“These charges mark the first violation of the SEC’s amended marketing rule” according to the SEC press release.
Really, when use marketing collateral that your strategy has a 2700% return, you are going to catch the attention of the regulators. Titan Global Capital Management USA LLC, a New York-based FinTech investment adviser, used this hypothetical performance in its advertisements. Plus this was for a crypto strategy, so it’s even more suspect. I assume this lead the Securities and Exchange Commission to take a closer look at Titan Global and find a host of other problems.
The SEC Order provides great insight into what the SEC thinks about compliance with the Marketing Rule as a registered investment adviser. There has been a great deal of mumbling in the compliance world about the lack of guidance from the SEC on how to comply with the general provisions. The SEC annulled decades of guidance on how to be complaint with advertising. The one substantive FAQ about net performance for a single investment in a fund didn’t come out until four months after the compliance deadline.
So how did Titan Global achieve this 2700% return? They took their strategy and ran it for three weeks against price changes, with no actual money invested. During those three weeks, the strategy yielded a 21% return. Titan Global extrapolated that being able to achieve that return for a whole year and came up with a 2700% annualized return.
Titan Global is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser and put a marketing policy in place in June 2021 to comply with the Marketing Rule. There is no question about jurisdiction or applicability of the rule.
A list of the errors cited by the SEC:
- Titan Global failed to adopt and implement any policies or procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the hypothetical performance metrics included in its advertisements complied with the Marketing Rule.
- The hypothetical performance results were materially misleading. (Advisers Act section 2026(2)
- Titan Global failed to present material criteria used and assumptions made in calculating its hypothetical performance projection, including sufficient information to appreciate the significant risks and limitations associated with this hypothetical performance projection.
- Titan Global’s target audience was retail investors which requires heightened disclosure.
- Titan Global did not disclose in the advertisements that the 2,700 percent annualized return was based on a purely hypothetical account in which no actual trading had occurred.
- Titan Global failed to disclose that the annualized return had been extrapolated from a period of only three weeks.
- Titan Global failed to disclose Titan’s views as to the likelihood that this three week performance could continue for an entire year.
- Titan Global did not disclose whether the hypothetical projection was net of fees and expenses.
- Titan Global did provided information about the assumptions it used to calculate the hypothetical annualized return, and risks, as clearly and prominently as the highlighted 2,700 percent annualized return.
- The disclosures failed to disclose the significant risks associated with the strategy.
The SEC sums this all up by saying Titan Global’s “advertisement did not present the hypothetical projected performance in a fair and balanced way, or in a way that was not materially misleading.”
I don’t think there is much argument with that summary. This is not a marginal case. I think this advertising would have been found to be misleading under the old Advertising Rule. This part of the SEC Order just uses some of the new language in the Marketing Rule to frame the violation.
Sources:
