Category “Prime Brokerage Regulation”

CFTC Proposes Joint Rule With SEC On Hedge, P.E. Disclosure

January 28th, 2011

A day after the Securities and Exchange Commission moved forward with plans to force hedge funds and private equity funds to increase their disclosures to regulators, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission followed suit.

The CFTC yesterday proposed a rule that would require private fund advisers to provide an array of information to it and the SEC for risk-monitoring purposes. The proposed new regulation, mandated by last year’s financial reform law, was written jointly by the two regulators. The SEC and CFTC would also share the information they collect with the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Included in the information sought by the two agencies is data on leverage, counterparty risk and positions. While all funds would have to make some disclosures, the brunt of the new rule would fall on the largest managers, those with more than $1 billion, which will have to make more frequent and more detailed disclosures.

“What this does is bring more transparency to the regulators,” CFTC chief Gary Gensler said.

Both the CFTC and SEC are accepting comments on the proposal. Both will have to vote again to finalize the new rule.

Source

SEC Proposes Quarterly Reporting For Biggest Hedge, Private Equity Funds

January 25th, 2011

The biggest hedge funds in the U.S. will face the toughest regulatory burden under a new risk-reporting rule proposed today by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC unanimously voted to seek comment on the new rule, which would require hedge funds, private equity firms and other private investment fund advisers to maintain a wide range of information for sharing with regulators. The proposed joint rule with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will be considered by that regulator tomorrow.

The new rule, required by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reform law, will fall most heavily on firms managing more than $1 billion in assets. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro notes that the 200 such firms in the U.S. control more than 80% of private fund assets under management.

“The information required would be ‘tiered’ so that we would receive more detailed information from larger private fund advisers, rather than imposing the same reporting requirements on all private funds,” Schapiro said. “While the group of large private fund advisers is relatively small in number, it represents a large majority of private funds’ assets.”

Those firms will be required to make quarterly reports on assets, leverage, positions, valuation and trading. That information will be shared by the SEC and CFTC with the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Today’s vote opens a 60-day comment period.

Source

Bermuda Makes Changes to Investment Funds Act

January 4th, 2011

Bermuda has amended its 2006 Investment Funds Act, making new provisions for the regulation of investment funds on the island.

The changes found in the Investment Funds Amendment Act 2010 are designed to “strike a balance between securing appropriate protection for investors in Bermuda funds, while not imposing an undue regulatory burden on the industry.”

The key changes include extending the definition  of “service provider” to include auditors appointed to a fund. As a result, auditors are now required to comply with the “fit and proper” tests set out elsewhere in the Act.

Operators of exempted funds and their service providers are required to be “fit and proper persons to act as such.” Funds are now required to have a recognized fund administrator, an auditor and a Bermuda resident officer or trustee or resident representative who has access to the books and records of the investment fund. Exempted funds are also required to appoint an investment manager, registrar, custodian and/or prime broker.

Under the amended act, fund administrators must notify the Bermuda Monetary Authority in advance when there is a prospective change of control and the Authority now has power to object to a change in control to prevent it happening or to object to existing controllers where they are no longer deemed to be fit and proper to be controllers.

The amended also provides for a right of appeal in cases where the Authority has exercised this power to object.

Fund administration businesses in Bermuda must also meet the “four-eyes” criterion, that is, they must be directed by at least two people to ensure no one person exercises “excessive” control.

Finally, fund officers must be “fit and proper” at the time of authorization to ensure that the business of the fund is being conducted in a prudent manner.

Source

No New Money For SEC, CFTC In Temporary Budget Deal

December 24th, 2010

Two of the U.S.’s top regulators—already crying poverty prior to receiving new powers and oversight mandates earlier this year—will have to make do without any more money for the new two-and-a-half months. At least.

Congress on Tuesday passed a stop-gap funding measure to keep the federal government up and running through March 4, but without the big increases Democrats had sought for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Both have been charged by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reform bill with many more responsibilities than before; the SEC alone must write more than 100 new rules and has said it needs more staffers and resources to do the job.

The Dodd-Frank bill had envisioned doubling the SEC’s budget by 2015.

“Operating under the continuing resolution is already forcing the agency to delay or cut back enforcement and market oversight efforts,” SEC spokesman John Nester said. “The longer we operate under significant budgetary restrictions, the greater the impact.”

“Current funding is far less than what is required to properly fulfill our significantly expanded role,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler told a Congressional committee earlier this month.

While this week’s deal is temporary, it is unclear that a permanent budget bill will favor either agency. Republicans—who voted nearly unanimously against the Dodd-Frank law—are to take control of the House of Representatives next month and it is unclear that they will be willing to boost the regulators’ budgets.

Source

New European Bonus Rules Has Bankers Squealing in Terror

November 28th, 2010

"The truffles! Won't someone save the truffles?"

Jeeves, tell Chef Pierre to substitute veal for pheasant at tonight’s dinner at the Yacht Club, what with these awful new bonuses we’ll have to start economizing.” This may well be indicative of the absolute terror ripping through the European community of millionaire bankers as they contemplate upcoming cuts to their usual multi-million pound or euro bonuses.

The bonus curbs will be announced by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors in the second week of December. The U.K. Financial Services Authority will publish its own rules a few days after.

Tax lawyers, accountants, and pay consultants are lapping up new business like hogs at the trough.  Tax advisers said schemes under consideration included offering staff recourse loans to tide individuals over until their retained or deferred bonuses vest; structuring bonus payouts to minimize the amount of tax payable immediately; structuring payments to attract a capital gains tax liability instead of income tax; and issuing certificates of deposit or restricted loan notes in place of shares.

However, any efforts to wriggle out of the rules will be closely scrutinized by the FSA, which has said it will clamp down on any attempts to get round the spirit of the rules. “We shall turn these fat hogs into bits of bacon if they give us any trouble” was not actually said by the FSA spokesman, but we are sure that’s what he was thinking. What he actually said was “We would encourage firms to engage with the new rules as soon as possible. The CRD [Capital Requirements Directive] contains anti-avoidance measures and the FSA would take a very dim view of any efforts to avoid the rules. Firms need to comply not only with the rules but also the spirit of the code.”

Sam Whitaker, counsel in law firm Shearman & Sterling’s executive compensation and employee benefits practice, said: “Most banks already have their strategy in place.”

Under the proposed rules staff at UK banks who are paid more than £1m could end up paying out more in tax than they receive in cash.  No doubt smelling salts sales increased on that bit of news.

Jon Terry, head of reward at accountancy firm PwC, said: “The primary focus this year is to ensure that staff don’t get hit with a tax liability for the retention element of their bonus, and to get cash into the hands of their most senior people.”

As the proposed rules stand, 60% of the total bonus for bankers who earn more than £1m must be deferred, 20% will go into a “retention” pot and 20% will be paid as cash. One of the priorities for the banks is ensuring top earners are not hit with a tax liability for the retention element of their bonus.

One way to avoid such a situation occurring is to structure the retention element so that there is a theoretical risk of losing, making the award ineligible for tax until delivery, according to one tax lawyer.

Banks are also considering issuing certificates of deposit or restricted loan notes. These can be issued to minimise a tax liability, but could also be used in place of shares as part of a deferral arrangements. Advisers are awaiting further clarification on this issue from the final CEBS guidelines.

Sophie Dworetzsky, a partner at law firm Withers, said: “If the recipient wants to be subject to capital gains tax rather than income tax when value is realised, it is possible to achieve this, but in this case income tax will have to be paid upfront on grant of the certificates of deposit. The employer can look into making a loan to discharge the income tax liability in this situation.”

Another option for banks is to offer recourse loans to certain staff. CEBS sets out in its guidelines that non-recourse loans, where the loan could be written off after a certain period, are disallowed. However, recourse loans – which give power to the lender and cannot be written off – may be offered selectively to certain staff, say advisers.

Banks which pay bonuses in January – including JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs – are expected to present their plans to staff in the next few weeks. Others are unlikely to make any concrete plans until the CEBS guidelines have been confirmed.

Several European and US banks have already announced they will increase fixed pay to minimise the cash impact of incoming bonus rules. HSBC this month confirmed it was increasing base salaries as a proportion of total compensation. It follows similar moves from Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Scotland.

Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs also paid selected staff mid-year bonuses in expectation of the new rules. Credit Suisse paid out cash bonuses to around 400 senior London-based staff in September. Goldman Sachs, which capped bonuses at £1m last year, handed out shares to about 80 senior bankers also in September.

Any attempts to soften the blow for bankers are likely to get short shrift from regulators. Employee trusts, which had been used by banks to minimise the tax burden on deferred bonuses in the past, are being challenged in the courts by HM Revenue & Customs.

Jonathan Fenn, a partner at law firm Slaughter and May, said: “Recent challenges by the Revenue, and the Revenue’s announcement that it is reviewing the use of trusts and other vehicles in the remuneration context have made tax planners increasingly nervous about using ‘highly engineered’ structures .

A spokeswoman for the FSA said: “We would encourage firms to engage with the new rules as soon as possible. The CRD [Capital Requirements Directive] contains anti-avoidance measures and the FSA would take a very dim view of any efforts to avoid the rules. Firms need to comply not only with the rules but also the spirit of the code.”

Alistair Woodland, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, said: “The truth is that no one will escape the new bonus rules completely.”

Source

Hedge Fund Association Declares War on Self-Regulation

November 8th, 2010

On Friday, the Hedge Fund Association declared it opposes the creation of a hedge fund self-regulatory organization (SRO). In compliance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Government Accountability Office  is currently weighing the feasibility and benefits of establishing such an organization.

In its released statement, the HFA urged members of the hedge fund industry to unite in opposition to what could be another wave of regulation that they claim would be costly and redundant.

“In our discussions with the GAO, the Hedge Fund Association has let it be known that we stand in firm opposition to any potential hedge fund SRO,” said David Friedland president of the Hedge Fund Association and president of Magnum U.S. Investments, Inc.  “In light of the new registration requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Bill we believe that any SRO would prove to be entirely redundant and represent yet another regulatory cost that will suppress industry growth.”

“Hedge funds still represent the best outlet for entrepreneurship in the financial industry.  By continuously raising the regulatory costs for a fund to operate, the government is making it harder and harder for smaller fund managers to stay in business,” said Ron Geffner, vice president of the Hedge Fund Association and a partner at law firm Sadis and Goldberg.  “It is the HFA’s mission to speak up for the hedge fund industry and for entrepreneurship in finance.  This is why we simply cannot stay silent when such a potentially damaging provision is still under consideration by regulators.”

Source

At Last! EU Reaches Final Agreement on “Passport” Regulations

October 27th, 2010

We have been reporting on this ongoing saga for some time, but it looks like the curtain is finally coming down.  Following a year of battling, back-biting and bickering, the representatives of the 27-member European Union have reached agreement on new regulations for foreign alternative investments – the so-called “passport” controversy.

It was a week ago that France and the U.K. struck their own deal on the directive, paving the way for its approval by the EU’s member states.  Those states have reached a deal that assures its passage by the European Parliament. Approval by both institutions is required for the proposal to become law, which it is now expected to do early next year.

The European Commission’s agreement with the parliament contains a few changes from the draft approved by EU governments. But those are relatively minor; the real heavy-lifting on the compromise was accomplished last week by EU finance ministers after an increasingly isolated France agreed to drop its opposition to granting access to all EU markets to foreign hedge funds.

The directive will impose strict new reporting and custody requirements on hedge funds and private equity funds, as well as placing them under the authority of the new European Securities and Markets Authority. Private equity funds will also face new asset-stripping rules.

The controversial passport will not come into effect for EU firms until 2013, and foreign funds will not be eligible until 2015. Until then, the current regime that allows each EU country to decide which funds will have access to their markets remains in place.

The European Parliament is set to vote on the directive on Nov. 11.

Source

France Surrenders EU Passport Opposition

October 8th, 2010

There were indications yesterday that the French will no longer hold out against the majority of European Union members favoring new foreign hedge fund “passport” regulations. The shift could presage a breakthrough in the deal-making, which has been unexpectedly contentious in recent weeks. Foreign hedge funds are seeking a single centralized registration process that allows access to all EU member markets.

French diplomats dropped their outright opposition to the so-called “passport” for non-EU funds, which would give those hedge funds and private equity funds that meet stringent new EU standards access to all 27 member countries’ markets, a change from the current system where individual national regulators make the decision.

Last week, France, backed by Germany, announced it would not accept any passport for foreign hedge fund managers, appearing to sink a carefully-crafted compromise. Now, the French say they might accept such a provision, but only if the new European Securities and Markets Authority has the sole authority to issue the passport.

The passport proposal is backed by both the European Commission and European Parliament, as well as the U.K., home to the bulk of Europe’s alternative investments industry, and the U.S. On Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged France to back the directive, calling its opposition to the passport for foreign hedge funds “discriminatory.”

France has denied that charge, saying it is only concern about “ensuring maximum protection for investors.”

France’s openness to accepting a passport does not ensure a deal, however. The French are willing to allow the current system of national regulators to remain in place until as late as 2016. Others, including the U.K., may want the current system to remain in place alongside the passport system, allowing individual countries to approve funds that fail the EU test.

“This is progress but not yet a breakthrough,” one diplomat told the Financial Times.

Source

Making Dark Pools Less Dark

August 30th, 2010

Dark Pool

Dark pools sound mysterious. But in fact, dark (liquidity) pools are crossing networks (alternative electronic trading systems) offered by prime brokers and others to shield trades from prying eyes. Trades executed via a dark pool are not displayed on order books.  The pool allows institutional investors to move large blocks without tipping off the public as to price, volume or trader.  They are reported as over-the-counter trades on national consolidated tapes.

But the rules governing broker crossing systems (BCS) are set for reform on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), which is responsible for coordinating securities regulation across the continent, published technical advice on 29 July designed to help the European Commission as it gears up for a review of European Union’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID). The directive harmonizes financial regulatory policies within the EU. The recommendations included a tightening up of oversight of broker crossing networks, centered on greater post-trade transparency to both regulators and market participants and imposing a limit on the amount of business a BCS can execute before it is required to reclassify as a multilateral trading facility (MTF).

A MTF is a system that brings together third-party buyers and sellers of financial instruments, as specified in the EU’s MiFId. Because they can be assimilated to alternative trading exchanges, they provide an extra source of liquidity and transparency.

In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission has also laid out a three-point plan for reforming dark trading systems, in a bid to shed greater light on dark pool practices. These comprise a need for actionable indications of interest (IOI) sent by dark pools to be published in the same way as actual quotes; lowering the level at which dark pools must make quotes public to 0.25% of a stock’s average daily traded volume from 5%; and forcing dark pools to report trading volumes individually on the consolidated tape. All three proposals included an exemption for orders of $200,000 or more.

Institutional investors that send orders to broker dark pools often feel inadequately informed about how orders are routed, as well as the type of non-client flow that resides in each because of the differences in crossing models and order handling practices used by the sell-side.

In both the US and Europe, ambiguity over the rules that cover broker’s internal crossing mechanisms has left the model open to interpretation, which has led to more buy-side inquiries on how their orders will be handled.

While many broker-operated dark pools seem to match orders similarly, further examination reveals small differences that could affect buy-side execution performance.

For example, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs all enable access to their dark pools via proprietary algorithms only, which gives them discretion over how orders are handled and prohibits access from non-clients. Furthermore, each firm claims not to disseminate IOIs to third parties such as electronic market makers from their respective pools, which enables them to be completely dark and free, in theory, from information leakage.

However, UBS states that only its client-facing trading businesses are allowed to send flow to the Price Improvement Network (PIN), while Credit Suisse’s Crossfinder and Goldman Sachs’ SIGMA – known as SIGMA X in the US – integrate a wider selection of internal flow into their dark pools.

UBS matches orders in PIN at the midpoint, while Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs execute flow at anywhere within the spread.

Morgan Stanley seeks to differentiate its offering, MS Pool, by stipulating a minimum order size and minimum resting period to facilitate larger crosses compared to displayed markets.

“If a broker has an unusually high crossing rate in their broker crossing system, they may be sending out actionable IOIs and market their flow to electronic market makers,” she said. “High-frequency traders can use this information and execute against client flow, which potentially provides good execution results. But the key is for clients to obtain transparency as to the way their orders are managed and the flow they interact with.”

But Andrew Silverman, managing director, Morgan Stanley, does not think the reform proposals, particularly for IOIs, will bring any more comfort to the buy-side.

“The bottom line is that all firms operating dark pools or broker crossing systems should disclose their order handling practices. If the SEC bans actionable IOIs, those using them can instead use immediate-or-cancel order types to determine the trading interest residing in dark pools,” said Silverman. “US buy-side firms are currently skeptical of how orders are handled by brokers. Any regulation should focus on how to add more transparency to the marketplace.”

Source

Financial Services Industry Pondering Impact of Dodd-Frank Act

August 23rd, 2010

Providers of financial services, such as prime brokers, are now calibrating how to respond to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under review are the Act’s effects on returns, leverage, risk-taking, innovation, and transparency.  That is because the Act drives higher margin requirements and less leverage.  Providers also worry that the threat of increased SEC scrutiny will inhibit certain proprietary strategies favored by hedge funds and other alternative investments.

Private equity and real estate funds are also feeling the heat. For example, Bank of America Merrill Lynch effectively departed the business when it outsourced management of its Asian real estate fund to Blackstone Group in July, said Steven Coyle, chief investment officer of Cohen & Steers’ fund-of-funds management arm, Global Realty Partners, New York.

Anticipating that financial reform would likely make the businesses obsolete was one reason leading to the decision to sell, Mr. Coyle noted. The other was “realizing that recent hits to real estate made these businesses less attractive on an ongoing basis,” he said.  “If they remain as banks, I don’t think they will stay in business,” Mr. Coyle said. “Most investors invested because the house (bank parent to the investment management firm) had a major investment.”

Large non-bank financial institutions may also suffer as investors start to shy away from large investment firms. While “this is not the death knell of large firms,” he said, on balance, investors will move toward a smaller operating model, Mr. Coyle added.

Financial reforms — both in the U.S. and globally — are expected to have the combined effect of making debt, a key ingredient in real estate and private equity investments, even harder to come by.  “There is a concern that, whereas normalcy would return to the debt capital markets, the de-risking (caused by the financial reform law) will cause debt capital markets for real estate to be slower to recover,” said Robert T. O’Brien, real estate leader for New York-based consulting firm Deloitte. “Lending standards will be tighter with more documents, more diligence and with banks having to have more capital reserves.”

With the financial overhaul signed into law, institutional investors and managers now are waiting for the other shoe to drop: that is, the regulatory specifics.

One little-discussed aspect of the so-called Volcker Rule – which restricts banks from proprietary trading – is that it also prohibits financial institutions owning more than 3% of any alternative investment fund.

“Banks cannot buy 3% of a private equity or hedge fund and banks cannot sponsor or operate a fund and invest more than 3%,” said David Sahr, partner in the financial services, regulation and enforcement division at the New York office of law firm Mayer Brown LLP.

This not only applies to funds being raised, but also to any funds — private equity, real estate and hedge funds — the financial institutions now sponsor, said Lennine Occhino, partner in the Chicago headquarters of Mayer Brown.

More widely discussed has been the aspect of the Volcker Rule that banks’ total private equity and hedge fund exposure must not be more than 3% of Tier One capital — banks’ cushion of core capital intended to absorb losses so they won’t cut into deposits, Mr. Sahr said. What’s more, a bank must have a fiduciary relationship with investors and have an existing asset management relationship with investors to sponsor alternative investment funds at all, Mr. Sahr said.

But the rules do not stop there. Even if a financial institution does not own a bank, if the institution is so important to the U.S. economy that it could cause the economy to break down, it could be subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve, he said.

These could include large insurance companies, large private equity and hedge fund firms, large manufacturers or their investment management subsidiaries like General Electric Co.‘s GE Capital. These firms would not be prohibited from owning and sponsoring alternative investment funds; but they would be subject to overall capital limits that have yet to be set by the Federal Reserve, Mr. Sahr said.

“The legislation gives the Federal Reserve the authority to designate non-banks as systemically important financial institutions,” Mr. Kahn said.

Some private investment firms see this as an opportunity to expand their businesses. Many expect to scoop up talented investment executives from large financial services firms or acquire existing investment management units from players departing the business, he said.

Source

Bottom Logo Wall Bottom Logo Reuters Bottom Logo Forbes Bottom Logo Fortune Bottom Logo Cnn Bottom Logo Cnbc Bottom Logo Fox Bottom Logo Comunity