As investment advisers conduct their annual review, they can learn a lot from their peers. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) recently issued a Risk Alert detailing the five compliance topics most frequently identified in deficiency letters that were sent to registered investment advisers.Below is a brief summary of the SEC risk alert:
(1) Compliance Rule
Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 makes it unlawful for an adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless the adviser: (1) adopts and implements written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the rules that the Commission has adopted under the Advisers Act; (2) reviews, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of its policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (3) designates a chief compliance officer responsible for administering the compliance policies and procedures that the adviser adopts. In conducting examinations, the SEC identified the following deficiencies or weaknesses:
Compliance manuals are not reasonably tailored to the adviser’s business practices, i.e. off-the-shelf manuals.
Annuals reviews are not held or neglect to assess the adequacy of the adviser’s policies and procedures.
Advisers fail to follow compliance policies and procedures.
Compliance manuals are not updated and contain information or policies that are no longer current.
(2) Regulatory Filings
Advisers are obligated to accurately complete and timely file certain regulatory filings and disclosures with the SEC, including Form ADV, Form PF, and Form D. The Risk Alert provides the following examples of deficiencies or weaknesses with respect to adviser regulatory filing obligations
Advisers made inaccurate disclosures on Form ADV brochures, such as inaccurately reporting custody information, regulatory assets under management, disciplinary history, types of clients and conflicts.
Advisers failed to promptly amend their Form ADVs when information became inaccurate or timely file their annual updating amendments.
Advisers did not complete the Form PF accurately or completely.
Advisers did not accurately complete and timely file Form Ds on behalf of their private fund clients.
Advisers may not have properly identified custody related to having access to online accounts using clients’ personal usernames and passwords.
Advisers with custody underwent surprise examinations that did not meet the requirements of the rule, i.e. the exams were not really a “surprise.”
Advisers were not aware that they may have custody because of certain authority over client accounts, i.e. powers of attorney.
(4) Code of Ethics Rule
Pursuant to Advisers Act Rule 204A-1, advisers must adopt and maintain a code of ethics. The code of ethics must: (1) establish a standard of business conduct that the adviser requires of all its supervised persons; (2) require an adviser’s “access persons” to periodically report their personal securities transactions and holdings to the adviser’s chief compliance officer or other designated persons; and (3) require that access persons obtain the adviser’s pre-approval before investing in an initial public offering or private placement. The SEC identified the following examples of deficiencies or weaknesses with respect to the Code of Ethics Rule:
Advisers failed to identify all their access persons (e.g., certain employees, partners or directors) for purposes of reviewing personal securities transactions.
Advisers’ codes of ethics were missing required information, including failing to specify review of the holdings and transactions reports and failing to identify the specific submission timeframes.
Access persons submitted transactions and holdings less frequently than required by the Code of Ethics Rule.
Advisers did not describe their codes of ethics in their Part 2A of Form ADVs and did not indicate that their codes of ethics are available to any client or prospective client upon request.
Failure to maintain all the books and records required by the rule, such as trade records, advisory agreements and general ledgers.
Errors and omissions in their books and records, such as inaccurate fee schedules and client records or stale client lists.
Advisers maintained contradictory information in separate sets of records.
This article provides only an overview of the issues discussed in the Risk Alert. Registered advisers should thoroughly review the document and work with experienced counsel to ensure that you have robust practices, policies and procedures in these areas.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
Top Compliance Fails Investment Advisers Should Avoid
Author: Dan Brecher
Investment Advisers’ Top Five Compliance Fails
As investment advisers conduct their annual review, they can learn a lot from their peers. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) recently issued a Risk Alert detailing the five compliance topics most frequently identified in deficiency letters that were sent to registered investment advisers.Below is a brief summary of the SEC risk alert:
(1) Compliance Rule
Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 makes it unlawful for an adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless the adviser: (1) adopts and implements written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the rules that the Commission has adopted under the Advisers Act; (2) reviews, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of its policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (3) designates a chief compliance officer responsible for administering the compliance policies and procedures that the adviser adopts. In conducting examinations, the SEC identified the following deficiencies or weaknesses:
Compliance manuals are not reasonably tailored to the adviser’s business practices, i.e. off-the-shelf manuals.
Annuals reviews are not held or neglect to assess the adequacy of the adviser’s policies and procedures.
Advisers fail to follow compliance policies and procedures.
Compliance manuals are not updated and contain information or policies that are no longer current.
(2) Regulatory Filings
Advisers are obligated to accurately complete and timely file certain regulatory filings and disclosures with the SEC, including Form ADV, Form PF, and Form D. The Risk Alert provides the following examples of deficiencies or weaknesses with respect to adviser regulatory filing obligations
Advisers made inaccurate disclosures on Form ADV brochures, such as inaccurately reporting custody information, regulatory assets under management, disciplinary history, types of clients and conflicts.
Advisers failed to promptly amend their Form ADVs when information became inaccurate or timely file their annual updating amendments.
Advisers did not complete the Form PF accurately or completely.
Advisers did not accurately complete and timely file Form Ds on behalf of their private fund clients.
Advisers may not have properly identified custody related to having access to online accounts using clients’ personal usernames and passwords.
Advisers with custody underwent surprise examinations that did not meet the requirements of the rule, i.e. the exams were not really a “surprise.”
Advisers were not aware that they may have custody because of certain authority over client accounts, i.e. powers of attorney.
(4) Code of Ethics Rule
Pursuant to Advisers Act Rule 204A-1, advisers must adopt and maintain a code of ethics. The code of ethics must: (1) establish a standard of business conduct that the adviser requires of all its supervised persons; (2) require an adviser’s “access persons” to periodically report their personal securities transactions and holdings to the adviser’s chief compliance officer or other designated persons; and (3) require that access persons obtain the adviser’s pre-approval before investing in an initial public offering or private placement. The SEC identified the following examples of deficiencies or weaknesses with respect to the Code of Ethics Rule:
Advisers failed to identify all their access persons (e.g., certain employees, partners or directors) for purposes of reviewing personal securities transactions.
Advisers’ codes of ethics were missing required information, including failing to specify review of the holdings and transactions reports and failing to identify the specific submission timeframes.
Access persons submitted transactions and holdings less frequently than required by the Code of Ethics Rule.
Advisers did not describe their codes of ethics in their Part 2A of Form ADVs and did not indicate that their codes of ethics are available to any client or prospective client upon request.
Failure to maintain all the books and records required by the rule, such as trade records, advisory agreements and general ledgers.
Errors and omissions in their books and records, such as inaccurate fee schedules and client records or stale client lists.
Advisers maintained contradictory information in separate sets of records.
This article provides only an overview of the issues discussed in the Risk Alert. Registered advisers should thoroughly review the document and work with experienced counsel to ensure that you have robust practices, policies and procedures in these areas.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
