Blackstone Hires Ex-SEC Attorney as Head of Compliance

Marshall Sprung oversaw the enforcement unit that brought charges against Blackstone for its fee practices last year.

Blackstone has hired a former US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement chief to lead compliance, seven months after agreeing to a $39 million fine levied by the regulator for improper fee disclosure practices.

Marshall Sprung, who left the SEC last month, joins Blackstone as a managing director and global head of compliance, according to a source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Sprung first entered the SEC in 2003, and over the next decade rose to co-chief of asset management enforcement.

“Marshall has served as a thoughtful, creative, and driven co-chief of the asset management unit,” Enforcement Division Director Andrew Ceresney said in announcing Sprung’s departure.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

While Marshall was co-chief, the unit brought enforcement against Blackstone and its private equity competitor KKR. The two firms’ fee-related regulatory penalties totaled $69 million last year. 

Blackstone in particular attracted fiduciary duty claims, having failed to fully inform investors about accelerated monitoring fees.

Sprung called serving with his team in the SEC’s enforcement division an “honor.” 

“I am particularly proud of my colleagues in the asset management unit for their grit and dedication in ferreting out misconduct by investment advisers and developing the expertise need to protect investors from fraud and other unlawful practices in the complex asset management industry,” he said.

Marshall’s departure from the SEC came shortly after that of his former co-chief Julie Riewe, who left to become a partner at regulatory defense law firm Debevoise & Plimpton. Riewe’s successor Anthony Kelly now leads the unit. 

Related: The SEC’s New Co-Chief of Asset Management Enforcement & Blackstone Pays $39M for Fee Disclosure Failings

Is Your Asset Manager Telling the Truth?

The “prickly relationship” between consultants and managers worsens alongside the reliability of reported data, according to research.

Asset managers are attempting to “fudge their way to success” through unclear performance reporting—and the problem is “getting worse,” according to Cerulli Associates research.

Some managers report back-tested data to fund selectors and consultants as actual fund performance, while others fail to clarify whether performance is net or gross of fees.

“Clarity—or lack thereof—is the issue,” said Tony Griffiths, senior analyst at Cerulli. 

Asset managers have been known to rebrand products or alter mandates to disguise poor performance, consultants told the firm in interviews. Product data may change between a pitch and a final proposal “without explanation.”

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

Managers were also accused of aggregating assets to include segregated mandates, despite the opacity of these side-deals.  

“Cerulli does not see the long-running prickly relationship between investment consultant and manager easing anytime soon, especially in the UK where demand for consultant-led fiduciary management services continues to grow and yet fiduciary management performance data are not widely available,” the analytics group said in its report.

Griffiths also expressed “some sympathy” with managers over consultants’ claims that they are “launching or adapting products based primarily on market demand.”

“Many firms feel that investment consultants set moving targets,” Griffiths said. “Managers are expected to build products and services based on personal convictions, while at the same time addressing the needs of the consultant; the suggestion being that products can be tweaked, but not tailored—a potentially impossible balancing act.”

Related: The Bar for Managers ‘Has Never Been Higher’ & Personality Metrics of Strong Asset Managers

«