Broker Dealer Regulation - Reporting Requirements - Comment Letters
|Proposal Date||Final Rule Issue||Effective Date, SIPC Reports||Effective Date, SEC Reports|
|June 27, 2011||August 21, 2013||December 31, 2013||June 1, 2014|
Comment letters regarding proposed broker-dealer reporting regulation.
SEC Comment Letters
August 25, 2011
In the comment letter, SIFMA comments on the following topics:
- "the definitions of 'material non-compliance' and 'material weakness in the Proposed Amendments;
- the proposed requirement that an auditor disclose any 'material modification' that should be made to the Exemption Report;
- the access to audit documents and auditors granted to the Commission and DEA examination staff under the Proposed Amendments;
- the proposed Form Custody; and
- certain costs associated."
SIFMA also provides a list of requested clarifications regarding form custody and suggests that the first Form Custody filing should happen no earlier than three quarters after the final rule effective date.
August 26, 2011
From the comment letter:
- "We recommend the Commission publish additional guidance to further define instances of material non-compliance, given the heightened reporting and notification requirements for material non-compliance matters contemplated in the Proposed Rule.
- We recommend that the proposed assertion in the Compliance Report relating to the effectiveness of internal control over compliance with the Financial Responsibility Rules pertain to an assessment as of a point in time, the broker-dealer’s fiscal year-end, rather than the entire fiscal year.
- We do not support the notification requirements outlined in the Proposed Rule. We believe the notification requirements that currently exist in Rule 17a-5 are sufficient to address the Commission’s objectives.
- We do not support the performance of a review engagement, as contemplated by the PCAOB’s interim attestation standards, of a broker-dealer’s assertion that it is exempt from Rule 15c3-3.
- We recommend eliminating the proposed transition period and deferring the effective date to fiscal years ending on or after 15 December 2012 to give both broker-dealers and their auditors the time to adequately address final rules.
- We do not support the “clean up” amendment in the Proposed Rule that would expand the ability of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to bring lawsuits against the independent auditors of broker-dealers.
- We also believe clarifying certain other aspects of the Proposed Rule, as outlined below, would facilitate more consistent application and compliance by both broker-dealers and auditors."