Articles Tagged with alternative investments

The Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), in coordination with other Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff released guidance and observations concerning investment advisers due diligence process for selecting alternative investments.  The OCIE has observed that investment advisers are increasingly recommending alternative investments to their clients in lieu of other investment options.  Investment advisers are fiduciaries and must act in their clients’ best interests.  Since an investment adviser exercises discretion to purchase alternative investments on behalf of clients the adviser must determine whether the investments: (i) meet the clients’ investment objectives; and (ii) are consistent with the investment principles and strategies that were disclosed to the client by the manager to the adviser.

Alternative investments include a variety of non-traditional investments including hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, real estate, and funds of private funds.  The commonality amongst alternative investments is that they employ unique investment strategies and assets that are not necessarily correlated to traditional stock and bond indexes.

The OCIE staff examined the due diligence process processes of advisers to pension plans and funds of private funds in order to evaluate how advisers performed due diligence, identify, disclose, and mitigate conflicts of interest, and evaluate complex investment strategies and fund structures.  The OCIE noted indicators that led advisers to conduct additional due diligence analysis, request the manager to make appropriate changes, or to reject the manager or the alternative investment.

Wisconsin based B.C. Ziegler & Co. (Ziegler) was recently hit with a $311,000 judgment in a decision made by a FINRA arbitration panel.  The claimant alleged negligent misrepresentation, suitability, negligence, failure to supervise, and violation of Wisconsin Uniform Securities Act. The claim related to the recommendation to purchase private placement securities in the Subordinated Taxable Adjustable Mezzanine Put Securities (STAMPS) offered by Erickson Retirement Communities, LLC (Erickson).

The claimant alleged that less than two years after its investment, Erickson filed for bankruptcy and the STAMPS investment became worthless.  The claimant alleged that Ziegler failed to disclose material facts regarding the STAMPS investment and that the STAMPS recommendation was at odds with the claimant’s investment objectives.  The claimant alleged that STAMPS was an illiquid subordinated debt products, not secured by any collateral, and was recommended to the claimant at a time when private and commercial loan environments were experiencing extreme stresses.  Further, the claimant alleged that they were recommended the investment even though Erickson’s financial situation was steadily worsening.

Other complaints filed against Ziegler in connection with the Erickson private placement have made similar allegations against the firm.  According to a Chicago Tribune article, claimants have alleged that their broker promised returns of 11 percent to 12 percent but minimized or failed to disclose the risks, including how their cash would be tied up for years.  Due to stock market volatility, broker promises of fixed returns from a stable investment often entice clients to follow their broker’s recommendation to invest in private placements.  In addition, private placements are supposed to be sold to only accredited investors who meet certain net worth or income requirements.  Some of the investors have claimed that they were instructed to provide incorrect financial information in order to meet the accredited investor standard, a claim that has become more and more common as brokerage firms seek to sell private placements to a wider field of investors.

All brokers and broker-dealers have an obligation to ensure that their investment or investment strategy recommendation is suitable for the customer.  All sales efforts must be reasonable and appropriate for the investor based upon the investor’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, age, financial circumstances, other investment holdings, experience, and other facts or information disclosed by the investor.

With respect to the sale of private placements, regulators have found significant problems in the due diligence and sales efforts of some brokerage firms when selling private placements to investors.  These problems include fraud, misrepresentations and omissions in sales materials and offering documents, conflicts of interest, and suitability abuses.

In order for a brokerage firm to meet its due diligence obligation, the brokerage firm must make reasonable efforts to gather and analyze information both about the private placement and the customer the security is being sold to.  Private Placements are considered “alternative investments” and are inherently speculative.  Consequently, a broker must also ensure that an investment recommendation in a private placement is suitable for the particular customer.  The broker must ensure that the client can withstand the risk taken and not imperil the client’s account by concentrating their assets in speculative investments.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), VSR Financial Services, Inc. (“VSR”), and Donald J. Beary (“Beary”) have reached a settlement concerning charges brought by the securities regulator that VSR violated customer concentration guidelines and otherwise failed to reasonably supervise its brokers in the sales of alternative investments.  The settlement led to VSR paying a $550,000 fine and Beary being suspended from associating with a FINRA firm for 45 days and a $10,000 fine.

VSR is based in Overland Park, Kansas, has 211 branch offices, and employs approximately 460 registered personnel.  Beary is a co-founder of VSR and is its executive vice-president, chairman of the board, and direct participation principal.

According to FINRA, from 2005 until 2010 VSR and Beary failed to adequately implement the firm’s supervisory procedures concerning concentration limits in customer accounts for alternative investments.  The settlement details that VSR’s supervisory failures regarding concentration limits occurred because the firm used inaccurate statements reflecting the customer’s true concentration in alternative investments and because the firm used inaccurate risk ratings of products to increase allowable concentration levels.

Contact Information