FINRA 2015 regulatory and examinations priorities

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Wirig
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Firm Compliance ◽  
Operational Issues ◽  
Information Requests ◽  
General Compliance ◽  
Sales Practice

Purpose – To summarize the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) 2015 Regulatory and Examinations Priorities Letter. Design/methodology/approach – Provides a brief summary of the general compliance and supervisory challenges described by FINRA. Highlights key sales practice concerns raised by FINRA. Briefly summarizes FINRA’s 2015 key financial and operational priorities. Summarizes FINRA market integrity focuses for 2015. Encourages firms to consider the FINRA 2015 regulatory and examination priorities alongside the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) examination priorities for 2015 as they review their policies, procedures and business activities. Findings – FINRA’s 2015 Regulatory and Examinations Priorities Letter focuses on: key areas FINRA has observed contributing to member firm compliance and supervisory deficiencies, its observation of an increase in firms failing to file timely responses to information requests in connection with examinations and investigations, key sales practice issues, financial and operational issues, and market integrity matters. Practical implications – Firms should review these priorities alongside the SEC’s examination priorities for 2015. Where firms observe deficiencies in their own practices, adjustments should be made before they find themselves the subject of a FINRA or SEC investigation, examination or enforcement action. Originality/value – Practical explanation by experienced financial services lawyer.

FINRA revises and restructures registration and exam requirements

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Edward J. Johnsen ◽  
John H. Grady
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Securities Industry ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Limited Period

Purpose To explain a new set of rules, detailed in FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-30, proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that revise and streamline the number and types of proficiency exams broker-dealer personnel must take in order to become registered, as well as the categories of registration. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the background, including FINRA’s consolidation of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules; the new registration regime; conditions for waivers; criteria for “permissive” registration; firms’ requirement to designate “Principal Financial Officers” and “Principal Operations Officers”; new categories of principal registration; FINRA’s elimination of certain registration categories; research analyst, research principal and supervisory analyst exam requirements; the ability of a registered representative to function as a principal for a limited period; the prohibition of unregistered persons to accept orders from customers; and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) Examination Content Outline. Findings The new structure is intended to bring greater consistency and uniformity to the qualification process. Among other changes, it eliminates several registration categories that either have become outdated or have limited utility, permits persons not yet associated with a broker-dealer or employed in the securities industry to take a preliminary registration exam prior to entering the securities industry, and makes other changes intended to modernize the registration and examination regime for broker-dealer personnel. Originality/value Practical guidance from lawyers with broad stock brokerage, investment management and related financial services experience.

SEC guidance on broker-dealer custody of digital asset securities

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Smith
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Regulatory Uncertainty ◽  
Digital Asset ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To explain how the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in its Digital Asset Securities Release, issued on December 23, 2020, laid out its vision for how broker-dealers can comply with the custody requirements of Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act (the Customer Protection Rule) for investments in digital asset securities. Design/Methodology/Approach Explains the current regulatory uncertainty for broker-dealers doing a business in digital asset securities and developing systems and procedures that result in compliance with the custody requirements of the Customer Protection Rule; seven minimum steps that broker-dealers can take and nine terms and conditions with which they can comply to protect against SEC enforcement action; and the SEC’s request for comment in response to its position statement. Findings A broker-dealer operating pursuant to the terms and conditions of the position statement articulated in the Release will not be subject to SEC enforcement action on the basis that the broker-dealer deems itself to have obtained and maintained physical possession or control of customer fully paid and excess margin digital asset securities for the purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of the Customer Protection Rule. Originality/Value Practical guidance from experienced financial services, broker-dealer and securities lawyer.

SEC fines alternative mutual fund adviser for improper handling of fund assets

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-37
Author(s):  
Michael McGrath ◽  
Pablo J. Man
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Funds ◽  
Mutual Fund ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Investment Strategies ◽  
Investment Company ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Repurchase Agreements

Purpose – To explain that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought and settled charges against an investment adviser to several alternative mutual funds alleging, among other charges, failure to comply with the custody requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Design/methodology/approach – To explain that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought and settled charges against an investment adviser to several alternative mutual funds alleging, among other charges, failure to comply with the custody requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Findings – The enforcement action serves as an important reminder for the growing number of advisers of alternative mutual funds to be mindful of specific restrictions and obligations when managing registered funds that do not apply to private funds and separate accounts. This action shows that the SEC will bring charges even when the alleged violations do not result in harm to investors. Practical implications – The 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, and SEC staff guidance relating to alternative investment strategies are complicated and not intuitive. These standards can constrain a registered fund’s ability to employ options, futures, swaps, prime brokerage, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, enhanced leverage through securities lending, and other facilities. As the SEC continues to examine alternative mutual funds, advisers to these funds should remain cognizant of the obligations arising under the 1940 Act and the implementation of fund policies and procedures. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The SEC Speaks 2018: the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s current priorities and conference overview

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Russelo ◽  
Stephen L. Cohen ◽  
Jose F. Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
The Us ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose This paper aims to highlight certain comments made by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials, which may provide insight into compliance and enforcement issues that may be important for market participants, including broker-dealers, investment advisors and reporting companies, in the future. Design/methodology/approach This paper explains comments made by SEC officials and highlights potential regulatory issues based on past experiences of attorneys within the firm, past comments made by the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and past regulatory exam results. Findings This paper summarizes remarks from the recent SEC Speaks 2018 Conference conducted by SEC officials related to the Commission’s regulatory and enforcement priorities. Issuers, brokers, advisors and other financial organizations should familiarize themselves with the themes and guidance discussed at the Conference to prepare for regulatory compliance challenges in the upcoming year. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Could perverse incentives encourage financial services compliance and internal audit staff to ignore or engage in illegal behaviour?

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryane Michael ◽  
Mark Williams
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Internal Auditors ◽  
Financial Firms ◽  
Perverse Incentives ◽  
Using Data

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand why managers, internal auditors and compliance staff (in financial firms specifically and using Malaysia as a concrete example) can want to ignore compliance-related legislation (a law on anticompetitive behaviour in this case). Design/methodology/approach The authors review, discuss and critique the literature on compliance and institutions in the light of existing data from Malaysia’s financial industry (literally confronting theory with data). Findings Legislative design can actually encourage managers and their auditors disobey/ignore the law for reasons which previous theories cannot explain. Research limitations/implications This research does not use the regression techniques in vogue now. The findings, nevertheless, imply that attempts to explain phenomenon in management auditing should start with the laws governing managerial activity. Practical implications Auditors may use the methods used in this study to assess the extent to which financial services firms’ managers have incentives to comply with laws. Similarly, this research can quantify the extent to which internal auditors in these firms have incentives to find untoward conduct. Social implications Poorly designed laws affecting managerial auditing derive from pre-existing social relationships, as well as help shape them (as shown using data). Identifying areas of non-compliance may actually signal deeper problems in the way businessmen and lawmakers make and enforce laws requiring compliance and self-assessment. Originality/value The authors know of no study looking at the economic incentives driving internal auditors’ behaviour – particularly in the area of antitrust. They show how law shapes management and auditors’ incentives, quantify these incentives and show how/why previous research fails to explain these incentives.

Research on financial innovations: an interdisciplinary review

2022 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad G. Nejad
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Breeding Ground ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
New Era ◽  
Financial Innovations

PurposeThe financial industry offers a unique setting to study innovations. Financial innovations have fueled the growth of economies, markets and societies. The financial industry has successfully become the breeding ground for innovative services, processes, business models and technologies. This study seeks to provide a holistic view of the literature on financial innovations, synthesize the research findings and offer future directions for research in light of three market developments that are disrupting the industry and opening up a new era for the financial services industry. Disruptions from within and outside the industry offer new generations of radically innovative services. Moreover, new generations of consumers differ from previous generations in their needs and wants and look for innovative ways to handle their financial needs. Finally, significant developments related to financial innovations have emerged in Asia and developing countries.Design/methodology/approachThis study systematically reviews the academic research literature on financial innovations in two phases. The first phase provides a quantitative review of 546 journal articles published between 1990 and 2018. In the second phase, the study synthesizes the extant research on financial innovations and maps them in five research areas: firms' introduction and adoption of FIs, financial innovation development, the outcomes of financial innovations, regulations and intellectual property, and consumers.FindingsThe analysis found that disciplines differ with regard to the employed research methodologies, the units of analysis, sources of data and the innovations they examined. A positive trend in the number of published articles during this period is observed. However, studies have primarily focused on the USA and Europe and less so on other parts of the world. The literature synthesis further identifies research gaps in the available research that highlight future research opportunities in light of the three market disruptions. The financial services industry is on the brink of a new era due to disruptions from within and outside the industry and the entrance of new generations of consumers. Moreover, the financial industry has successfully become the breeding ground for innovative services, processes and business models. Therefore, financial innovations offer promising opportunities for bridging the gap between research on product and service innovations.Research limitations/implicationsThe work provides a holistic and systematic overview of extant research on financial innovations and highlights future research opportunities in light of the three disruptive market developments. It helps researchers take advantage of the opportunities in studying financial innovations while maintaining industry relevance.Originality/valueThe study is the first to review and synthesize the academic research literature on financial innovations across marketing, finance and innovation disciplines. In addition, the study highlights three primary disruptive forces in the financial industry and identifies future research directions in light of these disruptive forces.

SEC credits self-reporting and cooperation in not imposing penalty on ICO sponsor

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Hawke
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Civil Penalty ◽  
Do So

Purpose To explain a February 20, 2019 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled enforcement action against Gladius Network LLC for failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) under the federal securities laws, in which Gladius was able to avoid a civil penalty by self-reporting the violation and cooperating with the SEC enforcement staff. Design/methodology/approach Explains Gladius’ self-reporting, cooperation and remedial steps; why the SEC imposed no civil penalty on Gladius; and two similar cases the SEC instituted in July 2018 against companies that conducted unregistered ICOs, did not self-report, and were penalized. Provides analysis and conclusions. Findings The Gladius case offers important insight into how the SEC and its staff think about cooperation credit in resolving SEC enforcement actions and sends a clear message that self-reporting to the SEC can result in meaningful cooperation credit. In three recent cases, the Commission has made clear that once it put the industry on notice that ICOs could be securities that must be registered under the federal securities laws, a party risks enforcement action by failing to do so. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from an experienced securities lawyer who counsels clients on all manner of SEC enforcement, examination and regulatory policy matters.

Bringing order to non-GAAP financial measures: SEC sues to enforce “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Earnings Releases

Purpose This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures. Findings Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

SEC staff issues money market fund reform frequently asked questions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Murphy ◽  
Brenden Carroll ◽  
Stephen Cohen ◽  
Joshua Katz ◽  
Justin Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Boards Of Directors ◽  
Decimal Place ◽  
Money Market ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fund Managers ◽  
Money Market Funds ◽  
Fund Industry ◽  
To Come

Purpose – To explain the background and details of the responses from the Staff of the Division of Investment Management of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to certain frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the July 23, 2014 amendments to Rule 2a-7 and other rules that govern money market funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act). Design/methodology/approach – In July 2014, the SEC adopted sweeping amendments to Rule 2a-7 and other rules that govern money market funds under the 1940 Act (Amendments). The Amendments (i) require “institutional” money funds to operate with a floating net asset value (NAV), rounded to the fourth decimal place (e.g. $1.0000) and (ii) permit (and, under certain circumstances, require) all money funds to impose a “liquidity fee” (up to 2 per cent) and/or “redemption gate,” once weekly liquidity levels fall below the required regulatory threshold. The article briefly discusses the background and the events leading up to the FAQs and describes key responses from the Staff on a variety of issues. Findings – The Amendments set forth sweeping changes to money fund regulation and will have a profound effect on the money fund industry. Although the most significant provisions of the Amendments – the floating NAV requirement and the imposition of liquidity fees and redemption gates – will not go into effect for two years, the changes to the industry will be apparent almost immediately. The FAQs provide clarity on a number of issues that are relevant to the money fund industry. Practical implications – Money fund managers and boards of directors should begin assessing the potential impact of the Amendments and develop a schedule to come into compliance. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

SEC approves new continued listing standards for ETFs

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Adam Teufel ◽  
Christopher J. Geissler
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Exchange Traded Funds ◽  
Law Firm ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Securities Exchanges ◽  
Rule Changes ◽  
Significant Compliance ◽  
Key Industry

Purpose To introduce and analyze recent amendments to the rules of three US securities exchanges to add specific continued listing standards applicable to exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Design/methodology/approach Provides an introduction and summary overview of the topic, summarizes the scope of the rule changes, discusses the industry reaction to the proposed rule changes and the regulator’s response, notes the applicability of the rule changes to ETFs relying on their own fund-specific regulatory relief, and identifies compliance dates. Findings Each of three US securities exchanges filed separate proposals to amend their listing standards to add specific continued listing standards for ETFs. Notwithstanding various concerns expressed in comment letters from key industry participants, by March 2017 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved all three proposals in substantially the form proposed. Practical implications ETF sponsors should note that significant compliance enhancements may be required to ensure proper and continuous testing of securities in an ETF’s underlying index and/or portfolio in lieu of testing for compliance solely at the time of initial listing or at the time of an investment decision. The rule changes are scheduled to take effect by October 1, 2017. Originality/value Practical analysis from a premier financial services law firm on the issues presented by the ETF rule changes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document