Leading figures in the financial advisor industry are asking the Securities and Exchange Commission for more clarity in the wake of new SEC complaints Monday about custody of client funds.
In a risk alert announcement to practitioners and an investor bulletin to the general public, the agency warned custody violations were showing up in one out of every three firm exams. Sanctions have ranged from mandated paperwork revisions to civil lawsuits.
Investment Advisor Association General Counsel Karen Barr faulted the regulator for failing to provide information on the volume and severity of the problems.
“The definition of custody brings in some scenarios which aren’t necessarily a source of great risk to customers,” said Barr.
She added the SEC needs to take a risk-based look at what should be considered “constructive custody.”
The SEC could also aid compliance within the profession by clarifying custody rules on advisors’ ability to withdraw funds, urged Peggy Ruhlin, chief executive officer of Budrus, Ruhlin & Roe, a Columbus, Ohio-based advisory firm.
“If advisors can’t withdraw funds that can benefit themselves, is that enough of a restriction? We would all like to know the answer to that,” Ruhlin said.
On Monday, the SEC reiterated that it is concerned about clients giving personal identification information and passwords for their online accounts to financial advisors.
But Ruhlin noted most big 401(k) custodians have safeguards: special sign-ons for an advisor to log in as an advisor to a client’s account that restrict him or her to rebalancing investments or changing how contributions will be invested, with no power to withdraw money.
Smaller 401(k) providers, she said, usually do not allow funds to be withdrawn online.
Reflecting on a 529 college savings plan she has established for her grandchild, Ruhlin said if she had an advisor who was logging in as her with her permission, the person could make changes in the investments (which would be her intent), but the only way to withdraw funds would be to make a payment to a school, to the account owner or the beneficiary.
“I don’t see how the advisor could withdraw funds for himself,” Ruhlin said.
Greenspring Wealth Management Private Client Group Managing Director Patrick Collins said customers benefit from giving advisors access to online accounts.
“From a client’s perspective, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have an advisor managing a pool of their assets in one area and then having no input in another pool of their assets, such as the 401(k). By not knowing the entire picture, advisor could be duplicating effort from investment standpoint,” he said.
In the risk alert announcement, the SEC cited the following custody problems that arise when an advisor:
• Fails to recognize that she or he has custody when serving as trustee, when authorized to write or sign checks for clients, or when authorized to make withdrawals from a client’s account as part of bill-paying services.
• Fails to meet the custody rule’s surprise examination requirements.
• Fails to satisfy the custody rule’s qualified custodian requirements by commingling client, proprietary and employee assets in a single account, or by lacking a reasonable basis to believe that a qualified custodian is sending quarterly account statements to the client.
The agency also faulted some advisors of audited pooled investments for failing to hire an independent accountant, to have the audits done in accordance with U.S. GAAP standards, and to prove financial statements were sent to all fund investors.
Advisors Want Clarity On SEC Custody Complaints
March 4, 2013
« Previous Article
| Next Article »
Login in order to post a comment
Comments
-
Curabitur accumsan lectus sit amet purus semper dapibus. sinetrol fat burner
-
I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work andplease tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read more on the subject? شركة نقل اثاث بالقطي٠شركة نقل اثاث بالخبر ارخص شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام شركة نقل الاثاث بالدمام
-
I admit, I have not been on this web page in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues. شركة نقل عÙØ´ بالدمام شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام شركة نقل عÙØ´ بالدمام شركة نقل اثاث بالجبيل شركة نقل العÙØ´ بالخبر
-
This is particularly a work being produced at whatever point I get some answers concerning one who is more splendid than any of these I will join her and kick out number ten A confirmation of appreciation is all together to share the enlightening post Patio covers
-
Fine Posting, We're an imperative adherent around composing editorial for pages with the goal that you can permit the site specialists understand that they expanded a bit of something important so you can the ether! CPA in Houston
-
Your method in authoring ones own blogging is certainly important. Used to do not even comprehend you can nothing on at most of the most beneficial varieties as a result readily. This was an amazing guideline. etchandbolts.com
-
There are several portions of Patrick's comments I would challenge. Advisors that use a client's User ID and password to access and manage their portfolio are not "impersonating"; rather, they do so with the client's consent. The risk bulletin mentions the concept of access "without restriction", yet we all know that significant restrictions are utilized by all platform providers to prevent fraud. If the implication is that the clients are granting access without restriction, I would suggest the clients would have no way of knowing what restrictions they need to put in place. I would also love to know exactly what efficient account management procedures are used to manage portfolios without access to those portfolios - more work is fine - ineffective work is not. I'm not sure what in this article implies that the advisory community thinks it is perfect. This is a legitimate point of discussion.
-
There are several portions of Patrick's comments I would challenge. Advisors that use a client's User ID and password to access and manage their portfolio are not "impersonating"; rather, they do so with the client's consent. The risk bulletin mentions the concept of access "without restriction", yet we all know that significant restrictions are utilized by all platform providers to prevent fraud. If the implication is that the clients are granting access without restriction, I would suggest the clients would have no way of knowing what restrictions they need to put in place. I would also love to know exactly what efficient account management procedures are used to manage portfolios without access to those portfolios - more work is fine - ineffective work is not. I'm not sure what in this article implies that the advisory community thinks it is perfect. This is a legitimate point of discussion.
-
An advisor impersonating the client via online access has to be the clearest definition of custody. However, if the sign-on does not provide the advisor with the ability to move funds outside of the investments, then custody has not been granted. You need to appreciate GC Barr's use of the term "great risk" as opposed to any risk to understand that clients may be at risk. It is very possible to manage a client's 401K portfiolio and coordinate it with assets that are being custodied elsewhere without having access to the account - it just may require more work. It would appear that these objections being raised by people who do not speak for me, are simple attempts to minimize what is embarrassment as the advisory community attempts to position itself as perfect, when indeed it is not. This seems to be a case of some in the advsiory community wanting the SEC to do their job, as long as the focus is on the other side of the table.