{"id":5242,"date":"2012-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-01-19T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2012\/01\/ubs_global_asset_management_to"},"modified":"2022-04-06T10:50:45","modified_gmt":"2022-04-06T15:50:45","slug":"ubs-global-asset-management-to","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/","title":{"rendered":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management<\/a> will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three mutual fund portfolios the proper price. This alleged failure caused investors to receive a misstatement regarding the funds\u2019 net asset values. By agreeing to settle the charges, UBSGAM is not admitting to or denying the findings.<\/p>\n

The SEC start investigating UBSGAM<\/a> after SEC examiners conducted a routine check of the financial firm. According to its order, in 2008 UBSGAM bought about 54-complex fixed-income securities of $22 million, which was an aggregate purchase price. The majority of the securities were part of subordinated tranches of nonagency MBS with underlying collateral, which were were mortgages that weren\u2019t in compliance with requirements to be part of MBS-guaranteed or to have been issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. CDO\u2019s and asset-backed securities were among these securities.<\/p>\n

After the securities were bought, 48 of them were priced substantially over the transaction price. This is because the pricing sources that provided the valuations to UBSGAM didn\u2019t appear to factor in the price that the funds paid for the securities. Some quotations were not priced on a daily basis, while others were formulated using ending price from the last month. It wasn\u2019t until over 2 weeks after UBSGAM started getting price-tolerant reports pointing out such discrepancies that it\u2019s Global Valuation Committee finally met. <\/p>\n

By using the prices that the 3rd party pricing service or a broker-dealer provided, the SEC contends that the mutual funds did not abide by their own valuation procedures, which mandate that the securities use the transaction price value until the financial firm makes a fair value determination or gets a response to a price challenge based on the discrepancy noted in the price tolerance report. The transaction price can be used for 5 business days, when a decision would have to be made on the fair value. The SEC concluded that by not making sure that these procedures were being followed, the financial firm caused the mutual funds to violate the Investment Company Act\u2019s Rule 38a-1. <\/p>\n

The SEC also determined that due to the securities not being timely or properly priced at fair value for a number of days in 2008, the funds were misstated (up to 10 cents in some cases) and they were then purchased, sold, or redeemed based on NAVs that were not accurate and higher than they should have been. <\/p>\n

Read the SEC’s Order Against UBS <\/a> (PDF)<\/p>\n

\nMore Blog Posts:<\/strong>
\nSIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don\u2019t Repay Promissory Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2012<\/p>\n

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million<\/a>, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 14, 2012<\/p>\n

$78M Insider Trading Scam: “Operation Perfect Hedge\u201d Leads to Criminal Charges for Seven Financial Industry Professionals<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 18, 2012<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three mutual fund portfolios the proper price. This alleged failure caused investors to receive a misstatement regarding the funds\u2019 net asset values. By agreeing to settle the charges, UBSGAM is not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3752,3760,3795,3761,3755],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-financial-firms","category-sec-enforcement","category-sec-settlements","category-securities-and-exchange-commis","category-ubs"],"yoast_head":"\nUBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three — January 19, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three — January 19, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2012","description":"The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three — January 19, 2012","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2012","twitter_description":"The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three — January 19, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations","datePublished":"2012-01-19T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-06T15:50:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/"},"wordCount":513,"articleSection":["Financial Firms","SEC Enforcement","SEC Settlements","Securities and Exchange Commission","UBS"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/","name":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-01-19T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-06T15:50:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three — January 19, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/ubs-global-asset-management-to\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1my","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5242"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26597,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions\/26597"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}