Compliance Bits & Pieces for July 9

Here are some stories I found interesting:

Compliance Lessons in Country Music by Frank Sheeder in The Healthcare Compliance Blog

We all get our inspiration from different places. As you will see, country music can support some of the best themes that we can establish as compliance professionals. The titles of some of the more popular songs evoke all sorts of interesting parallels with what we confront in the compliance world every day. For example:

Top 3 FCPA Hits of the 2010 – The Gun Sting Case by Tom Fox

But what does all of this mean for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) sitting in his office in the US? It should mean quite a bit. There are several lessons from which you can learn and immediately implement in your FCPA compliance program if you have not previously done so.

Good Intentions But Wrong Message by Kathleen Edmond in Best Buy Ethics

This is a great reminder for all of us: ethical behavior does not mean that we never make mistakes – it is about quickly and transparently correcting a course of action when needed, and sharing the learning.

EU Financial Chief Says Hedge Fund Rules Near in Compliance Avenue

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Michel Barnier, the 27-nation bloc’s Financial Services Commissioner, said that EU member states and the European Parliament are “in the final stretch” before voting to approve the new rules in September.

How’s Your Business Doing?
Dilbert.com

Image of Garth Brooks is by Steve Jurvetson – edited by CPacker

Performance Fees for Private Investments Funds under the Investment Adviser Act

regulatory umbrella

As  more private investment funds will be pulled under the regulatory umbrella of the Investment Advisers Act,they will need to focus on the limitation on performance fees.

Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act generally prohibits any investment adviser, unless exempt from registration pursuant to Section 203(b) of the Advisers Act, from entering into, extending, renewing, or performing under any investment advisory contract if the contract includes a performance fee. With the financial reform bill likely to pass any day, the 203(b) exemption will evaporate for many private investment funds.

Section 205(e) grants the SEC the power to create an exemption from the limitation “on the basis of such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, knowledge of and experience in financial matters, amount of assets under management, relationship with a registered investment adviser,” and other factors. The SEC created an exemption in Rule 205-3 for “qualified clients.”

A “qualified client”

1. has at least $750,000 under the management with the investment adviser

2. has a net worth of more than $1.5 million at the of the investment

3. is a “qualified purchaser” as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(51)(A)]

4. is an executive officer, director, trustee, general partner, or person serving in a similar capacity, of the investment adviser

or

5. is an employee of the investment adviser who, in connection with his or her regular functions or duties, participates in the investment activities of such investment adviser.

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

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

Sources:

The image is a black Tour de France umbrella available at the official store of Le Tour de France. (Yes, I’m a huge fan of the Tour de France.)

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.

The Changing Standard for an Accredited Investor

As financial reform has made its way through Congress there have been several proposed changes to the standard of what it takes to be an accredited investor.

In 1982, the SEC prescribed the standard in Rule 501 of Regulation D:

5. Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of his purchase exceeds $1,000,000;

6. Any natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year;

The Senate version of the bill would have increased both amounts. If you use the CPI index, the amounts would more than double.

Although the bill has not passed yet, but it looks like the accredited investor standard is going to change. Section 413 of the bill is Adjusting the Accredited Investor Standard.

The net worth standard will stay at $1 million for at least the next four years, but the value of the primary residence will be excluded from net worth. Otherwise the SEC will be tasked with a review of the definition of “accredited investor” and has a clean slate to develop its own definition. The SEC can revisit the definition every four years. The only standard is that the definition be “appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy.”

Looking into my crystal ball, I expect the SEC to adjust the income standards based on inflation. That would put them at around $459,000 if single and $688,000 if married. I would also expect the standard to include some sort investment expertise and knowledge standard. Having a big pile of cash or a big paycheck will likely no longer be the only standard.  At least that’s my guess.

Sources:

Updated pdf file with text of the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010

Image: three horsemen of the apocalypse, greenspan, et al by daveeza

Fourth of July and Compliance

With the Fourth of July on Sunday, most businesses are closed on July 5th. (We hate to waste a good holiday.) What better way to celebrate the independence of the United States than by taking the day off from work and watching stuff blow up.

In colonial times, official proclamations were read from the Old State House balcony, looking down State Street towards Long Wharf.

Each July 4th, the Captain Commanding of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company reads the Declaration of Independence from the balcony of the Old State House. The reading of the Declaration of Independence dates back to July 18, 1776, when Colonel Thomas Crafts performed this duty for the first time.

Old State House

In this image, USS Constitution Sailor of the Year, Navy Counselor 1st Class Paul Grunder (at mic) leads a crowd of thousands in the Pledge of Allegiance at the Old State House in Boston on the morning of July 4th, 2009. Also on the balcony assigned to Old Ironsides are Storekeeper 1st Class Benjamin Hanson (left) and Electrician’s Mate 1st Class Michael Pendergraft.

Sources:

Compliance Bits and Pieces – July 2

Early this week, some people expected fireworks to come from the Free Enterprise v. PCAOB decision. Instead, we got cheap package of sparklers. Fun for a few minutes, but unlikely to leave much of a lasting impression.  Here are some interesting compliance-related stories from the past week.

SEC Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision in FEF v. PCAOB

I am pleased that the Court has determined that the Board’s operations may continue and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with the Board’s tenure restrictions excised, remains fully in effect. The PCAOB is a cornerstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and serves a critical role in promoting investor protection and audit quality,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. “We look forward to continuing to work with the Board in connection with its mission to oversee auditors in order to protect the interests of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports.”

The PCAOB Anti-climax by Professor Bainbridge

The real problem here is the Supreme Court’s decades long acquiescence in the creation of a fourth branch of government comprised of independent agencies over which the President has power of removal only for cause. It is not so much the double level of tenure protection that offends the President’s constitutional prerogatives, as the existence of any level of protection.

The New Sheriffs in Town by Halah Touryalai in RegisteredRep.com

There will be plenty at stake when the 4,000 firms currently registered with the SEC are transferred to state regulators. Between 2008 and 2009 the number of firms with $100 million assets or more dropped. Meanwhile, the number of firms with $25 to $100 million in assets increased by 15 percent. Firms in that range make up 38 percent of all SEC registered investment advisors — larger than any other asset range.

Enforcement Report for Q2 ’10 in the FCPA Blog

The first quarter of 2010 was the busiest ever for FCPA-related enforcement. This past quarter was one of the quietest for new enforcement actions, with just one from the DOJ and three from the SEC.

Image is sparkle3 by placid casual

Cheap Sunglasses and Compliance

Can cheap sunglasses affect your ethical behavior?

An important part of a compliance program is monitoring and improving the ethical behavior of your workforce. I’m always intrigued by ethics experiments.

Francesca Gino of Chapel Hill, Michael Norton of Harvard Business School, and Dan Ariely of Duke tested the effect of wearing knock-off designer sunglasses. They wanted to see if knowing you were wearing knock-offs would affect your behavior.

It did. Those subjects told they were wearing knock-off designer sunglasses cheated more than those who were not told.

The scientists asked two groups of young women to wear sunglasses taken from a box labeled either “authentic” or “counterfeit.” (All the eyewear was authentic.) Then the researchers put the participants in situations in which it was both easy and tempting to cheat.

People still cheat when its easy and tempting. Of those in the “authentic” group, 30% inflated their scores. But in the “counterfeit” group 71% inflated their scores.

They ran a bunch of other tests using the same theory that knowingly wearing knock-off designer sunglasses leads to degraded ethical behavior. It seems to have a very significant impact.

A lesson for compliance professionals: Don’t use knock-off goods in your program.

Dan Ariely talks about the findings in this video:

Sources:

Image of Knockoff Shades is by sparktography.

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:

Should Private Funds Have more than $10 Billion?

The current draft of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has a surprise in it for big hedge funds. By “surprise” I mean tax.

Title XVI: Financial Crisis Special Assessment has a $19 billion fee ready to be assessed against financial companies institutions with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion under management. This $19 billion in “fees” is being assessed to support the new government initiatives in the financial reform legislation.

Section 1601(f)(2) leaves up to the new Financial Stability Oversight Council to define a hedge fund (in consultation with the SEC). The amount owed by any particular hedge fund manager will depend on a matrix of contributing factors. Section Section 1601(g) lays out thirteen factors the Council will need to take into account.

Before you start handing money back to limited partners to get under the $10 billion threshold you may want to wait for the legislative process to continue. Senator Brown of Massachusetts is opposed to new taxes and is threatening to withhold his vote. (I didn’t vote for him.) With the death of Senator Byrd, the Democrats need to pull in more Republican votes to get the financial reform bill passed in the Senate.

Update: The Boston Globe is reporting that the $19 billion tax has been removed from the bill: Brown’s Threat Gets Bank Tax Removed.

Sources:

Image of Money series 2 is by Mokra

GRC Professional Survey

The folks at the Open Compliance & Ethics Group have been developing a professional education and certification program for governance, risk management and compliance professionals. Basically, it’s a program that helps to build on existing credentials and “round out” an executive’s skills so that they are more effective at integrating all of these processes (e.g., internal auditors learn basic legal and investigation skills; lawyers learn basic auditing skills; everyone learns leadership skills).

To ensure that the education and certification models are valid, they conducted a series of job analyses with experts and member organizations over the past 5 years. As a final step, they broadened this study to include their entire membership and even those outside of their membership.

Please help them by participating in a confidential survey. The survey takes 15 to 45 minutes to complete. (It took me 45.) Anyone who completes the survey by Friday, July 2nd will receive $200 credit toward the education and certification program when it is complete.


http://surveys.oceg.org/s3/grc-job-analysis

Please take a few moments to participate.