Tag Archives: surprise audit

FPPad Bits and Bytes for November 11

Posted on November 11, 2011 by in Bits & Bytes

I’ve been back in Dallas for a week, but I still have yet to review and edit my notes from Schwab IMPACT 2011. Soon I hope to have two or three new updates on my feedback from conference breakout sessions, but consulting, new content development, and family obligations take precedence. Still, I’ve kept my pulse on the wires this week for the best in technology stories for financial advisers.

First, if you have a website, but are wondering what you can do to take it to the next level and convert visitors to clients, read this month’s column on Morningstar Advisor, How Marketing Automation Can Accelerate Client Growth.

All the major media outlets were on site at Schwab IMPACT 2011, so there were a number of stories released this week regarding related announcements. Most of them were good, but in this case, video content did a better job of addressing what the custodian is doing with its technology platform for advisers than print.

Here are two video updates from Schwab IMPACT worth viewing, one from InvestmentNews’s Davis Janowski interviewing Neesha Hathi and a second from James J. Green’s AdvisorOne, also interviewing Neesha Hathi.

Advisor Tested: Arkovi expands and archives a firm’s online footprint from RIABiz.com

[As an adviser in a regulated industry, you can’t tweet, post to Facebook, or interact on LinkedIn if it’s related to your business unless you archive and supervise your records. One tool that facilitates your compliance obligations is Arkovi, and Judy Messina gives a good rundown in this RIABiz Advisor Tested story.] As registered investment advisors flock to Twitter, Facebook and other social-media sites to establish themselves as thought leaders and connect with customers and other investment professionals, storing and keeping track of tweets, posts and other content for compliance purposes can seem like an exercise in herding cats.

And in related news, I think you might care a little bit about what might happen with the future of regulatory examinations for investment advisers.

Let RIAs Foot Their Own Examination Bill, Report Says from FA-Mag.com

[In a report commissioned by TD Ameritrade Institutional, Georgetown University finance professor James J. Angel proposed that RIAs should pay for their own periodic compliance examinations conducted by an outside third party. There’s merit to this idea, as RIAs who take custody of client assets today must subject themselves to (and pay for) a surprise audit by an independent public accountant that is registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).] Instead of the Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) examining RIA firms, the firms themselves should foot the bill for their own periodic compliance examination by using an outside body.

 

Surprise Audit Provision Dropped From New SEC Custody Regulations

Posted on December 17, 2009 by in Compliance

secAbout six months ago in response to the uproar over the Bernie Madoff fraud, the SEC proposed updates to the custody rule that would require RIAs who debit fees from client accounts to be subject to surprise audits.

Needless to say, this proposal did not go over well, especially when costs for surprise audits were estimated to be north of $8,000.

See previous posts on FPPad: Proposed SEC Custody Rules Could Cost Advisers Extra $8,100 and SEC Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to FPA.

Yesterday the SEC passed new custody regulations, and the surprise audit provision for RIAs who only debit fees was dropped. In addition, the SEC published a custody matrix, if you will, defining the different adviser arrangements along with their respective duties and responsibilities.

The folks over at RIABiz posted more about the custody provisions, plus they included the custody matrix chart for reference.

Click here to view the custody matrix on the RIABiz website.

SEC Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to FPA

Posted on May 27, 2009 by in Practice Management

Last week I wrote about the proposed changes published by the SEC to require surprise audits of investment advisers who debit fees directly from clients’ accounts, falling under the requirements of custody. The proposed changes were estimated to cost each adviser office on average of $8,100 a year in compliance costs.

This proposal, just barely three weeks old, seems likely to be rescinded according to this Financial Planning article published by Donna Mitchell.  In it she writes:

Unofficial reports from the SEC, however, now suggest that the regulator is dropping the third-party compliance audit requirement for advisors, according to the Financial Planning Association’s Web site.

To read the full article, click here.

Proposed SEC Custody Rules Could Cost Advisers Extra $8,100

Posted on May 21, 2009 by in Practice Management

secUpdate: See the article FPA, NAPFA and IAA to fight SEC’s pop-quiz proposal from InvestmentNews.com where group officials say “that the proposal is misguided and would saddle advisers with unnecessary costs.”

It should be no surprise to financial advisers following the Madoff Ponzi scandal that the SEC recently issued proposed rule changes to custody requirements. The release, IA-2876 (click to view PDF from SEC.gov), addresses custody requirements of client funds and securities and is open for a 60-day comment period through July 28, 2009. Should the proposed rules be adopted, advisers may face additional compliance fees of $8,100 on average.

Surprise Examination Proposal

The SEC proposes that advisers with custody of client assets must undergo an annual surprise examination by an independent public accountant, regardless of whether or not assets are held by a qualified custodian. The premise behind the surprise examination requirement is to provide “another set of eyes” on client assets to prevent fraud and misappropriation of client funds by registered advisers.  Reports of theft and fraud by advisers have plagued the SEC since the Madoff scandal erupted in late 2008. So what does this mean for advisers meeting the custody definition?

Read More…