Skip to main content

Category: Resources

Stay up to date with the latest industry news and insights.

Letter of Free Funds Automation: A Case Study in Savings

For many financial firms, the reams & reams of paper that are required to keep the company humming along are not always at the top of the list of executive concerns. However, as companies begin the yearend budgetary process, it might be time to cast a more critical eye on the mountains of paper that are most likely drowning the back office employees. There’s no denying the correlation between the increasing complexity of modern financial markets and the seemingly endless appetite for more paper.

Furthermore, as markets become increasingly complicated, regulatory due diligence and recordkeeping has become markedly more important. Take for example the process for executing a trade through a third party broker dealer (referred to as a trade away) in delivery versus payment (DVP) accounts. According to Regulation T, Section 220.8 C (a), the executing broker dealer and custodian are required to verify that funds are available by T+5 for every non-exempt security trade with a principal amount in excess of $1,000.

The resulting verification is referred to as the Letter of Free Fund, which is sent by the executing broker/dealer to the custodial broker of the account. The traditional method for sending and validating fund availability for trades executed in DVP accounts involves sending and receiving manual paper faxes, which must be retrieved, organized, processed, faxed back to the counter-party, stored in file cabinets, and eventually sent to an offsite storage facility.

Needless to say the complexity of the traditional method is also more likely to contribute to user errors. For many firms this process is not only logistically arduous, but financially onerous as well. Consider chart A below, which compares the financial burden of the traditional method versus the cost savings provided by going paperless using Loffa Interactive’s Freefunds Verified Direct TM (FVD).

Case study

*For Illustration purposes only. Loffa Interactive’s solution was available starting 2005.
**Chart assumes an annual trade away transaction growth of 20%, with the traditional method costing an average of $1.50 per transaction.**Monthly fees are subject to change.

Savings are conservative as they only take into the account the cost of performing the initial process. Internal or home grown solutions would actually be more, once the cost of storing these documents and ultimately destroying them properly, are taken into account.

Loffa Interactive Group’s patented Freefunds Verified Direct TM (FVD) application provides your firm with a paperless, centralized, automated and scalable solution that can help you achieve the goal of realizing significant cost savings while improving supervisory/regulatory controls and storage requirements. Our approach is focused on leveraging the efficiency of straight-through processing for Executing Broker/Dealers and Custodians.

How to Survive An SEC Audit

Five Important Steps in Preparing for an SEC Audit

As a business owner, there are few things that induce quite as much stress as receiving the dreaded letter from the SEC alerting you to an impending audit. However, whether it’s an audit with cause or simply a routine review, there are a few steps that the firm can take to prepare for the audit and ensure that it goes as smoothly and painlessly as possible.

  1. Upper management interview preparation. As part of the general training process the CCO and other top level executives should be prepped in advance for the interview portion of the audit. Executives should review the OCIE exam brochure and SEC Form 1661. Additionally, any executives who may be involved in the SEC audit interview should be familiar with applicable portions of the Freedom of Information & Privacy Acts. To be fully prepared, the firm may want to consider doing mock interviews for upper management.
  2. Establishment of a comprehensive compliance manual for all employees. As a standard operating procedure, each firm should have a detailed compliance manual that outlines standard operating procedures. The manual should cover a wide variety of topics including (but not limited to) insider trading, recording keeping, marketing and proxy voting procedures. The manual should be custom tailored to the firm, and all employees should be familiarized with the manual as part of the standard onboarding procedure.
  3. Retain a consultant to review the firm’s policies and procedures. Bringing in an outside consultant who specializes in SEC due diligence can help the firm to discover weak points in the compliance procedure before it becomes an active problem during an audit.
  4. Determine a strategy for the periodic review of the overall compliance plan. As the legislative landscape changes, it is important to review the plan at least annually in order to make sure that all new changes to the regulatory landscape have been incorporated into the plan.
  5. Consider a cloud/paperless solution for recordkeeping and documents. A main pillar of the plan should be the establishment of an offsite, electronic back up plan for all relevant documents. Many firms have incorporated secure cloud networks in order to store documents that are crucial to the overall operation of the firm. Electronic back up is crucial to the business continuity and disaster recovery plan for the firm. Some even hire a 3rd party provider, like Loffa Interactive Group, to prove them with technologically advanced document retention, archival and storage applications. Please visit www.LoffaCorp.com for more information.

By following these five steps, the firm can help to ensure that the SEC audit runs smoothly. While many firms will discover deficiencies in the process as part of the SEC audit, these steps can also help the firm to respond quickly to any requests from the SEC and promptly correct any deficiencies uncovered during the audit process.

How Risky Is Your Free Ride?

For a little more than a decade now, The SEC has been putting more emphasis on enforcing the legislation that governs cash accounts, commonly known as Reg T. Though, to this day there is still a great deal of brokers looking the other when it comes to trading out of cash accounts before a previous trade clears, and some of which might not even be aware of the breach of compliance. Is it wrong; Should regulators be more aggressive in their scrutiny of daytrading? In the following article by Eric Gillin, found on The Street, the regulation surrounding cash accounts is put under the spotlight to get a better idea of what importance the exitsting rules have and to understand what free-riding is and how it affects the market.

A handful of brokerages are suddenly cracking down on the practice of “free-riding” stock in cash accounts, but the practice is so embedded on Wall Street that it might never be eradicated.

The term refers to buying stock using cash from a trade that hasn’t cleared — in other words, paying for stock with money you don’t have. Regulations forbid it, because it typically takes three days for the actual settlement of a trade to occur. But for daytraders and institutional clients, instant money is a luxury they are unlikely to willingly surrender.

“Most brokers look the other way. I’ve definitely done it, mostly with more active accounts who you wouldn’t think there would be a concern about,” said one broker, who insisted on anonymity.

The prohibition against free-riding is contained in a Federal Reserve bylaw known as Reg T, adopted in an era when paper stock certificates had to be lined up with trades. Enforcement of Reg T waned in the late 1990s, ahead of an industry initiative that would’ve made most trades clear the day they were executed. But that initiative, called T+1, was derailed by Sept. 11, and now Reg T is back in favor with regulators.

“Legally, you’re supposed to wait for the trade to clear before using the proceeds to trade again,” said Rich Repetto, analyst covering the online brokerage industry at Putnam Lovell.

According to the SEC , “Section 220.8 of Regulation T states that in a cash account, a brokerage may buy a security on your behalf — or sell a security to you — if either: (a) You have sufficient funds in the account to cover the transaction; or (b) The firm accepts in good faith your agreement to make a full cash payment for the security before you sell it.” (To read the entire text of Reg T, click here .)

How does this work? Let’s say you had a cash account and owned $10,000 worth of Microsoft (MSFT) stock. Ready to take your profits, you decide to sell the entire $10,000 and use the cash to buy $10,000 worth of Coca-Cola (KO) shares that day.

That’s perfectly legal, but if you sell the Coca-Cola shares in the three days before the Microsoft trade clears, you could be breaking the law. In a cash account, you’d need $10,000 in cash to cover the second trade; that, or a “good faith” agreement with your broker to deposit the $10,000 before the trade officially clears. That rule is either obscure or restrictive enough that many brokers simply look the other way and let clients slide when it comes to good faith; hence, the “free ride.”

“I didn’t even think about it until the other day and then it hit me,” said the broker. “Under Reg T, you really need to wait until it clears.”

Traders can legally perform this kind of trading in a margin account that is funded well enough to cover half of the value of the second purchase. So one solution is to consolidate cash accounts so they have enough money to cover intraday trades, or switch to margin.

The issue, while technical, became a hot topic during the inflation of the dot-com bubble. Four years ago, Arthur Levitt, then chairman of the SEC, in a report to Congress on daytrading, stressed the importance of following the regulations governing cash accounts. “Specifically, the NASD stated that customers may daytrade only in margin accounts, because daytrading in a cash account could amount to free-riding,” he said. “Thus, daytrading firms must be in compliance with both Regulation T and NASD margin rules at all times.”

Under normal circumstances, free-riding isn’t an issue, because there’s enough liquidity to virtually guarantee that a trade will clear after three days. But in unusual circumstances, like in a market panic or a run on a company’s shares, free-riding could strain a brokerage’s capital.

“The issue is about systemic risk and a domino effect. It’s just like if you have people selling short without the cover,” said Peter Huang, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania. “That’s why they insist you have to clear trades in cash accounts. That’s why you need margin — there could be a chain reaction. If things go well, it’s an insurance policy just like the FDIC, but if there’s a run, there could be a liquidity shock.”

While the violations aren’t likely to shake the fundamental underpinnings of the market, the fact that brokers choose to bend the rules when it suits them harkens to the conflicts between analyst research and investment banking. Aside from the threat of enforcement, there isn’t a lot of incentive in place to play by the rules.

“There’s really no pressure to abide by it at all,” said the anonymous broker. “Remember, a lot of times when you’re selling you want to buy something else. It’s not all day, every day, but it certainly happens, mostly with smaller accounts, I’d say, where they don’t have the extra cash on the side to buy the trade.”

But enforcing Reg T is tricky, because, says Huang, regulating bodies such as the NASD can’t examine how every trade in every account at a broker has been cleared. Also, with so many different regulations and two different types of free-riding — the other is commonly called “free-riding and withholding” and involves IPO shares — many don’t even realize they’re violating the law.

Most online brokers abide by the law, simply because they set up cash accounts so daytrading is impossible. HarrisDirect and E*Trade both confirmed that they do not allow free-riding in cash accounts.

“All our daytraders are set with margin accounts,” said Connie Dotson, chief communications officer at the company. “The cash wouldn’t be available. Our systems are programmed to not allow daytrading at all.”

Few experts expect enforcement to cripple the industry, but it will have an effect on confused customers who grew accustomed to free rides. Forcing compliance could depress trading volume as clients in cash accounts wait for trades to clear and trade less as a result. Ameritrade (AMTD) warned about this possibility months ago in the wake of a NASD investigation into free riding at its merger partner Datek.

Ultimately, the solution might be to restart the T+1 settlement initiative, which would enable trades from cash accounts to clear in one day. Until then, a kind of legal fog is likely to persist.

“Wall Street culture and the letter of the law don’t always coincide, as we’ve seen,” said Huang. “Then you have problems. I think this is a problem, but I understand why people are violating it.”

Read original article