From the August 2008 issue of Investment Advisor • Subscribe!

A Friendly Suggestion to Regulators

More On Legal & Compliance

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Risk-Based Oversight of Investment Advisors Even if the SEC had a larger budget and more resources, it is doubtful that the Commission would have the resources to regularly examine all RIAs. Therefore, the SEC is likely to continue relying on risk-based oversight to fulfill its mission of protecting investors.
  • Dealings With Qualified Clients and Accredited Investors Depending upon an RIAs business model and investment strategies, it may be important to identify “qualified clients” and “accredited investors.”  The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the SEC to change which clients are defined by those terms.
Please, regulators, stop with the "best practices" discussions as if they are rules. Please make clear the difference between a "best practice" and a rule requirement. What may be prudent for one firm may have absolutely no relevance for another. Take, for example, Anti-Money Laundering/Patriot Act compliance. The Patriot Act is not currently applicable to investment advisors, because it would most likely result in duplicative efforts that serve no purpose (aren't investment advisors subject to enough regulations that have little to no relevance to their practices or their clients!). Custodian firms are subject to the Patriot Act. Moreover, as indicated above, Rule 206(4)-7 indicates that advisors must establish and maintain policies and procedures that are germane to their advisory operations. Thus, if an advisory firm does not have any clients in any of the OFAC countries, or accepts cash from clients, why would it need to establish a formal AML program? A discussion of AML/Patriot Act and its policies and procedures so that employees/representatives can have an understanding thereof? Yes, a formal program? No.
Reprints Discuss this story

Most Recent Videos

Video Library ››