SEC sues asset managers for using untested, error-filled quantitative investment models

Wendy E. Cohen, Richard D. Marshall, Allison C. Yacker, L. Zinman
{"title":"SEC sues asset managers for using untested, error-filled quantitative investment models","authors":"Wendy E. Cohen, Richard D. Marshall, Allison C. Yacker, L. Zinman","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-01-2019-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nTo explain actions the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought on August 27, 2018, against a group of affiliated investment advisers and broker-dealers for what the SEC considered misleading and insufficient representations and disclosures, insufficient compliance policies and procedures, and insufficient research and oversight concerning the use of faulty quantitative models to manage certain client accounts.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nExplains the SEC’s findings concerning the advisers’ and broker-dealers’ failure to confirm that certain models worked as intended, to disclose the risks associated with the use of those models, to disclose the role of a research analyst in developing the models, to disclose the use of volatility overlays along with the associated risks, to determine whether a fund’s holdings were sufficient to support a consistent dividend payout without a return of capital, and to take sufficient steps to confirm the advertised performance of another investment manager whose products they were marketing. Provides insight into the SEC’s position and offers key takeaways.\n\n\nFindings\nThese cases are significant for advisers who use quantitative models to implement their investment strategies in the management of client accounts and signal the SEC’s continued focus on investment advisers’ compliance with disclosure obligations to discretionary account investors.\n\n\nPractical implications\nEach manager should consider its own facts and circumstances, and should consult with counsel, in assessing how and to what extent to incorporate the SEC’s conclusions in crafting disclosure and other communications with investors on matters such as adequate representations, testing and validation of models, disclosure of errors, and verifying performance claims.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPractical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-01-2019-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose To explain actions the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought on August 27, 2018, against a group of affiliated investment advisers and broker-dealers for what the SEC considered misleading and insufficient representations and disclosures, insufficient compliance policies and procedures, and insufficient research and oversight concerning the use of faulty quantitative models to manage certain client accounts. Design/methodology/approach Explains the SEC’s findings concerning the advisers’ and broker-dealers’ failure to confirm that certain models worked as intended, to disclose the risks associated with the use of those models, to disclose the role of a research analyst in developing the models, to disclose the use of volatility overlays along with the associated risks, to determine whether a fund’s holdings were sufficient to support a consistent dividend payout without a return of capital, and to take sufficient steps to confirm the advertised performance of another investment manager whose products they were marketing. Provides insight into the SEC’s position and offers key takeaways. Findings These cases are significant for advisers who use quantitative models to implement their investment strategies in the management of client accounts and signal the SEC’s continued focus on investment advisers’ compliance with disclosure obligations to discretionary account investors. Practical implications Each manager should consider its own facts and circumstances, and should consult with counsel, in assessing how and to what extent to incorporate the SEC’s conclusions in crafting disclosure and other communications with investors on matters such as adequate representations, testing and validation of models, disclosure of errors, and verifying performance claims. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国证券交易委员会起诉资产管理公司使用未经测试、充满错误的量化投资模型
目的解释美国证券交易委员会(SEC)于2018年8月27日对一组关联投资顾问和经纪自营商提起的诉讼,原因是SEC认为这些投资顾问和经纪自营商在使用错误的定量模型管理某些客户账户方面存在误导性和不充分的陈述和披露、不充分的合规政策和程序,以及不充分的研究和监督。设计/方法/方法解释SEC关于顾问和经纪自营商未能确认某些模型按预期工作,未能披露与使用这些模型相关的风险,未能披露研究分析师在开发模型中的作用,未能披露波动性叠加和相关风险的使用,未能确定基金的持有量是否足以在没有资本回报的情况下支持持续的股息支付的调查结果。并采取足够的措施,证实他们正在推销的另一位投资经理的产品所宣传的业绩。提供对美国证券交易委员会立场的洞察,并提供关键要点。这些案例对于使用定量模型在客户账户管理中实施投资策略的顾问来说意义重大,并表明SEC将继续关注投资顾问是否遵守对全权委托账户投资者的披露义务。实际意义在评估如何以及在多大程度上将SEC的结论纳入与投资者的披露和其他沟通中,例如充分的陈述、模型的测试和验证、错误的披露以及验证业绩声明等事项时,每位经理都应考虑自身的事实和情况,并应咨询律师。原创性/价值资深证券律师的实用指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ESG litigation – how companies can get ready, respond and resolve claims Strengthening AML/CFT controls of digital payment token service providers in Singapore Understanding regulatory trends: digital assets & anti-Money laundering “Racing” to the IBOR transition finish line Structuring and financing private equity and venture capital transactions in Luxembourg
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1