Displaying items by tag: regulations

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.

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.

During recent testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, SEC Chair Gary Gensler told senators that the agency needs more resources for exams. He said the exam division’s “work is essential to ensuring strong compliance across the board,” including “work to test for compliance with Regulation Best Interest.” Gensler said the enforcement division “is doing more with less” and “more cases are being litigated and going to trial.” He also stated, “The SEC has tried the same number of cases to verdict in federal courts in FY22 (14) as we did in the prior three fiscal years combined.” For fiscal 2021, Gensler said the SEC received 46,000 tips, complaints, and referrals from the public. This was up from about 16,000 five years earlier. For the exam division, Gensler said the division exceeded the previous year’s numbers by completing more than 3,000 exams and the fiscal 2023 budget request supports an additional 4% increase in full-time examiners.

Finsum: In recent testimony, SEC Chair Gary Gensler asked the Senate for more funding for exams, including compliance with Reg BI.

While the SEC has been pushing public companies to improve their cybersecurity, minimal adoption of stronger cybersecurity rules has led the agency to draft new rules requiring more formal cybersecurity reporting and disclosure. The SEC proposal outlined several requirements that are designed to improve cybersecurity awareness and reporting for corporate executives and board members. The first is cybersecurity incident reporting, including current reporting about material incidents and periodic reporting about previous incidents. The second requirement is cybersecurity policies such as periodic reporting about policies and procedures to identify and manage risks. The third proposal is management requirements including management’s role and expertise in assessing and managing risk and management’s role and expertise in implementing policies and procedures. The final requirement is board oversight such as reporting on how the board of directors performs oversight on cybersecurity and disclosure of the board of directors’ cybersecurity expertise if any.

Finsum:The SEC recently drafted new cybersecurity rules for companies, including incident reporting, policies, management requirements, and board oversight.

Providers of ETFs that invest based on principles of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) are facing headwinds from multiple sides. First, they are about to be hit with a batch of new rules from the SEC. Secondly, they have been put directly in the middle of a political battle between those for ESG and those who think it is just woke capitalism. On the SEC front, the agency recently published the results of two consultations. The first was on proposals to change the so-called Names Rule. The SEC wants to strictly define how a fund’s constituent investments should be reflected in its name. The second was on proposals for requirements on ESG disclosures for investment advisers and investment companies. On the political front, Florida passed a resolution in August that bans its pension fund managers from considering ESG with regard to their investing strategies. During the same month, Texas criticized BlackRock and nine European financial groups for boycotting the fossil fuel industry.

Finsum:ESG ETF providers are facing criticism on both the regulatory and political fronts.