Court Upholds SEC on “Backtested” Investment Strategy Illustrations
An investment adviser seeking to show how a particular investment strategy would have performed during specified time periods would be well advised to:
-
use only historical performance data and not a mix of historical data and hypothetical assumptions and
-
reflect all aspects of the investment strategy and not omit the impact of any key aspect of the strategy.
These are the lessons of Lucia v. SEC, an August opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding an SEC decision that an adviser violated the anti-fraud provisions of Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act and the SEC’s advertising Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) thereunder.
The case, which involved an adviser’s free seminars on retirement planning, clarifies what is required for so-called "backtesting" illustrations. The adviser purported to show prospective clients that the adviser’s investment strategy was superior to others in allowing retirees to live comfortably off their investment income while also leaving a large inheritance.
The adviser showed slides that it claimed "backtested" the strategy. But the SEC found they overstated the strategy’s success by understating historical inflation rates, overstating historical investment return rates, and, contrary to the strategy, using an artificially high percentage of assets invested in stocks during a period of favorable stock market performance.
The SEC concluded that had the adviser used only historical data and reallocated assets as the strategy required, the illustrations would have revealed the strategy had run out of assets, not grown as advertised.
The court upheld the SEC in rejecting the adviser’s defense that the slides contained disclaimers disclosing that the "backtesting" illustrations were based on certain assumptions. Rather, such disclaimers did not alter the erroneous "overall impression" conveyed by the adviser that the "backtests" showed how the strategy would have performed.
©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.