Category: Compliance Programs

You know you’ve failed as a CCO when you get barred by FINRA

finra

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority permanently barred Tod Bretton, former chief compliance officer and head trader for Prestige Financial Center, Inc.

“FINRA found that, from at least September 2006 through June 2009, Bretton, working from the firm’s New York office, engaged in a fraudulent trading scheme in which he took advantage of customers placing large orders (generally 1,000 shares or more) to buy or sell stocks. Rather than effecting the trades in the customers’ accounts, FINRA found, Bretton first placed the orders in a firm proprietary account. He would then increase the price per share for securities purchased by approximately $.02 to $.05 above the market price before allocating the shares to the customers’ accounts. Similarly, he would decrease the price per share for securities sold by approximately $.02 to $.05 below the market price before allocating the proceeds to the customers’ accounts. This improper price change was not disclosed to or authorized by the customers.”

In settling this matter, Bretton neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings. Regardless of whether he admits the charges, he is barred from associating with any FINRA member in any capacity.

It seems that Mr. Bretton was a bad choice for CCO at his former firm.

I was also disappointed to see that the BrokerCheck did not throw up a bigger red flag for this type of discipline. After all, this is a permanent bar. The BrokerCheck webpage for Tod Bretton just states that there are events disclosed in the Detailed Report. You have to get to the ninth page to find out that he is under a permanent bar.

I understand the difficult issues with disclosing disciplinary actions, since some may be unfounded or of little merit. Bretton got the nuclear discipline, ending his career with securities. Such a definitive and absolute result should be made more obvious.

Sources:

Taxonomy and Compliance

Compliance often has to deal with a great big piles of data. When tackling a big pile of data, it helps to organize the data into a taxonomy. The taxonomy helps with analysis.

Of course, just by choosing the nodes in the taxonomy you are influencing the view of the data.

I was struck by how hard it is to work with a taxonomy in a recent article in the Economist: In Quite a State. The article looked at the many different lists of countries in the world and the many different ways of defining a country.

The US Department of Homeland Security offers 251 choices when you apply online for a visa-free entry. That list includes Bouvet Island, uninhabited Antarctic volcanic island belonging to Norway in the South Atlantic.

Hotmail offers a menu 242 countries/regions when you register an e-mail account. The United Nations has 192 member states.

One of the most interesting examples is Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. During the days of the Cold War many countries recognized Taiwan as a separate country because it was the non-communist regime exiled from China. Now that mainland China has become an economic titan, only 23 countries have formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

I am always struck by the treatment of Taiwan during Olympics, when their athletes walk behind a generic Olympic flag instead of the traditional Taiwan flag.

Adding an item or deleting an item to a taxonomy affects your view of the underlying data and affects the prominence of that item. It’s hard to “flag” a problem if it is not properly identified.

Revisions to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for Compliance Programs

At their April meeting, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to adopt changes to Chapter 8 of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. That chapter defines an effective compliance and ethics program and has been one of the sacred texts of the compliance profession.

Here is my summary of the changes:

Changes to §8B2.1

In defining an Effective Compliance and Ethics Program, they are inserting a new Note 6 that focuses on the steps to take after the detection of criminal conduct.

First, the organization must respond appropriately to the criminal conduct, including restitution to the victims, self-reporting and cooperation with authorities.

Second, the organization must assess its program and modify it to make the program more effective. They seem to encourage the use of an independent monitor to ensure implementation of the changes.

Changes to §8C2.5(f)

In calculating the culpability score for having an effective compliance and ethics program, they have removed the near automatic disqualification if the bad actor was  a high level executive. You can get credit, provided you meet the new criteria:

  • the head of the compliance program must report directly to the governing authority or appropriate subgroup (for example, the audit committee of the board of directors),
  • the compliance program must discover the problem before discovery outside the organization was reasonably likely,
  • the organization must promptly report the problem to the government, and
  • no person with operational responsibility in the compliance program participated in, condoned or was willfully ignorant of the offense.

Changes to §8D1.4

The amendment simplifies §8D1.4 (Recommended Conditions of Probation – Organizations) (Policy Statement) on the recommended conditions of probation for organizations. The new section consolidates the list of conditions that are appropriate conditions for probation.

Status of Changes

The changes have to be submitted to Congress and won’t take effect until November 1, 2010. (Unless Congress votes to reject the changes.)

Publication of Changes

You would think that the Sentencing Commission would publish this change on their website or publish a press release. No information about the amendment, the submitted comments or meeting minutes have yet made their way to the website for the United States Sentencing Commission.

Fortunately Susan Hackett of the Association for Corporate Counsel and Melissa Klein Aguilar of Compliance Week were able to alert us and publish a copy of the changes.

Sources:

Incentives, Productivity and NUMMI

I recently listened to a great show from This American Life. They covered the story of New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI). General Motors and Toyota opened NUMMI in 1984 as a joint venture so Toyota could start building cars in the US. Toyota showed GM the secrets of its production system and how Toyota made cars of much higher quality and much lower cost than GM.

There are some great lessons in the story for compliance professionals. In part because the story can be seen through the lens of incentives and corporate culture. Two topics that are important to compliance.

For GM plant managers, their pay was based on productivity. They needed to get lots of cars out the door at the end of the assembly line. It didn’t matter whether the car could drive off the line or had to be towed. Workers told the story of cars coming off the line with a Monte Carlo having the front end of a Regal. They would just let them run down the line and out into the yard. Then they were fixed out there (with overtime). The emphasis was on quantity. At GM, the production line could never stop.

The Toyota system empowered the line workers to stop the line if there was a problem they couldn’t fix. The emphasis was to fix the problem at its source and not defer it for later. The emphasis was on quality. (Some of the recent problems at Toyota can be blamed on changing their focus to quantity. They wanted to be the biggest car company in the world.)

In spreading the Toyota system, there was resistance from both the company and the union. The union was opposed because the system was more efficient and would reduce the workers at a plant by 25%. The NUMMI plant was the re-opening of a shut down GM plant. The union was out of work and was more open to change. It was either change the way you work or don’t work at all.

GM had trouble empowering its worker and changing the corporate culture that comes along with the Toyota production line. They thought workers would just stop the line to play cards and get coffee.

Its worth an hour of your time to listen to the story.

Sources:

Making the Case for Compliance at Private Companies

More focus has been aimed at the need for compliance programs at public companies. Of course, that focus has been largely drive by the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley. The other focus comes from highly regulated industries like financial services that require compliance programs.

That doesn’t mean that private companies can ignore compliance. There are many more private companies than public companies.

An article by Corpedia caught my eye: Making the Case for Compliance Programs at Privately Held Companies. (Since I work at a private-held company.)

As the article points out, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not change based on the ownership structure of the company. Private companies would need to take the same steps as private companies if they want to get credit for having an effective compliance program.

Another big reason for a compliance program is not discussed in the article. Under the Stone v Ritter and Midland Grange decisions, company officers and directors can be held responsible for the illegal conduct of employees. These cases follow up the case in expanding liability for company directors.

An effective compliance program would presumably reduce or prevent any illegal activity and shield the directors and officers from liability by showing that the illegal conduct was by a rogue employee.

One factor to keep in mind is that many private companies lack a meaningful board of directors. For many private companies, the board of directors really means the company’s principal. If there is a board, it may consist largely of family members, insiders and company officers. All the talk about access to the board of directors is lost on those us running compliance programs inside private companies.

Sources:

Financial Overhaul Moves Forward

Senator Dodd

With the health care reform now out of the hands of Congress, there is now movement with financial overhaul. Senator Dodd introduced the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 last week  without a Republican co-sponsor [Dodd Goes Solo].

Instead plugging in amendments, the Senate Banking Committee voted on straight party lines to advance the bill as introduced by Senator Dodd. The bill is moving so fast that it has not even made into the Thomas system for tracking legislative activity. The vote on Monday night lasted less than 25 minutes.

According to reports, Republicans filed more than 200 amendments on Friday, but withdrew all of them and let the bill pass quickly through committee. I assume the strategy will be to attack the bill in the full Senate instead of in the Banking Committee.

UPDATE: There were 114 pages of amendments made to the bill. Most look like clean-ups and small changes that do not have a big impact on the bill.

Sources:

World’s Most Ethical Companies 2010 Edition

2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies

Ethisphere Institute just announced its list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for 2010.

Of the 100 companies on their list, 26 are new to the list. The sole winner for the real estate industry is Jones Lang LaSalle. For the financial services industry there were three companies: American Express, The Hartford and The Principal Financial Group.

A tidbit that caught my eye was the comparative performance of the companies. Ethisphere claims that the “2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies have outperformed the S&P 500 by delivering a 53 percent return to shareholders since 2005—compared to the S&P’s four percent shareholder loss over the same period.”

It’s interesting to see that these companies consistently outperformed the broader in good times and bad. I’m tempted to go back through all of the past winners to see how it would have worked out by investing in these companies over the years. (If I could just find the time to do so.)

Ethisphere’s looks at 7 categories under their “Ethics Quotient”:

  1. Corporate citizenship and responsibility (20%)
  2. Corporate governance (10%)
  3. Innovation that contributes to public well being (15%)
  4. Industry leadership (5%)
  5. Executive leadership and tone from the top (15%)
  6. Integrity track record and reputation (20%)
  7. Internal systems and ethics/compliance program (15%)

SEC Warns Firms on Muni Pay-to-Play Rules

While sources are wallowing in the exposure of a political figure in a “pay to play” scandal, I thought there might be some lessons for other investment managers as states and perhaps the SEC roll out limitations on political contributions.

The original story seemed mildly interesting.  The SEC warned firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm’s employees. The story caught my eye because MSRB Rule G-37 was identified as a model for the SEC’s proposal on pay to play.

The SEC wanted to make it clear that an “executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer is not exempt from the MSRB’s pay-to-play rule just because he or she may be outside the firm’s corporate governance structure.”

The SEC report identified JP Morgan and the Treasurer of the State of California, but did not name names. It did not take much research to find out that Phil Angelides was treasurer at the time of the incident. The Wall Street Journal identified the JP Morgan executive as David Coulter who was the vice chairman who oversaw the bank’s investment-banking business.

“On September 10, 2002, the Vice Chairman forwarded an invitation for the California Treasurer’s New York fundraising event to JP Morgan Chase’s executive committee and to its Vice President for Government Relations with a handwritten note stating that the California Treasurer is an important client and soliciting their help in raising $10,000 for the event.”

That is exactly the sort of behavior that the SEC wants to prohibit with MSRB Rule G-37 and its proposed pay to play rule.

A key takeaway from the report is that the SEC will look “to the activities, not merely the title, of an associated person in determining whether the person is” subject to the pay to play restrictions.

The story gets juicy because Mr. Angelides is currently the Chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was established under the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 to “examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” Perhaps his own situation will be an example in the FCIC’s report due on December 15.

Sources:

Blogoversary!

anniversary present

Instead of substantive information, today’s post focuses on me and this website.

Compliance Building went public on February 12, 2009.  Since then, it looks like I have managed to get out a blog post every business day.  Sometimes, more than one.

Thanks for reading. If you haven’t done so already, you can subscribe and have my posts sent to you. It’s free, except on the Kindle. (I can’t convince Amazon to change the price.)

I started my first blog, KM Space, on this day in 2007. I set up Real Estate Space a few months later. Now I’m moving into my fourth year blogging.

Here are some statistics from the past three years:

Posts
Compliance Building 873
KM Space 614
Real Estate Space 144
Total: 1631

I hope at least some of those posts were useful to you, whether you are a subscriber or one of the other 90,000 or so visitors to Compliance Building.

Why do I do this? I publish because the information is useful to me, but I’m happy to have you along for the ride. (I put down my thoughts in more detail in the Why I Blog page.) This blog is a personal knowledge management tool.

For those of you who know me from KM Space, I will continue to publish a subset of my posts to the KMspace feed. No need to say goodbye. Unless I’m boring you.

Image is from Petr Kratochvil at publicdomainpictures.net.

Proposed Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines

The United States Sentencing Commission has proposed some changes to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Of the eight changes, one should catch the eye of compliance professionals.

There is a proposed amendment to Chapter Eight of the Guidelines Manual regarding the sentencing of organizations, including proposed changes to §8B2.1 (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program) and §8D1.4 (Recommended Conditions of Probation — Organizations).

§8B2.1

In §8B2.1 (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program) they are inserting a new Note 6 that would add a new requirement for an effective compliance and ethics program. The note focuses on the steps to take after the detection of criminal conduct.

First, the organization must respond appropriately to the criminal conduct, including restitution to the victims, self-reporting and cooperation with authorities.

Second, the organization must assess its program and modify it to make the program more effective. They seem to encourage the use of an independent monitor to ensure implementation of the changes.

§8D1.4

The proposed amendment amends §8D1.4 (Recommended Conditions of Probation – Organizations) (Policy Statement) to simplify the recommended conditions of probation for organizations. The new section consolidates the list of conditions that are appropriate conditions for probation.

Request for Comments

In addition to the proposed amendment the Sentencing Commission has is considering an issue and are asking for comment:

Should the Commission amend §8C2.5(f)(3) (Culpability Score) to allow an organization to receive the three level mitigation for an effective compliance program even when high-level personnel are involved in the offense if

(A) the individual(s) with operational responsibility for compliance in the organization have direct reporting authority to the board level (e.g. an audit committee of the board);
(B) the compliance program was successful in detecting the offense prior to discovery or reasonable likelihood of discovery outside of the organization; and
(C) the organization promptly reported the violation to the appropriate authorities?

Written comments are due by March 22, 2010.

Sources: