Investment Advisers Act of 1940 - Section 206(3)
Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC

August 31, 2005

Your letter dated August 17, 2005 requests our assurance that we would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission against Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC ("CSFB") under Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act") if, as described more fully in your letter, CSFB uses certain prior global consent forms to provide written disclosures to and obtain written consents from its investment advisory clients ("Global Consents") regarding certain proposed principal transactions. That is, CSFB would like to use Global Consents, rather than transaction-by-transaction consents, to communicate with its clients about the purchase of certain of the clients' securities by CSFB's affiliated derivatives dealer.

BACKGROUND

You state the following: CSFB is a financial services firm registered with the Commission as both an investment adviser and a broker-dealer. In its capacity as an investment adviser, CSFB provides a volatility management program ("Program") to very high net worth clients and institutions that hold large positions in individual equity securities.¹ As described below, the Program utilizes covered call options² to either: (i) provide yield enhancement on the client's underlying stock position; or (ii) enable the client to exit the underlying stock position (or portions thereof) at specified price targets. The Program is driven by a quantitative analytical model ("Model") that calculates the probability that the underlying stock price will close above the strike price of a given covered call option.³

CSFB sets the Program's parameters based on each client's individual investment objectives, that is, whether the client seeks yield enhancement, seeks to exit a stock position, or both, as well as client-imposed investment restrictions and risk tolerance guidelines that will govern the management of the client's account. If the client's objectives include yield enhancement, CSFB seeks to create an additional stream of cash flow or a "synthetic dividend" for the client by selling a portfolio of covered call options with several strike prices and maturities.⁴ CSFB will also actively manage the positions by continuously monitoring the client's covered call options and seeking to buy back shorter-dated covered call options and sell longer-dated covered call options at a higher strike price when the underlying stock price is increasing and the client's covered call options positions are at risk of being exercised. If the client's objectives include exiting all or part of the client's underlying stock position, CSFB seeks to raise the client's effective selling price by selling covered call options on only a percentage of the underlying stock and actively managing the position to achieve the best risk-adjusted returns until the client's target exit level is reached.

The covered call options transactions are entered into based on the analyses provided by the Model, which projects future stock prices based on the risk-free rate of return and a comparison of implied versus historical volatility, and are not driven by the fundamental analyses of the underlying stock. The strike price, term and premium amount of individual covered call options may vary, but the type of option (i.e., a call option), the underlying type of security, the method of settlement, and other characteristics of the covered call options will be the same for each client. CSFB, on average, will enter into between four and eight covered call options transactions for each underlying stock position in any one year. The goal for each client is to establish an options portfolio for the underlying stock that is: (i) diversified across strike prices; and (ii) diversified across the maturity spectrum.

CSFB will sell an exchange-listed call option for the client when an exchange-listed call option is available that meets the client's investment objectives and fits the characteristics required by the Model. Listed call options meeting those criteria, however, are not always obtainable.⁵ CSFB, in those circumstances, will seek to enter into covered call options transactions for a client in the over-the-counter ("OTC") market. You represent that CSFB can construct options in the OTC market ("OTC Calls") with the precise strike prices and expiration dates that are needed to meet the economic terms specified by the Model, and can achieve broader diversification for its clients by allowing the specification of strike price and maturity on a trade-by-trade basis.

Currently, CSFB solicits bids for OTC Calls from two or more major financial services firms ("third-party dealers") on negotiated terms. The client must first establish an account with a third-party dealer before CSFB can solicit bids from that particular third-party dealer. You claim that clients are substantially inconvenienced by the burdens of establishing accounts with different third-party dealers because of the amount of OTC Calls that are effected for a client over the course of one year and the number of different third-party dealers.⁶ You claim that this places practical limitations on the number of accounts that a client is willing to open with different third-party dealers, which limits CSFB's ability to expand the number of third-party dealers from which it can seek more favorable bids on behalf of the client.

CSFB proposes, therefore, to have its clients sell OTC Calls to CSFB's affiliated OTC derivatives dealer ("Derivatives Affiliate"). In other words, CSFB would cause its clients to engage in certain principal transactions with the Derivatives Affiliate, as described in more detail below (the "Proposed Principal Transactions").⁷ Specifically, CSFB would seek bids from third-party dealers to buy a covered call option from its Derivatives Affiliate (on terms that would be identical to those of the OTC Call that the Derivatives Affiliate would purchase from CSFB's client) when an appropriate and desired covered call option is not available on the listed market. Bids would be evaluated solely based on price and the ability of the third-party dealer to execute the transaction in a timely manner.

If CSFB receives bids that it determines would meet the client's needs (i.e., that meet the parameters determined by the Model), CSFB would sell an OTC Call for the client's account to its Derivatives Affiliate on the same terms set forth in the best bid or bids received from the third-party dealer(s). In addition, CSFB would direct its Derivatives Affiliate to simultaneously sell an offsetting OTC Call to the third-party dealer(s) on terms that mirror those of the contract purchased from the client ("Mirror OTC Call").

The premium and strike price and other terms of each OTC Call purchased by the Derivatives Affiliate from a client would be identical to the terms of the Mirror OTC Call. If a third-party dealer exercised a Mirror OTC Call, the Derivatives Affiliate would in turn exercise its OTC Call with the client and obtain cash or the underlying stock from the client. You represent that Derivatives Affiliate would be able to exercise an OTC Call only upon the exercise of the Mirror OTC Call by the third-party dealer. You also represent that the Mirror OTC Calls would completely offset the Derivatives Affiliate's transactions with the clients so as to prevent the Derivatives Affiliate from profiting from the premium or strike price of any OTC Call. A client's underlying stock would secure the client's obligations under an OTC Call as well as the Derivatives Affiliate's offsetting obligations under each Mirror OTC Call.

The Derivatives Affiliate, for its services, would charge each client a standard servicing fee that would be capped at a fixed rate or amount (the "proposed fee rate").⁸ You represent that the proposed fee rate would be both commensurate with the work performed by the Derivatives Affiliate and compares favorably with the fees charged by other major brokerage firms for executing OTC covered call option transactions for institutional clients. The proposed fee and CSFB's Program advisory fees would be the only compensation earned by the Derivatives Affiliate or CSFB from the Proposed Principal Transactions, and you represent further that the advisory fee that a client pays to CSFB is not dependent on the number of transactions in the client's account.

Each client would consent to the Proposed Principal Transactions through a written Global Consent. The Global Consent would apprise the clients of the capacities in which CSFB and the Derivatives Affiliate would be acting and the potential conflicts of interest raised in connection with the Proposed Principal Transactions. The Global Consent would disclose the nature and maximum amount of compensation to be charged by the Derivatives Affiliate on each OTC Call (i.e., the proposed fee rate). The Global Consent would cover only the OTC Calls to be entered into within one year (or such shorter period specified by the client) of the date of the client's written consent, unless renewed by the client in writing for another year (or such shorter period specified by the client). The variables for each covered call option transaction (i.e., the strike price, premium, expiration date, quantity of shares covered, and time of the transaction, as well as the amount of the proposed fee paid to the Derivatives Affiliate) would be shown on the confirmation statement for each transaction that would be sent to the client by the Derivatives Affiliate, as promptly as possible, and in any event at or before completion of each transaction in the Program, and on the client's quarterly account statements from CSFB. In addition, a client could cancel participation in the Program upon 30 days' written notice to CSFB and may withdraw his or her Global Consent to any further Proposed Principal Transactions with the Derivatives Affiliate at any time.⁹

You claim that by structuring transactions in this manner, the client would have a single account, a single standardized OTC options agreement and a single collateral agreement with CSFB's Derivatives Affiliate.¹⁰ This would save clients substantial time, cost and paperwork, and would protect the confidentiality of client information.

Accordingly, you request relief from the transaction-by-transaction disclosure and consent requirements of Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act that would apply to each Proposed Principal Transaction. You believe that transaction-by-transaction disclosure and consent would undermine the Program because clients who would not be available to consent to the Proposed Principal Transactions within the short timeframes dictated by the Program would not be able to enter into the OTC Calls that would most benefit them.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act, in relevant part, makes it unlawful for any investment adviser, directly or indirectly, acting as principal for its own account, knowingly to sell any security to, or purchase any security from, a client without disclosing to such client in writing, before the completion of the transaction, the capacity in which the adviser is acting and obtaining the client's consent to the transaction.¹¹ Section 206(3) is intended to address, as relevant here, the potential for self-dealing that could arise when an investment adviser acts as principal in a transaction with a client, such as through price manipulation.¹² To address the potential for self-dealing, Section 206(3) requires, among other things, transaction-by-transaction disclosure to, and consent by, the client prior to the completion of each principal transaction.¹³

You question whether Section 206(3) would apply to the Proposed Principal Transactions because of the Mirror OTC Call, notwithstanding the fact that the Derivatives Affiliate, acting for itself, would purchase from a client an OTC Call, as well as the underlying stock upon the exercise of the option.¹⁴ You contend that the Global Consent rather than prior transaction-by-transaction disclosure and consent would address the limited conflicts of interest that may be raised by the Proposed Principal Transactions.¹⁵

You claim that the Proposed Principal Transactions would not raise the concerns regarding price manipulation by CSFB or the Derivatives Affiliate because of the Mirror OTC Calls between the Derivatives Affiliate and the third-party dealers. You represent that the Mirror OTC Calls would completely offset the Derivatives Affiliate's transactions with the clients so as to prevent the Derivatives Affiliate from profiting from the premium or strike price of any OTC Call. You contend that CSFB and the Derivatives Affiliate would have no incentive to engage in price manipulation because they could not benefit from any such manipulation.¹⁶ You claim that, in essence, any OTC Call, and any underlying stock (upon exercise), would pass through the Derivatives Affiliate's account only to facilitate a client's transactions with a third-party dealer. You contend that, consequently, the Proposed Principal Transactions should not implicate Section 206(3) because they are akin to transactions in which the Derivates Affiliate acts solely as an agent for a client.

You represent that the Global Consents would apprise the clients of the capacities in which CSFB and the Derivatives Affiliate would be acting, the proposed fee rate that the clients would pay to the Derivatives Affiliate, and any potential conflicts of interest raised in connection with the Proposed Principal Transactions.¹⁷ For instance, the Global Consents would apprise clients that the Proposed Principal Transactions may raise the concern that CSFB would cause a client to sell OTC Calls in order to generate proposed fee payments on those transactions. You note that the Global Consents, along with the confirmation statements and account statements, that CSFB will provide to each client, would allow a client to monitor the number and appropriateness of the OTC Calls that CSFB caused the client to enter into. You also contend that the clients' financial sophistication (as evidenced by the substantial amount of assets that a client must commit to the Program) would allow them to assess that information and evaluate whether or not to participate in the Program. You also note that the Global Consents are limited. That is, they would extend for only up to one year, and clients could withdraw their Global Consents at any time. You assert that, consequently, transaction-by-transaction disclosure and consent would be unnecessary, and would impede the operation of the Program for the benefit of the clients.

Based upon the facts and representations set forth in your letter, we would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission against CSFB under Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act if, as described more fully in your letter, CSFB uses the Global Consents to provide written disclosures to and obtain written consents from its clients regarding the Proposed Principal Transactions.¹⁸ Our position is based upon the facts and representations set forth in your letter, including your representations that:

• Each client would consent to the Proposed Principal Transactions through a written Global Consent. The Global Consent would cover only the OTC Calls to be entered into within one year (or such shorter period specified by the client) of the date of the client's written consent, unless renewed by the client in writing for another year (or such shorter period specified by the client);
   
• The Global Consent will apprise the clients of the capacities in which CSFB and the Derivatives Affiliate will be acting and the potential conflicts of interest raised in connection with the Proposed Principal Transactions. The Global Consent will disclose the nature and maximum amount of compensation to be charged by the Derivatives Affiliate on each OTC Call (i.e., the proposed fee rate);¹⁹
   
• Mirror OTC Calls will completely offset the Derivatives Affiliate's transactions with the clients so as to prevent the Derivatives Affiliate from profiting from the premium or strike price of any OTC Call, and the Derivatives Affiliate will be able to exercise an OTC Call only upon the exercise of the Mirror OTC Call by the third-party dealer;
   
• The variables for each covered call option transaction (i.e., the strike price, premium, expiration date, quantity of shares covered, and time of the transaction, as well as the amount of the proposed fee paid to the Derivatives Affiliate) will be shown on the confirmation statement for each transaction that will be sent to the client by the Derivatives Affiliate, as promptly as possible, and in any event at or before completion of each transaction in the Program, and on the client's quarterly account statements from CSFB;
   
• Each client can cancel participation in the Program upon 30 days' written notice to CSFB and may withdraw his or her Global Consent to any further Proposed Principal Transactions with the Derivatives Affiliate at any time; and
   
• An advisory client must commit a minimum of $10 million of underlying stock to be managed under the Program. In most cases, a client will have a minimum net worth of at least $20 million excluding assets committed to the Program.
   

This response expresses our views on enforcement action only and does not express any legal conclusions on the questions presented. Because our position is based on the facts and representations in your letter, you should note that any different facts or representations may require a different conclusion.

Kenneth C. Fang
Senior Counsel

Endnotes

---

¹ To participate in the Program, an advisory client must commit a minimum of $10 million of underlying stock to be managed under the Program. In most cases, a client will have a net worth of at least $20 million excluding assets committed to the Program.

² For purposes of the letter, a covered call option is a contract that allows, but does not require, the buyer of the option to purchase specified stock from the CSFB client during a specified time period at a previously determined price ("strike price"). The option buyer pays the CSFB client for the contract (the "premium") and will also pay the strike price upon exercise of the option. The covered call option is deemed to be "covered" because the client owns the relevant amount of the stock underlying the option. The specified time period during which the buyer may exercise the covered call option will normally be less than one year and in most cases will be between 30 and 120 days. The options contracts that CSFB sells for a client upon first entering the Program typically have an exercise period of between 30 and 90 days.

³ An option buyer typically will exercise the option and acquire the underlying stock from the CSFB client if the underlying stock price closes above (i.e., is greater than) the strike price of the option. Conversely, an option buyer generally will not exercise the option if the underlying stock price is less than the strike price.

⁴ Clients may achieve yield enhancement through the covered call options when the market price of the underlying stock is less than or equal to the strike price because the buyer normally will not exercise the option under those circumstances and the client will therefore retain both the option premium and the underlying stock.

⁵ There are no listed options for certain underlying stocks. In other instances, there may not be a sufficient number of listed options available with the characteristics that are identified by the Model because of the size of the client's underlying stock position. In addition, covered call options having the specific terms that are determined by the Model may not be available in the listed options market because listed options have standard strike price increments and are only available based on pre-determined expiration cycles.

⁶ You represent that establishing an account can take several weeks and involves voluminous paperwork and negotiation with each third-party dealer. You also represent that monitoring the underlying stock that is pledged as collateral to the various third-party dealers is a time-consuming process that must be handled manually and individually by CSFB.

⁷ A Proposed Principal Transaction would include the Derivatives Affiliate's purchase of an OTC Call from a client, as well as the Derivatives Affiliate's purchase of the underlying stock upon any exercise of the option.

⁸ The proposed fee rate could increase if market conditions dictated a higher fee rate and clients provide prior written consent to the increased amount. The Derivatives Affiliate may lower the proposed fee rate for certain lower-priced underlying stocks, without obtaining prior client consent. You do not ask, and we take no position regarding, what proposed fee rate would be consistent with CSFB's duty to seek to obtain and, the Derivatives Affiliate's duty to obtain, best execution of a client's securities transaction.

⁹ In addition, CSFB would maintain records of each OTC Call contract bought by the Derivatives Affiliate from a client, and each Mirror OTC Call, including the bids received from the third-party dealers for the OTC Call and the names of such third-party dealers. You represent that CSFB would make such information available to the client upon request.

¹⁰ You claim that this would limit the margin of error that arises when transferring collateral between dealers (e.g., human error that is always present when entering into OTC options contracts for the account of a client, given that the details of these transactions, the supporting paperwork and the transfers of collateral are handled manually or by telephone).

¹¹ Section 206(3) also makes it unlawful for any investment adviser acting as broker for a person other than its client knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the client without providing disclosure and obtaining consent consistent with the requirements of the section (a "206(3) agency transaction"). We believe that the Proposed Principal Transactions are not 206(3) agency transactions based on your representation that the Derivatives Affiliate would not act as a broker for any person other than the CSFB client in connection with the Proposed Principal Transactions (e.g., the Derivatives Affiliate would not act as broker for any third-party dealer).

In addition, Section 206(3) applies to certain principal or agency transactions engaged in, or effected by, a broker-dealer that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a registered investment adviser. See Interpretation of Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1732 (July 17, 1998) at n. 3 ("1998 Interpretive Release").

¹² See Investment Trusts and Investment Companies: Hearings on S. 3580 Before the Subcomm. of the Comm. on Banking and Currency, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 320-22 (1940). Section 206(3) is also intended to address the potential for the dumping of unwanted securities into a client's account. Id. The Proposed Principal Transactions do not raise dumping concerns because the Derivatives Affiliate would buy certain securities from a client (i.e., the OTC Calls and, possibly, the underlying stock) rather than "dump" or sell any security to the client.

¹³ See Opinion of Director of Trading and Exchange Division, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 40 (Feb. 5, 1945). Blanket disclosure and consent, rather than transaction-by-transaction consent, generally will not suffice because of the potential for self-dealing that can be associated with each principal transaction. The Commission has instituted enforcement actions against investment advisers that violated Section 206(3) when they entered into principal transactions with their clients using prior blanket disclosures and consents. See In the Matter of Stephens, Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1666 (Sept. 16, 1997); In the Matter of Clariden Asset Management (New York) Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1504 (July 10, 1995). In those cases, the principals acted as market makers and had the opportunity to profit when the market price of a security sold to a client out of its inventory was higher than the average cost of that security held in its inventory.

¹⁴ The Derivatives Affiliate is under common control with CSFB. See supra note 11.

¹⁵ We note that Form ADV requires the disclosure of any participation or interest that a related party to the investment adviser may have in a client's transactions. Additionally, an investment adviser must disclose when a related person engages in these transactions and what restrictions, internal procedures, or disclosures are used for conflicts of interest in those transactions. See Item 9, Part II of Form ADV; Item 8, Part 1A of Form ADV.

¹⁶ You also contend, in essence, that CSFB and the Derivatives Affiliate cannot engage in price manipulation because the Model, and not CSFB, sets the premium and strike price for each OTC Call. We note that CSFB established the Model and, therefore, deem CSFB to have some ability to determine the premium and strike prices of the OTC Calls.

¹⁷ You note that the Commission has instituted enforcement actions against investment advisers for violations of Section 206(3) in connection with certain riskless principal transactions with their clients. See, e.g., In the Matter of ABN AMRO-NSM International Funds Management, B.V., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1767 (Sept. 30, 1998); In the Matter of Feldman Investment Group, Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1538 (Nov. 27, 1995). You note further that the investment advisers in those enforcement actions did not disclose to their clients the capacity in which they were acting or obtain the clients' prior written consent. In contrast, CSFB proposes to use the Global Consents.

¹⁸ See, e.g., Merrill Lynch Trust Company, FSB (pub. avail. July 6, 2000) (providing no-action relief under Section 206(3) for certain principal transactions when the transactions did not present the potential conflicts of interest that Section 206(3) was intended to address).

¹⁹ You do not ask and we take no position regarding the adequacy of the disclosures to be set forth in the Global Consent under Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act. See generally 1998 Interpretive Release, supra note 11 ("In our view, to ensure that a client's consent to a Section 206(3) transaction is informed, Section 206(3) should be read together with Sections 206(1) and (2) to require the adviser to disclose facts necessary to alert the client to the adviser's potential conflicts of interest in a principal or agency transaction.").

Incoming Letter

The Incoming Letter is in Acrobat format.

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/csfb083105.htm