Summary
On September 9, 2024, approximately one year since its first flurry of similar Marketing Rule actions,1 the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) announced settlements with nine SEC-registered investment advisers (the Advisers) with respect to alleged violations of Rule 206(4)-1 (the Marketing Rule) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act).2 The Advisers ranged in size from $191 million to $5.2 billion in regulatory assets under management and paid civil monetary penalties ranging from $60,000 to $325,000. The combined civil penalties totaled $1,240,000. The alleged violations were found primarily on the Advisers' public websites and, in one instance, the public websites of third parties, social media sites, online videos, a jumbotron and promotional merchandise (e.g., bags and flags).
The alleged violations included:
- Untrue statements about:
- Third-party ratings and
- Membership in an organization that did not exist;
- Claims the adviser would provide conflict-free advisory services without substantiation (and in contradiction to other disclosure);
- Claims the principal received an award without substantiation;
- Claims the advertisement included two testimonials but neither came from existing clients;
- The inclusion of endorsements that did not contain required disclosures, e.g., that the endorser was a paid, non-client; and
- The inclusion of third-party ratings more than five years old without required disclosures, e.g., the dates of the ratings and the periods of time upon which the ratings were based.
Recommended Actions for Investment Advisers
The SEC Division of Examinations had previously indicated that compliance with the Marketing Rule would continue to be an examination priority in 2024, just as it was in 2023.3 Additionally, the Marketing Rule sweep exams are ongoing. Therefore, we urge investment advisers to:
- Address obligations under the Marketing Rule broadly and
ensure its policies and procedures (i) are reasonably designed to
avoid a violation and (ii) include reviews of publicly available
material on websites, social media, merchandise, etc. An
investment adviser must assess its obligations under the Marketing
Rule, including the seven general prohibitions, and make all
necessary arrangements to meet them. Almost all of the settlements
involved, among other things, an alleged violation of Rule
206(4)-1(a)(1), the first of the general prohibitions.
Advisers should also consider policies and procedures regarding initial and regular reviews of its publicly available material as such material may include typographical errors or stale information that could be considered misleading. - Ensure that the adviser is able to substantiate all material statements of facts in advertisements (including, in particular, on its website and any other publicly available content). An adviser must have a reasonable basis for believing it will be able to substantiate each material fact upon SEC demand, i.e., the investment adviser should confirm that it has substantiation for each claim. Additionally, advisers should avoid claims of being "conflict free" or other statements claiming the elimination of conflicts.
- Ensure that terms defined in the Marketing Rule, e.g., "testimonial" and "endorsement," are used, in line with those definitions. An adviser must use defined terms, e.g., "testimonial" (defined as statements of approval, support or recommendation from current clients or investors), in accordance with the Marketing Rule definitions and must not use the term "testimonial" to reference an "endorsement" (defined as statements of approval, support or recommendation from persons who are not current clients or investors).
- Ensure compliance with the testimonial/endorsement
disclosure requirements. An adviser must ensure that any
testimonial or endorsement includes disclosure on:
- Whether it is being given by a current client or investor or a person other than a current client or investor;
- Any cash or non-cash compensation that was provided, if applicable; and
- A brief statement of any material conflicts of interest on the part of the person providing the testimonial or endorsement resulting from the investment adviser's relationship with such person.
Note that the SEC staff also took the position that an endorsement includes materials that call the adviser an "Official Wealth Management Partner" or similar sponsorship relationships.
- Ensure compliance with the third-party ratings
requirements, including with respect to awards or other
recognitions received either by the adviser or any of its
principals or employees. An adviser must ensure that any
third-party ratings meet the following requirements:
- Adviser has a reasonable basis for believing that any questionnaire or survey used in preparation of the rating is structured to make it equally easy for a participant to provide favorable and unfavorable responses and is not designed or prepared to produce any predetermined result;
- Adviser clearly and prominently discloses, or the adviser
reasonably believes the third-party rating clearly and prominently
discloses:
- The date on which the rating was given and the period of time upon which the rating was based;
- The identity of the third party that created and tabulated the rating; and
- If applicable, that compensation has been provided directly or indirectly by the adviser in connection with obtaining or using the third-party rating.
A summary chart of the enforcement actions is included below.
Summary of Enforcement Actions
Investment Adviser Name |
Alleged Violations |
Monetary Penalty |
Abacus Planning Group,
Inc. |
Disseminated an untrue statement of a material fact on its public website (claimed it was rated a "Top 12 Financial Advisor" by Barron's when Barron's rated it a "Top 1200 Financial Advisor") and misstated the title of a third-party rating it received, identifying itself as a "Top 100 Women's Advisor" rather than correctly identifying the rating as "Top 100 Women Financial Advisors" suggesting the rating related to investment advice provided to women instead of an award for female investment advisers violating Section 206(4) under the Advisers Act and the Marketing Rule Disseminated an advertisement containing third-party ratings from 2007, 2019 and 2020 on its public website without clearly and prominently disclosing the dates on which the ratings were given and the period of time upon which the ratings were based violating Section 206(4) under the Advisers Act and the Marketing Rule |
$150,000 |
AZ Apice Capital Management
LLC |
Disseminated an
advertisement on its public website claiming to provide investment
advice "free from conflicts of interest" and
"conflict-free" without context whereas the adviser
disclosed various conflicts of interest, including in its Form ADV
Part 2A brochure; therefore, the adviser lacked a reasonable basis
for believing it would be able to substantiate the claim of
conflict-free investment advice violating Advisers Act Section
206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$70,000 |
Droms Strauss Advisors,
Inc., D/B/A Droms Strauss Wealth Management |
Disseminated an
advertisement on its public website that claimed one of its
investment adviser representatives provided investment advice that
was free from conflicts of interest without context whereas the
adviser disclosed various conflicts of interest, including in its
Form ADV Part 2A brochure; therefore, the adviser lacked a
reasonable basis for believing it would be able to substantiate the
claim of conflict-free investment advice violating Advisers Act
Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$85,000 |
Howard Bailey Securities,
LLC |
Disseminated numerous
advertisements via the public websites of a specific university
athletic program (Athletic Program), the
principal's social media platforms, online videos, bags and
flags and the athletic program's jumbotron an
"endorsement" that the principal was the "Official
Wealth Management Partner of" the Athletic Program without
including required disclosures, including (i) the endorsement was
given by a person other than a current client (ii) cash
compensation was provided and (iii) any material conflicts that
resulted from the arrangement violating Advisers Act Section 206(4)
and the Marketing Rule |
$90,000 |
Integrated Advisors Network
LLC |
Disseminated advertisements
on the public website of one of its network of adviser
representatives acting through a DBA that claimed to provide
investment advice that put the client first by "aligning
incentives and eliminating conflicts of interest" without
context whereas the adviser disclosed various conflicts of
interest, including in its Form ADV Part 2A brochure; therefore,
the adviser lacked a reasonable basis for believing it would be
able to substantiate the claim of conflict-free investment advice
violating Advisers Act Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$325,000 |
Professional Financial
Strategies, Inc. |
Disseminated advertisements
on its public website containing a third-party rating that did not
clearly and prominently disclose the date on which the rating was
given and the period of time upon which the rating was based and
the rating of its principal (recognized by Reuters
AdvisePoint as one of 500 "Top Advisers" in the
United States) was from 2007; therefore, the adviser violated
Advisers Act Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$60,000 |
Beta Wealth Group,
Inc. |
Disseminated advertisements
on its public website containing a third-party rating that did not
clearly and prominently disclose the date on which the rating was
given and the period of time upon which the rating was based and
the rating of the firm as a "Barron's Top
Advisor" was from 2018; therefore, the adviser violated
Advisers Act Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$80,000 |
Richard Bernstein Advisors
LLC |
Disseminated advertisements
on its public website containing two third-party ratings that did
not clearly and prominently disclose the date on which the rating
was given and the period of time upon which the rating was based
and the rating of the firm's principal as "Fortune
Magazine's "All-Star Analysts" and Smart Money
Magazine's "Power 30," which were received in 2001
and 2002 and in 2002 and 2004, respectively; therefore, the adviser
violated Advisers Act Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$295,000 |
TS Bank d/b/a Callahan
Financial Planning |
Disseminated an untrue statement of a material fact on its public website (claimed it was a member of an organization called "Fiduciary Firm" that did not exist violating Section 206(4) under the Advisers Act and the Marketing Rule Disseminated an advertisement claiming the firm provided investment advice with "no conflict of interest" without context whereas the adviser disclosed various conflicts of interest, including in its Form ADV Part 2A brochure; therefore, the adviser lacked a reasonable basis for believing it would be able to substantiate the claim of conflict-free investment advice violating Advisers Act Section 206(4) and the Marketing Rule |
$85,000 |
* * *
We will continue to monitor the developments coming out of the SEC and provide further updates. Please reach out to the authors of this alert or the Goodwin lawyer with whom you typically consult if you have any questions.
Footnotes
1 Brynn Peltz, Gregory Larkin,
Jonathan Hecht, Cynthia Wells, Daniel Ji, and Grace Willingham,
Goodwin Law, "SEC announces the First Enforcement Action under
the New Marketing Rule" (Aug. 24, 2023) available at SEC Announces the First Enforcement Action under
the New Marketing Rule | Insights & Resources | Goodwin
(goodwinlaw.com) and "SEC Marketing Rule Enforcement
Actions Emphasize Need for Policies and Procedures Regarding the
Use of Hypothetical Performance" (Sept. 21, 2023) available at
SEC Marketing Rule Enforcement Actions Emphasize
Need for Policies and Procedures Regarding the Use of Hypothetical
Performance | Insights & Resources | Goodwin
(goodwinlaw.com).
2 U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, "SEC Charges Nine Investment Advisers in Ongoing
Sweep into Marketing Custody Rule Violations" (Sept. 9, 2024)
available at SEC.gov | SEC Charges Nine Investment Advisers in
Ongoing Sweep into Marketing Rule Violations.
3 U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, "2024 Examination Priorities Report" (2024)
available at 2024 Examination Priorities Report
(sec.gov).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.