In the Spring 2003 issue of this Journal, I addressed the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the treatment of broker‐dealers’ expense‐sharing arrangements. As pointed out in that article, in 2002 the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) conducted a comprehensive “sweep” examination of member‐firms’ financial reporting procedures, with special attention to the treatment of expenses and liabilities. The results of the sweep confirmed that many broker‐dealers, particularly small firms, relied on parents and affiliates to pay for part or all of their expenses. The results of this regulatory audit raised the NASD’s concern that many broker‐dealers failed to adhere to the financial responsibility rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In large part, this was due to an inherent conflict between the general accounting standards governing the recording of expenses and liabilities and the requirements imposed on broker‐dealers to accrue and book expenses and liabilities under the Exchange Act’s financial reporting rules. Following the sweep, the NASD wrote to certain member firms that did not appear to be following the financial responsibility rules. These letters asked the firms to explain their failure to report expenses that were paid, or subject to payment by, affiliated parties and to justify their procedures on expense and liability reporting. Some broker‐dealers responded that it was not possible to coordinate the accounting of expense‐sharing arrangements with the reporting requirements set forth under the Exchange Act’s rules.
Article navigation
1 April 2003
Viewpoint|
April 01 2003
SEC guidance on broker‐dealer expense‐sharing arrangements
Lawrence Cohen
Lawrence Cohen
Counsel, Stark & Stark in Princeton, NJ, USA;lcohen@stark‐stark.com
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-7476
Print ISSN: 1528-5812
© MCB UP Limited
2003
Journal of Investment Compliance (2003) 4 (2): 60–62.
Citation
Cohen L (2003), "SEC guidance on broker‐dealer expense‐sharing arrangements". Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 4 No. 2 pp. 60–62, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/15285810310813077
Download citation file:
Suggested Reading
Investment adviser: Failure of duty to supervise
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
How much (and how conflicted) is that portfolio manager in the window? Implications of the SEC proposed rule on enhanced portfolio management disclosure for registered investment companies
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The Use of fraud examiners in the battle against occupational fraud and abuse
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The Benefits and potential pitfalls of cooperating with regulatory agencies and the government: How to navigate the minefield
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The independence of financial analysts: evaluation of an alternative proposal
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2003)
Related Chapters
Green Bonds as Catalysts for Sustainable Development: Strategies and Implications for India
Green Technologies and Sustainable Development: Coherent Strategies for Developing Countries
Budget Investments in Russia: Not Investment but Transformation of Public Property
The Spread of Financial Sophistication through Emerging Markets Worldwide
Innovation Policy in an Interacted World – The Critical Role of the Context
No Business is an Island: Making Sense of the Interactive Business World
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
