Compliance Bits and Pieces for September 23

These are some compliance related stories that recently caught my attention:

Forgotten Bookmarks: Investment in Reading Pays Off by Michael Popek in Forbes

I come across a lot of interesting items left behind in books, but I’d say that most of them don’t interest Forbes readers all that much. I hope this find will pique your interest:

Watch out: Blogger uses web to uncover suspected corruption in thebriberyact.com

This week the Daily Telegraph reported that a Chinese blogger has been running through the picture archives of Chinese State officials on the web and clocking the watches they wear.

The result.

The blogger reports that Chinese officials earning c.£10k a year appear to be sporting collections of watches valued at tens of thousands of pounds, including gold rolexes, cartiers and the like.

Inside Straight: Avoiding E-Mail Stupidity By Mark Herrmann in Above the Law

There’s one guy in your outfit who understands the need not to write stupid e-mails: That’s the guy who just spent all day in deposition being tortured with the stupid e-mails that he wrote three years ago.

That guy will control himself. He’ll write fewer and more carefully phrased e-mails for the next couple of weeks. Then he’ll go back to writing stupid stuff again, just like everyone else.

Was Full Tilt Poker a Ponzi Scheme?

The United States Government forced online poker sites to the fringes of the financial system. The U.S. government has long argued that online poker gambling is illegal under the Wire Act, a 1961 law that explicitly prohibits sports betting conducted over electronic communication. In 2006, Congress made it illegal for financial institutions to process funds for online gambling.

It should be no surprise that an online poker site would run into legal problems. The complaint against Full TItle Poker caught my eye because

“By March 31, 2011, Full Tilt Poker owed approximately $390 million to players around the world, including approximately $150 million to United States players. However, the company had only approximately $60 million in its bank accounts.”

Many Ponzi schemes started off as legitimate enterprises. When funding shortfalls or an unexpected loss hits, the managers try to hide the bad news. This creates a spiraling downfall leading from poor management to criminal behavior. In this case, Full Tilt was having trouble moving the cash around the financial system to collect wagers from players and make payments to the winners. It sounds like Full Tilt was funding winnings without withdrawing initial bets from the player accounts.

But was it a Ponzi scheme? While there is no official definition of a Ponzi scheme, these are what I think are the elements:

(1) A promise of financial reward.

(2) Current contributions to the scheme are not invested, but are spent to make good on returns promised to earlier contributors.

(3) The manager of the scheme maintains his ability to pay the returns only by getting other contributors.

(4) The contributors think the manager is investing their contributions to make the return (not necessarily in a fully legal way).

(5) If future contributors do not arrive in sufficient numbers, the Ponzi scheme will have too little money to pay current returns/redemption.

Full Tilt was not an investment scheme. Sure you can argue about whether poker success is based on skill or luck, with luck being a key element of gambling. (I think it’s a combination of both.) But it’s not an investment and you are not buying a security. The contributors did not think the manager was doing anything with the money other than keeping it safe. They were winning or losing based on the hands the contributors played.

It does seem that current winnings were being paid from new contributions. According to the complaint, the mangers were taking more cash out than the business could support. The company had a funding shortfall because it was having trouble moving the wagers and winnings through the financial system.

You would hope that a leading federal prosecutor would know the difference between different types of fraud. Full Tilt was not a Ponzi scheme. As good as you may be at poker, your wagers are not investments.

Sources:

Miscommunication

Are you speaking the same language as the rest of your firm?

Do they understand your questions?

Do they understand your answers?

Miscommunication is at the root of many problems. Many compliance policies are written by lawyers, for lawyers. That may work fine once there is an investigation or a problem. But they do little to prevent the problem. Outside of compliance and legal, the rest of the firm can’t grasp the language used.

One of the goals of compliance should be translate complex legal requirements into easy to understand rules.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

Comic is from xkcd 1 to 10.

Conflicts of Interest and Securitizations

The Big Short highlighted some of the difficulties of taking an investment position in a real estate downturn. The situation was taken a step further with Goldman Sachs’ help in putting together mortgage backed securities with the primary purpose of helping a client take an investment position that the securities will default. It turned out very well for Goldman’s client and terrible for the purchasers of the securities.

Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act prohibits an underwriter, placement agent, initial purchaser, or sponsor, or any affiliate or subsidiary of any such entity, of an asset-backed security from engaging in a transaction that would involve or result in certain material conflicts of interest. It then leaves it up to the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules for the purpose of implementing this new prohibition.

The SEC published a proposed rule at its Open Meeting on Sept. 19, 2011: Prohibition against Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitization (.pdf).

The proposed rule could — if certain conditions are otherwise met — prohibit a firm from packaging Asset Backed Securities, selling them to an investor, and subsequently shorting the Asset Backed Securities to potentially profit at the same time as the investor would incur losses.

Sources:

What Does a Criminal Look Like?

A group of Kentucky men would prefer to spend time in jail time rather comply with vehicle safety rules.

As you can see from their booking photos, the men are Amish and belong to the Old Order Swartzentruber Amish group. They say their religious beliefs forbid the placement of bright orange safety triangles on the backs of their buggies. They believe that displays of “loud” colors should be avoided, along with the use of “worldly symbols.” Swartzentruber Amish believe such symbols indicate the user no longer trusts fully in God.

The orange triangles are required on all slow-moving vehicles, according to Kentucky state law. The Swartzentruber Amish use along with lanterns and red reflector lights, but refuse to use the orange triangle.

Is this a case of a bad rule, over-zealous enforcement, or criminal behavior? The compliance aspect of the situation caught my attention. The ethical, religious, and legal aspects of the situation are numerous.

The goal is to make sure that all vehicles on public roads are visible, especially slow-moving vehicles. That seems to be a reasonable goal.

This is not the first time the Amish community has clashed over this issue. In 2003, the Swartzentruber families in Nicktown Ohio successfully appealed after they refused to put orange reflective triangles on their horse-drawn buggies. They were allowed to mount less gaudy gray tape. Other states already accommodate the religious beliefs of conservative Amish groups by allowing the use of reflective tape instead of triangles.

I fall on the side of the Amish on this one. Suppose the rule was not for a triangle, but a six-pointed star. SOme would argue that it is merely an icon. Others will argue that it has obvious religious implications. The triangle symbol does not mean much to me, but it does to this Amish sect.

They don’t like bright colors. That seems to conflict with the need for visibility. One of the failings in the orange triangle rule is that the regulators had no studies to show that the orange triangle decreased the rate of collisions more than gray reflective tape the Amish were willing to use.

From a compliance perspective, it’s always better to have a clear, simple rule. When the situation gets complicated by deeply held beliefs that conflict with the rule, it’s time to revise the rule or allow deviations from the strict rule.

Sources:

 

Compliance Bits and Pieces for September 16

Here are some recent compliance related stories that caught my attention:


How do You Evaluate a Risk Assessment? by Tom Fox

What is the amount of risk that your company is willing to accept? Before you even get to this question how does your company assess risk and subsequently evaluate that risk?

CEO pushes Reg FD limits on Twitter by Dominic Jones in IR Web Report

I applaud Meckler’s use of Twitter to communicate with investors. In an era where institutional investors spend billions annually to glean important information through private access to company executives, Twitter and other new media channels democratize access for all and can help to rebuild public confidence in company executives and the capital markets.

SEC Charges Former Consulting Executive and Friend with Insider Trading Ahead of Biotech Takeovers

The SEC alleges that Scott Allen learned confidential information in advance of the acquisitions of Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sepracor Inc. through his work at a global consulting firm that was advising the acquiring Japanese companies as they made cash tender offers. Allen allegedly tipped his longtime friend John Michael Bennett, an independent filmmaker who had previously worked at a Wall Street investment bank, as each acquisition took shape. On the basis of the nonpublic information, Bennett purchased thousands of dollars in call options in the companies and also tipped his business partner at the independent film company they co-own. The insider trading by Bennett and his tippee generated more than $2.6 million in illicit profits. Allen received cash from Bennett in exchange for the tips.

Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2011

FINRA is elbowing its way into an oversight role for investment advisers. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus has introduced the Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2011. The argument is that the SEC is too overburdened to effectively oversee investment advisors.

I find it strange that Congress wants to make the shift. If the SEC can’t handle the job, it’s because the Congress will not appropriate the money the SEC needs. If there are not enough inspections, its because there are not enough people. Effectively, it would shifting the cost of oversight from the taxpayers to the investment advisers.

The hearing on the bill can be summarized with three words: “Madoff, Madoff, Madoff.” (The one exception at the House hearing was Congressman Carson who pointed out that it was Congress who plunked down lots of new obligations on the SEC without providing funding.)

The current draft of the bill would exclude the following from oversight by a “registered national investment adviser association”:

  • Investment companies (mutual fund advisors)
  • Non-U.S. persons
  • Clients that in aggregate own at least $25 million in investments
  • Various religious, education or charitable entities
  • Stock pension plans and collective trusts
  • Private equity funds
  • Venture capital funds

Retail investment advisers would be governed by the “registered national investment adviser association” while hedge funds and private equity funds would stay with the SEC. Personally, I think the SEC has its weaknesses, but I dislike FINRA’s strict rule based approach to regulation.

Sources:

Image is by Lobstar28

Carried Interest and Obama’s American Jobs Act

The tax treatment of carried interest has been eyed as a revenue source off and on for the past few years. It’s back in the sights of the administration in the new American Jobs Act.

Subtitle B – Tax Carried Interest in Investment Partnerships as Ordinary Income

Section 411 – Partnership Interests Transferred in Connection With Performance of Services.
Current law allows service partners to receive capital gains treatment on labor income without limit, which creates an unfair and inefficient tax preference. This section would tax as ordinary income, and make subject to self-employment tax, a service partner’s share of the income of an investment partnership attributable to a carried interest because such income is derived from the performance of services.

Section 412 – Special Rules for Partners Providing Investment Management Services to Partnerships.
To the extent that a service partner contributes “invested capital” and the partnership reasonably allocates its income and loss between such invested capital and the remaining interest, income attributable to the invested capital would not be recharacterized. This subtitle would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.

Full text of the American Jobs Act on WSJ.com

The Slow Rulemaking on Swaps and Derivatives

One of the strange splits in US financial regulation is that many swap and derivatives are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission. I think of the CFTC, I think of Trading Places and with the SEC I think of Wall Street.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has delayed its rollout of regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act has been pushed back until at least early 2012. This delay is the second time the CFTC has put the brakes on its new rules that will govern the over-the-counter derivatives market. In my view, taking longer to get the rules right is better than pushing through bad rules just to meet some arbitrary deadline. The question will be whether the CFTC will succeed in creating rules that will make the derivatives market one that is more transparent and easier to oversee for lines of trouble.

As for trouble, take a look at Greek bonds as an example. The Credit Default Swaps cost a record $5.8 million upfront and $100,000 annually to insure $10 million of Greece’s debt for five years using credit-default swaps. That means the market is saying it’s about a 58% chance that Greece will default in the next five years. But how extensive is that exposure in the US? How many people are on the hook for payouts if Greece defaults?

If your firm uses derivatives or swaps for dealing with debt risks or foreign exchange risks, you should pay attention to the CFTC rulemaking. They are likely to change the process and the cost of dealing with these risks.

Gary Gensler, Chairman of the CFTC, says that “until the CFTC completes its rule-writing process and implements and enforces these new rules, the public remains unprotected. That’s why the CFTC is working so hard to ensure that swaps-market reforms promote more open and transparent markets, lower costs for companies and their customers, and protect taxpayers.”

More on the Massachusetts Regulations on Expert Networks

The Massachusetts Secretary of State issued a new regulation that would affect the ability of investment advisors to use expert networks. This was a direct result of Risk Reward Capital Management being based in Massachusetts. Since the management company was registered as an investment adviser in Massachusetts they are subject to examination and enforcement by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The regulation highlights the continuing split between the state-lvel and federal-level of regulation of investment advisers. Dodd-Frank only widened that split by kicking thousands of advisers out of registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission and over to the various states.

Risk Reward Capital Management had just under $25 million under management. Dodd-Frank raised that level.

To clarify its new regulation, Massachusetts issued this policy statement:

The Securities Division has received several questions regarding the applicability of the expert or matching services regulation to investment advisers that are under the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This notice is to restate and clarify information included in the Division’s adopting release for the regulations adopted on August 19, 2011.

The expert or matching services regulation will not be deemed applicable to investment advisers subject to Securities and Exchange Commission authority, consistent with the requirements of Section 203A(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Securities Division retains its authority to take enforcement action against an investment adviser or any person associated with an investment adviser with respect to fraud or deceit, consistent with Section 203A(b)(2) of the Investment.

Sources: