Views on improving the integrity of global capital markets
14 November 2019

Ethics in Practice: Investment Management Fees. Case and Analysis–Week of 11 November

How did you do evaluating this week’s (11 November) case? Check out the analysis below.

Case

Turrow is the CEO and Evans is the chief compliance officer (CCO) at Grand Rapids Partners (GRP), a registered investment adviser with approximately US$900 million in assets under management (AUM). GRP provides financial planning and investment advisory services to around 3,000 clients consisting of high-net-worth individuals, personal and family trusts, and retirement plans. Turrow trained Evans, and Evans has spent all of his investment advisory career at GRP under Turrow’s employ and tutelage. About US$450 million in client assets are held in custody by Jameson, GRP’s broker/dealer.

Turrow is responsible for GRP’s billing, and he calculates and tracks the billing of management fees through manual calculation and Excel spreadsheets, which list the fee rates to be charged to each account. After Turrow calculates the fees and prepares the spreadsheets, Evans is responsible for billing the clients. For the client accounts held by Jameson, Evans typically sends an email to the broker with a spreadsheet listing the account numbers and fees to be charged to each account. The broker posts the fees to the account, deducts the funds, and submits the funds to GRP’s account. Jameson then sends monthly billing statements to the GRP account holders.

Typical management fees are 2% of account assets, with 1% billed annually and the other 1% billed in four quarterly installments. But many clients negotiate their rates with GRP and clients with higher account balances are charged lower percentage rates. In addition, the percentage of fees charged also varies based on the performance of the account. On several occasions, GRP bills its annual fee more than once during a 12-month billing cycle so that clients are billed annual fees for multiple years in advance. And sometimes clients are charged the 2% annual fee rather than a negotiated lower fee, and other clients are billed a full annual fee although assets are held for less than a full year. For accounts in which fees are supposed to be based on performance, GRP often bills the client the maximum agreed-on fee without considering whether the account achieved the required performance. For other accounts, the quarterly billing occurs multiple times during the quarter, causing clients to be double billed.

At times, Turrow instructs Evans to submit extra billings to the broker, claiming these extra billings are for work performed in addition to the regular advisory services or are for an “origination fee.” Evans submits these bills to Jameson without question. Turrow also bypasses Evans on several occasions and personally submits extra billing requests to Jameson directly and has Jameson deposit the fees into his personal banking account. When clients complain about incorrect billing, Turrow, or Evans at the behest of Turrow, tells them that the overbillings are the result of an inadvertent error or the fault of Jameson and refunds the client accounts. Of the characters in this case, who has violated the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct (Code and Standards)?

  1. Evans only
  2. Turrow and Evans
  3. Turrow, Evans, and Jameson
  4. Neither Turrow, Evans, or Jameson
  5. None of the above

Analysis

This case involves intentionally overcharging clients for investment management fees. All three characters in this case have violated the CFA Institute Code and Standards. Turrow submitted overbillings to Jameson for management fees that were not earned and billed clients for work that was not performed. The billings are fraudulent and violated multiple standards relating to misconduct [Standard I(D)], breaking the law [Standard I(A): Knowledge of the Law], loyalty to clients [Standard III(A): Loyalty, Prudence, and Care], misrepresentation [Standard I(C): Misrepresentation], and record retention [Standard V(C)].

Evans knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Turrow by engaging in the fraudulent billing. Turrow is Evans supervisor, and as CEO of the firm, he calculates and prepares the billings each month. But Evans follows Turrow’s direction without question and failed in his responsibilities as CCO to ensure that clients are charged the agreed-on management fees. The obviously inadequate compliance policies and procedures allow Turrow to easily manipulate the fees charged, submit multiple billings, and circumvent the CCO to submit inappropriate supplemental bills to clients. As a result, Evans’s conduct also violated many of the same standards.

The many billing irregularities, particularly multiple billings within a time period, and the request by Turrow to deposit the fees into his personal account should have raised red flags with Jameson about GRP’s inappropriate billing practices. Jameson, as the broker/dealer, has a duty to GRP, his client, to raise these issues of fraudulent and illegal conduct on the part of the CEO with someone at the investment adviser. Furthermore, Jameson failed to dissociate from the fraudulent behavior of Turrow, thereby violating Standard I(A): Knowledge of the Law. Choice C is the best response.

This case is based on a September 2019 US SEC enforcement action.

Let us know what you think of Ethics in Practice by taking this short survey.

Have an idea for a case for us to feature? Send it to us at ethicscases@cfainstitute.org.


More About the Ethics in Practice Series

Just as you need to practice to become proficient at playing a musical instrument, public speaking, or playing a sport, practicing assessing and analyzing situations and making ethical decisions develops your ethical decision-making skills. The Ethics in Practice series gives you an opportunity to “exercise” your ethical decision-making skills. Each week, we post a short vignette, drawn from real-world circumstances, regulatory cases, and CFA Institute Professional Conduct investigations, along with possible responses/actions. We then encourage you to assess the case using the CFA Institute Ethical Decision-Making Framework and through the lens of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct.


Image Credit: ©CFA Institute

About the Author(s)
Jon Stokes

Jon Stokes is the Director of Ethics and Standards Education at CFA Institute. His responsibilities include design and creation of on-line ethics education, development and maintenance of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct, and the design and management of the CFA Institute Ethical Decision-Making and Giving Voice to Values education programs. Stokes holds a JD degree.

2 thoughts on “Ethics in Practice: Investment Management Fees. Case and Analysis–Week of 11 November”

  1. Matt Gelfand says:

    All three. Turrow for double billing, billing too far in advance and for taking fees into his personal account. Evans for failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing billings and in his compliance responsibilities, and Jameson for failure to review invoices (which have not been provided) and for transfering fees directly to Turrow’s account. Finally, RIAs are required to transmit invoices to clients no later than transmitting to custodian and debiting accounts.

  2. Tampioruobari Osaro says:

    The conducts of the three parties involved are unethical which can affect the overall performance of the investment industry.

    Jameson should have have informed the regulator when he discovered some fishy sceniro was being played out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close