BROWSE BY TOPIC
Stories of Interest
- Deutsche Bank ‘Beyond Repair’ as Trading Drops - Autonomous Research
- Guggenheim Partners CEO Might Step Down
- Wachovia Customer Sues Wells Fargo Over FundSource Losses - Bill Singer
- Credit Downgrade for Wells Fargo Due to Fake Account Scandal
- CFTC Commissioner Quintenz Named Sponsor of the Technology Advisory Committee
- Harbour and Geneos Customers Win FINRA Arbitration Against Stockbroker - Bill Singer
- Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed
- The World’s Biggest Wealth Fund Hits $1 Trillion
- At Jefferies, Like Wall Street, Trading Cedes to Banking
- Ex-SAC Trader Who Pleaded Guilty to Insider Trading Just Remembered He’s Innocent
- JPMorgan Turns to Amazon for Retail 'Customer Experience'
- Goldman Sachs Names Ken Hitchner as New Chairman for Asia Pacific
- Judge All but Tosses SEC Case Against ‘Rogue’ Trader And Ex-FBI Informant Guy Gentile
- 'Boys are #1 Among NFL's Most Valuable Teams
- Fake Tax Returns - Your Next Worry After the Equifax Breach
- FINRA DR Recruiting Arbitrators, Mediators at Congressional Black Caucus Conference
- JPMORGAN: Here's who we think will replace Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway
- Mueller to Search Facebook for Russia-Linked Accounts
- Mark Gomes, Market Analyst and Trade Scalper Settles with SEC
- Equifax Waives Credit Lock Fees For Consumers, Amid Criticism
We seek to provide information, insights and direction that may enable the Financial Community to effectively and efficiently operate in a regulatory risk-free environment by curating content from all over the web.
Stay Informed with the latest fanancialish news.
NEWSLETTERS & ALERTS
Wrong Way to Change SEC, FINRA Exams Under Trump
by Howard Haykin
“The nature of examinations has typically become more focused in scope," adding that such “deeper dives” pose a greater burden on firms because the regulators probe the issue “at a much more profound level.”
If such an approach to regulatory oversight becomes reality, then all I can say is the SEC and FINRA are making a big mistake.
For regulators to be effective, they need strong relationships with the firms they oversee. And with all relationships, communications is key. Communications come with dialog and interaction. So, how can conducting fewer examinations lead to strong, effective relationships? IT CAN'T! No matter how focused or deeply scoped the exam agenda may be.
FINANCIALISH TAKE AWAY. This writer has always been a proponent of frequent, quick strike audits and exams - and top-down, rather than bottom-up, reviews of companies and their inherent systems. For example:
- Why visit a registered investment advisor, or RIA, once every 3-4 years for a "soup-to-nuts" exam, when field examiners can conduct more frequent exams that focus on just 1 or 2 areas at a time - e.g., broker-dealer relationships, advertising, or trade allocations among separate accounts?
- Why examine a handful of trades out of thousands executed at a broker-dealer, when field examiners can better assess the competency of firm's staff through directeds Q&A or interview sessions?
By visiting B/D's and RIA's more frequently, while changing up the exam agenda and scope, regulators will get more "bang for the buck." The SEC and FINRA will not only improve their relationships with financial institutions, but they will influence brokers and advisors to take a more serious approach to their overall supervisory policies and procedures.
Your thoughts, Messieurs Robert Cook and Jay Clayton?