Category Archives: SEC

SEC Laser-Focused on Conflicts Disclosures by Advisors and Broker-Dealers

Leave a reply

In two recent cases, the SEC ordered JP Morgan Chase to pay over $270 million for what it deemed inadequate disclosures about certain conflicts of interest. When closely examined, these two cases illustrate just how detailed and granular the Commission can be when evaluating and prosecuting conflicts non-disclosure issues.

The Proprietary Funds Case

On December 18, 2015, the SEC announced that two J.P. Morgan wealth management subsidiaries had admitted wrongdoing (though no intentional violations) relating to the firm’s investment advisory business and agreed to pay $267 million.[1] Specifically, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMCB), preferred to invest clients in the firm’s proprietary mutual funds without properly disclosing this preference to clients. In addition, JPMS breached its fiduciary duty to certain wealthy clients when it did not inform them that they were being invested in a more expensive class of J.P. Morgan mutual funds shares than other available classes, or that JPMS preferred third-party-managed hedge funds that made certain “retrocession” payments to a J.P. Morgan affiliate.

The level of scrutiny applied in this case is striking. The SEC was initially focused on a possible charge that JPMS was improperly steering clients to house products so that it and its affiliates could make additional fees. JPMS’s Form ADVs, however, disclosed that JPMS “may have a conflict of interest in including affiliated [Mutual] Funds…because [JPMS] and/or its affiliates will receive additional compensation.” Further, in advance of opening an account, JPMS clients were specifically informed how much of their assets were to be allocated between proprietary mutual funds and third-party funds. Because of such disclosures, the SEC pivoted to the theory that there should have been an additional disclosure that JPMS “preferred” to invest client assets in proprietary products.

Holding the bank to this level of scrutiny seems severe; as noted, JPMS disclosed its incentive to put client money into house funds and these were discretionary accounts. Its “preference” for house funds seems axiomatic. All things considered, however, the penalty could have been far worse. Perhaps because of its cooperation and proactive remedial measures, J.P. Morgan was permitted to continue to provide these kinds of investment advisory services and was able to avoid the so-called automatic “bad actor” disqualification, which would have blocked it from the lucrative business of raising money for private companies, including hedge funds and startups. In addition, while the penalties and disgorgement are certainly significant, they amount to roughly one month of JPMS’s operating profits.

The Broker Compensation Case

In the second settlement, JPMS agreed to pay $4 million to resolve charges that it falsely stated on its private banking website and in marketing materials that individual advisors were compensated based on the performance of client investments, not on commission.[2] As it turned out, advisor compensation was not tied to investment performance; it consisted of a salary plus a bonus determined by a number of factors, none of which were performance based. Although it appears that no investor was harmed, the SEC believed that sanctions were warranted: “JPMS misled customers into believing their brokers had skin in the game and were being compensated based upon the success of customer portfolios.”[3]

Bottom Line

Based upon recent developments, it is clear that the SEC intends to look under every rock to see if all conflicts of interest, regardless of their severity, have been disclosed. Accordingly, firms should take a close look at their business practices and make sure their Form ADVs, websites, marketing materials and other disclosure documents accurately reflect those business practices.

[1] http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/33-9992.pdf. The $267 million consisted of penalties, disgorgement and interest.

[2] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10001.pdf. JPMS neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing.

[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-1.html.

SEC Sanctions $1B AUM Investment Adviser for Weak Compliance Culture

Leave a reply

On June 23, 2015, the SEC censured an investment advisor and its two principals for rickety compliance policies and procedures.[1] Among other things, the SEC found that, due to systemic compliance failures, the advisor overcharged its high net worth clients for their investments in a mutual fund called the Appleseed Fund. The firm, Pekin Singer, offered shares in the Appleseed Fund under a sliding fee structure where clients who met a higher minimum investment paid a lower fee. Pekin Singer failed to timely advise its clients, most of whom met the higher minimum investment threshold, that they could convert to the lower costs shares, thereby improperly increasing the firm’s bottom line at the expense of customers.

Pekin Singer’s internal compliance issues ran deep. In 2009 and 2010, it failed to conduct required annual compliance program reviews and it chronically underfunded and underemphasized its compliance function. For example, the firm’s former CCO had limited compliance experience and was required to simultaneously serve as the CFO of the firm. Because of the multiple hats the he wore, the CCO was only able to devote 10% to 20% of his time to compliance issues.

Further, the CCO, aware of his limitations in the compliance area, sought to hire outside compliance help. After two years of lobbying, the firm hired an outside compliance consultant. The consultant’s review coincided with an OCIE examination by the SEC’s Chicago office. The examination and consultant’s review uncovered a number of compliance failures, including improper trading by an employee, which could have been prevented if the firm had enforced its code of ethics.

To its credit, Pekin Singer fully cooperated with the SEC and returned the excessive fees to its clients. It also hired a new CCO whose only job is compliance and hired an outside attorney to advise on securities law issues relating to mutual funds. Finally, the firm has continued and expanded its relationship with an outside compliance consultant who is charged with monitoring and advising on the firm’s annual compliance program reviews.

Bottom line: Advisory firms and their principals should not skimp on or de-prioritize compliance issues. While having robust compliance policies and controls in place can seem costly up front, the costs to the firm, both in terms of reputation and money, can be much more if OCIE finds deficiencies.

[1] http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4126.pdf