Displaying items by tag: SEC

A form reviewer at the Securities and Exchange Commission recently said he wants to make sure life insurers give investors a clear picture of how their registered index-linked annuity (RILA) contracts work. RILAs are annuity contracts that can expose the holder to the risk of investment-related loss of principal, but that tie crediting rates at least partly to the performance of investment indexes, rather than to the performance of funds that resemble mutual funds. At the Life Insurance Products Conference, held recently in Washington, D.C., Michael Kosoff, an attorney on the staff of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, stated that he wants one strategy to be available throughout the life of the contract. He also wants to require issuers to disclose maximum losses. Essentially, the SEC wants life insurance company clients to say which crediting strategy the clients' guarantee will be available for the life of a RILA contract. A crediting strategy includes a reference to a particular index such as the S&P 500. Kosoff’s concern is that many issuers have a provision stating, “After the first year, we can terminate any and all options currently available. So, in essence, after year one, investors have no idea what they’re getting.”

Finsum:Due toconcerns over changing crediting changes in registered index-linked annuities, an SEC form reviewer stated that he wants one strategy to be available throughout the life of the contract.

The resounding takeaway from a recent FINRA conference call is that the regulatory body is taking a “no one-size-fits-all” approach to Reg BI compliance. FINRA explained that it is moving away from good faith efforts reviews and into “deeper dives” on how firms comply with Form CRS and the Reg. BI Care, Compliance, Disclosure, and Conflicts of Interest obligations. The conference call focused on FINRA’s expectations during exams and the types of violations that its exam teams will refer to their enforcement colleagues. FINRA mentioned several common violations that it will refer to its Department of Enforcement, including the failure to recognize the applicability of Reg BI and Form CRS deficiencies related to incorrectly answering the disciplinary history question. It also indicated that firms that were previously cited for Reg BI CRS deficiencies, and made no efforts to correct findings, are more likely to be referred to Enforcement. The overall message for firms is that they should document the steps they have taken to further Reg. BI and Form CRS compliance. This could be the difference between an exam deficiency or an enforcement action.

Finsum: In a recent conference call, FINRA’s explained that there is no one size fits all approach to Reg BI compliance and firms shoulddocument the steps they have taken to make sure they’re compliant.

FINRA has issued its first disciplinary action related to Reg BI. The regulatory authority levied a $5,000 fine and a six-month suspension on a broker for allegedly causing their client to pay tens of thousands in commissions on an account of less than $30,000. It is the first time FINRA has taken action against a broker for alleged violations of the SEC's Reg-BI fiduciary rule. Charles V. Malico, who worked for Network 1 Financial Securities at the time of the violation, accepted and consented to the agency’s findings without admission or denial. According to findings, between July 2020 and November 2021, Malico violated Reg BI when he recommended a series of trades in the account of a retail client that was considered excessive based on the customer’s investment profile. Therefore, his actions were not in the client’s best interest. Making matters worse, Malico allegedly recommended that his client buy and sell a security, only to repurchase the same security days or weeks later. FINRA was made aware of the broker’s conduct through a review of a customer-initiated arbitration. The arbitration, which is still pending, stemmed from a Dec. 6, 2021 customer complaint that alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent supervision. 

Finsum: In its first disciplinary action related to Reg BI, FINRA levied a $5,000 fine and a six-month suspension on a broker for not acting in the best interests of his client.

The advent of digital advice has not only made investing easier but has also allowed client interactions to become more seamless. With more client interactions moving online, do online content and advice still put a client's best interest first? That’s a question the SEC, industry lawyers, and other regulators are contemplating. While online firms such as Robinhood came under scrutiny for gamifying investor behavior, something as simple as an investment calculator on an advisor website can be construed as a recommendation. Last August, the SEC issued a request for comment about broker-dealers’ and investment advisors’ digital engagement practices. Keith Kessel, a senior principal consultant at ACA Group, told Financial Advisor IQ that the SEC “is trying to ascertain in what set of scenarios would a recommendation or solicitation exist versus what are those engagement practices that are outside of the purview of the scope of the solicitation of the suitability rule and/or Regulation Best Interest regulation duty as such.” He also noted that the SEC’s request for comment “emphasizes the regulator’s concern about the blurring of the lines between engagement and advice.”

Finsum: As more client interactions occur online, the SEC is trying to determine what constitutes advice and what constitutes engagement.

Earlier last week, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission disclosed that they levied fines of more than $1.71 billion on several Wall Street firms. The regulators issued penalties to 16 financial companies for the failure to monitor the use of unauthorized messaging apps. The banks that were penalized include some of the largest firms on Wall Street, including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and Barclays. The SEC’s probe revealed that between January 2018 and September 2021, employees of the aforementioned firms used WhatsApp, personal email, and other unauthorized services on their personal devices to communicate work-related matters. Personal devices can pose risk to an organization's data since it may not be as protected from cyberattacks as a secure company device, which enforces corporate security policies. Making matters worse, the 16 companies also failed to adequately maintain records of the communication, which hindered the investigation. In fact, the firms were not charged for the lax security, but their negligence in the documentation.

Finsum: The SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined 16 Wall Street firms a combined $1.71 billion for not maintaining documentation on the use of unauthorized messaging apps.