Skip to content

FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Madoff: A Riot of Red Flags

The SEC's 2005 and 2006 examinations of Madoff's firm found that it had not disclosed it was managing client money in the advisory business, yet no enforcement action resulted. What does this illustrate for risk managers assessing regulators as a control?

It shows that regulators may spot deficiencies yet fail to escalate or enforce, so examination outcomes are not a reliable guarantee of integrity. Risk managers should not treat the absence of sanctions or a past examination as proof that a manager is sound, and should still verify independently.

  1. ARegulatory findings of non-compliance are always followed by enforcement, so a clean record signals integrity
  2. BRegulators identified deficiencies but did not escalate them, showing that examination findings alone do not ensure effective follow-throughCorrect
  3. CRegulators lack any authority to examine broker-dealers, so only advisers are monitored
  4. DDisclosure failures are immaterial to investor protection if reported returns are stable

Explanation

The SEC noted irregularities but accepted Madoff's responses or closed matters without pursuing them. This shows that detection of a deficiency does not guarantee escalation, so a risk manager should not treat a regulatory examination or its absence of sanctions as proof of integrity. The other options are factually or logically unsound.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Madoff: A Riot of Red Flags shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Madoff: A Riot of Red FlagsFree diagnostic mock

More Madoff: A Riot of Red Flags questions