FINRA Arbitration: How One Advisor’s Fight Cleared His Record of an Old Annuity Claim
The High Cost of RIA Compliance Oversight: A Cautionary Tale
CFP Board vs. BrokerCheck: A Battle for Advisor Fairness
Why a “Dismissed” Claim Isn’t Enough: A Virginia Advisor’s Fight to Expunge His BrokerCheck Record
Outsourced CCO for RIAs: Is It SEC-Compliant?
Key Takeaways for RIA Supervision:
- Small RIAs Face Big Challenges: Despite size, all RIAs must meet stringent SEC supervisory requirements, often exploited by plaintiff attorneys.
- Self-Supervision Under Scrutiny: Questions arise regarding the adequacy of self-supervision or peer-to-peer oversight in smaller firms.
- Rule 206(4)-7 is Non-Negotiable: SEC mandates comprehensive policies, procedures, and documented testing to prevent, detect, and correct violations.
- Fiduciary Duty Demands Vigilance: Robust supervision is critical to upholding client trust and prioritizing their best interests.
- Severe Consequences for Failure: Inadequate supervision can lead to SEC sanctions, hefty fines, and reputational damage under Section 203(e)(6).
- The Safe Harbor Defense: Documented, diligent supervisory procedures can protect advisers from liability.
Welcome to the first installment of our three-part series on navigating the intricate landscape of RIA supervision. This initial segment explores the challenges of regulatory compliance for registered investment advisors (RIAs), with a focus on smaller firms. We’ll examine the SEC’s rigorous supervisory requirements, the consequences of inadequate oversight, and the critical role of a robust compliance program.
This discussion lays the groundwork for our subsequent parts: “Part 2: Tailoring Compliance, Addressing Specific Risks, & The Importance Of Regular Reviews,” which will outline practical strategies for customized compliance programs, and “Part 3: Safeguarding Your RIA & Understanding SEC Consequences,” which will highlight the critical role of expert support and the severe penalties of noncompliance.
Let's begin by understanding the core challenges and risks faced by small RIAs in meeting their supervisory obligations.
Can small RIA firms adequately meet their supervisory obligations? Plaintiff attorneys argue they cannot.
The SEC imposes stringent rules and guidelines on RIA supervision, regardless of firm size. Even solo firms or firms with one or two advisers face the same standards as larger entities. Plaintiff attorneys often strategically exploit this, paring breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims with failure-to-supervise allegations and banking on the assumption that limited resources translate to inadequate oversight.
This tactic often resonates with arbitration panels, especially when confronted with the inherent complexities of self-supervision or peer-to-peer oversight. Questions like, “How did he effectively supervise himself?” or “How did she ensure adequate oversight of her equal business partners?” cast doubt on the RIA's ability to meet regulatory standards.
Balancing client relationships, asset management, and business operations alongside comprehensive SEC compliance is challenging.
- Can you confidently demonstrate that your self-supervision or oversight of a small team meets the Commission's exacting standards?
- Do you possess a complete understanding of these complex requirements?
- Are you consistently fulfilling them, or could expert guidance strengthen your approach?
Given the extensive supervisory obligations imposed by the SEC — summarized below — could you unequivocally convince an arbitration panel or regulator of your adherence? Or would professional support help navigate these challenges?
Understanding SEC Supervision Of Registered Investment Advisers1
Robust supervision is the cornerstone of a successful RIA, fostering client trust and regulatory compliance. Inadequate supervision can lead to severe consequences, jeopardizing the firm's reputation and financial stability.
Rule 206(4)-7's Demands
The SEC's Rule 206(4)-7 mandates that RIAs establish and implement policies and procedures designed to prevent, detect, and correct violations of the Advisers Act. This extends to overseeing all personnel acting on behalf of the firm. The rule emphasizes proactive compliance over reactive fixes, and recent amendments to this rule require comprehensive documentation, as well. It is not enough to simply follow the law — you must also test your compliance program and document that testing thoroughly.
The Fiduciary Relationship
The fiduciary relationship underscores the unique trust that clients place in their RIA. This trust requires vigilant oversight to ensure that clients’ best interests are always prioritized. The SEC’s stance, as articulated in cases like Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. and Stein Roe & Farnham, Exchange Act Release No. 23640 (Sept. 24, 1986), reinforces the necessity of continuous review and monitoring of all activities. The Commission has repeatedly emphasized that the duty to supervise is a critical component of the federal regulatory scheme.2
A Pillar Of Regulation
The SEC views supervision as essential to market integrity and investor protection. Failure to meet its standards invites significant regulatory action.
1 Staff of the Investment Adviser Regulation Office Division of Investment Management. Regulation of Investment Advisers by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. pages 39-41, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2013. Regulation of Investment Advisers, https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_investman/rplaze-042012.pdf.
2 See In re Rhumbline Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release. No. 1765 (Sept. 29, 1998); In re Scudder Kemper Investments, Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release. No. 1848 (Dec. 22, 1999) (adviser failed reasonably to supervise employee and did not have policies and procedures designed to detect and prevent employees’ unauthorized trading in client accounts); In re Nicholas-Applegate Capital Management, Investment Advisers Act Release. No. 1741 (Aug. 12, 1998) (adviser failed reasonably to supervise employee and did not have policies and procedures designed to detect and prevent employees from engaging in improper personal trading); In re Van Kampen American Capital Asset Management, Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release. No. 1525 (Sep. 29, 1995) (adviser failed reasonably to supervise employee and did not have policies and procedures designed to detect and prevent employees from mispricing fund securities).
Potential SEC Sanctions For Supervisory Failures
- Section 203(e)(6) & Liability:
- Section 203(e)(6) of the Advisers Act empowers the SEC to sanction advisers who fail to adequately supervise their personnel.
- This provision holds advisers accountable for preventing violations, emphasizing their responsibility to create a culture of compliance.
- Defining Supervisory Roles:
- Determining who qualifies as a “supervisor” is context-dependent and depends on factors like authority, influence, and control over personnel conduct.3
- This ambiguity underscores the need for clear supervisory structures and defined responsibilities within RIA firms.
- Consequences Of Inaction:
- Failing to implement proper supervision can lead to hefty fines, business losses, or even the inability to operate.
The Safe Harbor Act: A Defense For Supervisors
- Conditions For Protection:
- The Safe Harbor Act shields advisers from liability, if they establish reasonable procedures and diligently execute supervisory duties.
- Importance Of Documentation:
- Thorough records of compliance procedures and supervisory actions are critical to leveraging this defense and proving that the supervisor conducted their due diligence.
Navigating The Regulatory Landscape
The inescapable reality is that small RIAs operate within a regulatory landscape designed for firms of all sizes, leaving them particularly vulnerable to scrutiny. Plaintiff attorneys’ strategic targeting and the SEC's strict expectations highlight the critical need for robust supervisory practices. Questions like “How can a solo adviser supervise himself?” or “How does one partner oversee another?” are not mere hypotheticals — they’re potent challenges that can sway arbitration panels. Balancing client service with compliance is a formidable task, and the potential consequences of inadequate supervision are severe.
Acknowledging these challenges is only the first step. The next step is translating this understanding into actionable strategies.
Next week, in Part 2: Strategies for Risk Mitigation & Importance Ongoing Reviews, we'll explore how RIAs can develop tailored compliance programs to meet regulatory demands and reduce risks.
Stay tuned for practical insights on maintaining compliance and protecting your firm.
3 See In re John H. Gutfreund, 51 S.E.C. 93, 113 (1992).
Interested in learning more about AdvisorLaw's comprehensive compliance services? Fill out the contact form below to get started.