December 15, 2018

December 14, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 13, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 12, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

SEC Sues Asset Managers for Using Untested, Error Filled Quantitative Investment Models

On August 27, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought actions against four affiliated entities—including two registered investment advisers, one dually registered investment adviser and broker-dealer and a registered broker-dealer and two of their senior executives—alleging negligence in connection with their use of faulty quantitative models to manage client accounts. More than $98 million in total monetary penalties were imposed. The cases are significant for advisers who use models to manage client accounts, as well as signal the SEC's continued focus on retail investors.

The SEC order states that "an inexperienced quantitative research analyst" who had no portfolio management experience or formal training with developing quantitative investment models developed the models. The advisers and related broker-dealers then offered products, including mutual funds, variable life insurance and variable annuity investment products, and separately managed accounts, managed by the models. These firms marketed the investment products "as 'managed using a proprietary quant model,' and highlighted, when marketing certain of the products and strategies, their 'emotionless,' 'model-driven,' or 'model-supported' investment management process and described how the models were supposed to operate." According to the SEC, "[t]hese claims necessarily implied that the models worked as intended."

SEC's Findings

The SEC complained that the representations regarding the models were misleading because the advisers and broker-dealers "launched the products and strategies without first confirming that the models worked as intended and/or without disclosing any recognized risks associated with using the models." This last statement implies that the SEC expects an adviser to disclose the risks associated with the use of any models to manage a portfolio, no matter how carefully the models are tested and monitored. Later, the advisers discovered that the models were not working as intended and stopped using the models. The SEC alleged that the advisers should have disclosed the models' errors and the decision to stop using them to the boards of the funds managed using the models and to affected fund shareholders and advisory clients.

The SEC also criticized the advisers for failing to disclose the role of the research analyst in developing the models. Instead, the SEC alleged that the advisers identified a senior officer as the "portfolio manager" of the products, when in fact the analyst's models managed the products.

Additionally the SEC alleged that the advisers "disclosed the use of the Volatility Overlays [which were models designed to limit portfolio exposure in times of greater volatility] in the Index Portfolios' May 1, 2011 prospectuses, but it did not disclose associated risks or explain that the Volatility Overlays were controls that would dictate the portfolios' asset allocations in certain markets, instead referring to them as 'guidelines.'" When errors discovered in the Volatility Overlays were corrected, neither investors nor the fund board was notified of the errors.

Furthermore, the SEC alleged that the advisers failed to provide required notices to shareholders of one of the mutual funds using the models that a portion of the dividend payments received from the fund included an estimated return of capital. Relatedly, in filings with the SEC, it was stated that the primary objective of the fund was high current income with a goal of relatively consistent monthly dividend in the range of 4 percent to 7 percent. However, according to the SEC, the advisers did not determine if the fund's holdings could support such a dividend.

Finally, the SEC alleged that the advisers were negligent in marketing certain products managed by another manager, F-Squared, which had previously been accused of fraudulent performance advertising. "Having taken insufficient steps to confirm the accuracy of F-Squared's performance data and not having obtained sufficient documentation that would have substantiated F-Squared's advertised performance and performance-related claims in the F-Squared advertising materials distributed by [one of the advisers], [the adviser] failed to have a reasonable basis to believe that F-Squared's performance was accurate when it distributed advertisements to clients considering F-Squared's strategies."

Conclusion

According to the SEC, the two senior executives were charged because they caused certain advisers' violations and because they caused each of the advisers to fail "to adopt and implement certain compliance policies and procedures, including failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that: (1) its quantitative models worked as intended both before the Products launched and on a periodic basis after they launched; (2) it adopted and implemented reasonable controls regarding the testing, approval, and documentation of any changes to its quantitative models; and (3) the Products' portfolio managers' discretion to depart from model-directed trades was defined, monitored, and documented."


Key Takeaways

The SEC actions signify the following:

  1. Representations that a model is in use to manage a portfolio imply that the model has been tested and validated.
  2. Advisers must test a model before it is first used and periodically thereafter.
  3. When a model is used to manage a portfolio, if individuals are being identified to investors as responsible for the management of the portfolio, then it is important to identify the model as the portfolio manager, and not just identify a senior executive with overall supervisory responsibility.
  4. When errors are detected in a model, these should be disclosed to investors and fund boards, not merely corrected.
  5. Use of a model should not be identified as "guidelines" if the model is actually managing the portfolio.
  6. When another adviser is recommended to clients, the adviser must take reasonable steps to verify the other adviser's performance claims.
©2018 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Wendy E. Cohen, Financial Services Lawyer, Katten Muchin Law firm
Partner

Wendy E. Cohen represents investment managers and other sponsors of domestic and offshore securities and commodities hedge funds, funds of funds and other public and private pooled investment vehicles, as well as their service providers, including their managers, brokers, financial intermediaries and other financial institutions, and investment professionals. She provides advice on all corporate and related matters facing investment funds, including structure and organization, ongoing operations, restructuring and dissolution.

Having practiced for...

212-940-3846
Richard D. Marshall, Katten Muchin, SEC Representation Lawyer, Finance Attorney, New York,
Partner

Richard D. Marshall focuses his practice on the representation of financial institutions and employees subjected to investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and state securities regulators. Rick also counsels broker-dealers, investment companies and investment advisers on regulatory issues, particularly relating to SEC and FINRA regulations. He also frequently counsels clients on compliance and risk management issues and the handling of inspections.

Rick provides extensive advice regarding possible impacts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and related regulatory rulemakings. Additionally, he provides time-sensitive advice on securities trading, ownership reporting and other investment regulations to a broad range of clients.

Prior to entering private practice, Rick worked for several years for the SEC as both a branch chief in the Division of Enforcement in Washington, DC and as a senior associate regional administrator in New York, where his staff conducted inspections of investment companies and investment advisers, and instituted enforcement actions against those entities.

212.940.8765
Allison C. Yacker, Katten Muchin, Corporate regulatory Matters Lawyer, Offshore Hedge Funds Attorney
Partner

Allison Yacker, co-chair of the New York Financial Services group, represents domestic and offshore hedge funds, including fund of funds, private equity funds, commodity pools, investment managers, managed account platforms, banks and broker-dealers on a broad range of corporate, securities, finance and other regulatory matters. She provides structuring, organization and ongoing advice related to hedge funds and private equity funds that employ a broad range of investment strategies and regularly counsels investment managers with respect to state and federal registration...

212.940.6328
Lance A. Zinman, Attorney, Financial Services, Katten Muchin Law Firm
Partner

Lance Zinman serves as global co-chair of Katten's Financial Services practice and sits on the firm's Board of Directors and Executive Committee. Lance is a Registered Foreign Lawyer and a non-practicing partner in Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP. He represents hedge funds and commodity pools in all asset classes, private equity funds, investment advisers, commodity trading advisors and other asset managers. He also advises a broad cross section of proprietary trading firms—large and small—including many of the major firms in the industry. Lance’s multidimensional...

312-902-5212