U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission member Paul Atkins recently co-wrote an article claiming that enforcement issues are so egregious that the SEC needs to set up an independent review panel. The last time the SEC had one was 36 years ago.
These are excerps from the article:
Financial markets and their regulatory landscape have changed markedly in the past three and a half decades since an independent panel reviewed the SEC's enforcement program. It is time to convene a similar panel to bring the program up to date. The Division of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission has a proud history and many dedicated attorneys, accountants and other staff. Thirty-six years after its creation, the Enforcement Division is larger, stronger and more visible than anyone at the time could have imagined.
In the 36 years since the Wells Committee set out its recommendations, financial markets have changed tremendously, and corporate scandals have rocked both Wall Street and Main Street. In response, Congress gave the SEC significantly more enforcement authority, much of it penal in nature. The SEC now can impose multimillion-dollar penalties against corporations and individuals, bar individuals from serving as officers and directors of corporations, and prevent professionals such as accountants and securities lawyers from practicing before the SEC. Some believe that in exercising these new punitive powers, the SEC has shifted its focus without adjusting its due process protections along the way. It is time for the commission to convene a new advisory committee, in a spirit similar to that of the Wells Committee, to conduct an independent review of the SEC's enforcement program and to recommend any needed changes to modernize enforcement practices. As the Wells Committee did, this new committee also should examine whether the SEC is taking appropriate steps to protect the rights of defendants and to provide appropriate due process. Although much has changed since the original Wells Committee did its work, the same philosophical and practical concerns exist today. Therefore, the new advisory committee could adopt essentially the same mandate as that of the Wells Committee in 1972.
Among the many issues that would fall under this broad mandate would be the implementation of mechanisms to provide more efficacy, predictability and transparency to the enforcement program. As an agency tasked with enforcing laws and regulations mandating transparency, the SEC itself must provide transparency to the public in its enforcement practices. Predictability and transparency provide for a fair process that respects the rights of all parties involved and ensures adherence to the rule of law.
The SEC is governed by a five-member commission, each of whom is appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. The commission delegates to the career staff investigative authority, but the commission retains the decision by majority vote to issue subpoenas and to sue defendants or settle with them. The most important Wells Committee recommendation was that the enforcement staff should give notice to a prospective defendant of the potential charges to be asserted against him before the enforcement division seeks authority from the commission to sue. This policy change was a key protection of due process, and gave a defendant the ability to defend himself on the basis of facts and the law. Thus, the formal defense submission in response to the notice came to be known as a "Wells Submission." Often, the facts uncovered in investigations indicate that no action should be taken against a potential defendant, or a Wells Submission may be persuasive in arguing against an action. Sometimes, however, institutional and other factors may make it difficult to drop a matter altogether. The ability of the Enforcement Division to recommend that no action be taken in a particular matter based on the facts and law should be encouraged and institutionalized. This will require a re-evaluation of the incentives for bringing actions and obtaining penalties, such as through promotions, awards and public recognition of SEC staff. An evaluation system should focus on rewarding high-quality efforts and professionalism regardless of the outcome of particular actions. In some instances, exercising discretion may not be appropriate. There should not be institutional encouragement for using discretion to formulate theories of liability that overstep the boundaries of existing law.
Standards are set through the legislative process in Congress and through the SEC's rule-making process; it is not the function of the Enforcement Division. Rule making through enforcement violates the fundamental principles of due process that Congress established in the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires regulatory agencies to give notice and seek (and respond to) comment from the public before adopting or changing rules. In the recent past, federal courts have nullified various SEC rule-making attempts because the agency did not follow proper procedure or overstepped its authority in adopting rules.
The U.S. General Accountability Office in 2007 strongly criticized the Enforcement Division for not promptly closing investigations at their conclusion. When the commission or its staff determines that an investigation should be closed or action is not warranted, the agency should promptly send a closing letter, not only to those who have made a Wells Submission but also to any significant nonparty who has been involved in the investigation. The advisory committee also should consider bolstering the Wells Submission process by permitting a proposed defendant to appear before the commission to oppose the initiation of an enforcement proceeding. Although it would be both unnecessary and unmanageable to allow such an "oral Wells Submission" in every matter, it may be beneficial to both the commission and proposed defendants for the commission to have a discretionary avenue to hear from proposed defendants prior to taking action, particularly in complex cases or those in which character assessment is important. A review of the enforcement process would not be complete without a review of the costs to parties responding to an investigation. The SEC must ensure that its investigations and enforcement actions do not impose unnecessary costs. Overly broad subpoenas or document or interview requests add to a responding entity's costs--and not every responding entity becomes a defendant. Compliance with notices to preserve--and subsequent requests to produce--electronic data, including e-mails, voice mails and server backup tapes, is undeniably burdensome and can be very expensive.
It is critical for the SEC to have certain electronic data, but preservation notices and requests for their production are often generic and extend well beyond the boundaries of an existing investigation. The new advisory committee should recommend ways to minimize costs while still ensuring that the SEC can get the information it needs for its investigations. With respect to enforcement policies, the advisory committee should examine the usage, effects, amount and appropriateness of corporate penalties in financial fraud cases, to determine if they are consistent with the SEC's mission to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly and efficient capital markets; and facilitate capital formation.
When evaluating the use of penalties against issuers of securities in financial fraud cases, the advisory committee should, for example, ask, Do penalties protect investors? Do they harm or benefit shareholders? Is the circularity of "Fair Fund" penalty distributions (the company pays--meaning, in effect, the shareholders pay--a penalty, which is put into a fund and then distributed to the company's shareholders) consistent with ensuring fair, orderly and efficient capital markets? Is capital formation impeded by the threat of large, unpredictable issuer penalties? Do we create a moral hazard if we permit officers of companies to agree to a large corporate penalty to avoid or soften actions against culpable individuals? Are individuals deterred from wrongdoing if they expect that shareholders will pay the penalties for the misconduct? And, most important, does the prospect of large issuer penalties and the inevitable press coverage cause the SEC to misallocate resources to use the government's power to pursue weaker cases to the detriment of other types of enforcement actions?.
But thigs may are not giving the reason to Mr. Atkins. The SEC is getting into the act as well with its “emergency order” restricting short trading — not in general, but specifically in the shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of whom are protectorates of the federal government anyway. The SEC’s supposed target is “unlawful manipulation,” which is illegal.
All this in a not very serious maner. Normally in a functioning democracy, lawmakers and federal agencies craft rules through a deliberative process, and those rules apply prospectively across the board. When the government acts through orders rather than legislation or established administrative procedurees to identify emergencies and bogey men, and then seeks to outlaw their practices with hastily drafted decrees — well, that’s when the market makers, who depend on freedom and the established rule of law, should start to worry.
Paul S. Atkins is a commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Bradley J. Bondi is legal counsel and policy adviser to Commissioner Atkins. Their article is extracted from “Evaluating the Mission: A Critical Review Of The History And Evolution Of The SEC Enforcement Program,” first published in the Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law.
Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
SEC Finds Shortcomings in Credit Rating Agencies'
The Securities and Exchange Commission today released findings from extensive 10-month examinations of three major credit rating agencies that uncovered significant weaknesses in ratings practices and the need for remedial action by the firms to provide meaningful ratings and the necessary levels of disclosure to investors.
Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency's staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies' policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.
The SEC staff's examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.
"We've uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "When the firms didn't have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That's the bad news. There's also good news. And that's that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves."
Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, "These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings."
The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff's Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies' processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.
Specifically, the examinations found:
- There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.
- Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.
- Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.
- The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.
- The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process - including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions - and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.
- The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.
- Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.
- The rating agencies' internal audit processes varied significantly.
The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC's Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.
The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC's proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency's staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies' policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.
The SEC staff's examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.
"We've uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "When the firms didn't have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That's the bad news. There's also good news. And that's that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves."
Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, "These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings."
The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff's Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies' processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.
Specifically, the examinations found:
- There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.
- Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.
- Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.
- The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.
- The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process - including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions - and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.
- The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.
- Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.
- The rating agencies' internal audit processes varied significantly.
The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC's Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.
The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC's proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
SEC Proposal to Reduce Reliance on Credit Ratings
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule changes to make the limits and purposes of credit ratings clear to investors and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue for public comment this third set of proposed recommendations to bring increased transparency to the credit ratings process and curb practices that contributed to recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Commission voted to propose the first two sets of recommendations on June 11, 2008.
"This action is designed to ensure that the role we assign to ratings in our rules is consistent with the objective of having investors make an independent judgment of the risks associated with a particular security," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It should be neither the purpose nor the effect of any SEC rule to discourage investors from paying close attention to what credit ratings actually mean."
Erik R. Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, said, "These proposals complete the rulemaking initiative begun two weeks ago with respect to NRSROs. I believe the proposed amendments will further promote the Commission's goals of strengthening the ratings process by reducing any undue reliance on NRSRO ratings and by encouraging independent evaluation and analysis of credit risk."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, added, "These proposals are an important step toward clarifying the appropriate role of credit ratings in investors' decisions about the securities in which they invest. Not only do the proposals establish new criteria, independent of ratings, for issuers to access our forms and utilize the shelf registration process, they do so in a manner that protects the interests of investors."
The Commission has reviewed the requirements in its rules and forms that rely on credit ratings. In many cases, it has concluded that such references can be removed or revised. These proposals also address recent recommendations issued by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Financial Stability Forum, and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Consistent with these recommendations, the SEC has considered whether the inclusion of requirements related to ratings in its rules and forms has, in effect, placed an "official seal of approval" on ratings that could adversely affect the quality of due diligence and investment analysis. The SEC's proposal would reduce undue reliance on credit ratings and result in improvements in the analysis that underlies investment decisions.
Public comments on this third set of proposed rules should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 5, 2008.
The proposing releases comprising this third set of rule proposals have been posted to the SEC Web site:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/34-58070.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/33-8940.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/ic-28327.pdf
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue for public comment this third set of proposed recommendations to bring increased transparency to the credit ratings process and curb practices that contributed to recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Commission voted to propose the first two sets of recommendations on June 11, 2008.
"This action is designed to ensure that the role we assign to ratings in our rules is consistent with the objective of having investors make an independent judgment of the risks associated with a particular security," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It should be neither the purpose nor the effect of any SEC rule to discourage investors from paying close attention to what credit ratings actually mean."
Erik R. Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, said, "These proposals complete the rulemaking initiative begun two weeks ago with respect to NRSROs. I believe the proposed amendments will further promote the Commission's goals of strengthening the ratings process by reducing any undue reliance on NRSRO ratings and by encouraging independent evaluation and analysis of credit risk."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, added, "These proposals are an important step toward clarifying the appropriate role of credit ratings in investors' decisions about the securities in which they invest. Not only do the proposals establish new criteria, independent of ratings, for issuers to access our forms and utilize the shelf registration process, they do so in a manner that protects the interests of investors."
The Commission has reviewed the requirements in its rules and forms that rely on credit ratings. In many cases, it has concluded that such references can be removed or revised. These proposals also address recent recommendations issued by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Financial Stability Forum, and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Consistent with these recommendations, the SEC has considered whether the inclusion of requirements related to ratings in its rules and forms has, in effect, placed an "official seal of approval" on ratings that could adversely affect the quality of due diligence and investment analysis. The SEC's proposal would reduce undue reliance on credit ratings and result in improvements in the analysis that underlies investment decisions.
Public comments on this third set of proposed rules should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 5, 2008.
The proposing releases comprising this third set of rule proposals have been posted to the SEC Web site:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/34-58070.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/33-8940.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/ic-28327.pdf
Friday, 27 June 2008
SEC Wants to Improve Regulation of Foreign Broker Activities in U.S.
The current rule provides an exemption for foreign broker-dealers that induce or attempt to induce securities transactions by certain institutional investors, if a U.S. registered broker-dealer intermediates certain aspects of the transactions. The proposed rule would modify the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could solicit U.S. investors and reduce the role of the U.S. broker-dealer, while maintaining key investor protections.
The category of U.S. investors with which a foreign broker-dealer would be permitted to interact would expand under the proposed rule. Foreign broker-dealers would be able to interact with U.S. institutional investors with $25 million or more in investments, or natural persons who own or control investments of more than $25 million. Currently, such foreign broker-dealers may only interact with institutions with financial assets of more than $100 million.
In addition, the U.S. registered broker-dealer would play a more limited role in transactions involving foreign broker-dealers. U.S. broker-dealer personnel would no longer have to "chaperone" foreign broker-dealer personnel. The current chaperoning requirements have been criticized as impractical and as imposing unnecessary operational and compliance burdens, particularly for investors communicating with broker-dealers in time zones outside the United States.
To maximize flexibility for U.S. investors, foreign broker-dealers could rely on the proposed rule under two approaches:
- Under the first approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor, including maintaining custody of funds and assets, provided it makes certain disclosures and conducts a "foreign business." The proposed rule would define "foreign business" to mean the business of a foreign broker-dealer with qualified investors and foreign resident clients where at least 85 percent of the aggregate value of the securities purchased or sold in transactions conducted pursuant to the proposed rule by the foreign broker-dealer is derived from transactions in foreign securities. A U.S. registered broker-dealer, however, would have to maintain copies of all books and records relating to any resulting transactions, although the books and records could be kept with the foreign broker-dealer.
- Under the second approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor in both U.S. and foreign securities, provided that a U.S. registered broker-dealer maintains custody of the qualified investor's funds and securities in connection with any resulting transactions and maintains books and records relating to any resulting transactions. There would be no foreign business test under the second approach.
The proposed rule also would retain the conditions in the current rule related to the provision of research reports by foreign broker-dealers, but would expand the category of investors to which a foreign broker-dealer could directly provide research reports.
In addition, the proposed rule would provide:
A new exemption for transactions by foreign broker-dealers with any U.S. person that acts as a fiduciary of a foreign resident client, subject to certain conditions designed to protect U.S. investors.
A new exemption to allow foreign options exchanges to engage in limited efforts to familiarize qualified investors with their markets without triggering additional obligations for their foreign broker-dealer members under U.S. law.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule amendments to increase the range of services foreign broker-dealers are allowed to offer in the United States. The proposed amendments also would maintain a regulatory structure designed to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue the proposed rule amendments for public comment. The SEC's proposals would modify the requirement that any contact by a foreign broker-dealer with a U.S. institution must be chaperoned by a person registered with a U.S. broker-dealer.
"In practice, this chaperoning requirement has proven unwieldy as investors face significant inconvenience caused by differences in time zones and limitations on when investors can be contacted," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Further difficulties for U.S. investors arise because U.S. registered personnel have to be available for communications with foreign broker-dealers. Taken together, these limitations seriously hamper the service of U.S. investors, while making them pay for brokerage services twice. They also effectively limit U.S. investors' access to certain foreign investments."
Erik Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, added, "While the Commission has provided a useful framework for U.S. investors to access foreign broker-dealers for almost two decades, ever increasing market globalization suggests that it is time to revisit that framework to consider whether it could be made more workable."
In general, the SEC's proposed amendments would expand and streamline the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could operate without triggering the registration, reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules that apply to broker-dealers that are not registered with the Commission. Among other things, foreign broker-dealers would continue to be subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Public comments on today's proposed amendments must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
The category of U.S. investors with which a foreign broker-dealer would be permitted to interact would expand under the proposed rule. Foreign broker-dealers would be able to interact with U.S. institutional investors with $25 million or more in investments, or natural persons who own or control investments of more than $25 million. Currently, such foreign broker-dealers may only interact with institutions with financial assets of more than $100 million.
In addition, the U.S. registered broker-dealer would play a more limited role in transactions involving foreign broker-dealers. U.S. broker-dealer personnel would no longer have to "chaperone" foreign broker-dealer personnel. The current chaperoning requirements have been criticized as impractical and as imposing unnecessary operational and compliance burdens, particularly for investors communicating with broker-dealers in time zones outside the United States.
To maximize flexibility for U.S. investors, foreign broker-dealers could rely on the proposed rule under two approaches:
- Under the first approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor, including maintaining custody of funds and assets, provided it makes certain disclosures and conducts a "foreign business." The proposed rule would define "foreign business" to mean the business of a foreign broker-dealer with qualified investors and foreign resident clients where at least 85 percent of the aggregate value of the securities purchased or sold in transactions conducted pursuant to the proposed rule by the foreign broker-dealer is derived from transactions in foreign securities. A U.S. registered broker-dealer, however, would have to maintain copies of all books and records relating to any resulting transactions, although the books and records could be kept with the foreign broker-dealer.
- Under the second approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor in both U.S. and foreign securities, provided that a U.S. registered broker-dealer maintains custody of the qualified investor's funds and securities in connection with any resulting transactions and maintains books and records relating to any resulting transactions. There would be no foreign business test under the second approach.
The proposed rule also would retain the conditions in the current rule related to the provision of research reports by foreign broker-dealers, but would expand the category of investors to which a foreign broker-dealer could directly provide research reports.
In addition, the proposed rule would provide:
A new exemption for transactions by foreign broker-dealers with any U.S. person that acts as a fiduciary of a foreign resident client, subject to certain conditions designed to protect U.S. investors.
A new exemption to allow foreign options exchanges to engage in limited efforts to familiarize qualified investors with their markets without triggering additional obligations for their foreign broker-dealer members under U.S. law.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule amendments to increase the range of services foreign broker-dealers are allowed to offer in the United States. The proposed amendments also would maintain a regulatory structure designed to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue the proposed rule amendments for public comment. The SEC's proposals would modify the requirement that any contact by a foreign broker-dealer with a U.S. institution must be chaperoned by a person registered with a U.S. broker-dealer.
"In practice, this chaperoning requirement has proven unwieldy as investors face significant inconvenience caused by differences in time zones and limitations on when investors can be contacted," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Further difficulties for U.S. investors arise because U.S. registered personnel have to be available for communications with foreign broker-dealers. Taken together, these limitations seriously hamper the service of U.S. investors, while making them pay for brokerage services twice. They also effectively limit U.S. investors' access to certain foreign investments."
Erik Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, added, "While the Commission has provided a useful framework for U.S. investors to access foreign broker-dealers for almost two decades, ever increasing market globalization suggests that it is time to revisit that framework to consider whether it could be made more workable."
In general, the SEC's proposed amendments would expand and streamline the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could operate without triggering the registration, reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules that apply to broker-dealers that are not registered with the Commission. Among other things, foreign broker-dealers would continue to be subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Public comments on today's proposed amendments must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
SEC review how investors get information of public companies
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox today announced the kickoff of an ambitious effort to examine fundamental questions about the way the SEC acquires information from public companies, mutual funds, brokers, and other regulated entities, and the way it makes that information available to investors and the markets.
The aim of the wide-ranging internal inquiry will be to outline the attributes of the disclosure system for the future that incorporates technology, the new ways in which investors get their information, and recent developments in how companies compile and report the information in their SEC-mandated disclosures.
The first phase of the study will be completed by the end of 2008, when a follow-on advisory committee will be appointed to consider the questions in more detailed fashion through a public and consultative process.
"On the 75th anniversary of the SEC, with so much new technology available to improve the quality of information for investors as well as the way investors acquire it, we're initiating a broad, introspective look at our business model," said Chairman Cox. "What hasn't changed in 75 years is the importance of full disclosure — sunlight remains the best disinfectant for problems in our capital markets. We'll be examining how to improve the way disclosure works, including tapping the full potential of today's technology and integrating it seamlessly into our regulatory approach. That could mean fewer confusing forms, and more useful information at investors' fingertips in a form they can really use."
Chairman Cox also announced that the SEC's internal study known as the '21st Century Disclosure Initiative' will be undertaken by a dedicated staff of experts to be led by Dr. William D. Lutz of Rutgers University.
"Bill Lutz is ideally suited to lead this effort," said Chairman Cox. "He will bring an expert and fresh perspective to thinking about the agency's full-disclosure mission, and how it can best serve the needs of America's investors."
Dr. Lutz has a unique background with dual expertise as a securities lawyer and plain-English expert focused on transparency. He has significant experience in working with the SEC on disclosure issues, has participated in several SEC roundtables, and has frequently provided advice on SEC rulemaking. From 1995 to
1999, he played an important role in advancing the SEC's Plain English initiative by preparing the SEC's Plain English Handbook, a manual to help mutual funds and public companies write clear and understandable SEC filings. He is Emeritus Professor of English at Rutgers University, and the author of numerous books and articles on the importance of plain-language disclosure.
The internal study will produce, by the end of 2008, a blueprint for future Commission action to improve the usefulness and timeliness of disclosure for investors, and to streamline and modernize the collection of disclosure from companies and regulated entities. The study will be a fundamental rethinking of financial disclosure, beginning with the basic purposes of disclosure from the perspective of investors and markets. The inquiry will be aimed at identifying the objectives of the ideal disclosure system at the architectural level. Essential to the study will be the determination of how to match the capabilities of today's information technology with the SEC's regulatory aims and the needs of investors.
The study will include a review of all existing SEC forms and reporting requirements, as well as the manner in which information is provided to the Commission, with a special focus on needless redundancy. It will also include consideration of various alternative strategic approaches to acquiring and publishing disclosure information. In addition, the study will consider ways that regulatory requirements for the collection of information might be tailored to get the best real-time distribution of financial and narrative disclosure to investors. Finally, the study will examine how best to integrate public disclosure with the SEC's proposed new post-EDGAR architecture for investor search, assembly, and comparison of data.
The aim of the wide-ranging internal inquiry will be to outline the attributes of the disclosure system for the future that incorporates technology, the new ways in which investors get their information, and recent developments in how companies compile and report the information in their SEC-mandated disclosures.
The first phase of the study will be completed by the end of 2008, when a follow-on advisory committee will be appointed to consider the questions in more detailed fashion through a public and consultative process.
"On the 75th anniversary of the SEC, with so much new technology available to improve the quality of information for investors as well as the way investors acquire it, we're initiating a broad, introspective look at our business model," said Chairman Cox. "What hasn't changed in 75 years is the importance of full disclosure — sunlight remains the best disinfectant for problems in our capital markets. We'll be examining how to improve the way disclosure works, including tapping the full potential of today's technology and integrating it seamlessly into our regulatory approach. That could mean fewer confusing forms, and more useful information at investors' fingertips in a form they can really use."
Chairman Cox also announced that the SEC's internal study known as the '21st Century Disclosure Initiative' will be undertaken by a dedicated staff of experts to be led by Dr. William D. Lutz of Rutgers University.
"Bill Lutz is ideally suited to lead this effort," said Chairman Cox. "He will bring an expert and fresh perspective to thinking about the agency's full-disclosure mission, and how it can best serve the needs of America's investors."
Dr. Lutz has a unique background with dual expertise as a securities lawyer and plain-English expert focused on transparency. He has significant experience in working with the SEC on disclosure issues, has participated in several SEC roundtables, and has frequently provided advice on SEC rulemaking. From 1995 to
1999, he played an important role in advancing the SEC's Plain English initiative by preparing the SEC's Plain English Handbook, a manual to help mutual funds and public companies write clear and understandable SEC filings. He is Emeritus Professor of English at Rutgers University, and the author of numerous books and articles on the importance of plain-language disclosure.
The internal study will produce, by the end of 2008, a blueprint for future Commission action to improve the usefulness and timeliness of disclosure for investors, and to streamline and modernize the collection of disclosure from companies and regulated entities. The study will be a fundamental rethinking of financial disclosure, beginning with the basic purposes of disclosure from the perspective of investors and markets. The inquiry will be aimed at identifying the objectives of the ideal disclosure system at the architectural level. Essential to the study will be the determination of how to match the capabilities of today's information technology with the SEC's regulatory aims and the needs of investors.
The study will include a review of all existing SEC forms and reporting requirements, as well as the manner in which information is provided to the Commission, with a special focus on needless redundancy. It will also include consideration of various alternative strategic approaches to acquiring and publishing disclosure information. In addition, the study will consider ways that regulatory requirements for the collection of information might be tailored to get the best real-time distribution of financial and narrative disclosure to investors. Finally, the study will examine how best to integrate public disclosure with the SEC's proposed new post-EDGAR architecture for investor search, assembly, and comparison of data.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
SEC propose Internet comparison shopping of mutual funds
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to formally propose that mutual fund investors get access to key information about fees, performance, and strategies through interactive data, which would permit comparison shopping among thousands of funds with all the ease of conducting an Internet search.
The SEC's proposal would require funds to label data in their public filings using computer tags similar to the bar codes that identify products at stores or packages in the mail. The labeling would allow investors to instantly access and compare investment objectives and strategies, risks, performance, and costs for more than 8,000 mutual funds at the click of a mouse.
"This exciting new technology will enable investors to instantly analyze and compare not just two or three mutual funds, but hundreds or even thousands, and to quickly focus on the particular funds that are right for them," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Investors will no longer need to wade through lengthy documents to find the relevant details needed to compare funds one at a time."
Andrew J. Donohue, Director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management, said, "This proposal would, if adopted, create an interactive database of key mutual fund information that will enable investors to more easily analyze and compare cost, performance, and other key information across the more than 8,000 available mutual funds. Together with the Commission's recently proposed summary prospectus, this proposal has the potential to transform information access for mutual fund investors."
Mutual funds already have been submitting information to the SEC in interactive data format on a voluntary basis. The SEC's rule proposal would require all mutual funds to provide data-tagged information beginning with registration statement filings that become effective after Dec. 31, 2009. A mutual fund also would be required to post the interactive data on its Web site, if it maintains one.
Mutual funds seeking a head start on data tagging can participate in the SEC's voluntary program for the submission of interactive data. More information is available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml. When the SEC's interactive data pilot program began in 2005, it initially covered the financial statements of corporate filers. The program was expanded to cover key mutual fund information in August 2007.
Investors can give mutual fund interactive data a "test drive" by using the Mutual Fund Reader on the SEC Web site to analyze and compare visual charts and graphs of key mutual fund information that has been voluntarily submitted using data tags.
Last week, the SEC proposed a similar rule to help investors by requiring public companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies and within three years for all public companies.
Public comment on the SEC's proposed rule should be received by the Commission no later than August 1.
The SEC's proposal would require funds to label data in their public filings using computer tags similar to the bar codes that identify products at stores or packages in the mail. The labeling would allow investors to instantly access and compare investment objectives and strategies, risks, performance, and costs for more than 8,000 mutual funds at the click of a mouse.
"This exciting new technology will enable investors to instantly analyze and compare not just two or three mutual funds, but hundreds or even thousands, and to quickly focus on the particular funds that are right for them," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Investors will no longer need to wade through lengthy documents to find the relevant details needed to compare funds one at a time."
Andrew J. Donohue, Director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management, said, "This proposal would, if adopted, create an interactive database of key mutual fund information that will enable investors to more easily analyze and compare cost, performance, and other key information across the more than 8,000 available mutual funds. Together with the Commission's recently proposed summary prospectus, this proposal has the potential to transform information access for mutual fund investors."
Mutual funds already have been submitting information to the SEC in interactive data format on a voluntary basis. The SEC's rule proposal would require all mutual funds to provide data-tagged information beginning with registration statement filings that become effective after Dec. 31, 2009. A mutual fund also would be required to post the interactive data on its Web site, if it maintains one.
Mutual funds seeking a head start on data tagging can participate in the SEC's voluntary program for the submission of interactive data. More information is available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml. When the SEC's interactive data pilot program began in 2005, it initially covered the financial statements of corporate filers. The program was expanded to cover key mutual fund information in August 2007.
Investors can give mutual fund interactive data a "test drive" by using the Mutual Fund Reader on the SEC Web site to analyze and compare visual charts and graphs of key mutual fund information that has been voluntarily submitted using data tags.
Last week, the SEC proposed a similar rule to help investors by requiring public companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies and within three years for all public companies.
Public comment on the SEC's proposed rule should be received by the Commission no later than August 1.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
SEC proposes provide new technology to investor
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to formally propose using new technology to get important information to investors faster, more reliably, and at a lower cost.
At the center of the SEC proposal is "interactive data" — computer "tags" similar in function to bar codes used to identify groceries and shipped packages. The interactive data tags uniquely identify individual items in a company's financial statement so they can be easily searched on the Internet, downloaded into spreadsheets, reorganized in databases, and put to any number of other comparative and analytical uses by investors, analysts, and journalists.
The proposed rule would require all U.S. companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies, and within three years for all public companies.
"This is all about bringing investors better, faster, more meaningful information about the companies they own," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It would transform financial disclosure from a 1930s form-based system to a truly 21st century model that taps the power of technology for the benefit of investors."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, said, "These steps will represent real progress, both for SEC filers and investors. All of the technology is coming together to make electronic filing a true analytical tool. The staff has gathered valuable experience during the almost three years that public companies have been submitting interactive data in our voluntary filer program. This helps give us a strong foundation for moving forward."
Conrad Hewitt, the SEC's Chief Accountant, said, "Accounting is the business language of the world, and interactive data will become an easy and reliable technology to improve that language worldwide, just like many other tools available on the Internet. The SEC's Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting has been studying the benefits of interactive data and has proposed that the Commission proceed with a mandatory adoption schedule. Over the long term, preparers are expected to benefit through better internal management information and applications, and investors will benefit with improved analytical methods to analyze financial information."
Corey Booth, SEC Chief Information Officer, said, "Interactive data represents the logical next step in the evolution of company disclosure, just as HTML and Internet access were the next logical step a decade ago. And like a decade ago, this move will usher in a quantum leap in helping companies explain their business to investors."
David M. Blaszkowsky, Director of the SEC's Office of Interactive Disclosure, said, "Information — meaningful, accurate, timely, easy-to-use financial reporting — always has been the driver of commerce and markets. This proposal provides the critical regulatory framework by which interactive data will make financial reporting more easily and quickly available, and help transform the relationship between filer and investor."
Since 2005, companies have voluntarily submitted to the SEC financial information in interactive data format. The rules proposed today would require companies to provide this information according to a phase-in schedule.
The SEC's proposed schedule would require companies using U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles with a worldwide public float over $5 billion (approximately the 500 largest companies) to make financial disclosures using interactive data formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) for fiscal periods ending in late 2008. If adopted, the first interactive data provided under the new rules would be made public in early 2009. The remaining companies using U.S. GAAP would provide this disclosure over the following two years. Companies using International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board would provide this disclosure for fiscal periods ending in late 2010. The disclosure would be provided as additional exhibits to annual and quarterly reports and registration statements. Companies also would be required to post this information on their websites.
The required tagged disclosures would include companies' primary financial statements, notes, and financial statement schedules. Initially, companies would tag notes and schedules as blocks of text, and a year later, they would provide tags for the details within the notes and schedules.
Companies filing under the proposed rule that use U.S. GAAP will use upgraded data tags issued April 28, 2008, by XBRL US, Inc. that were developed based on U.S. GAAP and on the review of hundreds of actual SEC filings. The SEC's EDGAR system will accept test filings using a February 11 version of these tags later this month, with the final April 28 version of the tags becoming usable in June. In addition, an interim system is expected to be announced shortly that will enable companies immediately to provide interactive data submissions to the SEC using the April 28 version of the tags.
The SEC has had an interactive data pilot program for three years, beginning in 2005. It covered the financial statements of corporate filers. In addition, the SEC began an interactive data filing program for mutual fund risk return information in August 2007. Also last year, the SEC created an online database tagging executive compensation data for 500 large companies. Filers seeking a head start on data tagging are invited to formally join these SEC voluntary filing programs or informally practice with the new data tags.
More information is available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml.
At the center of the SEC proposal is "interactive data" — computer "tags" similar in function to bar codes used to identify groceries and shipped packages. The interactive data tags uniquely identify individual items in a company's financial statement so they can be easily searched on the Internet, downloaded into spreadsheets, reorganized in databases, and put to any number of other comparative and analytical uses by investors, analysts, and journalists.
The proposed rule would require all U.S. companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies, and within three years for all public companies.
"This is all about bringing investors better, faster, more meaningful information about the companies they own," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It would transform financial disclosure from a 1930s form-based system to a truly 21st century model that taps the power of technology for the benefit of investors."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, said, "These steps will represent real progress, both for SEC filers and investors. All of the technology is coming together to make electronic filing a true analytical tool. The staff has gathered valuable experience during the almost three years that public companies have been submitting interactive data in our voluntary filer program. This helps give us a strong foundation for moving forward."
Conrad Hewitt, the SEC's Chief Accountant, said, "Accounting is the business language of the world, and interactive data will become an easy and reliable technology to improve that language worldwide, just like many other tools available on the Internet. The SEC's Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting has been studying the benefits of interactive data and has proposed that the Commission proceed with a mandatory adoption schedule. Over the long term, preparers are expected to benefit through better internal management information and applications, and investors will benefit with improved analytical methods to analyze financial information."
Corey Booth, SEC Chief Information Officer, said, "Interactive data represents the logical next step in the evolution of company disclosure, just as HTML and Internet access were the next logical step a decade ago. And like a decade ago, this move will usher in a quantum leap in helping companies explain their business to investors."
David M. Blaszkowsky, Director of the SEC's Office of Interactive Disclosure, said, "Information — meaningful, accurate, timely, easy-to-use financial reporting — always has been the driver of commerce and markets. This proposal provides the critical regulatory framework by which interactive data will make financial reporting more easily and quickly available, and help transform the relationship between filer and investor."
Since 2005, companies have voluntarily submitted to the SEC financial information in interactive data format. The rules proposed today would require companies to provide this information according to a phase-in schedule.
The SEC's proposed schedule would require companies using U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles with a worldwide public float over $5 billion (approximately the 500 largest companies) to make financial disclosures using interactive data formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) for fiscal periods ending in late 2008. If adopted, the first interactive data provided under the new rules would be made public in early 2009. The remaining companies using U.S. GAAP would provide this disclosure over the following two years. Companies using International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board would provide this disclosure for fiscal periods ending in late 2010. The disclosure would be provided as additional exhibits to annual and quarterly reports and registration statements. Companies also would be required to post this information on their websites.
The required tagged disclosures would include companies' primary financial statements, notes, and financial statement schedules. Initially, companies would tag notes and schedules as blocks of text, and a year later, they would provide tags for the details within the notes and schedules.
Companies filing under the proposed rule that use U.S. GAAP will use upgraded data tags issued April 28, 2008, by XBRL US, Inc. that were developed based on U.S. GAAP and on the review of hundreds of actual SEC filings. The SEC's EDGAR system will accept test filings using a February 11 version of these tags later this month, with the final April 28 version of the tags becoming usable in June. In addition, an interim system is expected to be announced shortly that will enable companies immediately to provide interactive data submissions to the SEC using the April 28 version of the tags.
The SEC has had an interactive data pilot program for three years, beginning in 2005. It covered the financial statements of corporate filers. In addition, the SEC began an interactive data filing program for mutual fund risk return information in August 2007. Also last year, the SEC created an online database tagging executive compensation data for 500 large companies. Filers seeking a head start on data tagging are invited to formally join these SEC voluntary filing programs or informally practice with the new data tags.
More information is available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
