- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Aaron Nicodemus2022-08-03T18:50:00
SEC staff in a bulletin issued Tuesday said adhering to the Investment Advisers Act and Reg BI regarding conflicts of interest is neither a “check-the-box” or “set it and forget it” exercise but instead a “robust, ongoing process that is tailored to each conflict.”
SEC staff in a bulletin issued Tuesday said adhering to the Investment Advisers Act and Reg BI regarding conflicts of interest is neither a “check-the-box” or “set it and forget it” exercise but instead a “robust, ongoing process that is tailored to each conflict.”
“All broker-dealers, investment advisers, and financial professionals have at least some conflicts of interest with their retail investors,” the staff said in the bulletin. “Specifically, they have an economic incentive to recommend products, services, or account types that provide more revenue or other benefits for the firm or its financial professionals, even if such recommendations or advice are not in the best interest of the retail investor. This can create substantial conflicts of interest for both firms and financial professionals.”
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec.
Annual Membership best value
Subscribe now for $365
Our lowest price ($1 per day) for one year.
Staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a bulletin addressing standards of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers in addressing their care obligations under Regulation Best Interest and the Investment Advisers Act.
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a risk alert listing deficiencies its examiners found in broker-dealers’ compliance with Regulation Best Interest.
Western International Securities and five of its brokers have been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with violating Regulation Best Interest when they sold high-risk debt securities to investors who weren’t aware of the risks.
The U.S. Supreme Court extended the statute of limitations for businesses attempting to challenge some federal regulations, allowing regulated entities a longer timeline to appeal a decision.
The Supreme Court of the United States overturned a long-held precedent in which courts deferred to federal agencies in interpreting complex or ambiguous regulations–a decision that could make thousands of federal regulations more vulnerable to legal challenges.
Financial institutions would be required to conduct more thorough risk assessments on their anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism programs under a new rule proposed by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
