skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Or is it our bottom five suspicious states?
FinCEN's "By The Numbers" report from January shows SAR-SF reporting summary totals from 2003 through June 2009. SAR-SF's are forms filed by securities brokerage firms and other non-depository institutions (non-banks). Here are the states with our nation's most trusting brokers (or most honest investors, depending on how you look at it), in order of fewest SAR-SF's filed since 2003:
- Alaska (!! How can they be that unsuspicious? Is there no check fraud, mail fraud, insider trading, or at very least, forgery, taking place up there? I'm suspicious...)
- Wyoming (1 SAR-SF filed since 2003 for check fraud. I hope it was against Cheney.)
- Hawaii (5 total: 1 for embezzlement and the others for other... you can't trust surfers...or maybe you can...)
- Rhode Island (twice the population of Wyoming living on 1/100 the land mass and only 4 more SAR-SFs? Obviously the most trusting lot on the East Coast. We should all move there.)
- South Dakota (Hmmm. How can they have filed 10 SAR-SF's to date more than Alaska, a state full of corrupt politicians and crazed hunters with helicopters? I'm still suspicious...)
I skipped non-states in my list, such as District of Columbia. DC beat SD with fewer SAR-SFs. WHAT?? Wait, DC has 600,000 people living there, most of them working for the government (okay, that might not be technically true), and these numbers make it look like Mayberry RFD. What do these numbers mean: are there no BD's, CPO's, CTA's, FCM's, IA's or other such financial institutions in DC, resulting in the dearth of filings? Or is everyone in DC really, really honest, their activities arousing no suspicions? (Uh, did I just say that?) Or does everyone in DC have each other's backs?--oh wait, I may have stumbled onto something. Hmmm. Again, I'm suspicious.
Oh, in case you're wondering, NY has the highest number of SAR-SF's filed to date. Ho hum.
And once again, the type of suspicious activity near the bottom (ranked 20 out of 21) is--yes, that's right--Terrorist Financing! The reason you're all in this mess called AML compliance represents less than 1% of all SAR-SF's filed to date--206, to be exact. The SAR Activity Review offers a lot of information on the growth of mortgage loan fraud as a reported event, but nothing on how all these SAR's are fighting terrorism. But then again, we now know that it's not about that anymore.
________________________
As for bankers and their customers: completely different story. Alaska redeems itself in that race, with the second highest number of SAR's filed from 1996 through June 2009. Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Wyoming is still pretty unsuspicious, ranking 48th out of the 50 states (but that doesn't absolve Cheney of my personal suspicion); and surfers, believe it or not, turn out to not be so trustworthy (Hawaii ranks 30th). South Dakota (23rd) has thousands more SAR filings by banks, but still looks good compared to Alaska; and lastly, I still think it's a good idea to move to Rhode Island...38th of the 50 states.
The good news for New Yorkers is that California outdid them in the SAR's-filed-by-banks competition: CA has more than double NY's filings.
And yes, Terrorist Financing ranks equally low in these filings, just like with SAR-SF's: second to last with less than 1% of all filings. Sigh.
_________________________
Here are the links to my resources. I suggest you take a look, so you can glean useful information (as opposed to useless information like the kind I presented above). The last link is especially valuable for you AML Compliance Officers and auditors.
FinCEN's News Release on the Jan. 2010 By The Numbers Report
FinCEN's SAR Activity Review--By The Numbers Jan. 2010
FinCEN's SAR Activity Review, October 2009
Having survived a wind storm and a semi-annual procedures update process that nearly killed me (the update, not the wind storm), I am resurfacing to provide a few reminders:
1. R.I.P. Webcasts: After March 31 you will no longer be able to view Webcasts on FINRA's website. All of the prior content is included in other offerings, such as Video E-Learning or plain-old E-Learning courses. But, well, you have to pay for those. Webcasts were free. All's fair in love, war, and a crappy economy.
2. TRACE: Agency Debt Securities became TRACE eligible on March 1, as did certain primary market transactions (those that qualify as list or fixed price offering or takedown transactions). See Notice 09-57.
3. New Capital Compliance Rule: As of February 8, the new financial responsibility rules became effective (FINRA Rules 4110, etc.). Many of the restrictive rules apply to "carrying or clearing firms"--but look at the footnote in the rule and you'll see that they also apply to firms with "k2i" accounts--you know, the account you have set up so you can receive checks from customers for mutual fund and other purchases? This new rule requires, for instance, that your firm must obtain prior written approval before withdrawing any capital that exceeds10 percent of the firm’s excess net capital in any rolling 35-calendar-day period. This includes withdrawals of profits, routine dividends and similar distributions. Wow. For small business owners who take profits this way, this rule seems extremely onerous. See Notice 09-71.
As for the answers to these extremely logical questions: 1) "To whom do firms request approval?" and 2) "How long does FINRA have to grant approval?", well, the answers were not easy to find... in summary: 1) Eventually there will be an electronic request process on Gateway, but for now fax or email your District Office, and 2) In your communication to the District, inform them that you will be making the distribution in x days in the absence of a response from them. In the published Response to Comments on these rules, it states,"[...] requests for withdrawals can be handled in a routine manner and that decisions typically would be issued in approximately three business days": how's that for clarity?!
[Allow me for a moment to express frustration with FINRA for making a Rule effective without having a mechanism in place for allowing firms to comply with the Rule--and for not providing this basic, administrative information to all firms in an easily accessible, publicly-available place (like the Notice??), rather than burying (half of) it in filing documents not regularly visited by most compliance staff. And what-up with making pleasant, good-intentioned, helpful folks like moi feel wrong for asking presumably easy questions and expecting to get answers? What's wrong with regulators saying, "I don't know" or "We're still working on that" or "Three days, but sorry, we didn't put that in the Notice"? ... ugh. P.S. I'm thankful to Estee Dorfman Foster (CPA/outsourced FINOP) for her assistance in finding answers.]
4. Variable Annuity Rules: As of February 8, the formerly-delayed parts of FINRA Rule 2330 became effective. Principals now have 7 days to review recommended v/a purchases and exchanges. There are changes to customer funds rules, too--because if you held a customer's check during that 7 days, you would have otherwise broken SEC customer funds rules. Check out Notice 10-05 for fresh guidance on these changes.
5. AML Madness: FINRA released its updated AML Small Firms Template in January... it is full of wonderfully--wait, not wonderfully, but rather, dreadfully--legalistic text changes that would drive any technical writer crazy. I'm proud to say my template is still better than theirs. You should look at your AML program and FINRA's updated template to assess the time it will take to make corresponding changes; then you should drown your sorrows in a stiff drink (or call me!). See here for a link to the template in Word format. Oh and remember that as of January 1, you may no longer have someone in your small firm conduct annual independent testing if that person has a conflict of interest (you used to be able to rely on a loophole--it is gone). For this rule change, see Notice 09-60.
6. 3012/3130--Testing & Verification: For most of you, it's that time of year again--in fact, this is the 5th time you have to follow these rules since inception! This should be easy by now...You have to test and verify your supervisory system. And write a report. And write another report about the process of writing the report. And sign a certification. And put the whole shebang in a file drawer and hope no-one ever asks for it (...but they will). Remember, your reports and certifications are due w/in 12 months of last year's. It's not a calendar year requirement--it's every 12 months by the anniversary. Here is a link to regulatory information on supervisory controls.
7. Short Sales Rule Change: Mary over at SEC approved a change to Reg. SHO, affectionately called the "alternative uptick rule" that restricts short selling in stocks that have dropped 10% in price in one day. Effective Date: May 10, 2010; Compliance Date: November 10, 2010. See link to Reg SHO change for 334 pages of bedtime reading. I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it.
8. TARP Warrants: How do we describe these nouvelles choses? Warrants (that's what they're called)? Options (they're priced like options)? Corporate securities (they're issued by corp's)? Government securities (they were issued to Uncle Sam--is he backing them in the secondary market)? Ask 4 people and you'll get 4 different answers (ask me and you'll get a frustrated shrug of confusion and disgust). Stay tuned for the answer.
FINRA has released its March 1 examination priorities. Review it and weep. You have work to do.
Your Moment of Optimism: 17 days till Spring!
