Connect with us
MARE BALTICUM Gaming & TECH Summit 2024

Fintech

SEC Adds Clarity, Efficiency and Transparency to Its Successful Whistleblower Award Program

Published

on

Washington, D.C.–(Newsfile Corp. – September 23, 2020) – The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to adopt amendments to the rules governing its whistleblower program that are designed to provide greater clarity to whistleblowers and increase the program’s efficiency and transparency. Concurrently, to provide additional efficiencies, as well as clarity and transparency in the award determination process, the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower published guidance regarding the process for determining award amounts for eligible whistleblowers.   

The SEC’s whistleblower program was created to incentivize individuals to report high-quality tips to the Commission and assist the agency in its efforts to combat wrongdoing and, as a result, better protect investors and the marketplace.  Since the program’s inception ten years ago, whistleblowers have made a significant impact on the Commission’s enforcement efforts and protection of investors. Original information provided by whistleblowers has led to enforcement actions in which the Commission has obtained over $2.5 billion in financial remedies, most of which has been, or is scheduled to be, returned to harmed investors. 

The SEC has awarded approximately $523 million to 97 individuals since the program began, and it has worked over the years to improve the program’s efficiency and increase incentives for whistleblowers. In the past three and a half years, the agency has made the five top largest awards in the program’s history – two at $50 million, and one each at $39 million, $37 million, and $33 million. It has also increased the pace at which it has been processing claims and making awards.  This year so far, even with the challenges presented by COVID-19, the Commission has processed more claims than in any previous year. 

“The Commission’s enforcement efforts, and most importantly, American investors and markets, have greatly benefitted from the credible information and assistance that whistleblowers have provided,” said SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton. “Whistleblowers often take professional and reputational risks in reporting their information to the SEC and we are committed to rewarding them for taking those risks and contributing to our enforcement efforts.  Today’s rule amendments will help us get more money into the hands of whistleblowers, and at a faster pace.  Experience demonstrates this added clarity, efficiency and transparency will further incentivize whistleblowers, enhance the whistleblower award program and benefit investors and our markets.” 

The amendments to the whistleblower rules are intended to provide greater transparency, efficiency and clarity, and to strengthen and bolster the program in several ways.  The rule amendments increase efficiencies around the review and processing of whistleblower award claims, and provide the Commission with additional tools to appropriately reward meritorious whistleblowers for their efforts and contributions to a successful matter. 

Among other enhancements, the amendments provide a mechanism for whistleblowers with potential awards of less than $5 million (which historically have represented nearly 75% of all whistleblower awards), subject to certain criteria, to qualify for a presumption that they will receive the maximum statutory award amount.  Other awards will continue to be evaluated consistent with past practice. 

The amendments also affirm that award amounts—which the Commission, in its discretion, can determine in percentage terms, dollar terms or some combination—are to be determined exclusively based on the application of the award factors set forth in the Commission’s whistleblower rules.  In other words, there is not a separate (post application of the award factors) assessment of whether award amounts are too small or too large.  The amendments further clarify that the Commission may waive compliance with the TCR filing requirements if a whistleblower complies with the requirements within 30 days of first providing the information or of first obtaining actual or constructive notice of the TCR filing requirements. 

The whistleblower rule amendments will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

***

FACT SHEET
SEC Open Meeting
September 23, 2020

Background

Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act added Section 21F to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), establishing the Commission’s whistleblower program.  Among other things, Section 21F authorizes the SEC to make monetary awards to eligible individuals who voluntarily provide original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions resulting in monetary sanctions over $1 million.  

Awards must be made in an amount equal to not less than 10 percent, and not more than 30 percent, of the monetary sanctions collected in the covered SEC action and certain related actions.  The amendments clarify that the form of an action—e.g., settlement agreements, deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs)—will not affect whether the action is a covered action or a related action.  The amendments also codify the Commission’s historic approach to determining whether an action is a related action, including clarifying that a law-enforcement or separate regulatory action does not qualify as a “related action” if the Commission determines that there is a separate award scheme that more appropriately applies to such law-enforcement or separate regularly action.    

Congress established a separate fund at the Treasury Department, called the Investor Protection Fund (IPF), from which whistleblower awards are paid.  No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.

The whistleblower rule amendments make certain modifications and clarifications to the existing rules, as well as several technical amendments. 

Highlights

Additional Tools in Award Determinations

  • Presumption of the statutory maximum award amount for certain awards of $5 million and less:  Historically, approximately 75% of the awards given out in the whistleblower program have been $5 million or less. 
    • For awards where the statutory maximum award amount for the covered action and any related actions is in the aggregate $5 million or less, the Commission is adding Exchange Act Rule 21F-6(c) to provide a presumption that the Commission will pay a meritorious claimant the statutory maximum amount where none of the negative award criteria specified in Rule 21F-6(b) are present, subject to certain limited exceptions. 
    • For awards over $5 million, the Commission will continue to analyze the award factors identified in Rule 21F-6 and issue awards based on the application of those factors.  Based on the historical application of the award factors, if none of the negative criteria specified in Rule 21F-6(b) are present, the award amount would be expected to be in the top third of the award range. 
    • After carefully considering the comments received, the Commission has determined not to adopt proposed Exchange Act Rule 21F-6(d)(2), which would have provided a formalized process for the Commission to conduct an enhanced review of certain awards. 
       
  • Allowing awards based on deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”) and non-prosecution agreements (“NPAs”) entered into by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), or a settlement agreement entered into by the Commission outside of the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding to address violations of the securities laws:  This amendment will ensure that whistleblowers are not disadvantaged because of the particular form of an action that the Commission or DOJ may elect to pursue.  Under the amendment, the Commission would be able to make award payments to whistleblowers based on money collected as a result of such DPAs and NPAs, as well as under settlement agreements entered into by the Commission outside of the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding to address violations of the securities laws. 
    • The amendment to the definition of “action” to include NPAs, DPAs, and similar Commission settlement agreements will apply to any such agreement that was entered into after July 21, 2010 (the date the Dodd-Frank Act became effective).  Individuals will have 90 days from the effective date of the amendments to apply for an award in connection with any such agreement that was entered between the July 2010 date and the effective date of the amendments.
       
  • Clarifying the current definition of “related action”: This amendment codifies the Commission’s approach to determining whether an action is a related action, including clarifying  that a law-enforcement or separate regulatory action does not qualify as a “related action” if the Commission determines that there is a separate award scheme that more appropriately applies to such law-enforcement or separate regulatory  action.   The presence of such a separate award scheme would not affect the Commission’s determination of the award based on the monetary sanctions collected by the Commission in the covered SEC action and any related action where such an award scheme was not present. 

Uniform Definition of “Whistleblower”

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, the Commission is modifying Rule 21F-2 to establish a uniform definition of “whistleblower” that will apply to all aspects of Exchange Act Section 21F—i.e., the award program, the heightened confidentiality requirements, and the employment anti-retaliation protections. 

  • For purposes of retaliation protection, an individual is required to report information about possible securities laws violations to the Commission “in writing.”  As required by the Supreme Court’s decision, to qualify for the retaliation protection under Section 21F, the individual must report to the Commission before experiencing the retaliation. 
     
  • To be eligible for an award or to obtain heightened confidentiality protection, the additional existing requirement that a whistleblower submit information on Form TCR or through the Commission’s online tips portal remains in place, subject to the additional discretion of the Commission to grant waivers described below. 
     
  • Additionally, the Commission is issuing interpretive guidance defining the scope of retaliatory conduct prohibited by Section 21F(h)(1)(A), which includes any retaliatory activity by an employer against a whistleblower that a reasonable employee would find materially adverse.

Increased Efficiency in Claims Review Process

The new presumption for certain awards of $5 million or less, described above, should result in gains in efficiency from streamlining the award determination process for those awards. Two further amendments are designed to help increase the Commission’s efficiency in processing whistleblower award applications.

  • New subparagraph (e) to Exchange Act Rule 21F-8 codifies the Commission’s practice of barring applicants who submit materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements in their whistleblower submission, in their other dealings with the Commission, or in related actions, and provides an important new tool for the Commission in processing frivolous award applications. 
    • To prevent repeat submitters from abusing the award application process, the rule permits the Commission to permanently bar any applicant from seeking an award after the Commission determines that the applicant has abused the process by submitting three frivolous award applications. 
    • For the first three applications determined to be frivolous, the Office of the Whistleblower will notify a claimant of its assessment and give the claimant the opportunity to withdraw the application.
       
  • New Exchange Act Rule 21F-18 affords the Commission with a summary disposition procedure for certain types of common denials, such as untimely award applications, applications that involve a tip that was not provided to the Commission in the form and manner that the rules require, and applications where the claimant’s information was never provided to or used by staff responsible for the investigation. 
    • The more streamlined process is designed to help facilitate a more timely resolution of such relatively straightforward denials, while freeing up staff resources to focus on processing potentially meritorious award claims.  Claimants will still have an opportunity to contest a preliminary denial of their claim before the Commission makes its final determination.

Clarification and Enhancement of Certain Policies and Procedures

The rule amendments also clarify and enhance certain policies, practices, and procedures in implementing the program. These amendments include the items listed below.

  • Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(e) is amended to clarify the definition of “monetary sanctions,” codifying the Commission’s current understanding and application of that term.
     
  • Section 21F of the Exchange Act provides that the determination of the amount of an award is in the discretion of the Commission.  Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 is amended to clarify the Commission’s discretion in applying the award factors and setting the award amount, including the discretion to apply the award factors in percentage terms, dollar terms or some combination thereof.  The amendments also confirm that the Commission will consider only the enumerated award factors set forth in the rule when determining the award amount.
     
  • Exchange Act Rule 21F-9 is amended to provide the Commission with additional flexibility to modify the manner in which individuals may submit Form TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral). 
    • Further, the amendment clarifies that the Commission may waive compliance with Rule 21F-9(a) and (b) for a meritorious whistleblower who provided a Form TCR:
      • within 30 days of first providing the information that he or she relies upon as a basis for a claim, or
      • within 30 days of first obtaining actual or constructive notice about those requirements (or 30 days from the date the whistleblower retains counsel to represent him or her in connection with the submission of original information, whichever occurs first). 
    • The waiver of non-compliance with Rule 21F-9(a) and (b) is automatic, rather than discretionary, when the Commission finds that the whistleblower has established that the specified conditions are satisfied.
    • The Commission continues to retain its separate discretionary exemptive authorities under Rule 21F-8(a) and Exchange Act Section 36(a) for circumstances that may warrant exemptive relief. 
       
  • Exchange Act Rule 21F-8 is amended to provide the Commission with additional flexibility regarding the forms used in connection with the whistleblower program.
     
  • Exchange Act Rule 21F-12 is amended to clarify the list of materials that the Commission may rely upon in making an award determination.
     
  • Exchange Act Rule 21F-13 is amended to clarify the materials that may comprise the administrative record for purposes of judicial review.

Commission Interpretive Guidance

In addition to the foregoing rule amendments, the Commission is publishing interpretive guidance to help clarify the meaning of “independent analysis” as that term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 21F-4 and utilized in award applications. 

  • Under the guidance, in order to qualify as “independent analysis,” a whistleblower’s submission must provide evaluation, assessment, or insight beyond what would be reasonably apparent to the Commission from publicly available information. 
     
  • In making that determination, the Commission will consider whether the whistleblower’s conclusion of possible securities violations derives from multiple sources, including sources that are not readily identified and accessed by a member of the public without specialized knowledge, unusual effort, or substantial cost, and the sources collectively raise a strong inference of a potential securities law violation that is not readily inferable by the Commission from any of the sources individually.

Finally, the Commission has decided not to adopt a specific time-based presumption of “unreasonable delay” as interpretive guidance.  The Commission will continue to assess the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether any delay was reasonably attributable to actions taken by or circumstances out of the control of the whistleblower or to unreasonable actions by the whistleblower.

Guidance from the Office of the Whistleblower

Over the past several years, the Office of the Whistleblower and the Division of Enforcement have worked to streamline and substantially accelerate the evaluation of claims for whistleblower awards and there has been substantial improvement in this regard.  To provide additional efficiencies, as well as clarity and transparency in the award determination process, the Office of the Whistleblower has contemporaneously issued staff guidance regarding the process for determining award amounts for eligible whistleblowers.  This guidance is publicly available on the SEC’s web page for the Office of the Whistleblower.

The guidance reflects the Office of the Whistleblower’s experience with the program as well as the implementation of the amendments adopted today, and it sets forth the process for the Office of the Whistleblower to propose award amounts to the Claims Review Staff, which issues a preliminary determination that is subject to Commission review.  The discretion to apply the award factors and set the award amount remains with the Commission. 

The guidance sets forth that, for awards where the statutory maximum award amount for the covered action and any related actions is in the aggregate $5 million or less, the proposed amount will be the statutory maximum where none of the negative award criteria specified in Rule 21F-6(b) are present, subject to certain limited exceptions as set forth in the rule. 

For awards over $5 million, the Office of the Whistleblower will continue to analyze the factors identified in Rule 21F-6 and propose award amounts based on the application of the award factors.  Historically, if none of the negative criteria specified in Rule 21F-6(b) were present, the majority of awards have been in the top third of the award range. 

The Office of the Whistleblower will continue to make available on its webpage (www.sec.gov/whistleblower) information regarding its approach to processing whistleblower award claims.

Additional Information to Congress

The Commission also directed the Office of the Whistleblower to include in its annual reports to Congress (beginning with the upcoming FY 2020 report), in an aggregated manner, an overview discussion of the factors that were present in the awards throughout the year, including (to the extent practicable) a qualitative discussion of how these factors affected the Commission’s determination of award amounts.

What’s Next?

The amendments to the whistleblower rules become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Fintech

How to identify authenticity in crypto influencer channels

Published

on

 

Modern brands stake on influencer marketing, with 76% of users making a purchase after seeing a product on social media.The cryptocurrency industry is no exception to this trend. However, promoting crypto products through influencer marketing can be particularly challenging. Crypto influencers pose a significant risk to a brand’s reputation and ROI due to rampant scams. Approximately 80% of channels provide fake statistics, including followers counts and engagement metrics. Additionally, this niche is characterized by high CPMs, which can increase the risk of financial loss for brands.

In this article Nadia Bubennnikova, Head of agency Famesters, will explore the most important things to look for in crypto channels to find the perfect match for influencer marketing collaborations.

 

  1. Comments 

There are several levels related to this point.

 

LEVEL 1

Analyze approximately 10 of the channel’s latest videos, looking through the comments to ensure they are not purchased from dubious sources. For example, such comments as “Yes sir, great video!”; “Thanks!”; “Love you man!”; “Quality content”, and others most certainly are bot-generated and should be avoided.

Just to compare: 

LEVEL 2

Don’t rush to conclude that you’ve discovered the perfect crypto channel just because you’ve come across some logical comments that align with the video’s topic. This may seem controversial, but it’s important to dive deeper. When you encounter a channel with logical comments, ensure that they are unique and not duplicated under the description box. Some creators are smarter than just buying comments from the first link that Google shows you when you search “buy YouTube comments”. They generate topics, provide multiple examples, or upload lists of examples, all produced by AI. You can either manually review the comments or use a script to parse all the YouTube comments into an Excel file. Then, add a formula to highlight any duplicates.

LEVEL 3

It is also a must to check the names of the profiles that leave the comments: most of the bot-generated comments are easy to track: they will all have the usernames made of random symbols and numbers, random first and last name combinations, “Habibi”, etc. No profile pictures on all comments is also a red flag.

 

LEVEL 4

Another important factor to consider when assessing comment authenticity is the posting date. If all the comments were posted on the same day, it’s likely that the traffic was purchased.

 

2. Average views number per video

This is indeed one of the key metrics to consider when selecting an influencer for collaboration, regardless of the product type. What specific factors should we focus on?

First & foremost: the views dynamics on the channel. The most desirable type of YouTube channel in terms of views is one that maintains stable viewership across all of its videos. This stability serves as proof of an active and loyal audience genuinely interested in the creator’s content, unlike channels where views vary significantly from one video to another.

Many unauthentic crypto channels not only buy YouTube comments but also invest in increasing video views to create the impression of stability. So, what exactly should we look at in terms of views? Firstly, calculate the average number of views based on the ten latest videos. Then, compare this figure to the views of the most recent videos posted within the past week. If you notice that these new videos have nearly the same number of views as those posted a month or two ago, it’s a clear red flag. Typically, a YouTube channel experiences lower views on new videos, with the number increasing organically each day as the audience engages with the content. If you see a video posted just three days ago already garnering 30k views, matching the total views of older videos, it’s a sign of fraudulent traffic purchased to create the illusion of view stability.

 

3. Influencer’s channel statistics

The primary statistics of interest are region and demographic split, and sometimes the device types of the viewers.

LEVEL 1

When reviewing the shared statistics, the first step is to request a video screencast instead of a simple screenshot. This is because it takes more time to organically edit a video than a screenshot, making it harder to manipulate the statistics. If the creator refuses, step two (if only screenshots are provided) is to download them and check the file’s properties on your computer. Look for details such as whether it was created with Adobe Photoshop or the color profile, typically Adobe RGB, to determine if the screenshot has been edited.

LEVEL 2

After confirming the authenticity of the stats screenshot, it’s crucial to analyze the data. For instance, if you’re examining a channel conducted in Spanish with all videos filmed in the same language, it would raise concerns to find a significant audience from countries like India or Turkey. This discrepancy, where the audience doesn’t align with regions known for speaking the language, is a red flag.

If we’re considering an English-language crypto channel, it typically suggests an international audience, as English’s global use for quality educational content on niche topics like crypto. However, certain considerations apply. For instance, if an English-speaking channel shows a significant percentage of Polish viewers (15% to 30%) without any mention of the Polish language, it could indicate fake followers and views. However, if the channel’s creator is Polish, occasionally posts videos in Polish alongside English, and receives Polish comments, it’s important not to rush to conclusions.

Example of statistics

 

Wrapping up

These are the main factors to consider when selecting an influencer to promote your crypto product. Once you’ve launched the campaign, there are also some markers to show which creators did bring the authentic traffic and which used some tools to create the illusion of an active and engaged audience. While this may seem obvious, it’s still worth mentioning. After the video is posted, allow 5-7 days for it to accumulate a basic number of views, then check performance metrics such as views, clicks, click-through rate (CTR), signups, and conversion rate (CR) from clicks to signups.

If you overlooked some red flags when selecting crypto channels for your launch, you might find the following outcomes: channels with high views numbers and high CTRs, demonstrating the real interest of the audience, yet with remarkably low conversion rates. In the worst-case scenario, you might witness thousands of clicks resulting in zero to just a few signups. While this might suggest technical issues in other industries, in crypto campaigns it indicates that the creator engaged in the campaign not only bought fake views and comments but also link clicks. And this happens more often than you may realize.

Summing up, choosing the right crypto creator to promote your product is indeed a tricky job that requires a lot of resources to be put into the search process. 

Author Nadia Bubennikova, Head of agency  at Famesters

Author

Nadia Bubennikova, Head of agency at Famesters

Continue Reading

Fintech

Central banks and the FinTech sector unite to change global payments space

Published

on

central-banks-and-the-fintech-sector-unite-to-change-global-payments-space

 

The BIS, along with seven leading central banks and a cohort of private financial firms, has embarked on an ambitious venture known as Project Agorá.

Named after the Greek word for “marketplace,” this initiative stands at the forefront of exploring the potential of tokenisation to significantly enhance the operational efficiency of the monetary system worldwide.

Central to this pioneering project are the Bank of France (on behalf of the Eurosystem), the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Mexico, the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These institutions have joined forces under the banner of Project Agorá, in partnership with an extensive assembly of private financial entities convened by the Institute of International Finance (IIF).

At the heart of Project Agorá is the pursuit of integrating tokenised commercial bank deposits with tokenised wholesale central bank money within a unified, public-private programmable financial platform. By harnessing the advanced capabilities of smart contracts and programmability, the project aspires to unlock new transactional possibilities that were previously infeasible or impractical, thereby fostering novel opportunities that could benefit businesses and consumers alike.

The collaborative effort seeks to address and surmount a variety of structural inefficiencies that currently plague cross-border payments. These challenges include disparate legal, regulatory, and technical standards; varying operating hours and time zones; and the heightened complexity associated with conducting financial integrity checks (such as anti-money laundering and customer verification procedures), which are often redundantly executed across multiple stages of a single transaction due to the involvement of several intermediaries.

As a beacon of experimental and exploratory projects, the BIS Innovation Hub is committed to delivering public goods to the global central banking community through initiatives like Project Agorá. In line with this mission, the BIS will soon issue a call for expressions of interest from private financial institutions eager to contribute to this ground-breaking project. The IIF will facilitate the involvement of private sector participants, extending an invitation to regulated financial institutions representing each of the seven aforementioned currencies to partake in this transformative endeavour.

Source: fintech.globa

The post Central banks and the FinTech sector unite to change global payments space appeared first on HIPTHER Alerts.

Continue Reading

Fintech

TD Bank inks multi-year strategic partnership with Google Cloud

Published

on

td-bank-inks-multi-year-strategic-partnership-with-google-cloud

 

TD Bank has inked a multi-year deal with Google Cloud as it looks to streamline the development and deployment of new products and services.

The deal will see the Canadian banking group integrate the vendor’s cloud services into a wider portion of its technology solutions portfolio, a move which TD expects will enable it “to respond quickly to changing customer expectations by rolling out new features, updates, or entirely new financial products at an accelerated pace”.

This marks an expansion of the already established relationship between TD Bank and Google Cloud after the group previously adopted the vendor’s Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) for TD Securities Automated Trading (TDSAT), the Chicago-based subsidiary of its investment banking unit, TD Securities.

TDSAT uses GKE for process automation and quantitative modelling across fixed income markets, resulting in the development of a “data-driven research platform” capable of processing large research workloads in trading.

Dan Bosman, SVP and CIO of TD Securities, claims the infrastructure has so far supported TDSAT with “compute-intensive quantitative analysis” while expanding the subsidiary’s “trading volumes and portfolio size”.

TD’s new partnership with Google Cloud will see the group attempt to replicate the same level of success across its entire portfolio.

Source: fintechfutures.com

The post TD Bank inks multi-year strategic partnership with Google Cloud appeared first on HIPTHER Alerts.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Latest news

Trending