10.07.2015 Views

letter - 3PM - Third Party Marketers Association

letter - 3PM - Third Party Marketers Association

letter - 3PM - Third Party Marketers Association

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The <strong>Third</strong> <strong>Party</strong> <strong>Marketers</strong> <strong>Association</strong><strong>3PM</strong> agrees that the pay‐to‐play issue will not be completely solved by disclosure. However, we dobelieve that the adverse effect of pay‐to‐play can only be minimized if the investment process becomesmore transparent. We do not believe that a singular ban on all <strong>Third</strong> <strong>Party</strong> <strong>Marketers</strong> will in any wayadvance this objective.In order to curtail the abusive practices that have occurred, the Commission should implement a seriesof rules, regulations and guidelines that will increase transparency in the investment process andeliminate potential conflicts of interest by mandating full disclosure of any direct or indirectcompensation that could affect or compromise the investment process. These rules should be appliedevenhandedly across all groups of investment advisers and should cover all sales professionals whetherthey operate independently or are direct employees of an investment manager. Furthermore, theCommission should consider extending the scope of rules that already exist to include thoseconstituencies not currently covered by them. As an example, Rule 206 (4)‐3 is aimed at providingdisclosure to an area where a perceived conflict of interest exists. The rule could be extended to allinvestment managers that provide the same or virtually the same services. Additionally, this rule couldbe extended to include other forms of compensation cited by the Commission including politicalcontributions and other forms of non‐monetary compensation that could impact investment decisions.<strong>3PM</strong> does not suggest that these contributions were inappropriate. We do suggest that a formulaicapproach would not resolve these allegations, and that these issues are best addressed through a policyapproach that encourages disclosure and transparency applicable to all investment advisers and theirrepresentatives, whether or not they are registered under the Investment Advisers Act.It is also our belief that for this process to be effective, disclosure must be provided by any party, whichwould include investment advisers, <strong>Third</strong> <strong>Party</strong> <strong>Marketers</strong>, public officials or other trustees, who areinvolved in the investment decision making process and may by the nature of their position have theability to exert undue influence on the process. While we understand that the SEC is limited in theconstituencies for which it can propose legislation, it is in the best interest of everyone for theCommission to work with the pension community, FINRA and the State regulators to developmeaningful policies that address these issues and monitor the conduct all parties involved in theinvestment process.Section II A 3 –Pay‐to‐play Restrictions(a) Two Year “Time Out” for ContributorsWe request comment on whether two years is an appropriate length of time.<strong>3PM</strong> does not believe a two year cessation of compensation would be a sufficient deterrent tocurtail pay‐to‐play practices. We believe that this proposal should be amended to include the rightof an investor to rescind an investment decision should pay‐to‐play activities be uncovered. In thePage 8

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!