About HedgeOp

HedgeOp Compliance, LLC focuses exclusively on helping investment managers meet their compliance and regulatory obligations and rise to meet operational challenges. HedgeOp has developed a successful business based on its proactive approach to servicing clients and a proven reputation. Our clients range from start-ups to large firms with well-established track records.

Bankrupt Hedge Fund Seeks to Recoup Losses From Goldman’s “Timberwolf” Deal

It has been reported that a bankrupt hedge fund is in talks with Goldman, Sachs & Co., to recoup losses it sustained in the “Timberwolf” securities deal.

invested approximately of $100 million in a $1 billion security Goldman packaged and sold as “Timberwolf” in Q1 2007.  If you have been following the Goldman Sachs Senate Subcommittee investigations this week you would have heard that this deal was criticized in in-house e-mails.  Namely, “Boy, that Timberwolf was one [$%&!] deal.”

The hedge fund is said to have lost approximately $56 million on the Timberwolf security. Goldman has not yet commented on its talks with the hedge fund.

As reported earlier on this blog, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit April 16 against Goldman alleging that the firm secretly created investments designed to fail while a hedge fund manager, John Paulson, who helped package the deal, was betting against them.

As compliance professionals, this should stand as an acute reminder to train employees on the importance of using discretion in drafting and sending out e-mails and other electronic communications (among a whole host of other compliance related issues!).   While often tagged as a best practice, firms should implement an electronic communications (i.e., emails and instant messages) monitoring and review system.  People tend to forget that once an electronic communication is put out in cyberspace it can and may be used against (or for) you.  While training and monitoring can never stop someone from committing a fraud or potential fraud (and this is not to imply that Goldman is guilty in anyway — I’ll leave that decision to the courts!), it can certainly help catch it before it grows  into something much bigger.

Webinar: Conducting an Annual Compliance Review

Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 requires that SEC-registered hedge fund managers conduct an annual compliance review of their compliance infrastructure and procedures. In adopting the Rule, the SEC did not specify exactly what the annual review should entail.

Today, HedgeOp Compliance CEO Bill Mulligan taught a webinar on “Conducting an Annual Compliance Review” as part of HedgeOp’s Excellence in Compliance seminar series.  This seminar looks at HedgeOp’s suggested method for conducting an annual review including: review of compliance inventory items, conflicts of interest of review, use of employee and service provider questionnaires and more.   This seminar is not only geared towards SEC-registered managers, but also unregistered managers looking to conduct an annual compliance review as a form of “best practice.”

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

Download Presentation Materials

Group of International Regulators Publish Suggested Systemic Risk Data Requirements For Hedge Funds

Last week the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO) Technical Committee published the details of an agreed template for the global collection of hedge fund information, which it believes will assist in assessing possible systemic risks arising from the hedge fund sector.

The template (a copy of which is attached for your reference) was designed to create a comparable and consistent set of data to be collected by regulators from local hedge fund managers to monitor systemic risks and prevent gaps in regulatory reporting requirements. The data can then be exchanged amongst regulators and other competent authorities for the purpose of facilitating international supervisory cooperation in identifying possible systemic risks in the hedge fund sector.

The template, which was developed by the Task Force on Unregulated Financial Entities, contains eleven proposed categories of information. The proposed categories incorporate both supervisory and systemic data, and build on the data collection recommendations set out in the IOSCO Technical Committee’s Final Report on Hedge Fund Oversight, which was released in June 2009.

The list of data includes basic information such as the manager’s name, number of funds and equity owners; as well as the names of auditors, custodians, recent performance, redemptions, total assets under management and the value of long and short positions in different assets. Geographic spread, liquidity of a fund’s assets, the value of borrowings, net credit counterparty risk and the top 10 positions are also included.

The IOSCO Task Force has recommended that the first data gathering exercise should be carried out on a best efforts basis (given pending legislation in many jurisdictions) in September 2010.

Although the IOSCO Technical Committee recognizes that the legislative process is currently ongoing in many jurisdictions, it is publishing the template now to help inform any planned legislative changes currently being considered. As stated by IOSCO Technical Committee Chairman Kathleen Casey (who is also a U.S. SEC Commissioner):

“We recognize that the legislative process is ongoing in many jurisdictions and their outcomes could further influence the information needed to monitor systemic risk in the hedge fund sector, as well as who collects the data. Nonetheless, setting out these categories of information may help regulators in the assessment of systemic risk and help to inform the relevant legislative debates.”

It is unclear at this time whether or how the IOSCO disclosure template will inform or affect the ongoing Congressional debate on financial and regulatory reform, including whether it will impact the proposed hedge fund adviser legislation that was passed by the House in December and is currently pending in the Senate.

SFC to Introduce Short-Position Reporting Regime

News from other other side of the globe …

Not to long after the SEC announced its new regulations on short sales, we have learned that the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (the “SFC”) that it will be introducing a short-position reporting regime to enhance transparency of short selling activities in Hong Kong.   There is little doubt that this stems from industry feedback and the SFC’s view of the current domestic market situation.

The SFC’s CEO, Mr. Martin Wheatley, claims that the “build-up of large short positions may be potentially disruptive to market stability” and that this “short-position reporting regime will not only complement Hong Kong’s robust short-selling regulatory framework but will also provide a more complete picture of short-selling activities in our market.”

Under the proposed regime, the reporting obligation will be triggered if a short position is equal to or exceeds, 0.02% of the issued share capital of a listed company, or a market value of $30 million, whichever is lower. Weekly reports must be submitted to the SFC until the short position falls below both trigger levels. The SFC will publish aggregated short positions of each stock on an anonymous basis a week later.

Managers should particulary note that only the constituent stocks of the Hang Seng Index, the H-shares Index, financial stocks and other stocks specified by the SFC will come under this new reporting regime.  Derivatives will not be included.

A New and Improved SEC in 2010?

George Canellos, the new New York SEC Regional director has not been shy in advising the investment adviser community about the changes that are being made on the examination front.  There is little doubt that the Bernard Madoff $65 billion Ponzi scam, and more recently, an alleged $20 million insider trading scheme at hedge fund firm Galleon Group, among others, has made regulators turn their attention even closer to the alternative investment industry.   It is  hard not presuppose that that SEC is trying to build back its credibility.

First, budgets have increased.  We have learned that the SEC is dedicating more resources to ensure that its examination staff is properly trained so that they can better understand the products that are now being offered to investors and improve their ability to assess financial and compliance risks.   We can also expect to see staff members, including commissioners developing areas of specialization .   Additionally, the SEC has been given more tools to better conduct and streamline  investigations but putting technology, among other things, to work to go through tips and complaints in a more efficient manner.

Continue reading

Chief Trader and CFO of Boston Provident and Accused of Stealing more than $1.3 Million from the Hedge Fund

There has been certainly no dearth of hedge fund related news past month.  Among the news of the complex web of insider trading involving Galleon, we learn of a less high profile but yet still surprising hedge fund related scheme involving Ezra Levy, the CFO/Trader of Boston Provident, stealing over a million dollars from the fund.

According to Reuters, Ezra is being accused of of 11 counts of wire and securities fraud in two schemes to defraud Boston Provident.  Specifically, Ezra is accused of wiring $726,000 to his personal bank account from Boston Provident in monthly installments from January to October this year.  He is also accused of generating a $600,000 profit for himself by having Boston Provident buy shares of Atlas Energy Inc (ATLS.O) and Atlas Energy Resources at inflated prices from an account he controlled.  Boston Provident is run by Orin Kramer, chairman of the New Jersey State Investment Council, which oversees that state’s pension fund.  In a recent statement, Boston Provident said it has fired Levy and intended to seize his partnership assets.   It is claimed that Orin Kramer would personally replace the stolen funds and cover the firm’s legal fees.

In my view, this certainly highlights the importance of ensuring proper money movement controls at hedge fund firms.  The requirement of dual signatories at both the management company level and fund level is but one small step in preventing such types of improper and fraudulent transfers from occurring.

Additional Witnesses Propel Federal Insider Trading Investigation, Other Hedge Funds to be Implicated …

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the government’s investigation into insider-trading is being built on information from five cooperating witnesses, some of whom received information from investors and companies that haven’t been originally charged in the probe, potentially broadening the case.

The complaint released Thursday named two additional cooperating witnesses in the government’s insider-trading case against Raj Rajaratnam, founder of hedge fund Galleon Group: Steven Fortuna, of Boston hedge fund S2, and Gautham Shankar, a proprietary trader at Shottenfeld. Mr. Rajaratnam has denied wrongdoing. The men, join three others — Roomy Khan, Ali Far and Richard Choo-Beng Lee — who were previously identified as cooperating witnesses in the case and have admitted to engaging in illegal insider trading for many years. The cooperators have pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy and insider trading and are cooperating in the hope of getting lighter penalties, investigators say.

Mr. Lee’s Cooperation Agreement suggests that he engaged in illegal insider trading while working at Steven Cohen’s SAC Capital, the Connecticut-based hedge fund. Coincidentally, Mr. Cohen is said to be “out of the country” until Monday in the midst of all of this.  Stay tuned …

Regulation S-P – What Satisfies?

From time to time we have industry experts come on board to guest blog in order to provide our readers with interesting and insightful commentary.  Today’s article is by Tom Young of EXENET, a leading IT consultancy.

Recent amendments to Regulation S-P has brought greater attention to high-profile cases where organizations are accused of failing to provide adequate customer information protections as outlined in Rule 30(a).  For example: when an IT department fails to follow up on anti-virus problems or for leaving 5,000 customer records at the curb. Continue reading

Chief Privacy Officers’ Perspective on Data Privacy and Security

From time to time we have industry experts come on board to guest blog in order to provide our readers with interesting and insightful commentary.  Today’s article is by Larry Niland, LIMRA Senior Regulatory Consultant and former CCO of the John Hancock Financial Network and David Somers II, Esq., LIMRA’s Director of Regulatory Consulting and former IA Regulatory Officer and V.P. at Advest, Inc.

Best Practices and Regulation Roundtable Meeting

Over 261 million data records of U.S. residents have been exposed due to security breaches since January 2005, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. If you’ve talked to your firm’s Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) lately chances are he or she was not in a good mood. States are passing new regulations at a record pace on how client personal information and other critical data must be protected, controlled, transmitted, encrypted, transported, shredded; and when it is not, how to report the breach to everyone affected, including the regulators.

At a recent LIMRA roundtable meeting in Connecticut of broker-dealer and insurance company CPOs, participants discussed data privacy and security best practices and regulation. The following issues and topics are highlights from the meeting: Continue reading

SEC Sues Dual Registrant for Reg S-P Failure

A dually registered broker-dealer and investment adviser (the “Respondent”) was sued by the SEC on September 29, 2009 for failing to require, among other things, that its registered representatives maintain antivirus software on the personal computers which were used to access customer account information on the firm’s intranet and trading platform.  In addition, the SEC claimed that the Respondent did not have adequate procedures in place to review its registered representatives’ computer security measures.   In particular, the SEC claimed that Respondent’s internal auditors did not audit branch office computers to determine whether anti-virus software was installed nor did they have adequate procedures in place to follow up on potential computer security issues uncovered during branch audits or when registered representatives contacted Respondent’s technology help desk for computer related assistance.

Continue reading