Compliance Bricks and Mortar for January 17

bricks 13

It’s been a busy week at the office, but a few compliance-related stories caught my eye.

Compliance Networks as Knowledge Networks by Tom Fox

As compliance programs mature, they become less top down driven and more inculcated into the DNA of a company. The more doing business ethically and in compliance becomes part of the way your company does business, the better off you will be down the road. One of the methods that you can use is to set up a compliance network within your organization. I recently read an article in the Fall issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review, entitled “Designing Effective Knowledge Networks”, by Katrina Pugh and Laurence Prusak, in which they discussed knowledge network design as a mechanism to facilitate desired behaviors and outcomes. I found their ideas very useful in the compliance context.

What Can an Ethics Course Really Do? by Chris MacDonald

Typically, skepticism about ethics education is rooted in a mistaken view of what the goals of such education are. If you think that giving students a course in ethics is supposed to “make them into good people,” then of course you’re going to think it’s useless. An ethics professor can’t turn bad people into good ones, any more than she can turn water into wine. Luckily, that’s really not what’s needed, and so doing so it’s not the aim of any sane ethics course.

Gold dust for compliance officers by Richard L. Cassin

What’s the first thing compliance officers need to do? We’d say it’s convincing management and board members they need an effective compliance program. That’s not easy. It takes advocacy, and advocacy takes credibility.

Jury Gives SEC Split Verdict In Insider Trading – Front Running Trial by Thomas O. Gorman

The Commission was handed a split verdict in its insider trading – front running case against Siming Yang and his investment company, Prestige Trade Investments Limited by an Illinois jury yesterday. SEC v. Yang, Case No. 12-cv-02473 (N.D. Ill. Filed April 4, 2012). The jury found for the defendants and against the Commission on an insider trading claim but in favor of the SEC and against defendant Yang on a front running charge and two false filing claims.

What Was It Called Before Mr. Ponzi Did It?

ponzis scheme zuckoff

When Bernie Madoff’s fraud was exposed it was labeled a Ponzi scheme. Madoff was not investing the money as promised. He was using new investment money to pay old promised returns. I thought it would useful to look back at the original Ponzi scheme to see if offered insight to today’s world of compliance. I just finished reading Ponzi’s Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend by Mitchell Zuckoff.

When Charles Ponzi sailed from Italy in 1903, his father told him that America’s streets were paved with gold. Ponzi had landed in America at the end of the Gilded Age. He thought he could earn a fortune. He looked for one one get-rich-quick scheme after another and that lead to two stints in prison before settling in Boston.

He tried setting up a international listing of import-export companies and selling advertisements. One respondent requested information and included an international reply coupon. This coupon was effectively a return stamp for foreign correspondence. Ponzi realized that he could theoretically arbitrage the difference in foreign currencies to generate big returns. It was a theoretic return because he would have to find someone to buy the coupons overseas and someone to sell them to here in the U.S. to convert the coupon back to cash.

The idea was solid enough that he could convince investors to give him money. In exchange, he promised a fifty percent return in three months. Eventually, he had investors lined up to give him money. Unlike Madoff, Ponzi carried out his scheme in the open. It was even briefly approved by Boston’s newspapers and financial sector. (If you wonder why private placements could not be advertised for decades, you need to look no further.)

Perhaps it was the wealth of media coverage that got Mr. Ponzi famous enough for the fraud that now bears his name. Of course, he couldn’t have been the first.

In one of the court pleadings, Ponzi’s lawyer states that his client was not a “520 percent Miller.” This was a recall of an earlier fraud by William Miller and his Franklin Syndicate. Mr. Miller was promising a 10% return each week during his heyday of 1899. It was a Ponzi scheme before it was called a Ponzi scheme.

What about before 520 percent Miller? Mr. Zuckoff uses the older expression of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” That expression refers back to the Reformation when taxes had to be paid to St. Paul’s church in London and to St. Peter’s church in Rome, so people would neglect the Peter tax in order to have money to pay the Paul tax.

Mr. Zuckoff provides a detailed look at the life of Charles Ponzi. Although it is non-fiction, Mr. Zuckoff has written the story in the narrative form, imposing some insight into the thoughts of Mr. Ponzi and those involved. The result is a nuanced and insightful look into a fraud.

 

SEC Exam Priorities for 2014

SEC National Exam Program

Last year the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations at the Securities Exchange Commission laid out their examination priorities for 2013. Apparently, it is now an annual event. OCIE published its 2014 Examination Priorities.

For advisers and fund managers the priorities list three core risks:

  1. Safety of Assets and Custody
  2. Conflicts of interest in the business model
  3. Marketing and performance

There are six new and emerging issues and initiatives.  For most private equity and real estate funds, there is nothing new here.

  1. Never-before examined advisers
  2. Wrap fee programs
  3. Quantitative trading models
  4. Presence exams
  5. Payments for distribution
  6. Fixed income investment companies

We know the SEC has been trying to get in the door at lots of newly registered fund managers and has been using the presence exams model. As of September 30, the SEC had conducted over 200 presence exams, which apparently is on track to touch 25% of the newly registered advisers. A commendable goal.

Under the Policy topics there is something that caught my eye:

“Alternative” Investment Companies. The staff will continue its assessment of funds offering “alternative” investment strategies, with a particular focus on: (i) leverage, liquidity and valuation policies and practices; (ii) the staffing, funding, and empowerment of boards, compliance personnel, and back-offices; and (iii) the manner in which such funds are marketed to investors. The staff will additionally review the representations and recommendations made regarding the suitability of such investments.

There is no color to the term “alternative” so it could encompass private equity and real estate funds.

References:

Weekend Reading: Year Zero

It was December and I needed a “Y” book to finish off my A-to-Z reading challenge. I had my eye on Year Zero by Ian Baruma. But I couldn’t get my hands on a copy and the year was coming to a close. I noticed a different Year Zero by Jeff Long. I had read one of his novels many years ago and remembered enjoying it. I didn’t enjoy it that much, and a friend on Goodreads recommended a different Year Zero by Rob Reid. So I read that also. Then the first Year Zero came in, so I read it.

That’s the tale of why I read three books called Year Zero in a month.

Year Zero by Ian Baruma explores the history of 1945. The book covers a huge spectrum of topics, from the revenge on Germans to the re-education of Japanese students under General MacArthur. 1945, was start of a new world. Germany had been defeated. Japan had been defeated. The colonies in Africa and especially Asia saw that their European overlords were capable of defeat.

The problem was that the book tackled too much. That leaves vignettes of the problems faced in 1945 and what happened as a result. It lacks a narrative because the book stays focused on 1945 and does not trace the problems forward.

Year Zero by Jeff Long is a tale of an apocalyptic disease triggered by the opening of an ancient Christian artifact. The novel held promise of exploring themes of Christianity, the collapse of civilization, revenge, and redemption. But it fell well short of saying anything meaningful or interesting.

Year Zero by Rob Reid is a fun sci-fi farce, with aliens and lawyers. The universe has fallen in love with Earth’s music, but illegally pirated all of it. Then trouble and misadventures follow. It’s a great diversion away from reading about compliance

Compliance Bricks and Mortar – JP Morgan ALM Edition

Compliance and JP Morgan Chase

JP Morgan paid $2 billion in fines and disgorgement for failing to file a suspicious activity report against Bernie Madoff. I provided my two cents. Here are some other views.

The invincible JP Morgan by Felix Salmon

This is sheer unmitigated — and, yes, probably criminal — incompetence. It takes a very special kind of banker to not notice that an account has more than a billion dollars in it, for a period of roughly four years, from 2005 through most of 2008. As Matt Levine says, “Madoff Banker 1 is like the one banker on earth who underestimated his client’s business by a factor of 100 or so. ‘Boss, I’ve made the firm thousands of dollars this year,’ he probably said, ‘and I deserve a bonus of at least $200.’”

What the JPMorgan Settlement Means by Peter Henning in Dealbook

In the end, JPMorgan decided that paying more than $2 billion was better than trying to fight claims that it aided the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. The winners in the settlements are Mr. Madoff’s victims, who will never be made whole but are at least a step closer to receiving a measure of compensation, due in part to a creative use of the law by federal prosecutors.

How Much Did J.P. Morgan Lose from Doing Business With Madoff? in WSJ.com’s Law Blog

Linus Wilson, a finance scholar at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, has tried to crunch the numbers. In a 2011 paper, he calculated how much J.P. Morgan earned from the direct deposit and custodial accounts at the bank containing the vast majority of funds that Madoff victims thought that they had invested with Madoff Securities.

The Madoff settlement is an enormous win for a guilty JPMorgan by Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times

If the government were really determined to root out white-collar crime and prevent outfits like JPMorgan from condoning lawbreaking that unfolds in front of its own eyes, it had the tools to do so: Indict the bank executives and officials who knew Madoff was crooked and did nothing, and threaten to revoke the bank’s charter. Would that be a great loss to the financial system? JPMorgan has been racking up multibillion-dollar settlements over white-collar misdeeds on an almost monthly basis lately. It hasn’t been operating like a bank, but like a criminal enterprise. And as this case now shows, it has been aiding and abetting its fellow criminals along the way.

J.P. Morgan’s Madoff Failure

jp morgan and compliance

Yesterday J.P. Morgan agreed to forfeit $1.7 billion for its failure related to the Bernie Madoff fraud, plus several hundred million in fines. As part its deferred prosecution agreement, the bank agreed that it did not have the proper systems in place to catch Madoff. It’s easy to target the bank for compliance failures but I wanted to dig a little deeper to see what went wrong. The picture is not very clear and I’m not sure why the bank forfeited so much cash.

J.P. Morgan was the main bank for Madoff from 1986 until the fraud collapsed. With money moving in an out of the accounts, J.P. Morgan could presumably have noticed something wrong with the flow of money. But that would likely be difficult. Madoff would have moved money around through several accounts. It would not be a simple task to track the flow of cash and see the fraud. If it were that simple, it would have been spotted much earlier. The agreement notes a few flags on the account and some inadequate diligence by the relationship personnel. None of that data seems to indicate a bigger problem with the flow of cash.

There was a mid 1990s transaction that looked like check kiting between an unnamed private bank client of Chemical Bank (which was eventually consumed by J.P. Morgan), Madoff and a second bank. The second bank ended up terminating the relationship and filing a suspicious activity report. J.P. Morgan did not. The private bank client did not terminate the relationship because Madoff had turned the investment from $183 million to $1.7 billion over 12 years. Madoff’s fake returns bought silence.

In the late 1990s and again in 2007 divisions of J.P. Morgan were considering having its private bank invest in Madoff. But Madoff was unwilling to help with the bank’s diligence efforts and the the bank expressed concerns when it was unable to reverse engineer Madoff’s returns.

In 2006 the London office of the bank had set up an exotic derivative that would provide clients with synthetic exposure to a hedge fund without making a direct investment in the fund itself. To cover the other side, J.P. Morgan invested in a Madoff feeder fund. Apparently, the derivative was wildly successful and hit the bank’s $100 million exposure limit. The traders went to an internal committee to get an exposure increase to $1 billion. The committee tabled approval because the bank couldn’t get the diligence it wanted. Madoff refused to allow the bank to conduct due diligence on his fund directly.

That triggered more diligence efforts and an increasing unease at the bank about having exposure to Madoff. J.P. Morgan began redeeming its interests in the Madoff feeder funds. This was 2008 and Lehman had just collapsed and the Madoff fraud would be exposed in a few months. J.P. Morgan also began unwinding those synthetic exposures. It looks like the bank was able to save $250 million before the Madoff collapse.

The key dagger seems to be when the London office of J.P. Morgan filed a report with the U.K. authorities as a result of its diligence. But J.P. Morgan did not file an equivalent report in the US. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, a bank needs to file Suspicious Activity Reports with FinCEN if the bank notes any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.

The second big failure was that the suspicions were not transmitted from the investment side of the bank to the commercial banking side of the bank. The investment side wanted to limit its exposure and minimize its losses for being invested in a fraud. The banking side would have to take steps to prevent funds from leaving for improper purposes.

From the time the report was filed in London, the Madoff bank account at J.P. Morgan had fallen from $3 billion to $234 million. The $1.7 billion paid by J.P. Morgan is supposed to represent a portion of the money that the bank allowed to leave the Madoff account during that period.

What is boils down to is that in the Fall of 2008, just before the collapse of the Madoff fraud, J.P. Morgan took steps to protect its own business interests but failed to notify FinCEN of the same suspicious, potentially fraudulent, activities.

In the end I suspect J.P. Morgan thought it would not win the case if it went to trial. It has some bad facts on its side. One of the diligence emails joked that they should visit Madoff’s accountant’s office to make sure it wasn’t a car wash. The bank would never find a jury that would offer one iota of sympathy or understanding.

Then it was just a matter of how much cash the bank was willing to pay. It sounds like the initial government ask was about $3 billion: the $2.75 billion that left the Madoff bank account, plus the $250 million that the bank managed to avoid losing by redeeming out of the Madoff feeder funds. I assume the bank is looking to end as much of the regulatory actions from the 2008 financial crisis hanging over its heads as it can. Another one down.

References:

The Books I Read in 2013

2013 reading challenge

My goal this year was to finish reading a book every other week. (For the math or calendar challenged, that’s a goal of 26 books.) I’m happy to say that I smashed through that goal. I ended up with 44 books on my Read in 2013 shelf during the year.

Compliance Books

For those of you looking for finance or compliance-related books, these may be of particular interest:

A-Z Challenge

You can see the cover for each and every book just below. If you look closely, you will see that the books are in alphabetical order. If you look even closer, you will see that each letter in the alphabet is represented.

I responded to a challenge on Goodreads to do so. It helped clear a few items that had been loitering on my to-read list, based solely on the first letter of the book’s title. As you might expect, the letters Q, X, Y, and Z have very limited choices.

 GoodReads

I’m tracking my reading activity in Goodreads. I find the platform to be a great way to share book recommendations and to discover books to read. Now I’m looking for reading suggestions for 2014. Do you have recommendations?
Have you joined Goodreads?

2013 Reading List:
2312Act of Congress: How America's Essential Institution Works, and How It Doesn'tAntifragile: Things That Gain from DisorderBunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a RevolutionCaught Stealing (Hank Thompson, #1)Comic Books and the Cold War, 1946 to 1962: Essays on Graphic Treatment of Communism, the Code and Social ConcernsThe Dog StarsEmpty Mansions: The Mysterious Life of Huguette Clark and the Spending of a Great American FortuneFoundation, Foundation and Empire, Second FoundationThe GunHigh Performance with High Integrity  The Infiltrator: My Secret Life Inside the Dirty Banks Behind Pablo Escobar's Medellín CartelJoylandThe King's Best Highway: The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made AmericaLucifer's HammerA Manual of Style for Contract DraftingMastering SnowboardingMortal Bonds (Jason Stafford, #2)The Most Memorable Games in Patriots History: The Oral History of a Legendary TeamMr. Penumbra's 24-Hour BookstoreMy Beloved Brontosaurus: On the Road with Old Bones, New Science, and Our Favorite DinosaursNocturnalThe Ocean at the End of the LaneOctopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street's Wildest ConThe Orphan Master's SonThe Ponzi Scheme Puzzle: A History and Analysis of Con Artists and VictimsThe Quick and the DeadReady Player OneRedshirtsThe Remaining: Aftermath (Remaining, #2)The Remaining: Refugees (Remaining, #3)SCIENCE: Ruining Everything Since 1543The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail - But Some Don'tSomeone Could Get Hurt: A Memoir of Twenty-First-Century ParenthoodThe Theory That Would Not DieUnbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and RedemptionThe Vast Unknown: America's First Ascent of EverestThe Walking Dead, Vol. 17: Something to FearThe Walking Dead, Vol. 18: What Comes AfterThe Walking Dead, Vol. 19: March to WarX-Men OriginsYear ZeroYear ZeroZone One

Starting New Compliance Habits in 2014

power of habit

One of my favorite books of 2012 was Charles Duhigg’s The Power of Habit. The book is full of interesting ideas and based on an impressive collection of research. But it does a great job of balancing intellectual seriousness with practical advice. Even better, it’s written in a lively style, making it easy to read and digest. (The book was on my to read list before the publisher sent me a review copy.)

Fostering better compliance in your organization (or in you) can be improved by instilling better habits. Mr. Duhigg offers great information on how habit patterns form and how to change them.

If you have not yet read the book and would like a copy, Mr. Duhigg has offered a complimentary copy of his new paperback edition to one of my readers. If you are interested, leave a comment or send an email to [email protected] by Wednesday, January 8 at 5:00 pm EST. I’ll randomly pick a winner.

For those of you looking to start an exercise routine as a New Year’s resolution, here is a handy flow chart from Duhigg to help you:

habit flowchart-599x1024

SEC Sanctions CCO for Custody Rule Violations

failure

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order against Mark M. Wayne, the president, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Compliance Officer of Freedom One Investment Advisors, Inc. for violations of the the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act. Although that’s the headline, the SEC action shows many other compliance failures.

First, the custody issues. From 2008 through 2010, Freedom One had custody of client assets and violated the custody rule’s requirement that it have an independent public accountant conduct annual surprise exams to verify those assets. For 2008, Freedom One engaged a national public accounting firm to perform a surprise exam, but failed to follow through with its completion. For 2009 and 2010, another national public accounting firm conducted surprise exams but they were insufficient. Freedom One limited the exams to only a subset of the accounts.

In 2010, the new custody rule came into effect and required Wayne to have the custodian send account statements directly to his clients. He failed to do so.

The SEC charged Wayne with aiding and abetting and causing these violations because as CEO, a principal, and CCO of Freedom One, he took no action to ensure compliance. Apparently, he delegated responsibility for the 2009 and 2010 surprise exam to someone who had no compliance training or experience and who did not know which accounts Freedom One had custody over. Wayne approved Freedom One’s compliance manuals. Wayne he appointed recordkeeping responsibilities to someone who lacked the necessary skills and did not provide her with adequate support and training to accurately maintain Freedom One’s books and records.

Granted those actions are all violations but don’t seem so egregious that the SEC would bring an enforcement action. The order spends a few paragraphs describing some poor accounting practices, but the problem is the movement of money between the adviser and its record-keeping affiliate. The order states no improper movement of assets between the client and the adviser.

The SEC not only brought an action against the adviser, it also brought charges against the accountants who failed to complete the surprise examination in 2008.

The action shows me that the SEC is serious about custody rule compliance, even when client assets are not in danger.

References: