Another Billion-Dollar Investment Advisory Fraud Unfolds

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Tuesday charged Robert Allen Stanford and three of his companies—including the broker/dealer and investment adviser arms—for orchestrating a massive fraud.

The SEC said Stanford and his close circle of family and friends perpetrated a fraudulent, multi-billion dollar investment scheme centering on an $8 billion CD program. Furthermore, the SEC alleges a $1.2 billion scheme of a proprietary mutual fund wrap program sold by advisers.

Companies charged by the SEC include Antiguan-based Stanford International Bank (SIB); Houston-based broker/dealer and investment adviser Stanford Group Company (SGC); and investment adviser Stanford Capital Management, the SEC said in a release.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The SEC complaint, filed in federal court in Dallas, alleges that the offshore bank sold approximately $8 billion of so-called “certificates of deposit’ through a network of SGC advisers. Investors were promised “improbable and unsubstantiated’ high-interest rates, the SEC said. The rates were supposedly earned through SIB’s unique investment strategy, which purportedly allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments for the past 15 years.

The SEC also charged SIB Chief Financial Officer James Davis as well as Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group (SFG), in the enforcement action.

“We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world,’ said Rose Romero, regional director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office, in the release.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the defendants have misrepresented to CD purchasers that their deposits are safe, falsely claiming that the bank re-invests client funds primarily in “liquid” financial instruments (the portfolio); monitors the portfolio through a team of 20-plus analysts; and is subject to yearly audits by Antiguan regulators. Recently, as the market absorbed the news of Bernard Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme, SIB attempted to calm its own investors by falsely claiming the bank has no “direct or indirect” exposure to the Madoff scheme.

SIB is operated by a close circle of Stanford’s family and friends, the SEC said. SIB’s investment committee, responsible for the management of the bank’s multi-billion dollar portfolio of assets, is composed of Stanford; Stanford’s father who resides in Mexia, Texas; another Mexia resident with business experience in cattle ranching and car sales; Pendergest-Holt, who prior to joining SFG had no financial services or securities industry experience; and Davis, who was Stanford’s college roommate.

Mutual Fund Wrap

The SEC’s complaint also alleges an additional scheme relating to $1.2 billion in sales by SGC advisers of a proprietary mutual fund wrap program, called Stanford Allocation Strategy (SAS), by using materially false historical performance data. According to the complaint, the false data helped SGC grow the SAS program from less than $10 million in 2004 to more than $1 billion, generating fees for SGC (and ultimately Stanford) of approximately $25 million in 2007 and 2008. The fraudulent SAS performance was used to recruit registered investment advisers (RIAs) with significant books of business, who were then heavily incentivized to reallocate their clients’ assets to SIB’s CD program, the SEC said.

The SEC’s complaint charges violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act, and registration provisions of the Investment Company Act.

In response to the SEC’s request, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered a temporary restraining order, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed a receiver to marshal those assets, according to the release. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC seeks a final judgment “permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the relevant provisions of the federal securities laws and ordering them to pay financial penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest,’ the agency said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that investors have been flocking to the island of Antigua, seeking to withdrawal their funds.

403(b) Relief Is Good News for Plan Sponsors

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently cleared up some confusion about its relief of the written plan document requirement for 403(b) plans.

In a Webcast sponsored by the Southeastern Association of School Business Officials, with support from VALIC, Robert J. Architect, senior tax law specialist at the Internal Revenue Service, cleared up some confusion about the IRS’ relief on the written plan document requirement for 403(b) plans—and it is good news for sponsors.

Notice 2009-3 (see “IRS Offers Relief for 403(b) Written Plan Requirement) said the IRS will treat plans as meeting the requirements of 403(b) and the regulations during the 2009 calendar year if:

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

  • by December 31, 2009, the plan sponsor has adopted a written 403(b) plan that is intended to satisfy the requirements of 403(b) (including the final regulations) effective as of January 1, 2009;
  • during 2009, the plan sponsor operates the plan in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of 403(b) and the related regulations;
  • by the end of 2009, the plan sponsor makes its best effort to retroactively correct any operational failure during the 2009 calendar year to conform to the terms of the written plan.

Architect told Webcast attendees that this does not mean the adopted plan has to be effective as of January 1, 2009, or that sponsors have to correct back to January 1, 2009, operations in contrast to the terms of the plan. Rather, the language of the notice means plans must satisfy the regulations that were in effect as of January 1, 2009, and sponsors must correct operations in contrast to the terms of the plan as of the plan’s effective date.

Architect assured attendees that the IRS would not cite sponsors for a form failure for having no document or amendment in place during the period from January 1, 2009, until the effective date of their adopted plan.

That noise you hear? It is the collective sigh of relief from those who had interpreted the language of the notice differently.

Why Rush to Adopt a Written Plan?

Despite this clarification on the written plan relief, Richard Turner, vice president and deputy general counsel at VALIC, encouraged Webcast attendees not to wait too long to adopt their written plan document.

Architect agreed. While the IRS relief on the written plan document requirement deadline provided much needed time for school districts and other plan sponsors to get through the bureaucracy of getting their written plan approved, for plan sponsors without the same approval hierarchy, the sooner the plan is in place the better.

That’s because, while the clarification on relief may mean fewer corrections than once thought, some corrections will still be inevitable, especially in cases where the person(s) handling day-to-day operations of the plan may not be privy to all the actions of those responsible for deciding plan terms and approving the plan.

Document or not, the final regulations are in effect. Turner pointed out that clearly, as of January 1, 2009, sponsors would have to correct any operations that were not consistent with the regulations, including contributions made in excess of statutory limits, contributions not made for employees who should have been allowed to participate, and impermissible distributions. However, to conform to their written plan, sponsors may find themselves with other more arduous corrections to make.

Sponsors that do not want to be subject to the administrative burdens of such corrections and that are already sure of which provisions they will offer in their plans—or that do not want to raise the ire of plan participants—would be better off getting their plan in place now.

Turner added that many sponsors that do not have a document in place may instead be using provisions of annuity contracts and/or custodial agreements as a guide, and coordinating information among approved providers or requiring that they coordinate among each other. If the plan they adopt assigns a central coordinator or limits transactions such as loans or hardship withdrawals to one provider, the easiest thing to do is to put both sets of procedures in the plan, Turner said. For example, the plan may say that prior to July 1 participants may take a loan from all provider accounts up to the plan limit, but after July 1 loans may only be taken from accounts with Provider A.

Waiting on IRS Approval

During the Webcast, Architect said that, when issuing Notice 2009-3, the IRS recognized that many plan sponsors were not ready with written plan documents and that the regulations did not provide for a remedial amendment period and there was no pre-approved prototype or determination letter program.

Architect assured sponsors that a pre-approved prototype plan program is still coming as promised last year (see “IRS Developing Pre-approved Plan Program for 403(b)s). He said that within a month or two the IRS will draft a revenue procedure for the program it hopes to open up in summer of 2009. The revenue procedure will be an instruction booklet for entities that want to submit a prototype document for approval, according to Architect.

Meanwhile, Architect pointed plan sponsors to Rev. Proc. 2007-71 (see “IRS Offers Model 403(b) Plan Language for Public Schools) to answer questions such as how to issue loans to former participants without disqualifying the plan and what in-service withdrawals are permitted.

Finally, Architect warned plan sponsors that the provision of Rev. Proc. 2007-71 that says contracts issued before 2009 as part of an employer’s plan are considered to be part of the written plan if the employer makes a reasonable, good faith effort to establish information-sharing agreements with the orphaned provider is not delayed, and ended December 31. Turner advised that sponsors include in ISAs with current approved providers a provision that, as long as plan assets are held with the provider, it must continue to share information, even if later deselected.

«