The SEC issued an order that raises, to adjust for inflation, two of the thresholds that determine whether an investment adviser can charge its clients performance fees. The order carries out a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act allows an investment adviser to charge a client performance fees if the client meets certain criteria, including two tests that have dollar amount thresholds. The SEC has now rasied the dollar amounts and now an investment adviser will be able to charge performance fees if the client has at least $1 million under the management of the adviser, or if the client has a net worth of more than $2 million. Either of these tests must be met at the time of entering into the advisory contract. The previous thresholds were $750,000 and $1.5 million respectively, and were last revised in 1998.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Commission issue an order to adjust for inflation these dollar amount thresholds by July 21, 2011 and every five years thereafter. The Commission published a notice of its intent to issue the order on May 10, 2011. The Commission also proposed amendments to rule 205-3, which are currently under consideration.
The order will be effective on September 19, 2011, which will be approximately 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
Showing posts with label Advisers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advisers. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Monday, June 21, 2010
No Fund for States to Oversee Advisers?
If the legislation that is currently moving through Congress passes, state regulators will take responsibility for the oversight of all investment advisers who manage less than $100 million dollars, a change from the current benchmark of $30 million dollars.
While the state regulators have been pushing hard to increase their power through this piece of legislation, there is one small problem - they don't have the funds to regulate all of these additional advisers.
State Advisor Regulation Strains Budgets
While the state regulators have been pushing hard to increase their power through this piece of legislation, there is one small problem - they don't have the funds to regulate all of these additional advisers.
State Advisor Regulation Strains Budgets
Friday, February 5, 2010
Bad Advice -Ignore FINRA Social Media Guidance
Securities regulation is a big deal for those in the industry. The mix of rules, regulations and regulators is a dangerous web of potential violations, fines and suspensions. But those who are in the industry know that the regulators are serious, that they are looking for violations, and will bring actions for those violations.
Maybe it is a sign of the Madoff times, but I can't help but shutter when I read comments from supposedly educated and experienced people who comment on rules and regulations. We all know that FINRA has released its social media guidelines. And we know that like most topics, there can be more than one opinion on the impact of new pronouncements.
Some think that the guidelines are too vague, and therefore meaningless. The vagueness that they are referring to is a desire to meet two goals - first to insure that new rules and regulations address a wide range of situations, and second, to allow firms to create their own supervisory system to meet the challenges of their particular mix of issues. For the inexperienced, bright line tests are better because they are easier. The experienced prefer principle-based regulation - tell me what you want to accomplish, and I will figure out the best way for me and my firm to get there.
But that claim of vagueness has led to another unfortunate, and potentially dangerous conclusion. From a legal blog today, talking about FINRA's social media guidelines:
I hope that any financial professional who is guided by that statement has my business card on his desk. He is going to need it shortly.
FINRA is taking this seriously, and is already requesting documents regarding the use of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. It is not impossible for them to monitor the use of social media, they will do so, and will seek sanctions for misuse.
Maybe it is a sign of the Madoff times, but I can't help but shutter when I read comments from supposedly educated and experienced people who comment on rules and regulations. We all know that FINRA has released its social media guidelines. And we know that like most topics, there can be more than one opinion on the impact of new pronouncements.
Some think that the guidelines are too vague, and therefore meaningless. The vagueness that they are referring to is a desire to meet two goals - first to insure that new rules and regulations address a wide range of situations, and second, to allow firms to create their own supervisory system to meet the challenges of their particular mix of issues. For the inexperienced, bright line tests are better because they are easier. The experienced prefer principle-based regulation - tell me what you want to accomplish, and I will figure out the best way for me and my firm to get there.
But that claim of vagueness has led to another unfortunate, and potentially dangerous conclusion. From a legal blog today, talking about FINRA's social media guidelines:
Investing blogs seem to be eyeing the rules with a wary eye, but the consensus seems to be something a long the lines of "it's impossible for them to enforce this, and they're probably not going to be too aggressive anyway."
I hope that any financial professional who is guided by that statement has my business card on his desk. He is going to need it shortly.
FINRA is taking this seriously, and is already requesting documents regarding the use of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. It is not impossible for them to monitor the use of social media, they will do so, and will seek sanctions for misuse.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Compensation Cuts Leads to Broker Transitions
In my practice I have seen a huge increase in the number of wirehouse brokers who are changing firms, as those firms consolidate and attempt to increase their profits.
Unfortunately for some, the wirehouses are ramping up profits at the expense of their brokers, and ultimately, their customers. In all of the years that I have been representing wirehouse brokers, I have never seen such a large number of brokers who are being terminated on the basis of trumped up charges. I certainly understand the need and desire to run a compliant firm, and to weed out brokers who have difficulty following the rules. And I am aware that brokers, like everyone else, tend to downplay their own culpability in such matters. But really, some of these terminations are simply beyond the pale, and nothing more than an asset grab.
I have been saying for almost a decade that the wirehouses want to get rid of brokers and move their business model to salaried employees. See my column from the January 1998 issue of Research Magazine - Death of a Salesman. But now there is a new attack - lower payouts.
It started with the small producers - who can forget Bank of America's decision to cut payouts for brokers on the banking side by 50%, causing a exodus of brokers from the firm, and a mess of promissory note arbitrations.
Citigroup, never the friend to its brokers, apparently has plans to force its brokers into a fee based model, regardless of what the customers want, or need. In an article titled "FAs Disgruntled over New Comp Plan at Citi Personal Wealth Management", David Geracioti, the editor-in-chief of Registered Rep magazine, details the information he has received regarding this forced transition from broker to investment adviser.
As Mr. Gercioti points out, brokers are upset; and leaving. Just take a look at the discussion at the Advisor Forum at Registered Rep titled "Citi PWM Exodus" for a peek at what some brokers are facing, and thinking.
Certainly, in many instances, the fee based model works for customers, and brokers. In many cases, it aligns the interests of the broker with the interests of the customer, and both do well if the assets increase in value, without any selling pressure on the broker or the customer.
But it doesn't work well for everyone. Customers with fixed income accounts, customers who adjust their portfolios once a year, and a host of others, will pay lower fees with a commission based account. Unless of course you lower the management fee to less than a percent.
Citigroup would obviously love to get rid of brokers, and the payouts, and it just may get its wish. Brokers are leaving. If a broker wants to be an RIA, he certainly can do so without the heavy hand of a wirehouse.
Setting up an investment advisory firm, using the platform of a major broker-dealer like Fidelity, is not expensive, nor is it difficult. For the enterprising professional, it is an excellent business model. For an overview of what is involved, take a look at my article, Registration and Regulation of Investment Advisers at SECLaw.com and our update of the SEC publication, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration.
Or, becoming an independent, and associating with an independent broker-dealer. Doing so lets brokers do exactly what they and their customers need - the flexibility to use a commission based model when appropriate, or a fee based model for those customers who need that model.
Some brokers are reluctant to go into business on their own, and certainly some customers will be reluctant to leave a "big" name like Citigroup. Brokers who stay may find their compensation continually reduced, being forced into teams, and their smaller accounts sent to a call center. Ultimately, the firms will keep the assets, and continue to have less overhead, and more profit, all to the detriment of the financial professionals who cultivated those relationships and serviced those clients.
Does the big name make a difference? I am sure it does. But given the recent financial crisis, are customers still impressed with those "big" name wirehouses? Do customers really believe that those firm offer better advice than an independent? Are they in better financial shape than their competitors? Aren't customers really relying on the relationship with their financial adviser?
Time will tell, but like the brokers in the Registered Rep forums and those who are calling my office, the outlook is not good.
Naturally, any move needs the assistance of professionals, including an experienced securities attorney. Creating an investment advisory firm is not difficult, but requires guidance through the regulatory maze. But all of that can be achieved with effort, and the cost is going to be less than the loss that you will incur over the course of a single month.
My firm offers free consultations to financial professionals who are seeking to change firms, join independents or to start their own RIAs or broker-dealers. Feel free to email me at astarita@beamlaw.com, or to call 212-509-6544 to discuss the possibilities.
More>>>
Unfortunately for some, the wirehouses are ramping up profits at the expense of their brokers, and ultimately, their customers. In all of the years that I have been representing wirehouse brokers, I have never seen such a large number of brokers who are being terminated on the basis of trumped up charges. I certainly understand the need and desire to run a compliant firm, and to weed out brokers who have difficulty following the rules. And I am aware that brokers, like everyone else, tend to downplay their own culpability in such matters. But really, some of these terminations are simply beyond the pale, and nothing more than an asset grab.
I have been saying for almost a decade that the wirehouses want to get rid of brokers and move their business model to salaried employees. See my column from the January 1998 issue of Research Magazine - Death of a Salesman. But now there is a new attack - lower payouts.
It started with the small producers - who can forget Bank of America's decision to cut payouts for brokers on the banking side by 50%, causing a exodus of brokers from the firm, and a mess of promissory note arbitrations.
Citigroup, never the friend to its brokers, apparently has plans to force its brokers into a fee based model, regardless of what the customers want, or need. In an article titled "FAs Disgruntled over New Comp Plan at Citi Personal Wealth Management", David Geracioti, the editor-in-chief of Registered Rep magazine, details the information he has received regarding this forced transition from broker to investment adviser.
As Mr. Gercioti points out, brokers are upset; and leaving. Just take a look at the discussion at the Advisor Forum at Registered Rep titled "Citi PWM Exodus" for a peek at what some brokers are facing, and thinking.
Certainly, in many instances, the fee based model works for customers, and brokers. In many cases, it aligns the interests of the broker with the interests of the customer, and both do well if the assets increase in value, without any selling pressure on the broker or the customer.
But it doesn't work well for everyone. Customers with fixed income accounts, customers who adjust their portfolios once a year, and a host of others, will pay lower fees with a commission based account. Unless of course you lower the management fee to less than a percent.
Citigroup would obviously love to get rid of brokers, and the payouts, and it just may get its wish. Brokers are leaving. If a broker wants to be an RIA, he certainly can do so without the heavy hand of a wirehouse.
Setting up an investment advisory firm, using the platform of a major broker-dealer like Fidelity, is not expensive, nor is it difficult. For the enterprising professional, it is an excellent business model. For an overview of what is involved, take a look at my article, Registration and Regulation of Investment Advisers at SECLaw.com and our update of the SEC publication, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration.
Or, becoming an independent, and associating with an independent broker-dealer. Doing so lets brokers do exactly what they and their customers need - the flexibility to use a commission based model when appropriate, or a fee based model for those customers who need that model.
Some brokers are reluctant to go into business on their own, and certainly some customers will be reluctant to leave a "big" name like Citigroup. Brokers who stay may find their compensation continually reduced, being forced into teams, and their smaller accounts sent to a call center. Ultimately, the firms will keep the assets, and continue to have less overhead, and more profit, all to the detriment of the financial professionals who cultivated those relationships and serviced those clients.
Does the big name make a difference? I am sure it does. But given the recent financial crisis, are customers still impressed with those "big" name wirehouses? Do customers really believe that those firm offer better advice than an independent? Are they in better financial shape than their competitors? Aren't customers really relying on the relationship with their financial adviser?
Time will tell, but like the brokers in the Registered Rep forums and those who are calling my office, the outlook is not good.
Naturally, any move needs the assistance of professionals, including an experienced securities attorney. Creating an investment advisory firm is not difficult, but requires guidance through the regulatory maze. But all of that can be achieved with effort, and the cost is going to be less than the loss that you will incur over the course of a single month.
My firm offers free consultations to financial professionals who are seeking to change firms, join independents or to start their own RIAs or broker-dealers. Feel free to email me at astarita@beamlaw.com, or to call 212-509-6544 to discuss the possibilities.
More>>>
Monday, January 18, 2010
Nationwide Financial Tells Advisors To Find New BDs
Nationwide Financial has advised its independent financial advisers to find new broker-dealer relationships before April 30, according to Investment News.
The article states that the move is intended by Nationwide to focus its efforts on its proprietary sales force and to expand its insurance business.
Independent brokers have a number of choices for new affiliations, as there are any number of independent firms that are available, depending on the needs of the adviser and his clients. I would like to remind brokers that these agreements should be reviewed by an attorney prior to moving to a new firm, as there are a number of clauses which could cause difficulties down the road. While many brokers believe that employment agreements, promissory notes and related contracts are not negotiable, many are, depending on the circumstances. Additional consulting an attorney before entering into any type of agreement involving your career and clients is money well spent, if for no reason other than to prevent surprises down the road.
More>>>
The article states that the move is intended by Nationwide to focus its efforts on its proprietary sales force and to expand its insurance business.
Independent brokers have a number of choices for new affiliations, as there are any number of independent firms that are available, depending on the needs of the adviser and his clients. I would like to remind brokers that these agreements should be reviewed by an attorney prior to moving to a new firm, as there are a number of clauses which could cause difficulties down the road. While many brokers believe that employment agreements, promissory notes and related contracts are not negotiable, many are, depending on the circumstances. Additional consulting an attorney before entering into any type of agreement involving your career and clients is money well spent, if for no reason other than to prevent surprises down the road.
More>>>
Monday, November 2, 2009
Congress to Give FINRA Authority over RIAs
According to InvestmentNews.com, there has been an amendment to the Investor Protection Act which gives FINRA authority over the advisory activity of any broker-dealer that it regulates.
The bill would affect anyone who is dually registered as an investment adviser and a broker, and would greatly expand FINRA's authority over the financial markets.
On one level the proposal makes sense. In recent years we have seen the distinctions between brokers and advisers blurr, and in the retail area, there often is no substantive difference between the two. At least not to the investor, who often does not know, nor does he care, whether his financial adviser is a stock broker or an investment adviser.
The most notorious example is Madoff, who, although presenting himself and his firm as a brokerage firm, was actually acting, or purporting to act, as an investment adviser. In that example, a distinction without a difference, and giving FINRA authority over the RIA side of the BDs business might have made a difference.
That is not to say that FINRA should have authority over all RIAs. There are thousands of investment advisers who are not brokers and who do not work for broker-dealers. Those adviser are now regulated by the states, or by the SEC, depending on how much money they manage.
The committee is scheduled to vote on the Investor Protection Act Nov. 4. According to InvestmentNews.com, it is likely to approve the bill. More>>>
Technorati Tags: finra
The bill would affect anyone who is dually registered as an investment adviser and a broker, and would greatly expand FINRA's authority over the financial markets.
On one level the proposal makes sense. In recent years we have seen the distinctions between brokers and advisers blurr, and in the retail area, there often is no substantive difference between the two. At least not to the investor, who often does not know, nor does he care, whether his financial adviser is a stock broker or an investment adviser.
The most notorious example is Madoff, who, although presenting himself and his firm as a brokerage firm, was actually acting, or purporting to act, as an investment adviser. In that example, a distinction without a difference, and giving FINRA authority over the RIA side of the BDs business might have made a difference.
That is not to say that FINRA should have authority over all RIAs. There are thousands of investment advisers who are not brokers and who do not work for broker-dealers. Those adviser are now regulated by the states, or by the SEC, depending on how much money they manage.
The committee is scheduled to vote on the Investor Protection Act Nov. 4. According to InvestmentNews.com, it is likely to approve the bill. More>>>
Technorati Tags: finra
Friday, October 30, 2009
Hedge Funds On Wall Street Talent Hunt
From Financial Planning.com - Less than a year after the credit crisis forced the closure of some 1,000 hedge funds, these firms are back out looking for capital and hiring professionals from Wall Street firms. In addition to poaching from investment banks, the funds are bringing in professionals from endowments, foundations, and traditional asset managers, according to a recent report More>>>
Monday, October 26, 2009
SEC Charges Broker for Manipulation Using Internet
Once again, the SEC is moving quickly. It is a welcome change, as they have always been known for closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Only three weeks after an alleged fraud began, the SEC charged a securities broker with securities fraud for repeatedly creating and then distributing fake press releases to manipulate the stock prices of multiple publicly traded companies.
The SEC alleges that the broker created press releases, including one that claimed that Google was buying the target company. He then posed as an investor on Internet message boards, touting the announcements he had fabricated. In one instance, his scheme caused the stock price to increase by nearly 80 percent within a few hours of the issuance of his phony press release.
Moving a stock 80% on an Internet posting is pretty amazing, and raises another question. Just how greedy, and gullible, are some investors? Someone posts news in an Internet forum, linking to a press release, and they buy the stock?
Investing is not that easy. There is due diligence that needs to be performed, and analysis that needs to be done. That is why investors use financial advisers, and not Internet investment forums, to make investment decisions.
More>>>
Only three weeks after an alleged fraud began, the SEC charged a securities broker with securities fraud for repeatedly creating and then distributing fake press releases to manipulate the stock prices of multiple publicly traded companies.
The SEC alleges that the broker created press releases, including one that claimed that Google was buying the target company. He then posed as an investor on Internet message boards, touting the announcements he had fabricated. In one instance, his scheme caused the stock price to increase by nearly 80 percent within a few hours of the issuance of his phony press release.
Moving a stock 80% on an Internet posting is pretty amazing, and raises another question. Just how greedy, and gullible, are some investors? Someone posts news in an Internet forum, linking to a press release, and they buy the stock?
Investing is not that easy. There is due diligence that needs to be performed, and analysis that needs to be done. That is why investors use financial advisers, and not Internet investment forums, to make investment decisions.
More>>>
Friday, October 23, 2009
Morgan Stanley Plans to Double High Net Worth Advisors
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney announced the integration of Smith Barney’s Citi Family Office into its own ultra-high-net-worth division, which will now be called Morgan Stanley Private Wealth Management. Unlike the old family office, the newly combined unit will exclusively serve clients with a minimum of $20 million in assets. Morgan said it plans to add more advisors to PWM through a combination of “organic growth and selective acquisitions.” More>>>
Friday, October 2, 2009
RIA Assets Fall But Their Numbers Grow
A recent report has confirmed what we suspected - brokers and groups of brokers are moving to the investment advisory side of the business, leaving FINRA and its regulatory nightmare behind them. FA Magazine is reporting that while total assets under management for advisers declined by more than 20%, which is no surprise, the total number of advisers has increased. More>>>
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Advisors’ Job Attitude, Outlook Improves
A new survey reveals that independent RIAs have seen their level of job satisfaction rise 10% and the number with an optimistic outlook for the U.S. economy has climbed by 25% over the past three months, according to a survey released by TD Ameritrade Institutional. Half of the 500 RIAs surveyed gave a top rating (9 or 10) to their satisfaction with their job, up from about 40% three months ago. More>>>
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Registration and Regulation of Investment Advisers
Increased regulation, and a push for more regulation by FINRA and the States is causing brokers and small firms to move the to investment advisory side of the business. While regulations are going to change here too, there are benefits to the adviser registration, rather than dealing with FINRA. More>>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)