Does your federally registered investment adviser firm have authority to initiate first-party transfers between the client’s accounts at different qualified custodians?
Indiana Securities Commissioner Provides Relief to Investment Advisers from an Annual Surprise Verification Custody Audit Due to Standing Letter of Authorizations
October 22, 2018
March 07, 2017
In February 2017, the Division of Investment Management of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Guidance Update “Inadvertent Custody: Advisory Contract Versus Custodial Contract Authority.” In this Guidance Update, the SEC explained that an investment adviser may have custody of client funds or securities because of provisions in a custodial agreement entered into by the investment advisory client and a qualified custodian.
August 13, 2013
Under Rule 206(4)-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Investment Advisers Act”), custody means “holding, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or having any authority to obtain possession of them.” An investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) will be deemed to have custody of a client’s assets if it meets this definition or if a related person of the investment adviser holds, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or has any authority to obtain possession of them, in connection with advisory services the investment adviser provides to clients. Examples of custody include: “possession of client funds or securities (but not of checks drawn by clients and made payable to third parties) unless you receive them inadvertently and you return them to the sender promptly but in any case within three business days of receiving them; any arrangement (including a general power of attorney) under which [the investment adviser] is authorized or permitted to withdraw client funds or securities maintained with a custodian upon [the investment adviser’s] instruction to the custodian; and any capacity (such as general partner of a limited partnership, managing member of a limited liability company or comparable position for another type of pooled investment vehicle, or trustee of a trust) that gives [the investment adviser] or [its] supervised persons legal ownership of or access to client funds or securities.”
August 06, 2013
On March 4, 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued a risk alert that discusses deficiencies involving investment advisers and custody. As stated in the risk alert, “One of the most critical rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 is the custody rule, which is designed to protect advisory clients from the misuse or misappropriation of their funds and securities. Yet, the SEC’s National Examination Program (“NEP”) has observed widespread and varied non-compliance with elements of the custody rule.”
Risk Alert Issued by SEC Identifies Significant Deficiencies Involving Failure of Investment Advisers to Comply with the Custody Rule
March 19, 2013
In a Risk Alert issued March 4, 2013 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”), it was revealed that “the SEC’s National Examination Program (“NEP”) has observed widespread and varied non-compliance with elements of the custody rule.” Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Investment Advisers Act”), states that an investment adviser has custody of client assets if it or its related person holds, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities or has any authority to obtain possession of them. The Risk Alert indicated that approximately one-third (over 140) of the recent examinations reviewed by the SEC’s National Examination Program staff included custody related issues. The Risk Alert was issued by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations to encourage registered investment advisers to review their policies and procedures and examine their practices related to the deficiencies noted in the Risk Alert to ensure that investment advisers are aware of “…their responsibilities under the custody rule to protect client assets.”
The State of Washington’s Department of Financial Institutions recently sent out a memo to investment advisors registered in Washington that described potential updates, amendments, and additions to Washington’s investment advisor rules and regulations. Amendments to the custody requirements and an exemption for private fund advisors are the major provisions included in the memo, but the Washington Department of Financial Institutions also proposed changes for financial reporting, books and records, unethical practices, proxy voting, advisory contracts, and compliance procedures. You can access a copy of the draft amendments here.
November 15, 2010
As part of CRD/IARD Software Release 2010.4 (click here to access the release), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced changes to the custody questions listed on Form ADV Part 1. Specifically, the following changes have been made to Item 9 of Form ADV Part 1:
June 03, 2010
The Division of Investment Management of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently updated “Staff Responses to Questions About the Custody Rule.” (For a link to Staff Responses click here). In the updated responses, the Division provided new guidance concerning a variety of issues related to the custody rule. Two important issues discussed by the SEC clarify an investment adviser’s ability to request checks from a client account and situations where an investment adviser has online access to client pension accounts through the client’s ID number and password.
Kenneth Starr, an investment adviser representative, to several celebrities and other wealthy clients, was arrested on May 27th for allegedly using client funds for his own personal use. Starr has been charged in a New York District Court with fraud by an investment advisor, a wire fraud scheme to obtain property, money laundering, false statements in an IRS Filing, and false statements to a federal officer, for fraudulently misappropriating over $30 million of client funds. The Complaint also charges Andrew Stein, an associate of Starr’s, with various tax fraud violations. (Click here for the full Complaint).