Category: SEC News

How About Working for SEC Enforcement?

The Dodd-Frank Act has created some new positions and some long occupied seats have opened up at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Maybe you have the skills to help the SEC?

Yes, the SEC dropped in the rankings of best federal workplace, slipping from 3rd in 2007 to 24th in 2010. I suspect that reflects the turmoil from the Great Panic and Madoff frauds.

The SEC has new mandates and new leadership. The Enforcement Division has some high level openings and are actively look for talented people to apply. The pay looks good (for a government job).

Chief Counsel

This position has not been available for 17 years. Joan McKown left the SEC to join law firm Jones Day as a partner in its Washington, D.C. office. She had held the Chief Counsel position since 1993. The Chief Counsel plays a key role in establishing enforcement policies at the SEC and in reviewing proposed enforcement actions before they are recommended to the Commission for approval.

“The Chief Counsel of the Division of Enforcement serves as principal advisor and consultant to the Director, and other high ranking officials of the Division, on a wide range of matters including technical, and/or precedent-setting, aspects of the federal securities laws.”

Job Posting for Chief Counsel

Associate Director – Office of Whistleblower Coordinator

This is a new position created by Dodd-Frank who will report to the Chief of the Office of Market Intelligence and to the Office of the Director of Enforcement for purposes of whistleblower advocacy.

Job Posting for Associate Director – Office of Whistleblower Coordinator

Associate Director

Chris Conte vacated the position of Associate Director in the enforcement unit to take a position with Steptoe & Johnson LLP after almost 18 years with the SEC. he had just finished an investigation of Dell’s accounting violations and obtained a $100 million penalty.

Job Listing for Associate Director

Credit Rating Agency Investigated for Fraud

The SEC brought an action against LACE Financial for issues with its independence. We also learned that the SEC had investigated whether rating agency Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. violated the registration provisions or the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

Moody’s was working on a rating for some new European securities. They ended up giving the security an Aaa rating. They later discovered a problem with their model and found a coding error. After finding the error, a Moody’s rating committee met and discussed the problem.

They made no change to the outstanding credit rating. The SEC found smoking gun emails that showed rating committee members were concerned about the impact on Moody’s reputation if it revealed an error in the rating model.

“In this particular case we seem to face an important reputation risk issue. To be fully honest this latter issue is so important that I would feel inclined at this stage to minimize ratings impact and accept unstressed parameters that are within possible ranges rather than even allow for the possibility of a hint that the model has a bug.”

That does not sound like the company was living up to the principle of the Rating Agency Act to “improve ratings quality for the protection of investors and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating agency industry.”

The SEC declined to bring an enforcement action “of uncertainty regarding a jurisdictional nexus to the United States in this matter.” The rating committee responsible for the credit ratings of the rated securities met in France and the United Kingdom. The rated securities were arranged by European banks and marketed in Europe.

The Commission notes that, in recently enacted legislation, Congress has provided expressly that federal district courts have jurisdiction over Commission enforcement actions alleging violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act involving “conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors” or “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.” Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (Dodd-Frank) Act, Pub. L. No 111-203, § 929P(b)(1), (2) (2010) (to be codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77v(c), 78aa(b)). NRSROs should expect that the Commission, where appropriate, will pursue antifraud enforcement actions, including pursuant to such jurisdiction.

It sure sounds like the SEC is looking hard at rating agencies and their culpability for the Great Panic of 2008.

Sources:

Credit Rating Agencies and Conflicts of Interest

Personally, I place a big chunk of blame on the Credit Rating Agencies for the Great Panic of 2008. They were throwing AAA ratings at piles of garbage. There is an inherent conflict in the rater being paid by the security issuer instead of the security purchaser. They are beholden to the customer and the customer wants a great rating for its security.

Exchange Act Rule 17g-5(c)(1) prohibits a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Agency from issuing or maintaining a credit rating solicited by a person that, in the most recently ended fiscal year, provided the NRSRO with net revenue equaling or exceeding 10 percent of the total net revenue of the NRSRO for the fiscal year.

“The Commission’s rules were designed to further the goals of the Rating Agency Act to “improve ratings quality for the protection of investors and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating agency industry.” To meet these goals, it is critical that firms provide accurate information to the Commission and the public in their Form NRSROs and financial reports, that they do not have prohibited conflicts, and that they establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures to address conflicts of interest.”

LACE Financial submitted an application to register as an NRSRO on October 31, 2007. LACE also requested an exemption from the 10 percent rule, which the SEC granted. LACE requested the exemption because LACE’s largest client (“Firm A”) provided LACE with more than ten percent of LACE’s total revenue during fiscal year 2007. Firm A managed Collateralized Debt Obligation (“CDO”) and hired LACE to prepare regular reports that Firm A distributed to investors in these CDOs.

According to the SEC Release, in an attempt to keep the 2007 revenue from Firm A as close as possible to ten percent of its total revenues for the year, LACE postponed billing Firm A for reports completed during December 2007 until January 2008. In its exemption request letter, LACE stated that its estimated annual revenues from Firm A for 2007 would be $119,000 when calculated on a cash basis and $179,000 when calculated on an accrual basis. “The total value of work performed for Firm A by LACE during 2007 was in fact $233,268.28, approximately 28 percent of LACE’s revenues for the year when properly calculated on an accrual basis as required by GAAP.”

LACE got slapped with a civil money penalty in the amount of $20,000 and an injunction not to break the law again. They also charged Damyon Mouzon, the president of LACE, blaming him for trying to shift revenue and deliberately hide the conflict of interest.

It seems clear to me that the rating agencies were not trying to protect investors. They were trying to generate revenue. That means keeping their clients, the securities issuers happy.

Sources:

SEC versus New Jersey

Fuggedaboutit!

New Jersey became the first state ever charged by the SEC for violations of the federal securities laws. They gave up without a fight and agreed to settle the case, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings.

This matter involves the sale of over $26 billion in municipal bonds from August 2001 through April 2007. In 79 municipal bond offerings, the State misrepresented and failed to disclose material information regarding its under funding of New Jersey’s two largest pension plans, the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund and the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Among New Jersey’s material misrepresentations and omissions:

  • Failed to disclose and misrepresented information about 2001 legislation that increased retirement benefits for employees and retirees those pension plans.
  • Failed to disclose and misrepresented information about special Benefit Enhancement Funds initially intended to fund the benefits, but then abandoned.
  • Failed to disclose and misrepresented that New jersey would be unable to fund the increased benefits without raising taxes or cutting services.

This case is a clear warning sign for states and cities that are running into retirement funding problems. You need to disclose those problems in the bond offering.

An interesting note is that the State Treasurer signed a 10b-5 certification that the official statement did not contain any material misrepresentations or omissions. The Treasurer was not charged.

The SEC only brings civil charges, so we don’t get to see Robert Khuzami driving up the New Jersey Turnpike trying to slap handcuffs on the state.

Sources:

Changes to the Qualified Client Standard

In addition to the changing standard for an accredited investor, the standard for a “qualified client” under the Investment Advisers Act is also changing. Section 418 of the requires the SEC to increase the standard.

SEC. 418. QUALIFIED CLIENT STANDARD.
Section 205(e) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘With respect to any factor used in any rule or regulation by the Commission in making a determination under this subsection, if the Commission uses a dollar amount test in connection with such factor, such as a net asset threshold, the Commission shall, by order, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010, and every 5 years thereafter, adjust for the effects of inflation on such test. Any such adjustment that is not a multiple of $100,000 shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100,000.’’.

Unlike some of the arguments over whether the accredited investor standard should be adjusted based on inflation, this standard is explicitly tied to inflation.

The definition of a qualified client is set out in Rule 205-3.

Currently, the investor has to have at least $750,000 under management with the adviser/fund.  That standard was adopted in July 1998. Using the CPI-U of 163.2 in  July 1998 and 217.965 in June 2010, the minimum investment amount should increase to $1,000,000.

The net worth amount of $1.5 million was also adopted in July 1998. Using the same ratio, I would expect the minimum net worth to rise to $2 million.

As for private  funds, Rule 205-3 requires a look -through from the fund to the investors in the fund. If the fund is relying on the 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act then the fund’s investors should all be qualified purchasers or knowledgeable employees and you won’t need to look much further.

If the fund is using the 3(c)(1) exemption, then it will need to take a closer look at its investors to make sure that each is a qualified client.

Sources:

That fancy SEC logo appeared briefly on the SEC’s website on Monday. (Thanks for pointing this out Bruce.) It was odd enough that I thought it should be re-used.

What Do You Get For Cooperation with the SEC?

Rebecca Files

  • More likely to get sanctioned.
  • Reduction of $30.3 million in penalties when you initiate your own investigation.
  • Reduction of $609,000 in company penalties for each week earlier the statement is announced the public.
  • Reduction of $112,000 in personal penalties for each week earlier the statement is announced the public.

We in the compliance field have often heard from federal regulators that cooperation will get you benefits. Although when asked how much, it’s merely a “trust us” reply. Back in the beginning of 2010, the SEC launched a new enforcement cooperation initiative. The SEC’s 2001 Seaboard Report lists several criteria that SEC staff evaluate before making enforcement decisions, including whether ―the company cooperated completely with the appropriate regulatory and law enforcement bodies‖ and whether ―the company promptly, completely, and effectively disclosed the existence of the misconduct to the public [and] to regulators

I figured some academic would spend the time to sit down and see how much benefit really accrues when you cooperate. Rebecca Files of the University of Texas at Dallas did just that.

Dr. Files dove into a set of the 2443 press releases announcing an earnings restatements compiled by the General Accounting Office (GAO 2003, 2006a,b) during the 1997-2005 time period. She ended up culling the list down to 1,249 for a variety of reasons. Of those, 127 received a formal sanction by the SEC.

Individuals were sanctioned in 115 of the 127 cases, paying an average of $3.9 million in fines. Companies were sanctioned in 109 of the cases with an average fine of $35.5 million.

When the company had independently investigated their restatements, they paid an average of $30.3 million less in penalties than those that did not.

Dr. Files concludes that the end result is mixed. “[C]ompany-initiated investigations significantly increase the likelihood of an SEC enforcement action, but decrease firm-level penalties associated with a sanction. … Regarding forthright disclosures, I find somewhat mixed results. Headline disclosure of a restatement increases the likelihood of an SEC sanction, suggesting that SEC staff is influenced by the visibility of press release disclosures when choosing its enforcement targets. However, individuals pay significantly smaller fines when the restatement is disclosed prominently in a press release or on a Form 8-K or amended filing. Placing restatement information in a Form 8-K or amended filing also significantly reduces the likelihood of an SEC sanction, but only in the post-2001 period. Consistent with the Seaboard Report, timely disclosure of a restatement reduces the likelihood of being sanctioned and results in lower individual and firm penalties.”

Sources:

SEC is Changing Form ADV

The SEC is trying to improve Form ADV. I wonder if it takes into account the new registration standards under the Dodd-Frank Act or whether they will need to make another to recognize the new law.

From the SEC press Release SEC Approves Disclosure Form Changes to Provide Investors Greater Information About Their Investment Advisers:

Under the new rules, advisers will have to provide new and prospective clients with narrative brochures that are organized in a consistent, uniform manner and that include plain English disclosures of the adviser’s business practices, fees, conflicts of interest, and disciplinary information. Advisory firms also must provide “brochure supplements” to clients containing information about the employees who will provide the advisory services to that client.

The Amendments

  • Improved Format and Updating Requirements. Advisers are required to prepare a narrative, plain English, brochure, presented in a consistent, uniform manner that will make it easier for clients to compare different advisers’ disclosures. The clear and concise narrative descriptions provided in the brochure will improve the ability of clients and prospective clients to evaluate advisers and to understand conflicts of interest that the firms and their personnel face, the effects of those conflicts on the firms’ services, and the steps the adviser takes to address the conflicts.

    Advisers must deliver the brochure to a client before or at the time the adviser enters into an advisory contract with the client. In addition, advisers must provide each client an annual summary of material changes to the brochure and either deliver a complete updated brochure or offer to provide the client with the updated brochure.

  • Expanded Content. The new brochure addresses those topics the Commission believes are most relevant to clients, including:
    • Advisory business — An investment adviser must describe its advisory business, including the types of advisory services offered, state whether it holds itself out as specializing in a particular type of advisory service, and disclose the amount of client assets that it manages.
    • Fees and compensation — An investment adviser must describe how it is compensated for its advisory services, provide a fee schedule, and disclose whether fees are negotiable. The investment adviser must also describe the types of other fees or expenses, such as brokerage fees, custody fees, and fund expenses that clients may pay in connection with the services provided.
    • Performance-based fees and side-by-side management — An investment adviser that accepts performance-based fees, or that supervises an individual who accepts such fees, is required to disclose this fact. If the investment adviser also manages accounts that are not charged a performance fee, the adviser must explain the conflicts of interest that arise from the simultaneous management of these accounts and must describe how it addresses those conflicts.
    • Methods of analysis, investment strategies, and risk of loss — An investment adviser must describe its methods of analysis and investment strategies and explain that investing in securities involves risk of loss which clients should be prepared to bear. Investment advisers who use a particular method of analysis or strategy or who recommend a particular type of security are required to explain the material risks involved and discuss the risks in detail if those risks are unusual.
    • Disciplinary information — An investment adviser is required to disclose in its brochure material facts about any legal or disciplinary event that is material to a client’s evaluation of the advisory business or to the integrity of its management personnel. An investment adviser must deliver promptly to clients updated information when there is new disclosure of a disciplinary event or a material change to an existing disciplinary event.
    • Code of ethics, participation or interest in client transactions, and personal trading — An investment adviser is required to describe briefly its code of ethics and state that a copy is available upon request. The adviser must also disclose whether it or an affiliate recommends to clients, or buys or sells for client accounts, securities in which the adviser or an affiliate has a material financial interest and, if so, the conflicts of interest associated with that practice. The adviser also must disclose whether it or an affiliate invests (or is allowed to invest) in the same securities that it recommends to clients or in related securities, such as options or other derivatives, and must explain the conflicts involved and how it addresses those conflicts. In addition, an investment adviser that trades in the recommended securities at or around the same time as the client has to explain the specific conflicts inherent in that practice and how it addresses them.
    • Brokerage practices — An investment adviser is required to describe the factors considered in selecting or recommending broker-dealers for client transactions and determining the reasonableness of brokers’ compensation. Investment advisers also must disclose soft dollar practices (research or other products or services, other than execution, provided by brokers or a third party to the investment adviser in connection with client transactions); client referrals (using client brokerage to compensate brokers for client referrals); directed brokerage (asking or permitting clients to send trades to a specific broker for execution); and trade aggregation (bundling trades to obtain volume discounts on execution costs). Investment advisers must explain how they address the various conflicts of interest associated with these practices.
  • Supplements. An adviser is required to deliver “brochure supplements” to new and prospective clients providing them with information about the specific individuals who will provide services to the clients. The supplement will contain brief résumé-like disclosure about the educational background, business experience, other business activities, and disciplinary history of the individual, so that the client can assess the person’s background and qualifications. It will also include contact information for the person’s supervisor in case the client has a concern about the person.
  • Internet Availability. Advisers are required to electronically file brochures, which will be publicly available on the SEC’s website.

The SEC expects that most investment advisers will begin distributing and publicly posting new brochures in the first quarter of 2011.

Goldman Settles; Fabulous Fab is Left on His Own

Goldman Sachs settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s not a surprise. Goldman did not want to litigate this action. It wanted it to go away.

As a shareholder in Goldman, I wanted it to go away. It seems others did also. GS stock price opened at $138.50 on Thursday morning. It opened at $151.47 this morning. That’s a 10% increase based on the settlement. The stock has been down 21% since the SEC filed its complaint.

Goldman is going pay $550 million, with $250 million going to investors and $300 million going to the SEC. The dollar amount is not a surprise. I assumed the top dollar amount was the $1 billion lost by investors. I think the time it took between the filing of the action and the settlement was largely focused on how much Goldman was going to pay to make this ugly incident go away.

That is a big dollar amount. As SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami points out, it’s the biggest SEC fine against a Wall Street firm. There have been bigger fines in other industries.

According to Footnoted, Goldman has $27 billion is cash and short term securities. It’s big dollar number, but Goldman can find that much the cash by looking under the cushions on its couch.

Unfortunately for Goldman VP Fabrice Tourre, he is not included in the settlement. The SEC is continuing its litigation against him. Fabulous Fab has a Monday deadline to respond to the SEC complaint. Fab still works at Goldman but is on paid leave.

He is trying to clear his name. Goldman just paid to get theirs back.

Sources:

SEC Votes on Pay to Play

At Wednesday’s Open Meeting the Securities and Exchange Commission took up the discussion of their proposed rules on pay-to-play for investment advisers. The proposal is a new Rule 206 (4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act. The Commission voted unanimously to adopt the rule.

The rule will have three main prongs:

Two Year Time-Out

An investment adviser who makes a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser would be barred for two years from providing advisory services for compensation, either directly or through a fund.

There will be two de minimis exceptions. For an official the person can vote for, you can contribute up to $300 350. That exception is lowered to $150 if you are not entitled to vote for the official.

There is a limited ability to get a return of a political contribution for inadvertent violations. It sounds like this will be difficult.

There was a mention that the political contributions limitation may not affect all employees of an investment adviser.

Coordination

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser from coordinating, or asking another person or political action committee to:

  1. Make a contribution to an elected official (or candidate) who can influence the selection of the adviser.
  2. Make a payment to a political party of the state or locality where the adviser is seeking to provide advisory services to the government.

The SEC does not want investment advisers to be gatekeepers or aggregaters for political contributions to elected officials who select investment advisers for government funds.

Placement Agents and Solicitors

The third prong would prohibit advisers from hiring third party persons to act as agents or solicitors for an investment adviser unless the third party is a regulated person subject to pay-to-play regulation similar to this rule. The placement agents will need to a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer.

The comments to the flat ban resulted in the most comments to the rule. This is the biggest change to the final rule will vary from proposed rule.

They are going to keep a close eye on placement agents. If there continues to be a problem, the SEC is prepared to put a complete ban in place.

Catch-All

There is a catch-all provision is the rule that prohibits indirect violation of the rules.

Applicability

Rule 206 (4)-5 will apply to registered investment advisers and unregistered investment advisers who are relying on the small adviser exception to registration. (Of course, that exception is likely to be eliminated shortly as part of the financial reform legislation.) Private equity fund managers and their employees will be subject to this rule.

There will be a one year period before the placement agent limitations are effective. This is designed to give FINRA time to enact its new regulations on pay-to-play.  It’s not clear if the one-year period is applicable for the other parts of Rule 206 (4)-5.

First Amendment

Commissioner Casey raised a concern that the rule not violate the first amendment rights to engage in the political process. She thought the rule struck a good balance. Commissioner Parades was concerned about rogue employees making contributions in violation of the policy.

Full Text

As is typical with the SEC rules, the final text of Rule 206 (4)-5 was not released at the time of the vote. Keep an eye out for the final release and its detailed requirements.

Sources:

SEC’s Rule on Pay to Play is Coming

It’s been almost a year, but it looks like the SEC is ready to issue its rule on political contributions by investment advisers. They announced the subject matter for the Wednesday June 30 10:00 am open meeting:

The Commission will consider whether to adopt a new rule and related rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers. The new rule is designed to prohibit advisers from seeking to influence the award of advisory contracts by public entities by making or soliciting political contributions to or for those officials who are in a position to influence the awards.

Since private equity funds will have to register as investment advisers, the rule will be applicable.  Actually, the proposed rule was drafted to be applicable to registered investment advisers or those unregistered in reliance on the exemption under Section 203(b)(3), so it would have been applicable to most private equity funds anyhow.

Back in April, the SEC engaged FINRA to craft rules for registered broker-dealers when acting as a placement agent soliciting investments from government investors. That would make it likely that placement agents will not be banned, but merely subject to some additional regulatory requirements.

The proposed rule limited political contributions to $250 per election per candidate if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate. Otherwise, the investment adviser would be subject to a two-year ban on providing advisory services for compensation to that government investor.

Private equity firms gearing up for registration will need to include a policy on political contributions. Next week we will not what need to be in that policy.

Sources: