Compliance 2.0: Social Media

Social media offers an opportunity to build your brand. But send a seemingly innocent tweet – or “like” the wrong Facebook page – and you could step into a regulatory minefield.

This double-edged sword has made social media the “hottest” compliance topic—ahead of insider trading, advertising/marketing and valuation, according to an Investment Adviser Association (IAA) survey of compliance professionals (see “Social Media, Insider Trading Top Issues in Compliance Testing”).

As of this year, 80% of registered investment advisers (RIAs) have adopted formal, written social media policies, up from 64% in 2011 and 43% in 2010. Fifty-four percent of firms are prohibiting the use of personal social media sites for business purposes, and 52% are reporting that their social media testing has increased since 2010.

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

These statistics raise the questions: What are some of the compliance issues advisers might encounter when using social media, and what should firms do to prevent regulatory infractions?

LinkedIn 

Should a LinkedIn page aggressively promote a firm or an adviser, it may be considered an advertisement.

“Say you have a LinkedIn profile page and it just has your business card information, that’s one thing,” said Joanna Belbey, a social media and compliance specialist at Belmont, California-based Actiance Inc, a provider of social media compliance software (see “The Principal Selects Social Media Monitoring Platform”). “But if it goes on to talk about the firm, why it’s a great firm, and why [the adviser is] so terrific, then it does become an advertisement.”

If LinkedIn pages are considered advertisements, recommendations present a problem. Chad Bockius, chief executive of Austin, Texas-based Socialware, another provider of social media compliance software, told PLANADVISER, “Recommendations are clearly testimonials, and the fact you have testimonials living inside an advertisement is a violation of the Advisers Act of 1940.”

Messages between LinkedIn members – inMail – can also be problematic, which is why some firms have their advisers use prewritten notes for prospecting and answering questions, Belbey said.

 

 

Facebook 

Like LinkedIn, advisers can have personal profiles on Facebook listing their professional affiliation without approval from a registered principal, but only if they don’t use their page for business communication, Bockius said.

Facebook’s “like” feature presents a challenge, however. By “liking” a post, an adviser is essentially commenting on, even endorsing third-party content, which may create a compliance issue.

“If they like a post to the Cardinals winning the World Series, that would be quite all right,” Bockius said.  “But if they liked a post… predicting that Facebook stock was going to go up to $40 after they announce earnings, that could create an issue around being suitable, fair and balanced. All those things come into play the second you press that little button.”

Twitter 

Registered representatives who work for a broker/dealer have to remember to provide suitable recommendations to clients, while investment advisers working for a registered investment advisory firm have to provide not just suitable recommendations but those that are fiduciarily responsible, as well. This presents a challenge on social media outlets like Twitter.

When advisers communicate with clients by phone or e-mail, they know exactly who they are dealing with and what would be suitable for them. However, interactions on social media networks are often open for the world to see.

 

“On social media, you don’t know who your followers are or who they could be passing that information around to,” Belbey said. “And you can’t possibly have a good clear understanding of their needs to make appropriate recommendations.”

Another issue on Twitter is retweeting third-party content such as newspaper articles. Through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) concept of “adoption and entanglement”, firms can become responsible for third-party content by a retweet, which could be construed as an endorsement.

Monitoring 

Firms must have a social media policy that is compliant with SEC and FINRA regulations, test it and be able to prove to the regulators that they have done so. For a firm that prohibits social media, that can be easy as a web search.

However, if a firm allows use of social media, it needs to monitor it and block access to certain features, which can be problematic for compliance.

Software, like the kind Bockius’ and Belbey’s companies provide, can block access to the “like” feature on Facebook or the recommendation feature on LinkedIn. It can also set up an approval process and be especially beneficial for larger firms that have to review lots of information.

“If you think about a firm with 10,000 advisers and all the LinkedIn profiles that need to be approved, that can be a pretty daunting task,” Bockius said. “Having the software to streamline that process is really critical.”

 

Training and Branding 

The SEC, FINRA and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) require firms to demonstrate that regulated persons have had training on the appropriate use of social media as it pertains to rules and regulations, according to Belbey.

A very senior financial adviser might require more technical training, Belbey said, while a member of Generation Y may very well be familiar with how to use social media “but need to be trained on what’s appropriate on social media as it pertains to their livelihood.”

And because of the tremendous reach of social media, training should extend well beyond compliance to how to harness its power. “The best, most successful campaigns go a step further where they not only show the registered people how to build your network, how [to]  engage with your followers,” Belbey said.

Some firms take more steps to manage their brand. Belbey knows one firm that hires photographers to take official profile pictures of its advisers.

“They want their adviser against a blue background, they want them to wear a suit and a tie or a dress, they really want to control the image from the ground up,” she said.

 

Regulatory Guidance 

Both social media compliance industry insiders agreed that regulators—especially FINRA—are doing a good job in issuing guidance.

“I give them [FINRA] great credit for being the first of all regulators to provide guidance on social media notice,” Bockius said, citing the organization’s notices 10-06 and 11-39, both of which provide guidance and require firms to archive business social media communications. “Of all the regulators, they’ve been the most aggressive in trying to understand the issues related to social, trying to understand the challenges [advisers] are still having as it relates to using social for business.”

While regulators may be working hard to understand the issues, Bockius does not believe they are overly aggressive on enforcement.  

“I don’t think regulators are on a witch hunt, because they realize this is an emerging field,” Bockius said. He believes that firms are in a sort of grace period, and they should work with advisers and software companies like his to work out compliance issues, especially since social media and its supporting technologies continue to evolve at an ever-increasing rate.

“Unfortunately, you can’t just set one set of policies and one type of training and let it run. You’re going to have to go back and adopt your policies and adopt the training based on the changes of the networks,” Belbey said.

But advisers shouldn’t fear social media because of compliance. They should embrace it.

“The value social creates for an adviser’s business is so huge – it’s monumental,” Bockius said, which is why he urges advisers “to get social and get social now.”

 

 

Retirement Plan Would Be a Win-Win for Working Families, Employers

I want to rebuild the pension system, but I need your help. Last week, I released a proposal to create a new type of privately run retirement plan.
 

The idea is to make pensions attractive again by eliminating the burden on and risk for employers but still provide many of the benefits of traditional pensions, such as lifetime income and professional management. I know that sounds like a lofty goal, but please bear with me. 

Most people agree that, as a country, we are woefully unprepared for retirement. One estimate is that we have a retirement income deficit of $6.6 trillion. And half of the American population has less than $10,000 in savings. Our lack of preparedness is going to put significant strain on our families, communities, and social safety net as we try to support older Americans that are unable to afford basic living expenses. 

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

The retirement crisis is due, in part, to the disappearance of traditional pensions. We know from decades of experience that pension plans are one of the most effective ways for people to prepare for retirement. Although coverage was never universal, families with access to a pension are significantly less likely to fall into poverty during retirement.  

That is not to say 401(k)s cannot help people prepare for retirement. Saving is important, after all, and 401(k)s can be a good way to build up a nest egg. However, people need more than just an easy way to save. They need access to pooled, professional management and some protection from market and longevity risk. Those are things pensions provide without requiring participants to become investment experts.  

But we all know the pension system has been in decline for decades. Running a pension is just too much of a headache for most employers. That is especially true for small-business owners who need to focus on inventory and cash flow, not funding notices and adjusted funding target attainment percentages (AFTAPs). That is why I am proposing something new—USA Retirement Funds. 

 

(Cont’d …)

Pension plans have traditionally placed all the risk—primarily investment and longevity risk—on employers, who responded by moving away from pensions and toward 401(k)s. However, that move did not eliminate the risk—it just shifted it onto individuals who are even less able to bear it. 

USA Retirement Funds would make offering a pension benefit more attractive by eliminating all the risk to employers. Instead of shifting all the risk to individuals, USA Retirement Funds would act like insurance and spread the risk across all participants in the plan. That means benefit levels would have some flexibility to adjust to long-term market conditions, but the risk on any one individual is greatly reduced. 

Just to be clear, USA Retirement Funds would be managed by the private sector and overseen by a board of qualified trustees. There would not be a government guarantee, and the proposal relies on market forces—for example, competition between USA Retirement Funds—to keep costs low. 

Many employers currently offer excellent benefits, and they could certainly keep those plans. However, we know that about half the work force lacks access to a retirement plan, and those people are statistically much less likely to save for retirement. Therefore, under my proposal, employers who do not offer a pension or a 401(k)—without automatic enrollment and a match—would have to automatically enroll their employees in a “default” USA Retirement Fund and make modest contributions. Employees could opt out if they wanted.

After two years of hearings and countless discussions with industry experts, I believe USA Retirement Funds are a win-win for working families and the employers. However, I intend for my proposal to be the starting place in an evolving discussion, and I want to work with the plan sponsor community to find practical solutions that improve retirement security for everyone. If you have ideas, suggestions or anything else to share, I encourage you to contact me at Retirement_Security@help.senate.gov.

 


Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

«