Tag: Rule 206(4)-2

The One with Fund Custody Footfault

ECM had investment advisory clients and managed two private funds in which some of its advisory clients invested. Based on the SEC order it looks like ECM tripped over the complexities of the Custody Rule in managing the investments.

An investment adviser has custody of client assets if it holds, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or if it has the ability to obtain possession of those funds or securities. Under the custody rule, an investment adviser who has custody has four main obligations:

  1. ensure that a qualified custodian maintains the clients assets;
  2. notify the client in writing of accounts opened by the adviser on the client’s behalf,
  3. have a reasonable basis for believing that the qualified custodian sends account statements at least quarterly to clients, and
  4. ensure that client funds and securities are verified by actual examination each year by an independent public accountant in a surprise exam.

A private fund can comply with obligations 2, 3, and 4 by having the fund audited annually and sending the audited financial statements to the fund investors with 120 days of the fiscal year of the private fund.

You don’t have to comply with custody requirement of 1 for “privately offered securities.” Those are private placements that are uncertificated and can’t be transferred without consent of the issuer. Think limited partnerships and private funds.

One problem was with what the order called “paper memberships” in the private fund. I was a bit confused by what was going on. I think the problem was that ECM was holding on to the limited partnership agreements signed by its clients who invested in the private funds.

The privately offered securities exception is only for obligation 1 of custody. You still have to comply with obligation 4 of custody and have a surprise examination.

Of course that is if you have custody. I think the problem is solved by having the partnership agreements send to the clients so you don’t have custody.

It looks like ECM also failed to have the private funds audited.

Of course this may all change when (or if) the SEC enacts the proposed Safeguarding Rule.

Sources:

Custody Rule Failure for Lack of Independence

The Custody Rule is full of foot-faults. The concept is easy: have a third party make sure that the investment adviser is not stealing money. That turns out to be a bit harder in execution.

Mohlman Asset Management Fund was using the accounting firm Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP to help with its funds’ financial statements. Mohlman asked the firm to also audit the funds.

A fund manager can satisfy the Custody Rule requirements if it completes and distributes annual audited financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP to each limited partner within 120 days of the end of the partnership’s fiscal year. The audit must be done by an independent public accountant that is registered with, and subject to regular inspection by the PCAOB. To be considered independent, a public accountant must meet the standards of independence described in Rule 2-01(b) and (c) of Regulation S-X.

KSM was already drafting the fund’s financial statements. KSM used the bank statements and other records provided to create a trial balance and then the financial statements, including the notes to the financial statements. Then it was auditing its own work.

That is certainly efficient for GAAP purposes. But it is not independent under Regulation S-X. The Custody Rule’s use of Regulation S-X imposes a higher level of independence than GAAP.

As you might guess, the reason the SEC came after KSM is because Mohlman was accused of fraud.

Sources:

Inadvertently Obtaining Custody

The concept behind the custody rule is simple. The adviser needs to hold client assets safely and needs a third -party to verify that the adviser is actually holding the assets. But as it’s been put in place, the Custody Rule is complicated. At times the SEC has needed to provide guidance, and then provide further guidance  to the guidance.

In fairness, part of the problem is that there are so many different business models employed by registered investment advisers that it is hard to have things work for all of them.

The latest guidance under the Custody Rule has to do with some of the arrangements in place between advisers and their custodians. It turns out that some standard custody agreements grant advisers broader access to client funds and securities than the advisers’ agreements with their clients.

The SEC’s Division of Investment Management issued a Guidance Update discussing situations when an investment adviser may inadvertently have “custody” of client assets pursuant to Rule 206(4)-2 under the Advisers Act of 1940.

The Guidance warns advisers to look for custody agreements that permit an adviser to instruct the custodian to disburse or transfer assets. That creates “custody” even if the adviser does not actually give those instructions or the advisory agreement with the client does not permit the adviser to do so.

The fix? The Guidance says to send a letter to the custodian that limits the adviser’s authority and to have the client and custodian provide written consent to acknowledge the arrangement.

The way I read that is to fix the custody agreement.

Staying on the custody theme, the SEC staff issued a no-action letter to the Investment Adviser Association on the use of a standing letter of authorization with a client to transfer assets to a designated third party.

The SEC takes the position that a SLOA grants access to the client’s assets. The transfer instructions come from the client, but the adviser is involved so that invokes custody.

To fix that custody problem, the SEC lays out seven steps that need to be implemented and requires a n update to Form ADV Item 9 next year.

One theme is that the SEC is indicating a willingness to provide relief under the Custody Rule when an adviser has taken steps to mitigate the mitigate potential harms to its clients by these Custody Rule foot-faults.

Sources:

New Guidance on the Custody Rule for SPVs and Escrows

walt-disney-company-stock certificate

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management recently released updated guidance on the Custody Rule. Private funds, especially private equity funds, have been wrestling with the SEC’s Custody Rule. The rule clearly comes from the perspective of regulating retail investment advisers and hedge funds. It fails to deali n a useful manner with investments in assets that are not publicly traded. The SEC has been retreating from its latest version of the rule and trying to clarify its overly broad requirements.

The latest guidance (IM Guidance Update 2014-07) tries to add some clarity around the special purpose vehicles for investments and post-closing escrow accounts.

Last summer, the SEC tried to provide some clarity under the Custody Rule for private stock certificates, which was supposed to provide additional relief from the SEC’s overly narrow definition of “privately offered securities.” That guidance made it easier for private equity funds to comply with the Custody Rule without having to wastefully warehouse documents with banks to meet the strict boundaries of the rule.

But there is still lots of uncertainty around the Custody Rule. Compliance with custody is important. It’s a key control for consumers to make sure that their investment adviser is not stealing their money or investing it contrary to their requirements. Last year, the SEC announced that 1/3 of firms examined had custody rule problems.

For a private funds the question will arise as to who is the client for purposes of the Custody Rule when it comes to special purpose vehicles for investments. The new guidance answers questions using four scenarios where SPVs may be involved as fund subsidiaries.

The guidance provides that its okay to not treat the SPV as a separate client, but merely as an asset of the fund, as long as the fund or funds controlled by the same adviser are the owners of the SPV. The SEC states that an SPV owned by the fund and third parties would fall outside this. I’m a bit confused because I never thought an entity with multiple unrelated owners would be considered an SPV.

The guidance also tackles post-closing escrow accounts. The concern is that the escrow account would hold cash owed to the fund, as well as other sellers not related to the fund. The problem is that the Custody Rule requires the client’s assets to be in an account in the client’s name and contain only the client’s funds or securities. A mixed post-closing escrow would violate the rule.

In the Guidance, the SEC retreats from commingling requirement so long as:

  • the fund is audited
  • the commingled escrow is in connection with sale or merger of a portfolio company
  • the escrow is maintained by a qualified custodian

The Guidance fixes some problems and creates some more. The rule clearly states that commingling is never allowed. The guidance now says that commingling is allowed in certain circumstances. Good luck reading the published regulations.

The SEC has just laid down the law on how post-closing escrows are handled in private equity transactions. I can hear the screams now that the Guidance does not match up with how the deals are structured or how the escrow is designed. Of course for real estate fund managers, they are left scratching their heads trying to figure out how to make this exception work for them.

Sources:

 

Updated Guidance on the Custody Rule for Private Funds

Barnum and Bailey Limited Stock Certificate

The Securities and Exchange Commission has provided some updated guidance on the Custody Rule for private funds. It has sometimes been tricky for private funds to comply with Rule 206(4)-2.

The custody rule deems it to be a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act, practice or course of business for an adviser to have custody of client funds or securities unless a qualified custodian maintains those funds and securities in a separate account for each client under that client’s name. The custody rule provides an exception from the custodian requirement for a fund in the case of certain privately offered securities it holds, provided the fund’s financial statements are audited.

“Privately offered securities” are defined as securities that are: (A) acquired from the issuer in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving a public offering; (B) uncertificated, and ownership thereof is recorded only on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the client; and (C) transferable only with the prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer.

This has posed a challenge for real estate fund managers and private equity fund managers that happen to have an entity that is certificated. For example, if the real estate fund has a REIT subsidiary, it may have issued stock certificates as a matter of practice. The Custody Rule would mandate that the fund hire a qualified custodian to hold that single REIT stock certificate. That custody relationship is expensive and provides little (no?) protection to fund investors.

The Investment Management Division issued an update that provides a great deal of relief.

The Division created a new category of securities for purposes of the custody rule: “private stock certificates.” These are non-transferable stock certificates or “certificated” LLC interests that were obtained in a private placement. These fail to meet the definition of “privately offered securities” because they are certificated.

“The Division would not object if an adviser does not maintain private stock certificates
with a qualified custodian, provided that:
  1.  the client is a pooled investment vehicle that is subject to a financial statement audit in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of the custody rule;
  2. the private stock certificate can only be used to effect a transfer or to otherwise facilitate a change in beneficial ownership of the security with the prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer;
  3. ownership of the security is recorded on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the client;
  4. the private stock certificate contains a legend restricting transfer; and
  5. the private stock certificate is appropriately safeguarded by the adviser and can be replaced upon loss or destruction.”

That is fantastic news.

Even better, the update adds some clarity to partnership agreements:

Partnership agreements, subscription agreements and LLC agreements are not certificates under Rule 206(4)-2(b)(2)(B) and the securities represented by such documents are privately offered securities provided they meet the other elements of Rule 206(4)-2(b)(2).

I know a few fund advisers that took a very conservative position on the Custody Rule and were shipping partnership agreements their custodians. It looks like that is not required by the Custody Rule.

References:

Custody and Private Funds

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission put a new rule in place restricting an investment adviser’s ability to have custody of its clients’ assets. Given that many private fund managers are going to have to register as investment advisers they need to figure out how to comply with this rule.

The rule is the anti-Madoff rule. The SEC wants client assets separate from the manager’s control and for the manager to safeguards in place to prevent a manager from sending out false statements to investors. This includes having a third party custodian and having the custodian send statements directly to investors and subjecting the accounts to a surprise inspection by an auditor.

Safekeeping required

Rule 206(4)-2(a) If you are an investment adviser registered or required to be registered under section 203 of the Act, it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Act for you to have custody of client funds or securities unless:

(1) A qualified custodian maintains those funds and securities:

(i) In a separate account for each client under that client’s name; or

(ii) In accounts that contain only your clients’ funds and securities, under your name as agent or trustee for the clients.

If your fund has securities, then you need a “qualified custodian” holding those securities. There is an exception for “privately offered securities” that will make life much easier for private equity funds and real estate funds.

Use of a Qualified Custodian

So who can you use as a “qualified custodian“?

(d)(6) Qualified custodian means:

(i) A bank as defined in section 202(a)(2) of the Advisers Act or a savings association as defined in section 3(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(b)(1)) that has deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811);

(ii) A broker-dealer registered under section 15(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, holding the client assets in customer accounts;

(iii) A futures commission merchant registered under section 4f(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6f(a)), holding the client assets in customer accounts, but only with respect to clients’ funds and security futures, or other securities incidental to transactions in contracts for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery and options thereon; and

(iv) A foreign financial institution that customarily holds financial assets for its customers, provided that the foreign financial institution keeps the advisory clients’ assets in customer accounts segregated from its proprietary assets.

Surprise audits and custodian statements

In addition to the requirement in (a)(1) that a qualified custodian hold the securities, there are addition requirements in (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4) that you notify the client about the custodian, require separate statements be sent to the client and that the account be subject to surprise audits.

When investment funds are the clients these requirements make less sense, so (a)(5) requires funds to send the account statements to their limited partners.

There is an exception for pooled investment vehicles:

(b)(4) Limited Partnerships subject to annual audit. You are not required to comply with paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section and you shall be deemed to have complied with paragraph (a)(4) of this section with respect to the account of a limited partnership (or limited liability company, or another type of pooled investment vehicle) that is subject to audit (as defined in rule 1-02(d) of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.1-02(d))):

(i) At least annually and distributes its audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to all limited partners (or members or other beneficial owners) within 120 days of the end of its fiscal year;

(ii) By an independent public accountant that is registered with, and subject to regular inspection as of the commencement of the professional engagement period, and as of each calendar year-end, by, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in accordance with its rules; and

(iii) Upon liquidation and distributes its audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to all limited partners (or members or other beneficial owners) promptly after the completion of such audit.

If your auditor is not subject to inspection by PCAOB, you would have to switch auditing firms for your private fund to use this exception. You need to make sure your auditing firm has the horsepower to get the audited down in time for you to get financial statements out in within 120 days of fiscal year end.

Certain privately offered securities

There is a exception for having to deliver “privately offered securities” to the qualified custodian. Certain privately offered securities are:

(A) Acquired from the issuer in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving any public offering;

(B) Uncertificated, and ownership thereof is recorded only on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the client; and

(C) Transferable only with prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer.

Notes and Interests in Subsidiaries and Portfolio Companies

For real estate private equity, the problem will be notes. They may be considered securities. Notes won’t meet the definition of uncertificated and they are most likely transferable.

For entities and portfolio companies, the key will be to make sure the subsidiaries under the funds are not certificated and there is requirement for consent in order to transfer. I think fund managers are going to have to back and inventory their subsidiary entity documents.

Of course you may be able to make an argument that the interest in the subsidiary is not a security. If it’s wholly-owned you can make a strong argument that the ownership is not a security since you are not relying solely on the efforts of others. But if the subsidiary is corporation you may be stuck treating it as a security. It’s generally hard to argue that shares in a corporation are not a security.

In the SEC Q&A about the custody rule:

Question II.3

Q: If an adviser manages client assets that are not funds or securities, does the amended custody rule require the adviser to maintain these assets with a qualified custodian?

A: No. Rule 206(4)-2 applies only to clients’ funds and securities.

So you don’t need to deliver all of the fund assets to the custodian. Just those that are securities and cash. Presumably, fund managers are already keeping their funds’ cash in a bank account and not in a mattress. They just need to make sure that the cash accounts are in the fund names.

At first, I thought the limited partnership exception would allow private fund managers to completely avoid the burden of this rule. That was too broad. Now I think fund managers are stuck with hiring a qualified custodian if they register with the SEC. I would guess there will lots of private fund managers looking for custodians before they register.

Sources:

ARMOR * PLATE / ptufts / http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

More Information on the Custody Rule

With the removal of the 15 client rule exemption from registration with the SEC, many private funds are going to have to comply the custody rule Rule 206(4)-2. Private equity firms will have the most problems trying to meets the demands of the rule.

The SEC is trying to help. They updated the Staff Responses to Questions About the Custody Rule.

Apparently they have been getting lots of questions about how the surprise examination should work.

Question IV.4

Q: Is there an example of a report that may be issued by the independent public accountant performing a surprise examination of the adviser?

A: Yes. As stated within the Commission’s Guidance for Accountants (see Release No. IA 2969), the surprise examination is a compliance examination to be conducted in accordance with AICPA attestation standards. The AICPA has issued an illustrative surprise examination report to reflect the reporting specified in the Guidance for Accountants. The illustrative report is available on the AICPAs website at http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/AccountingAndAuditing/Resources/
AudAttest/AudAttestGuidance/DownloadableDocuments/
FINAL_Surprise_Exam_Report_File_for_AICPA_org_REVISED_7.22.10.pdf.

Additionally, the AICPA published this illustrative surprise examination report in the May 2010 edition of the Audit and Accounting Guide — Investment Companies. (Posted September 9, 2010)

Question XIII.3

Q: Within the Guidance for Accountants contained in Release IA-2969, the Commission indicated that two types of reports issued under the AICPA professional standards (Type II SAS 70 or AT 601 compliance attestation) would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the internal control report. Are there other report formats that can be used to satisfy the Custody Rule?

A: Yes. The AICPA recently developed a report that under AT 101, Attest Engagements, of the AICPA’s professional standards that would be acceptable under the Custody Rule. An illustrative report is currently available on the AICPA’s website at http://www.aicpa.org/
InterestAreas/AccountingAndAuditing/Community/InvestmentCompanies/
DownloadableDocuments/Custody_report_September_1final.pdf. (Posted September 9, 2010)

Sources:

Private Equity and the Custody Rule

With the impending removal of the 15 Client Rule exemption from registration with the SEC, I was scratching my head trying to figure how to make the SEC’s new custody rule work for private equity.

The SEC recently updated its guidance on custody rule compliance truing to add clarity for advisers to pooled investment vehicles.

Here is one:

Question II.3

Q: If an adviser manages client assets that are not funds or securities, does the amended custody rule require the adviser to maintain these assets with a qualified custodian?

A: No. Rule 206(4)-2 applies only to clients’ funds and securities. (Posted 2003.)

Actually that does not help. A private equity fund will hold interests in private companies. Those interests may be stock, LLC interests or partnership interests.  Just because the company is private, those interests may still be securities.

For real estate private equity, the deeds to the underlying property would fall outside the custody rule. The intermediate entities, REITs and joint ventures may not fall outside the custody rule.

§ 275.206(4)-2(b)(2) has an exemption for certain privately offered securities, if the securities are:

(A) Acquired from the issuer in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving any public offering;
(B) Uncertificated, and ownership thereof is recorded only on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the client;
and
(C) Transferable only with prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer.

This exemption is available only if the fund is audited, and the audited financial statements are distributed, as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

The “uncertificated” requirement can be a problem. It is common practice for lenders relying on private company interests to require they be certificated to get better priority under the UCC.

The limits on transfer are a problem because as the holder of the interests, you want the flexibility to transfer interests.

The financial statements requirement is another extra burden, although may not be a problem for many funds. This requires:

  • annual audit
  • in accordance with GAAP
  • within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year
  • independent accountant registered and subject to inspection by PCAOB

(I’m not sure how quickly the SEC can change this rule if the Supreme Court rules PCAOB unconstitutional.)

In looking towards Capitol Hill, the Senate’s would exempt private equity firms from having to comply with the custody rule since they would not have to register. The House’s would not exempt private equity firms from registration and they would be subject to the custody rule.

One interesting aspect of the bills is that fund advisers that are currently registered because they have more than 15 clients/funds may no longer have to be registered if they fall under the venture capital fund advisers exemption or private equity fund advisers exemption. (Assuming those exemptions survive in the final bill.)

Sources:

Image of Old West Bank – It’s a beautiful bank is by oddsock

SEC Approves New Custody Rule

sec-seal

The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted the proposed Custody Rule for investment advisers originally proposed last May. (See: SEC Releases Proposed Custody Rules for Investment Advisers)

As is typical with the SEC, they announced the rule was approved before they made the final version of rule available. The rule amendments will be effective 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The SEC press release highlights the two biggest changes:

Surprise Exam

“The adviser is now required to engage an independent public accountant to conduct an annual “surprise exam” to verify that client assets exist. Such a surprise examination would provide another set of eyes on the client’s assets, and provide additional protection against theft or misuse. The accountants would have to contact the SEC if they discovered client assets were missing.”

Custody Controls Review

“When the adviser or an affiliate serves as custodian of client assets, the adviser is now required to obtain a written report — prepared by an accountant that is registered with and subject to regular inspection by the PCAOB — that, among other things, describes the controls in place at the custodian, tests the operating effectiveness of those controls and provides the results of those tests. These reports are commonly known as SAS-70 reports. Requiring that the accountant be registered with and subject to inspection by the PCAOB provides greater confidence regarding the quality of these reports.”

The rules are amendments to Rule 206(4)-2 [17 CFR 275.206(4)-2], Rule 204-2 [17 CFR 275.204-2] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] (the “Advisers Act” or “Act”), to Form ADV [17 CFR 279.1], and to Form ADV-E [17 CFR 279.8].

References:

SEC Releases Proposed Custody Rules for Investment Advisers

sec-seal

On May 14, the Securities Exchange Commission said they were proposing New Custody Rules for Investment Advisers. They summarized the proposed rules but did not release the actual text of the proposed rules.

Now the proposed rules are available in Release No. IA-2876 (.pdf). Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2009.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing amendments to the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and related forms. The amendments, among other things, would require registered investment advisers that have custody of client funds or securities to undergo an annual surprise examination by an independent public accountant to verify client funds and securities. In addition, unless client accounts are maintained by an independent qualified custodian (i.e., a custodian other than the adviser or a related person), the adviser or related person must obtain a written report from an independent public accountant that includes an opinion regarding the qualified custodian’s controls relating to custody of client assets. Finally, the amendments would provide the Commission with better information about the custodial practices of registered investment advisers. The amendments are designed to provide additional safeguards under the Advisers Act when an adviser has custody of client funds or securities.

The proposed rule is a sign of re-regulation in the industry. Some of the proposed rules were in place prior to 2003, when they removed through de-regulation. (Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2176, September 25, 2003 [68 FR 56692]).

The proposed rules are amendments to Rule 206(4)-2 [17 CFR 275.206(4)-2], Rule 204-2 [17 CFR 275.204-2] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] (the “Advisers Act” or “Act”), to Form ADV [17 CFR 279.1], and to Form ADV-E [17 CFR 279.8].