The Regulatory Examination Process has evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks to these prior process improvements, the SEC, CFTC/NFA and FINRA are able to conduct regulatory exams virtually…
The Regulatory Examination Process has clearly evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks in part to these prior process improvements, the SEC, CFTC/NFA and FINRA are able to conduct regulatory exams virtually in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and member firms are generally able to respond to regulatory requests in kind. Examination staff prepare requests remotely and serve them digitally upon member firms. Member firm response teams can typically access firm documents remotely and coordinate timely production of responsive information without needing to be present in the office. The growth, development and increased use of data analytics in risk-focused exams has effectively demonstrated both regulators’ capabilities to conduct, control and apply automated surveillance to the examination process and the industry’s ability to meet their obligations.
The OCIE has published its 2020 exam priorities, and key examination themes include (i) conflicts of interest, (ii) cybersecurity and cyber risk assessment, and (iii) chasing Alpha through alternative investment or alternate data providers, which in turn leads to concerns about sourcing, data protection, controls and governance.[1] This Client Alert presents observations about the impact of COVID-19 on the exam process, focusing on technical developments in the exam process, and considers whether current methodologies are in fact a blueprint for the future.
Regulatory Key Inquiry Areas
SEC Investment Adviser “full scope” exams have narrowed to focus on responses to a smaller set of preliminary firm requests. The smaller set of initial requests reflects the SEC’s increasing use of a risk-based approach that relies on the agency’s data extraction, aggregation and analysis capabilities. In other words, regulators are now using a well-developed understanding of firms’ enterprise risks to reduce the responsiveness burden on member firms and to focus on key areas of inquiry.
SEC’s National Exam Analytics Tool (“NEAT”) data requests now are based on a deep qualitative analysis of trading performed in advance of the request process that is designed to generate inquiries into: affiliated transactions, Board oversight of risks, third party advisers and portfolio managers, CCO communications with Board Committees, valuations, Administrator relationships and firm performance.
OCIE and Enforcement utilize their text recognition tool to review member firm filings. Consultants’ reports can be analyzed as ‘road maps’ for the examination probes if made available and not protected by a privileged engagement.
The regulators continue to analyze internal controls, firm risk assessments, cybersecurity issues (see Department of Homeland Security Releases) and whether firms’ due diligence processes are adequately reconciled to the firm’s books and records and to current regulatory requirements. Firms should expect that regulators will ask, for example, whether the firm’s escalation and reporting policies and procedures are current; whether the firm is doing its basic blocking and tackling (e.g., whether a firm’s WSPs have been updated and are being followed); and whether ‘lessons learned’ about specific events were appropriately documented and the documentation distributed to key personnel.
Performance-related exam requests are increasingly prominent. The GIPS 2017 Risk Alert highlighted ten deficiency areas that constitute key areas of current inquiry: misleading or confusing presentation of performance results; false claims; use of hypothetical performance examples; and adequacy of backtesting are all currently focal points of regulatory interest.
Firms should also consider the possibility that regulators increasing technological sophistication may prompt them to lead a focus on ‘never examined before’ funds.
Conclusions
The trends of regulators’ use of increasing technological sophistication in examinations and member firms’ increasing reliance on remote technologies to respond to both routine and ‘cause’ requests have reached a point of intersection during this period of social distancing measures designed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. We anticipate that, in addition to the enterprise-level risks that regulators’ technologies are designed to isolate, regulators will also focus on risks created by member firm workforces that are operating remotely and, perhaps, in reduced numbers. As a result, firms should be especially vigilant in understanding regulators specific exam requests and documenting their responses to these specialized requests. It is clear that regulators continue to increase the number of completed exams annually and utilize innovative technologies with a more highly trained staff to meet their priorities.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact Paul Lieberman or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at (201) 896-4100.
How the Courts Are Reacting to COVID-19 Contract Cases
Breach of contract cases arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic are slowly making their way through the court system… Breach of contract cases arising out of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic are slowly making their way through the court system. The early decisions shed light on how courts are handling force majeure provisions and contract defenses […]
What to Know About USPTO COVID-19 Prioritized Trademark Examination Program
The USPTO recently announced a new COVID-19 prioritized examination program for certain trademark and service mark applications… The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced a new COVID-19 prioritized examination program for certain trademark and service mark applications. It is available for products that are subject to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval […]
After a difficult few months, New Jersey restaurants are gradually reopening their doors for on-premises dining. After a difficult few months, New Jersey restaurants are gradually reopening their doors for on-premises dining. For restaurant operators and their customers, it is important to understand what is required to reopen safely. This article outlines the guidance provided […]
The Regulatory Examination Process has evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks to these prior process improvements, the SEC, CFTC/NFA and FINRA are able to conduct regulatory exams virtually… The Regulatory Examination Process has clearly evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks in part to these prior process improvements, […]
Understanding the Risks and Benefits of Remote Legal Proceedings
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has forced us to change the way we conduct everyday activities… The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has forced us to change the way we conduct everyday activities. Court proceedings, arbitrations, and mediations are no exception, and parties to such proceedings increasingly rely on video conferencing to go “virtual.” While technology can allow […]
Will COVID-19 Prompt an Uptick in White-Collar Crime Investigations?
While the COVID-19 pandemic may be slowing the pace at which white-collar crimes are prosecuted, it would be unwise to expect that the pace of white-collar investigations will slow… While the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic may be slowing the pace at which white-collar crimes are prosecuted, it would be unwise to expect that the pace of […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Remote Regulatory Exam and Response Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Regulatory Examination Process has evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks to these prior process improvements, the SEC, CFTC/NFA and FINRA are able to conduct regulatory exams virtually…
The Regulatory Examination Process has clearly evolved in positive directions over the past several years. Thanks in part to these prior process improvements, the SEC, CFTC/NFA and FINRA are able to conduct regulatory exams virtually in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and member firms are generally able to respond to regulatory requests in kind. Examination staff prepare requests remotely and serve them digitally upon member firms. Member firm response teams can typically access firm documents remotely and coordinate timely production of responsive information without needing to be present in the office. The growth, development and increased use of data analytics in risk-focused exams has effectively demonstrated both regulators’ capabilities to conduct, control and apply automated surveillance to the examination process and the industry’s ability to meet their obligations.
The OCIE has published its 2020 exam priorities, and key examination themes include (i) conflicts of interest, (ii) cybersecurity and cyber risk assessment, and (iii) chasing Alpha through alternative investment or alternate data providers, which in turn leads to concerns about sourcing, data protection, controls and governance.[1] This Client Alert presents observations about the impact of COVID-19 on the exam process, focusing on technical developments in the exam process, and considers whether current methodologies are in fact a blueprint for the future.
Regulatory Key Inquiry Areas
SEC Investment Adviser “full scope” exams have narrowed to focus on responses to a smaller set of preliminary firm requests. The smaller set of initial requests reflects the SEC’s increasing use of a risk-based approach that relies on the agency’s data extraction, aggregation and analysis capabilities. In other words, regulators are now using a well-developed understanding of firms’ enterprise risks to reduce the responsiveness burden on member firms and to focus on key areas of inquiry.
SEC’s National Exam Analytics Tool (“NEAT”) data requests now are based on a deep qualitative analysis of trading performed in advance of the request process that is designed to generate inquiries into: affiliated transactions, Board oversight of risks, third party advisers and portfolio managers, CCO communications with Board Committees, valuations, Administrator relationships and firm performance.
OCIE and Enforcement utilize their text recognition tool to review member firm filings. Consultants’ reports can be analyzed as ‘road maps’ for the examination probes if made available and not protected by a privileged engagement.
The regulators continue to analyze internal controls, firm risk assessments, cybersecurity issues (see Department of Homeland Security Releases) and whether firms’ due diligence processes are adequately reconciled to the firm’s books and records and to current regulatory requirements. Firms should expect that regulators will ask, for example, whether the firm’s escalation and reporting policies and procedures are current; whether the firm is doing its basic blocking and tackling (e.g., whether a firm’s WSPs have been updated and are being followed); and whether ‘lessons learned’ about specific events were appropriately documented and the documentation distributed to key personnel.
Performance-related exam requests are increasingly prominent. The GIPS 2017 Risk Alert highlighted ten deficiency areas that constitute key areas of current inquiry: misleading or confusing presentation of performance results; false claims; use of hypothetical performance examples; and adequacy of backtesting are all currently focal points of regulatory interest.
Firms should also consider the possibility that regulators increasing technological sophistication may prompt them to lead a focus on ‘never examined before’ funds.
Conclusions
The trends of regulators’ use of increasing technological sophistication in examinations and member firms’ increasing reliance on remote technologies to respond to both routine and ‘cause’ requests have reached a point of intersection during this period of social distancing measures designed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. We anticipate that, in addition to the enterprise-level risks that regulators’ technologies are designed to isolate, regulators will also focus on risks created by member firm workforces that are operating remotely and, perhaps, in reduced numbers. As a result, firms should be especially vigilant in understanding regulators specific exam requests and documenting their responses to these specialized requests. It is clear that regulators continue to increase the number of completed exams annually and utilize innovative technologies with a more highly trained staff to meet their priorities.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact Paul Lieberman or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at (201) 896-4100.
