Update on FACT Act

First, let me share my appreciation for FINRA's effort to explain the applicability of the FACT Act's Red Flag and other rules to member firms. The folks in OGC said they were working on it, and they did. Here's the link to Notice 08-69: http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p117448.pdf

Now, let me express my dismay at the extreme lack of distinct clarity on this topic--not necessarily from FINRA, but embedded in the Act's definitions. Your firm may be subject to the regulation, or not--just read and re-read the definitions of 'financial institution,' 'transaction account, 'creditor' and 'covered account.' It's a little like solving a Rubik's cube. If all like colors end up on the same side, then yes, your firm has to implement Red Flag Rules under the Fact Act. But good luck getting there.

In reading the definitions provided in FINRA's notice, my first reaction is, "If they wanted broker-dealers to be covered, why didn't they just say so?" For instance, the term“financial institution” is specifically defined as “a State or National bank, a State or Federal savings and loan association, a mutual savings bank, a State or Federal credit union, or any other person that, directly or indirectly, holds a transaction account . . . belonging to a consumer.” And a “transaction account” is specifically defined as “a deposit or account on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third persons or others. Such term includes demand deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, savings deposits subject to automatic transfers, and share draft accounts.” See what I mean? If they wanted B-D's to be subject to the regs, why not just include "SEC registered broker-dealers" or "brokerage accounts" or some such other simple identifiers in the definitions? That would have made it real easy... but instead, these definitions overtly exclude the whole subject of brokerage accounts and broker-dealers. And then your favorite SRO puts the onus on firms to twist and retwist the cube in order to solve the puzzle by themselves. Frankly, for most of the 5100 registered B-D's, I think this is like trying to force a square cube through a round hole: I don't think these rules should apply.

Also, while I'm ranting, this whole thing is crazy!! B-D's already have CIP rules to follow. And remember that AML rules are not just about preventing money laundering. We all know that most AML-triggered investigations end up focusing on fraud, including mail fraud and credit/debit card fraud. So firms are already obligated to attempt to identify and report fraud....why do they have to now be subject to seemingly duplicative rules? And at what cost? ...read the Notice... do you really have time to create a "Written Identity Theft Prevention Program"? One that will confuse your already confused Reps about the account opening process? This reminds me of redundant local ordinances--instead of having one rule that requires safe and responsible behavior on sidewalks, they have in place six different rules, pertaining to different possible ways to conduct unsafe and irresponsible behavior on sidewalks: skateboarding, bicycling, rollerblading, dog walking, etc.... get my point? I guess I just feel sorry for firms whose business has nothing at all to do with credit cards, withdrawals, payment transfers, etc. To think that they will have to adopt lengthy and complicated procedures on top of what they already have in place (which are already hardly deemed necessary and applicable): what a waste of resources.

But who am I ranting at, here? The Federal Trade Commission? That's a big target for a little person like me. And I don't want to trash FINRA--they did something cool by addressing the subject. I guess I would like if FINRA would go a bit farther out on the limb by actually giving its opinion on how application way firms, M&A/PP shops, and introducing firms who do not actually extend margin to clients fit into this definitional puzzle. I know they state up front that they're not the rulemakers or interpreters on this subject, but c'mon, since they go on to say that NOT complying would be a violation of just and equitable principles of trade, can't they show a little more mercy?

Another topic within this one: check out Part C of the Notice. It's about policies you have to have in place re: use of consumer reports. If your firm requests a consumer report about a new or existing customer and receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA, you'll have to be able to form a reasonable belief that the consumer report actually relates to the customer in question. FINRA did a nice job of laying out these responsibilities. I'm assuming the effective date of these requirements is the same delayed date as for Red Flag Rules: May 1, 2009 (although I could be wrong.)

Lastly, FINRA mentions in the Notice that FTC has indicated a willingness to work with them to "resolve on a consistent and industry-wide basis, interpretive questions that arise under these rules as applied to broker-dealers. " I love that! My advice to you and all your B-D friends: call OGC at (202)728-8071 to ask about this. Perhaps that kind of dialogue will result in 'interpretive challenges' being met head on with concrete directives from FINRA. Then you can throw that darned Rubik's cube out the window. Puzzle solved.

Outside In

What does Heidi Klum say? "You are either in or you are out." It's one or the other, and the other goes home.

In years past this distinction for me has been clear: as an "outside consultant" to securities firms, I've always been treated that way by regulators--as an unwelcome outsider. I remember a few years ago, standing at a gas station in Some City, USA, on business travel. I was on my cell with a District liaison, fighting to get information from her about a rule interpretation or some such other clarification. My purpose was to assist my BD client--not to waste the liaison's time to build my personal knowledge base. I was speaking to the subject without divulging the client's name--that would have defeated my client's purpose at the time. Anyway, this experience was similar to many I've had over the past 8 years as a consultant: I act as a go-between in order to help my BD clients better meet Finra's Rules, and I'm shut down in the process by Finra staff due to a procedure they put in place that requires, without exception, the caller to identify the member firm's name when making inquiries.

I'm happy to say that my recent interaction with some Finra staff members has strayed from this model. I've been treated to assistance by folks in various offices--such as District offices and the Office of General Counsel--without the bias I was used to confronting. A great guy in Advertising has been helpful on several occasions. A kind examiner in NYC has been generous with his time. I haven't been made to feel like a spy or a cheater when engaging in intelligent dialogue. I'm hoping this trend continues. While I understand the old mantra, 'firms can call us for information without raising red flags or risking retribution...,' I also understand that many small firms simply prefer to avoid that direct contact. They'd rather have someone like me act as an information gatherer and interpreter. In my opinion, the result is the same (and mutually desirable): BD's are well-informed and better able to meet their responsibilities. The means to that end should not be restricted. It is in the investing public's best interest to let information/guidance/interpretation flow to BD's and their consultants.

I also want to thank some Finra staff members for their good-natured, prompt and extremely helpful assistance to me in months past...I won't name them, but the folks in the online learning and waiver departments are good at what they do and pleasant to work with. Thanks to all of you!

So, Heidi, am I in or am I out? I think for the time being, I'm a little of both. And on this particular reality show, that means I'm a winner.

Bill Singer, Put Your Holster Back On

"When I decide whether to ride out of town into the sunset or slap the iron back on and walk the streets, you'll know -- I'll post that decision here."

That is a quote from Bill Singer's blog entry of May 16. The good news is, he wrote a subsequent entry--"The Dead-Animal Man"--yesterday, on May 21. The bad news is, he didn't reveal his decision. I'm reluctant to assume he's back in the saddle again, since this latest, delightfully-dreary, entry did not address our favorite subject (the one that so wears on Mr. Singer that he is forced to consider retiring to the comforting chaos of his Pandora's box): securities regulation and its many splendid forms. Is Bill back? Or still in the barn? I, for one, am waiting with great hope that he'll darken FINRA's doorway again soon.

Bill's blog: http://www.rrbdlaw.com/brokeandbroker/index.php

Deferred Variable Annuities--The New Rule

Hi. And Happy Earth Day. While you're in your backyard digging holes and planting things, perhaps include this information (-'er, I don't mean bury it--I mean, plant it in your mind so that it may bloom and grow).


Rule 2821 is effective May 5. But not the whole thing: paragraphs (c) and (d) have been put on hold indefinitely, pending SEC's response to FINRA's forthcoming amendments (that's some kinda vague, isn't it?). What this means is: your Reps have to perform and document a suitability analysis for def. v/a purchases and exchanges, but you as Principal don't have to follow the new approval rules--you don't have to make a suitability determination, too. At least not yet. You still have to approve the business like you've always done. The other part of the Rule that will be effective May 5 is the training part: you have to train your reps on the new Rule and on def. variable annuities in general, along with the specific products they offer. I have a feeling you're doing this already for C/E purposes. But be sure to train, by May 5, the reps on the specifics of their new obligations under the Rule; also train them on any new forms you've devised to help them document their suitability analysis. Lastly, interestingly, your firm has to comply with these effective parts of the Rule, but you don't have to have written procedures in place describing the compliance elements you're adopting. That paragraph (d) has been delayed. If you're in the process of updating your WSP manual, or will be soon, it wouldn't hurt to go ahead and include new procedures: you can revise them later, if necessary.


I listened in on the Def. V/A Phone-In Workshop last Friday. Here are the notes I typed up. My apologies for the tone of brevity. FYI: I didn't learn a lot on this phone call and found that the "cya" and "not our job" messages were loud and clear, as usual.


Notes on Rule 2821: Deferred Variable Annuities Phone-In Workshop
April 18, 2008

Presenters: Larry Kosciulek and Andy Favret

1400 participants signed up for call
Questions submitted in advance; no live questions from listeners
(cya introduction: FINRA doesn’t endorse any compliance practice)

Link to materials: http://www.finra.org/EducationPrograms/Materials/p038332

1. UPDATE:
Paragraphs (c) and (d) –effectiveness delayed indefinitely. See rule filing notice sent April 17 by Finra: http://www.finra.org/RulesRegulation/RuleFilings/2008RuleFilings/P038354

2. APPLICABLE TO:
Rule applies to stand-alone purchase of def. v/a and exchange of one for another. Includes purchases in IRA accounts, not transaction in employer-sponsored plans. Does not apply to re-allocation in sub-accounts or to subsequent investments in sub-accounts. Does not apply to recommendations to SELL v/a’s (but other, general rules such as Communications with the Public--Rule 2210--apply to these transactions). Rule would apply to specific recommendations made to individual plan members of an employer-sponsored plan.

Rule applies to recommended transactions (not all communications constitute recommendations)—but the text of Paragraph (c) (that may be amended and is not now effective) states that a principal must treat “all transactions as if they have
been recommended for purposes of this principal review” and must make a suitability determination… FINRA is considered truly making the Rule apply ONLY to recommendations.

3. SCOPE:
Rule pertains to:
Reps who recommend these transactions
Principal who approve them
WSP’s
Training

4. REPS:
When recommending purchase or exchange, must get info and review existing assets. Effective date: May 5

Q: What does “liquidity needs” mean? What info is required?
A: See 2821(b)(2). Liquidity needs is not defined, but age, income, net worth, dependents, short term cash needs for homes, education, etc. are factors to consider.
IRA funds are not liquid assets—because they require a penalty/fee to tap.

Information must be captured so it can be reviewed: no special form is required under the Rule.

Q: Document and sign determinations: what form to use? Is the intent: to provide rationale for transaction or to give disclosure to client?
A: Form should be firm’s choice as appropriate. This is not about disclosure to customer; it’s about suitability.

Remember, investment time horizon—these securities are long term investments. Access to funds before end of surrender or waiting period is costly.

Rep must determine suitability based on factors listed in rule. Must document and sign some record to show this.

Exchanges: primary purpose cannot be RR’s profit. Consider:
Triggers surrender charge?
Lose benefits, increase in fees/charges?
Compare fees/etc. of both
Does customer benefit?Has customer done exchange w/in last 36 months?

Q: The 36-month exchange reference—does it refer to the particular customer’s account?
A: No, in any account w/in 36 months.

Q: Does customer have to sign acknowledgement of disclosures?
A: No but firm may decide to require this.

Remember: ‘Intended use’—important to suitability consideration. Need for cash---not a good reason to buy v/a.

Q: Is an exchange within 36 mos. a call to action?
A: No, an exchange with a customer having done an exchange w/in the last 36 months may not necessarily be prohibited. This information is just part of the necessary background information used to make suitability determination. A yes answer may end up triggering more supervision or a closer look at the proposed transaction.

5. PRINCIPAL:

Paragraph (c) of Rule—Principal must review before sending to insurance co/vendor for processing. This paragraph is not in effect; delayed effective date.

Discussing it anyway….

Q: If customer sends $ directly to vendor how can Principal review transaction before sending for processing?
A: Doesn’t apply to non-recommended transactions or to reinvestments.

Rule is in state of flux for now. Par. (c) will be amended and FINRA will provide guidance.

A: What about in the interim? Bet. May 5 and ultimate effective date of (c) and (d)?

No interim requirement. Keep doing what you’re doing re: Principal review… firms can adopt new procedures now if they want.

Principal doesn’t need insurance license to approve this business. 26, 24 or 9-10 license is okay.

Rule now states that Principal must approve within 7 business days of the customer signing the application. The workshop presenters said it was 7 days from the date the OSJ received the completed application. Assumption: clarification is forthcoming with Rule change.

Application must be sent by next business day after Principal approval (noon on Day 8 at latest)

Firms can hold customer checks pending Principal review—relief from net capital reserve and n/c rules. “Promptly transmit” is waived if 2821 is met.:
Copy check, record date rec’d and date transmitted to vendor or returned to customer. (i.e., on checks rec’d forwarded blotter)
$ must be sent by noon next day after approval.

Possible Rule change about use of suspension a/c’s at ins. companies. This would allow funds to be send pending Principal approval.

6. WSP:

Although this part of the Rule has been delayed, it (paragraph (d)) will not change. Firm will be required to have written procedures.

Automated systems to review/approve v/a business is NOT permitted.

7. TRAINING:

Training program must be in effect by May 5.

Training required on more than just general characteristics--on specific products offered by firm.


Rely on 3rd parties, such as wholesalers, ins. co’s? Okay, but firm ultimately responsible.
Train all reps on 2821 by May 5.
Can put in c/e firm element, but some training should be provided by May 5.

Use webcasts and e-learning to provide training.

For wholesalers who promote v/a products to firms—training req. does not apply (no recs to customers)

8. MISC:

Q: Offshore V/A’s—included?
A: Rule focuses on whether it’s a registered product, not if it’s offshore (no explicit answer to question)

FINRA “Relies on firms to set their own parameters for suitability”—FINRA doesn’t set.

Q: What is reasonable for procedures/disclosures?
A: Firm decides. For instance, could require customer sign-off on purchase/exchange.

Q: Does FINRA have any plans for an online tool like the Mutual Fund expense analyzer to use with V/A analysis?
A: They are exploring this.

Q: Will FINRA be providing other tools, like disclosure forms? Replacement forms?
A: No, they’re not working on this.


Workshop time estimated: 75 minutes; actual time: 50 minutes.