Tag: Placement agents

Placement Agents and the SEC Inquiry of Private Fund Broker Dealer Requirements

money penny

Broker-dealer regulation in connection with the sale of private fund interests has become a focus of SEC inquiry. The David Blass speech on private funds and broker-dealer registration highlights the issue. If you have internal marketing people who are getting paid transaction based compensation for selling fund interests, there may be an issue. Even if you don’t pay a commission-like compensation to dedicated internal marketing people you may have a problem.

The big problem with having your internal marketing people re-cast as broker-dealers is that if they are not registered, your fund investors could have a rescission right. One way to deal with the broker-dealer issue is to use a third-party placement agent. Then, the fund manager would not need as much internal marketing manpower. The fund could rely on the placement agent’s broker-dealer registration.

But the SEC started a witch hunt against placement agents in 2009 when it threatened to ban the use of placement agents when dealing with government pension plans. That put fund managers on the defensive when dealing with placement agents. Individual states began instituting their own bans on placement agents. Many investors raised a red flag for compliance issues when a placement agent was involved in a fundraising.

Placement agents had to give some thought as to how they operated their businesses given that they are precluded from acting as an agent when dealing with the big dollars of pension plans.

Of course, many fund managers bulked up their internal marketing groups to deal with the lesser assistance they would get from placement agents. Now the SEC is going after those groups. Unfortunately, the SEC is being very inconsistent on how it wants private funds with savvy investors to operate now that they are under the stricter scrutiny of the SEC.

Make Sure Your Placement Agent is Registered

5418248927_8f87749445_m

The Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on a fund manager and its placement agent because the placement agent was not registered as a broker-dealer. The federal securities laws require that an individual who solicits investments in return for transaction-based compensation be registered as a broker. There is a fine line between a “finder” and “placement agent.” A line that most fund managers would be best served to stay away from.

An SEC investigation found that William M. Stephens of Hinsdale, Ill., solicited investors as a hired consultant for Ranieri Partners. He was paid fees by the firm, but never registered as a broker. Stephens’ longtime friend Donald W. Phillips, a senior managing director who headed up capital raising efforts for Ranieri Partners, was responsible for overseeing Stephens’ activities. His role supposed to be acting as a “finder” who would merely make initial introductions to potential investors.

Since Stephens was paid a commission on his successful introductions, it looks like he stepped far over the line into the activities of a broker-dealer. He was not supposed to deliver documents or discuss the merits of the fund investment. But he did.

The simple remediation was to only use third party finder, marketing agent, or placement agent that is registered as a broker-dealer. Stephens had to pay a disgorgement of pay disgorgement of $2,418,379.20, the money he earned while acting as unlicensed broker-dealer. Ranieri, the fund manager, was ordered to pay a $375,000 penalty. Stephen’s supervisor was subject to a $75,00 fine and a suspension.

Sources:

Seaman Theodore Marion of Philadelphia, PA, uses a bullhorn to instruct a line-handling party in the hangar bay aboard USS Enterprise By U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Jason W. Pfiester [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Placement Agent Policies for Massachusetts Public Pension Systems

The local retirement boards in Massachusetts are subject to new regulations regarding placement agents. That means if you have one of the boards as investor in your fund or a client in your advisory business, you need to supply new information to your clients/investors.

Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission is the umbrella regulatory organization that oversees the dozens of local retirement boards in the Commonwealth. Last month they issued Memorandum #34 that implements the new PERAC Placement Agents Policy (.pdf).

As a manager you will need to provide:

(a) a statement whether you used a placement agent

(b)  a resume detailing education, professional designations, regulatory licenses and investment and work experience.  If he or she is a current or former member of a retirement board, employee or consultant or immediate family of such a person that fact should be specifically noted.

(c)  a description of any and all compensation of any kind provided or agreed to be provided to a placement agent, including the nature, timing and value thereof;

(d)  a description of the services to be performed by the placement agent

(e) a written copy of any and all agreements between the manager and the placement agent

 (f) in the event that any current or former Massachusetts public pension system board members, employees, consultants or other service providers have suggested the retention of the placement agent, the names of that person

 (g)  a statement that the placement agent has a minimum of three years experience in the investment field

 (h)  a statement that the placement agent is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or, if appropriate, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The pension board will have to include a provision in the investment management agreement that in the case of a breach will allow the board to terminate the agreement and have two years of management fees returned.

Sources:

Pay to Play Rules for Placement Agents

The SEC imposed strict limitations on the ability of investment advisers to make political contributions when their clients include government bodies when it issued Rule 206(4)-5. They don’t want government investment decisions decided campaign contributions. This limitation also applies to private investment funds under the language of the rule and the changes to the Investment Advisers Act made by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The SEC carried this limitation over to placement agents used by investment advisers. The placement agent needs to be subject to similar limitations. That means the placement agent would need to be a registered investment adviser or otherwise regulated. At first the SEC expected FINRA to create a new rule to govern pay-to play. Instead, Section 975 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act created a new category of regulated persons called a “municipal adviser.” This new category will regulated by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

The MSRB has issued a proposed draft of new Rule G-42 that would limit a placement agent’s ability to make political contributions.

One major difference between this draft of Rule G-42 and SEC Rule 206(4)-5 is the definition of de minimis political contribution. The SEC allows a contribution of $350 per election cycle for candidate you can vote for or $150 for a candidate you can’t vote for. The MSRB definition would be $250 for candidate that you can vote for.

Violating the rule means you are banned from

  • engaging in municipal advisory business with a municipal entity for compensation,
  • soliciting third-party business from a municipal entity for compensation, or
  • receiving compensation for the solicitation of third-party business from a municipal entity,

for two years after any contribution to an official of such municipal entity in excess of the de minimis amount.

Proposed Rule G-42 for municipal advisers is similar to Rule G-37 for those in the municipal securities business. I expect that comments will argue that the de minimis amount should match up with the SEC’s de minimis amount.

Sources:

Placement Agents and the MSRB

In addition to laying out the changes to Form ADV, in Release No. IA-3110 the SEC also took a slightly different course on regulating placement agents. Rule 206(4)-5, released in July 2010, required placement agents to either be registered with the SEC as an investment adviser and subject to the limitation on campaign contributions, or register with FINRA. The FINRA registration was subject to enactment of a similar pay-to-play rule by FINRA.

The SEC has abandoned FINRA for the MSRB when it comes to regulating placement agents that interact with government sponsored plans.

Section 975 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act created a new category of regulated persons called a “municipal adviser.” This new category will regulated by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

The MSRB is undertaking a rule-making to subject municipal advisers to the pay-to-play rules in place for municipal securities dealers under MSRB Rule G-37.

“Municipal advisors” include businesses and individuals that advise municipal entities concerning municipal financial products and municipal securities, as well as businesses and individuals who solicit certain types of business from municipal entities on behalf of unrelated broker-dealers, municipal advisors, or investment advisers.

In comparing the de minimis amounts under Rule 206(4)-5 and MSRB Rule G-37, the MSRB only allows for contributions up to $250 for candidates the person can actually vote for. The SEC rule is $350 for a candidate you can vote for and $150 for a candidate you can’t vote for. Both have a two-year ban for violation of the rules.

Sources:

California’s New Placement Agent Law

California has become the latest state to regulate the use of placement agents who help investment managers secure government pension fund money. (Or is that placement agents who help government pension fund money find suitable investment managers?)

California Assembly Bill 1743 was backed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the state treasurer and the state controller. Placement agents must register as lobbyists before they can pitch investment proposals to California government investors.

As Keith Paul Bishop notes in the California Corporate & Securities Law Blog

“the proposed rule does not appear to require disclosure of gifts and campaign contributions to losing candidates for positions that have the authority to appoint persons to the CalPERS Board.  This is not consistent with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently adopted “time out” Rule 206(4)-5 for investment advisers which appears to cover contributions to both successful and unsuccessful candidates.  Nor is this approach consistent with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s interpretation of Rule G-37 (See FAQ II.22)”

Meanwhile CalPERS is has its own rules which area bit stricter. Placement agents must report gifts and campaign contributions made to all Board members as well as to persons who have the authority to appoint persons to the CalPERS Board: the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the members of the Senate Rules Committee.

One point to focus is the definition of “Placement Agent.” An investment manager’s employees, officers, directors, and equityholders who solicit California public retirement systems for compensation may be placement agents under the definition, unless they spend more than one-third  of their time during the calendar year managing securities or assets of the manager. With respect to solicitation of CalPERS and CalSTRS only, if the manager is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment adviser or broker-dealer, is selected through a competitive bidding process, and has agreed to a fiduciary standard of care applicable to the retirement board, then the employees, officers, and directors of a manager will not be a placement agent.

Sources:

A Closer Look at the new SEC Rule 206(4)-5 on Pay to Play

Over the weekend, the Securities and Exchange Commission released the full text of Rule 206(4)-5 in Release No. IA-3043. I made few notes during the broadcast of the open meeting, but there were lots of unanswered questions.

Rule 206(4)-5 is only 12 pages long, but Release IA-3043 also includes another 190 pages of commentary and discussion.

Summary (from the SEC):

The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that prohibits an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates. The new rule also prohibits an adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third parties are registered broker-dealers or registered investment advisers, in each case themselves subject to pay to play restrictions. Additionally, the new rule prevents an adviser from soliciting from others, or coordinating, contributions to certain elected officials or candidates or payments to political parties where the adviser is providing or seeking government business. The Commission also is adopting rule amendments that require a registered adviser to maintain certain records of the political contributions made by the adviser or certain of its executives or employees. The new rule and rule amendments address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers.

Limitations on Political Contributions

It is unlawful for an investment adviser to provide “investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.”

The rule defines an official as candidate for an elective office that can

  1. directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment adviser, or
  2. has the authority to appoint a person who can directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment adviser.

Unfortunately, investment advisers are left on their own to figure out if any political position is one that falls into the prohibited bucket.

De Minimis Exception

There are two de minimis exceptions. For an official they are entitled to vote for, a covered associate can contribute up to $350 per election. That exception is lowered to $150 if they are not entitled to vote for the official.

A primary election is separate election from the general election. [Release page 63]

Those are increases from the proposed rule.

Who is a Covered Associate?

  1. Any general partner, managing member or executive officer, or other individual with a similar status or function;
  2. Any employee who solicits a government entity for the investment adviser and any person who supervises, directly or indirectly, such employee; and
  3. Any political action committee controlled by the investment adviser or by any person described in 1 or 2.

Placement Agent Ban

The rule retreated from the complete ban on placement agents that was in the draft rule. The SEC seems willing to put a ban in place. For now, the rule allows you to use a placement agent provided that they are either an SEC registered investment adviser or a SEC registered broker dealer. The extra limit on the broker dealer is that they have be subject to a an equivalent restriction on political contributions. Something that  is not yet place. Apparently, FINRA is working on pay-to-play regulations for broker-dealers.

Does Rule 206(4)-5 Apply to Private Funds?

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 scheduled to be eliminated shortly as part of the financial reform legislation.)

Also, the rule deems the adviser to a “covered investment pool” to be providing investment advisory services directly to the investor in the pool.

Therefore, private equity fund managers and their employees will be subject to this rule. Even venture capital fund managers who managed to keep a registration exemption in the financial reform bill will need comply with this new rule.

The financial reform bill is bumping the SEC registration up to $100 million from $25 million. That means a bunch of advisers and small funds will fall out from having to comply with this rule since it does not apply to state-registered advisers.

Record-Keeping

The new rule also imposes new record-keeping requirements. A private fund will need to keep track of

  1. its covered associates
  2. all government entities that are investors
  3. all contributions made to an “official of a government entity”
  4. all contributions made to a political party
  5. all contributions made to a political action committee

You don’t need to keep records if you have no government clients.

What’s a Contribution?

“[A]ny gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made for:

(i) The purpose of influencing any election for federal, state or local office;
(ii) Payment of debt incurred in connection with any such election; or
(iii) Transition or inaugural expenses of the successful candidate for state or local office.”

Cash donations are clearly contributions. The release says that volunteer activity is not a contribution.[Release Page 23]

Effective Date

The rule has not made its way into the federal register, but will be effective 60 days after publication.

The limitations on political contributions and the record-keeping requirments have a compliance deadline of six months after the effective date. That means you need to get ready by the end of this calendar year, with the actual deadline likely to be in early March.

The limitation on the use of third parties to solicit government business has a compliance deadline one year after the effective date. That will likely be sometime during the summer of 2011.

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:

New York City Enacts New Rules for Its Pension Fund Investments

New York City Comptroller John C. Liu announced sweeping changes in the way New York City pension funds make investment decisions. Following the lead of New York state and several other states, New York City is changing how it deals with gifts, campaign contributions and placement agents.

Ban on Campaign Contributions

  • Comptroller Liu declines any campaign contributions from investment managers and their agents doing business with, or seeking to do business with, the New York City pension systems.

Requirements for Fund Managers

  • Zero-tolerance gift prohibition – fund managers must certify that they have not given any gifts to any employees of the Comptroller’s Office, nor to any employees or trustees of the New York City pension systems;
  • Minimizing contact – fund managers must disclose all contact with employees of the Comptroller’s Office regarding new investments as well as all contact with pension trustees and other individuals involved in the investment decision-making process;
  • Disclosure of placement agents – fund managers must disclose all fees and terms relating to any firm retained to provide marketing or placement services, and that any such fees are fully paid by the fund manager;
  • Agreement for recourse – fund managers must agree that the pension system(s) may terminate or rescind a contract or commitment for investment and recoup all management and performance fees for violation of these requirements.

Restrictions on Placement Agents

  • Expand current ban on private equity placement agents to include placement agents and third-party marketers for all types of funds, where such agents and marketers are exclusively providing “finder” or introduction services;
  • Ease current ban on private equity placement agents to allow use of placement agents who provide legitimate value-added services such as due diligence and similar professional services on behalf of prospective investors;
  • Require such agents and marketers to demonstrate the ability to raise capital outside NYC by establishing that they raised $500 million in at least two of the past three years from entities other than the NYC pension systems;
  • Require full description of value-added services provided as well as resumes of key professionals and employees who contact individuals involved in decision-making process regarding a proposed investment;
  • Require registration with either the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

New York City is separating itself from New York State by not completely banning the use of placement agents. Unfortunately, the Comptroller has not publish a copy of these new rules on his website.

Disclosure: My company has historically used placement agents as part of its fundraising.

Sources:

Image is by Julius Schorzman under Creative Commons in Wikimedia: Boroughs Labels New York City Map.

California Proposes Having Placement Agents Register

Placement agents would have to register as lobbyists under legislation proposed by Assemblyman Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina). The legislation would define placement agents as lobbyists in accordance with the state’s Political Reform Act. Placement agents would have to register as lobbyists before pitching investment ideas to public pension plans in California.

It seems like the big California pension funds want access for pitches from small investment firms without their own marketing staff. So they are not following the lead of New York with its outright ban on placement agents.

The bill is sponsored by State Controller John Chiang, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), and Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

The bill is straightforward, defining a placement agent as:

“any person or entity hired, engaged, or retained by, or acting on behalf of, an external manager, or on behalf of another placement agent, as a finder, solicitor, marketer, consultant, broker, or other intermediary to raise money or investment from, or to obtain access to, a public retirement system in California, directly or indirectly, including, without limitation, through an investment vehicle.”

There is an exemption for employees of external managers who spends at least one-third of their time managing the assets of their employer.

As a “placement agent” you are required to report quarterly on fees, compensation and gifts under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000-81016).

Sources: