Search results

1 – 3 of 3
Article
Publication date: 28 March 2019

Wendy E. Cohen, Richard D. Marshall, Allison C. Yacker and Lance A. Zinman

To explain actions the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought on August 27, 2018, against a group of affiliated investment advisers and broker-dealers for what the…

192

Abstract

Purpose

To explain actions the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought on August 27, 2018, against a group of affiliated investment advisers and broker-dealers for what the SEC considered misleading and insufficient representations and disclosures, insufficient compliance policies and procedures, and insufficient research and oversight concerning the use of faulty quantitative models to manage certain client accounts.

Design/methodology/approach

Explains the SEC’s findings concerning the advisers’ and broker-dealers’ failure to confirm that certain models worked as intended, to disclose the risks associated with the use of those models, to disclose the role of a research analyst in developing the models, to disclose the use of volatility overlays along with the associated risks, to determine whether a fund’s holdings were sufficient to support a consistent dividend payout without a return of capital, and to take sufficient steps to confirm the advertised performance of another investment manager whose products they were marketing. Provides insight into the SEC’s position and offers key takeaways.

Findings

These cases are significant for advisers who use quantitative models to implement their investment strategies in the management of client accounts and signal the SEC’s continued focus on investment advisers’ compliance with disclosure obligations to discretionary account investors.

Practical implications

Each manager should consider its own facts and circumstances, and should consult with counsel, in assessing how and to what extent to incorporate the SEC’s conclusions in crafting disclosure and other communications with investors on matters such as adequate representations, testing and validation of models, disclosure of errors, and verifying performance claims.

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

Article
Publication date: 6 November 2017

Wendy E. Cohen, David Y. Dickstein, Christian B. Hennion, Richard D. Marshall, Allison C. Yacker and Lance A. Zinman

To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers…

Abstract

Purpose

To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters.

Design/methodology/approach

Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates.

Findings

While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC.

Originality/value

Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 18 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 19 July 2018

Janet M. Angstadt, David Dickstein, Mark Goldstein and Richard Marshall

To analyze SEC Staff’s announced 2018 OCIE Examination priorities to provide insight to investment advisers and other regulated entities regarding areas of focus during SEC…

116

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze SEC Staff’s announced 2018 OCIE Examination priorities to provide insight to investment advisers and other regulated entities regarding areas of focus during SEC examinations.

Design/methodology/approach

This article discusses the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) published its examination priorities for 2018 (the “2018 Priorities Report”).

Findings

Given that OCIE’s examination priorities for 2017 were published before the beginning of the Trump administration, differences between the 2017 and the 2018 priorities provide important insights into the focus of examinations under SEC Chair Clayton. Investment advisers and other regulated entities should allocate resources towards their preparedness for the areas of focus identified in the 2018 Priorities Report.

Originality/value

This article contains valuable insight regarding the SEC’s 2018 OCIE examination priorities and practical guidance from industry experts.

1 – 3 of 3