEC delayed the effective date for the new regulatory action disclosure questions for 180 days until November 14, 2009. This schedule will provide firms with up to 180 days from the release date to answer the regulatory action disclosure questions.  Additionally firms, at their discretion, can file provisional “no” answers to the six new regulatory action questions during the 180-day period between the release date and the effective date.  During this time, the regulatory action disclosure questions will appear in the CRD system in a manner designed to indicate that such questions are not effective until 180 days from the release date and that any answers provided in response to such questions are provisional until such time as those questions become effective.  Any “no” answers filed in response to the new regulatory action disclosure questions during such 180-day period that are not amended before November 14, 2009, will become final, and the firm and subject registered person will be deemed to have represented that the person has not been the subject of any finding addressed by the question(s).  If a firm determines that a registered person must answer “yes” to any part of Form U4 Questions 14C or 14E, the amendment filings must include completed DRP(s) covering the proceedings or action reported.

With respect to Form U5, the amendments did not alter Question 7D (Regulatory Action Disclosure), but added new Question 12C to the Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP. As of May 18, 2009, firms that answer “yes” to Question 7D on Form U5 will be required to provide more detailed information about the regulatory action in Question 12C of the DRP.  For regulatory actions in which the SEC, CFTC or an SRO is the regulator involved, Question 12C requires firms to answer questions eliciting whether the action involves a willful violation. These questions correspond to the questions added to the Form U4.  A firm will not be required to amend Form U5 to answer Question 12C on the DRP and/or add information to a Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP that was filed previously unless it is updating a regulatory action that it reported as pending on the current DRP.

Revisions to the Arbitration and Civil Litigation Disclosure Question.

The Forms have been revised to require the reporting of allegations of sales practices violations made against registered persons in a civil lawsuit or arbitration in which the registered person is not a named party.  Specifically, Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5 were amended to require the reporting of alleged sales practice violations made by a customer against persons identified in the body of a civil litigation complaint or an arbitration claim, even when those persons are not named as parties. The new questions apply only to arbitration claims or civil litigation filed on or after May 18, 2009. A firm is required to report a “yes” answer only after it has made a good-faith determination after a reasonable investigation that the alleged sales practice violation(s) involved the registered person.

Revisions to the Monetary Threshold.

The current monetary threshold for settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or litigation was set in 1998 and has not been adjusted since that time.  The changes to the Forms include raising the existing reporting threshold from $10,000 to $15,000 to reflect more accurately the business criteria (including the cost of litigation) firms consider when deciding to settle claims. This change is reflected in Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5.

Revisions Regarding “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination.”

Revisions to Form U5 provide that the date to be provided by a firm in the “Date of Termination” field is the “date that the firm terminated the individual’s association with the firm in a capacity for which registration is required.”  The amendments further clarify that, in the case of full terminations, the “Date of Termination” provided by the firm will continue to be used by regulators to determine whether an individual is required to requalify by examination or obtain an appropriate waiver upon reassociating with a firm.  Revisions to Form U5 also clarify that the relevant SRO or jurisdiction determines the effective date of termination of registration. The rule change also permits a firm, as of May 18, 2009, to amend the “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination” fields in a Form U5 it previously submitted, but in such cases it requires the firm to provide a reason for each amendment. To monitor such amendments, including those reporting terminations for cause, FINRA will notify other regulators and the broker-dealer with which the registered person is currently associated (if the person is associated with another firm) when a date of termination or reason for termination has been amended. The original date of termination or reason for termination will remain in the CRD system in form filing history.

Technical Revisions.

The Forms were amended to make various clarifying, technical and conforming changes generally intended to clarify the information elicited by regulators and to facilitate reporting by firms and regulators. For example, the amendments eliminated as unnecessary certain cross-references in the Forms.  Additionally, certain “free text” fields were converted to discrete fields.  The amendments also add to Section 7 of Form U5 (Disclosure Questions) an optional “Disclosure Certification Checkbox” that will enable firms to affirmatively represent that all required disclosure for a terminated person has been reported and the record is current at the time of termination. Checking this box will allow the firm to bypass the process of re-reviewing a person’s entire disclosure history for purposes of filing Form U5 in situations in which disclosure is up to date at the time of the person’s termination.  The amendments make additional technical changes to the Forms. For example, they incorporate the definition of “found” from the Form U4 Instructions into the Form U5 instructions; provide more detailed instructions regarding the reporting of an internal review (conducted by the firm); and clarify how an individual may file comments to an Internal Review DRP.

Guidance Regarding U4 Filings for Investment Adviser Representatives.

As explained above, the questions added to items 14C and 14E have been approved by the SEC but the effectiveness of the questions has been delayed until November 14, 2009.  The questions currently appear on the form in a manner designed to indicate that they are not currently effective.  Further, the answers to the questions currently default to “no” and will continue to do so until they become effective later this year unless a filer manually selects a “yes” answer.  The delayed effective date coupled with the default “no” answer is a temporary accommodation in order to give filers an opportunity to determine the appropriate answers to the new questions.

The CRD/IARD Steering Committee has received inquiries regarding how investment adviser representatives should respond to these questions.  It is the Steering Committee’s recommendation that state and territorial securities regulators handle the filings for investment adviser representatives in the same manner as broker-dealer agents who file on or after May 18, 2009.  That is, investment adviser representatives should be allowed to file provisional responses to the questions contained in 14C and 14E on the Form U4 until such time as the questions become effective on November 14, 2009.

Forms.

Copies of the revisions as approved by the SEC are attached.

****

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

NASAA Takes Sides on Proposed Hedge Fund Legislation

Leave a reply

Endorses House Bill Over the Grassley-Levin Hedge Fund Bill

Last week the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced its support of the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009, a house bill introduced earlier this year by Representatives Capuano and Castle.  The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act is one of two bills introduced in Congress which would effectively require many unregistered hedge fund managers to register with the SEC.  The other bill, the Hedge Fund Transparency Act, was introduced into the Senate by Senators Grassley and Levin.  While the Adviser Registration Act would close what some are calling a loophole in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Transparency Act would create a whole new regime for regulating hedge fund entities (as opposed to the management company).  The Transparency Act also came under fire earlier this year for being poorly drafted.

The NASAA support was announced in the release we have reprinted below.  If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to contact us.  Related hedge fund registration articles include:

****

May 28, 2009

NASAA Supports the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (H.R. 711)

Legislation Would Require Hedge Fund Advisers to Register with SEC

WASHINGTON (May 28, 2009) – The North America Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) today endorsed proposed bipartisan legislation that would require hedge fund advisers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (H.R. 711), sponsored by Reps. Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) and Michael Castle (R-DE), addresses one of NASAA’s Core Principles for Financial Services Regulatory Reform – closing regulatory gaps.

“NASAA appreciates the efforts of Rep. Capuano and Rep. Castle to promote the regulation of hedge fund advisers in a manner that will provide greater transparency to the marketplace while not overburdening the hedge fund industry,” said NASAA President and Colorado Securities Commissioner Fred Joseph. “Advisers to hedge funds should be subject to the same standards of examination as other investment advisers.”

Because they qualify for a number of exemptions to federal and state registration and disclosure laws, hedge funds remain largely unregulated today. The SEC has attempted to require hedge fund managers to register as investment advisers, but that effort was overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision. “Given the need for greater oversight and transparency in many corners of the financial services industry in the wake of the market meltdown, Congress should give the SEC explicit statutory authority to regulate hedge fund advisers as investment advisers,” Joseph said.

Joseph noted that the Managed Funds Association, which represents the hedge fund industry, now supports the registration of investment managers – including hedge fund managers – with the SEC. “This is a step in the right direction,” Joseph said. “While hedge funds did not cause the current economic and financial crisis facing the United States, they, along with the rest of the shadow banking industry, played a role. This reason alone is enough to require greater regulation of all parties in question.”

Joseph said NASAA will continue to press Congress for additional reforms of the hedge fund industry, including granting the SEC authority to require hedge funds to disclose their portfolios, including positions, leverage amounts and identities of counterparties, to the appropriate regulators; and appropriating the necessary funds to ensure that the regulators are sufficiently equipped, in terms of personnel and technology, to provide meaningful analysis of this data and to exercise proper oversight over hedge funds.

NASAA is the oldest international organization devoted to investor protection. Its membership consists of the securities administrators in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada and Mexico.

For more information:
Bob Webster, Director of Communications
202-737-0900

Proposed Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act: SEC Requests Feedback

1 Reply

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is proposing certain amendments to the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and related forms. Due to the complexity of the various impositions placed on industry professionals by the proposed amendments, the SEC is formally requesting feedback from industry professionals regarding the impact of the new legislation.

Specifically, the amendments address Rules 206(4)-2 and 204-2, and Forms ADV and ADV-E. The amendments are summarized in the bullet points below:

Rule 206(4)-2: All registered investment advisers:

  • must have a reasonable belief that a qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements directly to the advisory clients
  • must undergo an annual surprise audit examination by an independent accountant
  • is presumed to have custody over any clients’ assets that are maintained by the advisers ‘related persons’, so long as those assets are in connection with the advisory services
  • must obtain or receive an annual internal control report, if the adviser also acts as a qualified custodian over client assets
  • must inform the SEC within one business day of finding any material discrepancies during an audit examination

Rule 204-2: All registered investment advisers:

  • must maintain a copy of an internal control report for five years from the end of the fiscal year in which the internal control report is finalized

Form ADV:  All registered investment advisers:

  • must report all related persons who are broker-dealers and to identify which, if any, serve as qualified custodians with respect to client funds
  • must report the dollar amount of client assets and the number of clients of which he/she has custody
  • must identify and provide detailed information regarding the accountants that perform the audits/examinations and prepare internal control reports

Form ADV-E: All PCAOB-registered accountants:

  • must file Form ADV-E with the SEC within 120 days of the completion of the audit examination
  • must submit Form ADV-E to the SEC within four business days of his/her resignation, dismissal from, or other termination of the engagement, accompanied by a statement that includes details of the resignation

All comments to the proposed amendments must be received by the SEC on or before July 28, 2009.  Please contact us if you have any questions on the above proposed amendments or would like to start a hedge fund.  Additionally, we will be submitting our comments to the SEC with regard to the proposed amendments and would like to know what you think as well – please comment below.

****

For further information regarding the proposed amendments, please refer to the more detailed abstract below.  The full text of the proposed rules can be found here.

SEC Proposed Custody Amendments Abstract

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is proposing certain amendments to the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and related forms, with the intent to enhance the protections afforded to clients’ assets under the Advisers Act when an advisor has custody of client funds or securities. These amendments are proposed as a response to a number of recent enforcement actions against investment advisors alleging fraudulent conduct, including misappropriation or other misuse of investor assets.  Specifically, the amendments address Rules 206(4)-2 and 204-2, and Forms ADV and ADV-E. Due to the complexity of the various impositions placed on industry professionals by the proposed amendments, the SEC is formally requesting feedback from industry professionals regarding the impact of the new legislation.

Rule 206(4)-2, also known as the ‘custody rule’, seeks to protect clients’ funds and securities in the custody of registered advisers from misuse or misappropriation by requiring advisers to implement certain controls. The current rule requires registered advisers to maintain their clients’ assets in separate identifiable accounts with a qualified custodian, such as a broker-dealer or bank. Presently, advisors may comply with the rule by either a) having a reasonable belief that a qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements directly to the advisory clients or alternatively b) the advisor sending his/her own quarterly account statements to clients and undergoing an annual surprise audit examination by an independent public accountant. Similarly, an adviser to a pooled investment vehicle may currently comply with the rule by having the pool audited annually by an independent public accountant and distributing the audited financials to the investors in the pool within 120 days of the end of the pool’s fiscal year.

The proposed amendments to Rule 206(4)-2 aim to codify both of the above mentioned compliance alternatives by requiring  that all registered advisers having custody of client assets must a) have a reasonable belief that a qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements directly to the advisory clients and b) undergo an annual surprise examination.  The amendments also explicitly state that an adviser is presumed to have custody over any clients’ assets that are maintained by the advisers ‘related persons’, so long as those assets are in connection with the advisory services. The SEC additionally proposes that if an independent qualified custodian does maintain client assets, but rather the advisor or a related person him/herself serves as a qualified custodian for the client, then the advisor must obtain or receive from the related person an annual internal control report which would include a) an opinion from an independent public accountant registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and b) a description of the relevant controls in place relating to custodial services and the objectives of these controls, as well as  the accountant’s tests of operating effectiveness and the test results. Lastly, the newly amended rule would also require the adviser and the accountant to inform the SEC within one business day of finding any material discrepancies during an examination that may assist in protecting advisory client assets. Together, these revisions to Rule 206(4)-2 are designed to strengthen the controls relating to the advisors’ custody of client assets and deter advisors from fraudulent activity.

Rule 204-2, governing record maintenance, presently requires that investment advisors obtain or receive a copy of an internal control report from its related person.  The proposed amendment to this rule would additionally require the advisor to maintain the copy for five years from the end of the fiscal year in which the internal control report is finalized. This amendment to Rule 204-2 is designed to further implement safeguards to protect clients’ assets and offset custody-related risks.

Form ADV, which outlines the data to be reported to the SEC by investment advisors, has also been amended to provide the SEC with additional data and more complete information from the perspective of the advisor. Currently, Item 7 of Part1A requires advisers to report on Schedule D of Form ADV each related person that is an investment adviser, and permits advisers to report the names of related person broker-dealers.  The new amendment modifies Item 7 to require an advisor to report all related persons who are broker-dealers and to identify which, if any, serve as qualified custodians with respect to client funds. Similarly, Item 9 of Part1A currently requires advisers to report whether they or a related person have custody of client funds. The new amendment to Item 9 requires an adviser to report the dollar amount of client assets and the number of clients of which he/she has custody. Other reporting duties to be implemented under the new amendments include: a) whether a qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements to investors in pooled investment vehicles managed by the adviser, b) whether these account statements are audited, c) whether the adviser’s clients’ funds  are subject to a surprise examination and the month in which the last examination commenced, and d) whether an independent PCAOB-registered accountant prepare an internal control report when the adviser is also acting as a qualified custodian for the clients’ funds. Schedule D of Form ADV would also be amended to require additional reporting duties of the adviser, including: a) identifying the accountants that perform the audits/examinations and prepare internal control reports, b) providing information about the accountants including address, PCAOB registration, and inspection status, c) indicating the type of engagement (audit, examination, or internal control report), and d) indicating whether the accountant’s report was unqualified.  These proposed amendments to Form ADV are designed to allow the SEC to better monitor compliance with the requirements of Rules 206(4)-2 and 204-2 and better assess the compliance risks of an adviser.

Form ADV-E, which outlines the data to be reported to the SEC by designated accountants, has also been amended to provide the SEC with additional data and more complete information to the SEC from the perspective of the accountant. Currently, the rule requires this form to be filed within 30 days of the completion of the examination, accompanied by a certificate confirming that the accountant completed an examination of the funds and describing the nature and extent of the examination. The SEC proposes to amend this rule governing Forms ADV and ADV-E to extend the grace period within which the forms must be submitted to a period of 120 days from the time of the examination. Based on SEC observations, an adviser’s surprise examination may sometimes continue for an extended period of time, warranting this extension. Additionally, the amendment requires that the accountant submit Form ADV-E to the SEC within four business days of his/her resignation, dismissal from, or other termination of the engagement, accompanied by a statement that includes a) the date of such resignation, dismissal or termination, b) the accountant’s name, address and contact information, and c) an explanation of any problems relating to examination scope or procedure that contributed to such resignation, dismissal or termination. This proposed amendment to Form ADV-E is designed to provide the SEC with the information necessary to further evaluate the need for an examination to determine whether the clients’ assets are at risk.

The SEC strongly urges investment advisors, public auditors/accountants, and related professionals in the field of securities and investments to review the proposed amendments to the Advisers Act and submit relevant feedback that may assist the Commission in analyzing the effectiveness, efficiency, and feasibility of the proposed amendments as well as the possible impact of these new legislative measures on the global marketplace. While all proposed amendments are designed to provide additional safeguards to client funds or securities under adviser custody, the potential ramifications of their enforcement is currently being assessed. Comments may be submitted in electronically via the Commission’s internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml), via e-mail to [email protected], or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http:/www.regulations.gov). Paper comments can be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All comments to the proposed amendments must be received by the SEC on or before July 28, 2009.  All submissions must refer to File Number S7-09-09, and will be made available to the public via the Commission’s Internet Website: http://www.sec.gov/rule/proposed.shtml.

SEC Chairman Discusses Potential New IA Custody Rules

Leave a reply

Hedge Fund Advisors May be Impacted

Yesterday SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro discussed many new SEC initiatives in a speech given to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.  One of the new initiatives involves those advisors who have “custody” of client assets.  With respect to such advisors, Shapiro said:

I anticipate that this proposal will include a consideration of “surprise” examinations by a certified public accountant, and a requirement that investment advisers undergo third-party compliance audits.

The tone of the speech was that of a new gunslinger who has come into town to clean up – in addition to the new custody provisions, she discussed regulatory reform and giving SEC examiners more room to initiate investigations.  Many of the ideas expressed in the speech may be worrisome to investment advisors and investors because the initiatives are likely to add significantly to the operating costs of hedge fund managers who are registered as investment advisors.  Additionally, registered managers may face increase inquiries into their business by nosy SEC examiners which will not go over well within the industry.

Below I have reprinted what I thought were important or interesting parts of the speech; the full text can be found here.

****

Speech by SEC Chairman:
Address to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers

by

Chairman Mary L. Schapiro
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
SABEW Annual Conference 2009
Denver, Colorado
April 27, 2009

…

Policies/Rules:

Enforcement has been the most visible program at the SEC in recent history. But the financial crisis teaches us that there are policy and regulatory gaps that the SEC must also address.

Again, if investors are to have confidence in the ratings assigned to securities, that corporate boards are working on behalf of stockholders, that investment advisers are not running Ponzi schemes, that money market funds won’t break the buck, then the SEC needs to be pushing forward a real agenda of reform.

Let me just highlight a few of these:

…

Custody:

In response to major investment scams — such as Madoff — and a rash of Ponzi schemes, we will be considering two proposals as part of a package of initiatives designed to better assure the safekeeping of investor assets.

In short order, the Commission will consider a proposal to strengthen the controls applicable to investment advisers with custody of client funds and securities. I anticipate that this proposal will include a consideration of “surprise” examinations by a certified public accountant, and a requirement that investment advisers undergo third-party compliance audits.

Also, as part of this package, I have asked the staff to draft a Commission requirement that a senior officer from broker-dealers and investment advisers with custody certify that controls are in place to protect investor assets.

***

Reforming the Landscape:

As a result, there is significant debate about regulatory reform — not about whether it should happen, but about what form it will take. You might say the train has left the station, but no one quite knows for sure where it will come to stop.

Whatever form it takes, I support the view that there is a need for system-wide consideration of risks to the financial system and to create mechanisms to reduce and avert such systemic risks.

But, at the same time, I believe that any reform must not — and cannot — compromise the quality of our capital markets or the protection of investors.

If we cannot show investors that we are looking out for their interests as much as the interests of the financial institutions — then we will have little success in restoring confidence.

Investors need to see that we are going after those who engage in wrongdoing. They need to see that we are forcing companies to be truthful and transparent in their reporting. They need to see that we are limiting risk in areas where substantial risk is not what they’re buying. And, they need to see that we’re rooting out fraud.

In short, they need an agency that’s there for them — and primarily them. They need an independent agency that exists not just to protect Wall Street, but to protect Main Street.

By offering that to investors, we can help to restore confidence.

****

In addition, I have streamlined our enforcement procedures by no longer requiring full Commission approval to launch an investigation. And, I’ve eliminated the need for full Commission approval before negotiating a settlement with a corporate defendant.

Before these directives, enforcement attorneys will tell you that they worried about red lights at every turn — now they see green.

Additionally, I brought on a consulting firm to assess and revamp the way we handle the nearly 1 million tips and complaints we get each year. Because we do not have unlimited resources we cannot pursue every lead — we get about 2,000 every day. But we can do a better job ensuring that each tip lands on the right desk and that the person reviewing it has the necessary skills.

Further, we are looking at improving our training programs and hiring new skill sets — from financial analysis to experts in complex trading strategies. It’s all an effort to keep pace with the fraudsters and the ever-changing financial concoctions of the day.

For me, the progress cannot be fast enough.

When I review the pipeline of cases I see how much we are confronting.

  • We have approximately 150 active hedge fund investigations, some of which include possible Ponzi schemes, misappropriations, and performance smoothing.
  • We have about two dozen active municipal securities investigations possibly involving offering frauds; arbitrage-driven fraud; public corruption; and price transparency.
  • And, we have more than 50 current investigations involving Credit Default Swaps, Collateralized Debt Obligations and other derivatives-related investments.

… and that’s just a small slice.

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

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Drops Ball, Receives Fine

Leave a reply

In what represents an unbelievable screw-up, professed hedge fund due diligence firm Hennessee Group was charged by the SEC with not performing the due diligence it supposedly provided to hedge fund investors who used their services.  According to the SEC Administrative Order, Henessee did not perform certain key elements of the due diligence process which they advertised to potential clients.  Because of the lack of due diligence, Henessee recommended investing into the fraudulent Bayou hedge fund.

A few of the more interesting parts of the release include the following:

From February 2003 through August 2005, approximately forty clients of Hennessee Group invested a total of over $56 million in the Bayou funds after receiving Hennessee Group’s recommendations. Most of those monies were lost and dissipated by Bayou’s principals, who defrauded their investors by fabricating Bayou’s performance in client account statements, periodic newsletters, and year-end financial statements that included a phony audit opinion fabricated by one of Bayou’s principals.

****

Hennessee Group and Gradante, in their capacities as investment advisers, owed fiduciary duties to their clients to perform the services that they represented they would provide and to disclose all material departures from the representations that they made to their clients. Despite their representations about their services, with regard to the Bayou Funds and the funds’ management, Hennessee Group and Gradante did not perform two of the five elements of the due diligence evaluation that they had represented to their clients they would undertake. In addition, Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to adequately respond to information that they received that suggested that the identity of Bayou’s outside auditor was in doubt and that there existed a potential conflict of interest between one of Bayou’s principals and its purported outside auditor.

****

With regard to Bayou, Hennessee Group, at Gradante’s direction, failed to perform two elements of the due diligence evaluation that Hennessee Group had told its clients and prospective clients that it would do: (1) a portfolio/trading analysis; and (2) a verification of Bayou’s relationship with its purported independent auditor. By not conducting the entire due diligence evaluation that it had advertised, and by failing to disclose to clients that its evaluation of Bayou deviated from its prior representations, Hennessee Group and Gradante rendered the prior representations about the due diligence process materially misleading and breached their fiduciary duties to Hennessee Group’s clients.

****

In the fall of 2002, Bayou refused to provide Hennessee Group with the prime brokerage reports that Hennessee Group had requested. However, instead of insisting that Bayou provide the reports as a condition of potentially being recommended, Hennessee Group proceeded to the next phases of due diligence. Gradante decided that a portfolio/trading analysis was irrelevant for a day-trading fund like Bayou, which stated in marketing materials that it held securities positions for brief periods of time and converted positions to cash prior to each day’s market closing.

As a result, Hennessee Group did not obtain or evaluate any quantitative information about Bayou’s portfolio characteristics, investment and trading strategies, or risk management discipline. Instead of confirming Bayou’s results and processes through an analysis of Bayou’s historical trading data to determine whether the fund was, in fact, executing its purported “high-velocity” day-trading strategy and utilizing appropriate risk management techniques, Gradante and Hennessee Group relied entirely on Bayou’s uncorroborated representations and purported rates of return that Bayou had provided during its initial information-gathering phases.

Hennessee Group never told the clients to whom it recommended Bayou that it had not conducted a portfolio/trading analysis on the funds. By failing to disclose this information in connection with its recommendation of Bayou, Hennessee Group left those clients with the misleading impression that it had conducted a portfolio, trading, and risk management evaluation of Bayou and that Bayou had satisfied Hennessee Group’s purported standards. In so doing, Hennessee Group and Gradante breached their fiduciary duties to Hennessee Group’s clients.

I have written a number of posts about proper hedge fund due diligence and am always surprised how haphazardly investments are made into some hedge funds.  Over the past six to eight months I have also been surprised that so many sophisticated and savvy investors would be duped by frauds like Madoff… but I guess if those gatekeepers who are paid to help investors research managers are asleep at the wheel we can’t really expect much more from investors.

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

****

SEC Charges Investment Adviser That Recommended Bayou Hedge Funds to Clients

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-86

Washington, D.C., April 22, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged New York-based investment adviser Hennessee Group LLC and its principal Charles J. Gradante with securities law violations for failing to perform their advertised review and analysis before recommending that their clients invest in the Bayou hedge funds that were later discovered to be a fraud.

In a settled administrative proceeding, the Commission issued an order finding that Hennessee Group and Gradante did not perform key elements of the due diligence that they had represented they would conduct prior to recommending investments in the Bayou hedge funds. The SEC also finds that they failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into red flags concerning Bayou. Hennessee Group and Gradante routinely represented to clients and prospective clients that they would not recommend investments in hedge funds that did not satisfy all phases of their due diligence evaluation.

“Forewarned is forearmed — investment advisers must make good on their promises or face the consequences of vigorous SEC enforcement action,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

“As the Commission found, these investment advisers failed to honor the representations they made to their clients and did not disclose these material departures from their advertised services,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “The advice that clients receive from hedge fund consultants is especially critical when the hedge funds are neither regulated nor transparent.”

According to the Commission’s order, approximately 40 clients invested millions of dollars in the Bayou hedge funds from February 2003 through August 2005 after the Hennessee Group recommended those investments. Most of the money was lost through trading or dissipated by Bayou’s principals, who defrauded their investors by fabricating Bayou’s performance in client account statements and year-end financial statements. The SEC charged the managers of the Bayou hedge funds with fraud in 2005.

The Commission’s order finds that Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to conduct the portfolio and trading analysis that it had advertised to clients. Instead of analyzing Bayou’s results and processes through a review of Bayou’s historical trading methods to determine whether the fund was, in fact, successfully executing its purported day-trading strategy, Hennessee Group and Gradante decided not to perform any analysis after Bayou refused to produce its trading data. They relied entirely on Bayou’s uncorroborated representations about its strategy and its purported rates of return.

The Commission’s order also finds that despite conflicting reports from Bayou about the identity of their independent auditor, Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to verify Bayou’s relationship with its auditor. In fact, the accounting firm that purportedly conducted Bayou’s annual audit was a non-existent entity fabricated by one of Bayou’s principals, who was identified in publicly available state accountancy board records as the registered agent for the bogus accounting firm.

According to the Commission’s order, Hennessee Group and Gradante also failed to respond to red flags concerning Bayou that came to their attention while they were monitoring Bayou on behalf of their clients. In particular, they failed to inquire or investigate when Bayou provided contradictory responses regarding the identity of its auditor or to adequately inquire about a rumor that one of Bayou’s principals was affiliated with Bayou’s purported outside auditing firm.

The Commission’s order finds that Hennessee Group and Gradante violated Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The order requires Hennessee Group and Gradante to pay $814,644.12 in disgorgement and penalties, and to cease and desist from committing or causing further violations. The parties also are required to adopt policies to ensure adequate disclosures in the future and to provide copies of the Commission’s Order to all current and prospective clients for a period of two years.

Hennessee Group and Gradante consented to the entry of the Commission’s order without admitting or denying the findings.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Antonia Chion
Associate Director, SEC’s Division of Enforcement
(202) 551-4842
Yuri B. Zelinsky
Assistant Director, SEC’s Division of Enforcement
(202) 551-4769

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009

3 Replies

Congressional Bill Proposed in House

In January we gave significant attention to the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009 and we did not focus at all on a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives.   The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009, introduced on January 27, would change the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require those managers with more than $30 million in assets to register as investment advisors with the SEC (for background, please see 203(b)(3) exemption).  The Hedge Fund Transparency Act takes a decidedly different route to regulation – it would require hedge fund managers, under the Investment Company Act of 1940 , to register as investment advisors and it would also require hedge funds to submit certain information to the SEC.

The fate of both of these bills is currently in question.  It seems as though Congress and the SEC are waiting for President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner to develop a plan for a comprehensive regulatory system.  While we remain in this holding pattern it seems likely that any regulatory changes are months and months away.

The full text of the Registration Act are reprinted below along with a press release announcing the proposed measure.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

****

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 711 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 711

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 27, 2009

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

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 `Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF THE PRIVATE ADVISOR EXEMPTION.

Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) is amended by striking subsection (b)(3).

Source

****

PRESS RELEASE

Capuano, Castle Bill Would Improve Oversight of Hedge Funds

Requires money managers to register with SEC

January 27, 2009

Washington, DC — Today, Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE) and Mike Capuano (D-MA), introduced bipartisan legislation that is intended to close a loophole created in the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which exempts hedge fund managers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have less than 15 clients. The Hedge Fund Managers Registration Act, would require anyone who manages hedge funds to register with the SEC, and therefore improves federal oversight of these investments.

“This measure would require all hedge fund managers to register with the SEC so that their actions on behalf of investors are transparent,” said Rep. Capuano. “I have long advocated this simple step as a way to better understand how hedge fund managers are operating, and how they are investing the resources of their clients. In addition to providing us with basic census information on hedge funds, this measure can be used to detect and deter fraudulent practices and risky behavior before it’s too late.”

“Hedge funds are a $1.5 trillion industry that account for roughly 30 percent of U.S. stock trading, but also have tremendous presence in other areas of our markets. Without greater attention and oversight to protect investors from fraud, hedge funds pose systemic risk to our economy,” said Rep. Castle, senior member on the House Financial Services Committee. “As we work to help regain our economic health, I believe we can and should scrutinize money managers more carefully and begin to reclaim some order in equity markets. I am hopeful that this legislation will work as a tool to help protect investors from becoming victims. This is the first in a series of reforms I intend to strongly advocate in the coming months.”

—

Contact: Alison M. Mills (617) 621-6208
Contact: Stephanie Fitzpatrick (202) 225-4165 (Rep. Castle)

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:

Washington DC Hedge Fund Law

Leave a reply

Starting a hedge fund in the District of Columbia

In DC, things are starting to get back to normal post-election.  Hedge fund and investment managers who are located in DC, however, will generally need to be registered as investment advisors with the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (ISB).  I’ve reviewed the DC investment advisory rules and have found that they have the standard investment advisory definition and, generally, no exemption from the registration provisions for hedge fund managers.  This means that start up hedge fund managers with a place of business in DC will need to register as an investment advisor with the ISB.  The ISB website is fairly helpful and provides links to good information regarding registration.  I have posted one of these resources below, dealing wih the filing requirements for DC investment advisory registration.  Continue reading →

New York Hedge Fund Law

2 Replies

Starting a Hedge Fund in New York

It is no secret that New York is the center of the investment management universe and the home of a large majority of hedge funds.  For both small and large managers New York offers many befits, namely a proximity to Wall Street and many of the investment banks and also an exemption from investment advisor registration (see discussion below).  This article discusses the New York investment advisor exemption, the Form 99 filings and New York investment advisor FAQs. Continue reading →

Hedge Fund Affiliated Broker Dealer

1 Reply

What does it mean for a hedge fund to have an affiliated broker-dealer?

Definition of Broker-Dealer

We will start off by defining a broker-dealer.  Basically a broker-dealer is the term used in the investment management industry for a firm which executes securities trades.  The trades may be executed by these firms through an agency relationship (commission) with the client or through dealer (mark up) relationship with a customer.  Some firms act in only one capacity and some act in both capacities depending on the securities traded. Continue reading →