Operational Deficiencies in Non‑Standard Performance Calculations: Nuts and Bolts of Upgrading Controls (Part Three of Three)

Managers may be forced to reconsider how and when they use extracted, predecessor and hypothetical performance calculations in their advertising materials following the recent amendments to Rule 206(4)‑1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Marketing Rule). In all likelihood, managers will need to critically review and update their policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the revisions in the Marketing Rule, while also shoring up any deficiencies in existing practices that are discovered along the way. This third article in a three-part series discusses practical steps managers can take to upgrade operational controls around their performance calculations (e.g., when to hire a compliance consultant versus a law firm), including to account for the Marketing Rule. The first article detailed common deficiencies in policies and procedures that affect the preparation of non-standard track records, as well as strategies for overcoming them. The second article identified, and posited potential solutions to, common recordkeeping and disclosure deficiencies in performance calculations. See “A Checklist for Advisers to Ensure Compliance With the Advertising Rule” (Feb. 18, 2020); and “Risk Alert Highlights Six Most Frequent Advertising Rule Compliance Issues” (Oct. 19, 2017).

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with a PELR subscription.