Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Diverging paths with one man going the opposite direction of the crowd

Regulation and Compliance > Federal Regulation

Why You Shouldn't Follow the Lazy Compliance Crowd

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • The question to keep in mind when pondering compliance exams is not can you do something, but should you?
  • The answer will generally depend upon the nature of the issue, your tolerance for risk and the gravity of the potential consequences.

I’ve spent almost 35 years traveling the country preparing firms for regulatory exams. Having conducted several thousand on-site compliance reviews, I think I’ve generally heard and seen it all.

Most times, firms listen to my recommendations, but sometimes — and unfortunately to their peril — they don’t. Why do some firms determine they should do otherwise? I have found two primary reasons.

Remember when your mother said “no” to something that you wanted to do, and you retorted with, “Mom, all the other kids are doing it!”

Unfortunately, after 35 years, I continue to play that mom role, countless times hearing from firms throughout the country that “all the other advisory firms are doing it.”

That may be the case — but when regulators visit, they could care less! They are there to examine you and your firm’s conduct, not that of the “other kids.”

What other firms have done or might currently be doing will not serve as a defense. Such protestations will fall on deaf regulatory ears.

In other cases, I encounter the following retort from advisory firms: “Tom, the SEC was here two years ago and they never raised the issue, so they can’t bring it up now!”

Oh yes, they can — and often do. This is because when regulators subsequently revisit a firm, they couldn’t care less about prior exams — unless of course they advised you to do something in a previous exam’s Findings letter (about a deficiency) and you didn’t do it!

Here’s the proof from material information included in Securities and Exchange Commission Findings letters:

“The staff is bringing these findings to your attention for immediate corrective action, without regard to any other action(s) that may result from the examination. The findings are based on the Staff’s examination and are not findings or conclusions of, or binding on, the SEC or any of its divisions or offices.

“You should not conclude that any of the firm’s activities not discussed in Exhibit A are in full compliance with the federal securities laws. Nor should you conclude that Exhibit A sets forth an exhaustive list of the ways in which the firm’s activities do not comply with the federal securities laws.

“Neither the Staff’s findings or its communications during the course of the examination nor any remedial actions undertaken in response to such findings or communications foreclose the Commission from taking any action, including but not limited to an enforcement action, with respect to the firm.”

Risks vs. Rewards

So, the question is not can you do a specific activity? In fact, you may be able to do so without ever suffering any adverse consequences.

The real issue is should you do it? The answer will generally depend upon the nature of the issue, your tolerance for risk and the gravity of the potential consequences if/when the issue is raised during an examination.

There’s always a risk/reward consideration. Unfortunately, too often the risk is minimized, and a hard — and sometimes costly — lesson is learned.

Some issues that may raise the most scrutiny and harshest consequences are: the lack of clear and conspicuous conflict of interest disclosures; non-Global Investment Performance Standards verified performance advertising/presentations; back-tested hypothetical presentations; billing/fee discrepancies (which mean the SEC won’t conclude an exam unless it exhausts opportunities to get the firm to make client reimbursements); custody; and marketing practices (including what I’m sure might be many instances of non-regulatory compliant use of testimonials and the too-often inflated regulatory assets under management).

What’s the best way to prepare? Based on my background, I’d say by engaging an experienced law firm (for a privileged exercise, as opposed to the non-privileged findings/communications offered by a non-law firm) to conduct a thorough compliance review geared to helping your firm identify deficiencies so that it can successfully complete a regulatory exam.

At the end of the day, if your compliance program is not expressly designed to successfully complete a regulatory exam, you’re wasting both time and money — and potentially putting your firm in regulatory peril.


Thomas D. Giachetti, a former investment banker and NASD registered representative, is chairman of the Investment Management and Securities Practice of Stark & Stark.

(Credit: rudall30/Shutterstock)


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.