Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

If You Say It, You Have To Do It

Posted on February 15, 2017February 14, 2017 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If your marketing materials say that you have “never, not once, taken even so much as a nickel” from potential referrals, you have to put that policy in place and enforce it. Jeffery Slocum & Associates told is clients this. Then some of its employees accepted golf tickets. The Securities and Exchange Commission is pretty sure that tickets to the Masters Golf Tournament are worth more than a nickel.

This was a self-inflicted mistake.

Jeffery Slocum & Associates provided investment counseling services to institutional clients including recommending investment managers. It wanted to avoid taking gifts from those possible investment managers to avoid an appearance of favoring one over the based on anything but performance.

As part of its advertising, Jeffery Slocum & Associates proclaimed that it had “never, not once, taken even so much as a nickel from an investment manager.” The problem was that the statement wasn’t true.

Slocum’s gift policy only prohibited gifts in excess of $100. In practice, employees could get waivers of that $100 limit.

Slocum’s CCO discovered that four employees had accepted tickets to the Masters from an investment manager. The proposed response was to repay the value of the tickets to the investment manager. The head of the firm stepped in and waived off that requirement.

So even though Slocum had adopted a written policy regarding the acceptance of gifts, this policy, as written and as implemented, conflicted with representations contained in Slocum’s marketing materials.

Sources:

  • Order against Jeffrey Slocum and Jeffrey Slocum & Associates

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • No Insider Trading Too Small
  • Cancel-Rebill and Screw Your Clients
  • New Risk Alert on Investment Adviser Annual Compliance Reviews
  • When Compliance Says “Do It”, But the Firm Doesn’t
  • Extending Compliance Dates for Form PF
  • The Massive Scope of Digital Asset Investment Scams
  • SEC Proposes Rescission of Political Contribution Rule for Investment Advisers
  • Is Failure to Disclose Misappropriation Committing Securities Fraud?
  • SEC Sweep of Fake Form ADV Filers
  • New Custody Rule Is On Its Way

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

© 2026 Compliance Building | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme