Wed, Jul 23, 2014
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Opalesque Futures Intelligence

Regulators & Courts: FINRA chief talks about regulatory change.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

FINRA Bids to Oversee Investment Advisers

Richard Ketchum, chairman and chief executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, testified before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 26th. As part of the testimony he talked about regulatory differences between broker-dealers and investment advisers and what needs to be done to make the rules more consistent. He says FINRA is “uniquely positioned” to build an oversight program for investment advisers. In addition, he raised the issue of the fiduciary responsibility of broker-dealers to their clients. Here are his comments on these points:

There are differences in the current rules and standards that apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers, reflective of some of the differences that exist in the services provided by each class of professionals. And while the two channels have converged over the years, there remain some differences that need to be taken into account when enhancing oversight and exams to make that oversight fit the activity and services in each.

Broker-dealers are subject to a very detailed set of rules established and enforced by FINRA that pertain to safety of customer cash and assets, advertising, sales practices, limitations on compensation, financial responsibility, and trading practices. FINRA ensures firms are following the rules with a comprehensive examination and enforcement regime.

Investment advisers are subject to provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that pertain to registration, disclosure, record-keeping, custody and compensation. Importantly, investment advisers are also subject to a fiduciary standard with regard to their clients. In designing a more regular oversight and examination program for investment advisers, these rules and standards should be taken into account.

Simply put, FINRA believes that the kind of additional protections provided to investors through its model are essential. Does that mean FINRA should be given that role for investment advisers? That question ultimately must be answered by Congress and the SEC, but FINRA is uniquely positioned from a regulatory standpoint to build an oversight program for investment advisers quickly and efficiently. We have a strong track record in our examination and enforcement oversight, as well as in our other core programs. Certainly in the registration area, with regard to investment advisers and mortgage brokers, we have two success stories of adapting our infrastructure to meet needs in areas beyond the realm of broker-dealers.

We believe that regular and frequent exams are a vital component of effective oversight of financial professionals, and that the absence of FINRA-type oversight of the investment adviser industry leaves investors without that critical component of protection. In our view, it simply makes no sense to deprive investment adviser customers of the same level of oversight that broker-dealer customers receive. And quite simply, as we learned from the Madoff scandal, it would not make sense for two, separate independent regulatory bodies to oversee investment advisers and broker-dealers, especially when they exist in the same legal entity. Again, there would be no single regulator with a complete picture of the business.

One of the primary issues raised about investor protection differences between the broker-dealer and investment adviser channels is the difference between the fiduciary standard for investment advisers and the rule requirements, including suitability, for broker-dealers. As this the process moves forward, this is the kind of issue that should and will be on the table as we all look at how best to reform our regulatory system and strengthen investor protections. In keeping with our view there should be increased consistency in investor protections across financial services, we believe it makes sense to look at the protections provided in various channels and choose the best of each.

We stand ready to work with Congress and the SEC in exploring whether a properly designed fiduciary standard could be applied to broker-dealers selling activities, and if there are problems raised, make a strong effort to resolve those problems.



 
This article was published in Opalesque Futures Intelligence.
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing
  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. Events – AIMA Australian Hedge Fund Forum, Sept. 16, Sydney[more]

    AIMA Australia invite you to join us at our annual Hedge Fund Forum on Tuesday 16th September 2014 at the Sofitel Sydney Wentworth. The AIMA Australian Hedge Fund Forum is a non-profit hedge fund conference organised by the industry for the industry, featuring quality Australian and internation

  2. Opalesque Exclusive: Loeb, Grantham cite growing economic concerns in letters[more]

    Bailey McCann, Opalesque New York: Hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, head of Third Point, and Jeremy Grantham of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. have both released their quarterly investor letters today. While news is positive on some fronts, and both men see pockets of opportunity, they also h

  3. Investing – Hedge funds expect Netflix earnings to catapult forward, Third Point's Loeb takes stakes in Fibra Uno, YPF, Royal DSM, Lake Capital in talks to back Engine Group[more]

    Hedge funds expect Netflix earnings to catapult forward From Investing.com: Netflix has made major strides forward in 2014 despite ongoing battles with the FCC and cable companies over the issue of net neutrality. The FCC has now received over 500,000 comments from the public on its pend

  4. Opalesque Roundtable: European family offices struggle to retain their investments in offshore hedge funds[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: The European Union’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) will constrain investment opportunities amidst concern a number of U.S. fund managers will stop marketing their products in the European Union under the new rule, said Valentin Bohländer fro

  5. Opalesque Roundtable: Success in hedge fund marketing not linked to performance, but investor appetite[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: Success in marketing a fund is not linked to the performance, but to investor appetite, to the way you can market the fund, and to how much time you can spend to raise assets, said Antoine Rolland, the CEO of incubator and seeding firm