Displaying items by tag: SEC

(Los Angeles)

Tesla investors got some grim news yesterday (unless you are the group hoping for Musk’s departure). That news is that the SEC is suing Elon Musk for fraud and is seeking to have him removed as the leader of Tesla. The suit seeks to have Musk banned from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The basis for the suit is the series of tweets Musk made regarding taking the company private, which the SEC says were “false and misleading statements”.

FINSUM: This is a pretty serious move from the SEC, made worse by news out today that Musk chose the price of $420 as a marijuana reference to impress his girlfriend.

(Washington)

Brokers pay attention—a major loophole in the SEC’s best interest rule has just become apparent. One of the industry’s big complaints about the BI rule has been that it seeks to govern the use of the “advisor” title. Well, until now it seems that everyone had missed a key loophole in the rule. When the SEC drafted it, it allowed for dually-registered advisors/B-Ds to call themselves advisors even when they are carrying on brokerage business. 61% of registered reps work at dually-registered firms, meaning this aspect of the rule is mostly a moot point for the majority of advisors. According to Michael Kitces, famed advisor and wealth management commentator, “The rule literally doesn’t apply to most advisers”.

FINSUM: This is one of those bombshell realizations that seems to happen when a new rule is 1,000+ pages long—you miss things.

(New York)

While the SEC seems to have largely shrank from the limelight surrounding its investigation of Tesla, there is news on that front, and in a big way. The DOJ is now investigating Tesla, and specifically, it has launched a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s now infamous tweet about taking the company private. The investigation sits alongside a civil inquiry by the SEC. Tesla said it had received a “voluntary request” for documents but that there was no “subpoena, a request for testimony, or any other formal process”.

FINSUM: Hard to see where this may go, but we imagine it could turn into a big headache (and distraction) for Musk and the company, as well as its shareholders.

(Washington)

Advisors, don’t hold your breath. Despite widespread criticism from basically every side of the equation, it appears unlikely the SEC is going to do much to correct the major flaws in its current Best Interest Rule. Barbara Roper of the CFA, says that she is “not at all confident” the SEC will make any meaningful changes to the rule “to better protect investors”, pointing out that the SEC had every chance to improve on the DOL rule, but didn’t. “It’s hard to believe that they are going to have a sudden conversion and fix the problems now”, she says.

FINSUM: Brokers, consumer protection groups, and clients all hate this rule (and don’t understand it), and it doesn’t make sense to anybody. Hopefully Roper is wrong and they will change the rule, but we worry they may not.

(Washington)

The SEC’s best interest rule has been giving brokers headaches almost since the demise of the DOL rule. Many groups have commented on the rule’s failing, including its governance on the use of titles and its deeply confusing attempt at delineating between brokers and advisors. However, one of those gripes now seems to have played out in practice, as early results from the SEC’s testing of its Customer Relationship Summary form (CRS) has essentially failed. According to the chief of the firm hired to do the study for the SEC, “Overall, participants had difficulty throughout the proposed CRS with sorting out the similarities and differences between the broker/dealer services and investment advisor services, and integrating this information across sections”.

FINSUM: This supports exactly what everyone in the industry has been saying—the rule is totally confusing and does nothing to help consumers. The SEC is going to have to do a major rewrite.