Monday, October 26, 2026The Morning EditionOpen AtlasSign inJoin free
FinancialADVSR

Est. 2026The front page of wealth managementNew York

The Morning EditionFree · 6:30 AM ETSubscribe

Regulation · Financial ADVSR

SEC settles custody and identity theft case with TAG Associates

The SEC settled a proceeding against TAG Associates over custody failures involving 116 clients or accounts and gaps in its identity theft program, the order shows.

Regulation

Citywire RIA reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission has settled an administrative proceeding against TAG Associates LLC, a New York registered investment adviser, over failures to properly custody client assets and to maintain an appropriate identity theft prevention program. The SEC's enforcement page lists the proceeding with a date of October 23, 2026. Under the settlement, TAG neither admitted nor denied the findings in the order.

Per the SEC order, the agency concluded that TAG breached Rule 206(4)-2, the Custody Rule, in connection with 116 clients or accounts whose regulatory assets under management exceeded $129 million, covering the period from December 2015 through September 2026. For 112 of those accounts, TAG employees held signatory authority, power of attorney or trustee roles that allowed them to access or obtain client funds without the client's consent. A secondary report said those accounts were not included in surprise examinations conducted for TAG by its independent accountant, a period it said ran from about December 2015 through July 2024.

A secondary report said the order also addresses four limited liability company clients that held privately offered securities without a qualified custodian. A secondary report said TAG relied on an exception that requires audited financial statements, which those LLCs did not have. The SEC said TAG removed the employees who served as managers or officers of those LLC clients by September 2026.

On identity theft, the SEC said TAG first adopted its identity theft prevention program on June 12, 2014, but failed to review or update that program through December 2023. The regulator also said TAG's compliance consultants were not asked to review the program or Regulation S-ID, which includes Rule 201. The SEC cited TAG's cooperation and remedial efforts in accepting the settlement offer.

TAG's Form ADV brochure characterises the firm as a family office serving multiple clients and a portfolio management adviser, and the firm also holds registration as a commodity trading adviser. The brochure gives its headquarters as 810 Seventh Avenue in New York, a Delaware LLC, and says the firm was founded in 1983 and has been SEC-registered since January 2002. Its principal owner is TAG Associates Holdings, LLC, which is majority owned by Gary L. Fuhrman and David Basner. A third-party profile lists Basner as chief executive and Fuhrman as managing partner. Grant Thornton is listed as examining client accounts under Form ADV-E, and Charles Schwab is listed as a custodian.

Figures for the firm's size vary by source and date. The SEC order cites more than $7 billion in regulatory assets under management for 90 clients as of June 26, 2026. A third-party database reports $7.07 billion and 71 employees, while the firm's LinkedIn profile, which is unaudited and undated, cites roughly $8 billion for 110 clients. A 2019 brochure cited about $8.3 billion as of December 31, 2019. These figures come from different sources and dates and are not directly comparable. A separate registered adviser, TAG Associates Florida LLC, is not a party to this order.

An earlier SEC order against TAG found violations of Advisers Act Sections 206(2) and 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-7. Under that matter, the firm consented to give up $148,255 with $16,204 in interest, pay a $50,000 penalty, and send funds to harmed investors. The release for that earlier order is undated in the research available for this article.

The settled order censures TAG and requires it to cease and desist from future violations of the Custody Rule and Regulation S-ID Rule 201. A secondary report cited a civil penalty figure, but the order excerpt reviewed cut off before the amount, so this article does not state a penalty amount. Readers should check the full order for the final terms.

Sources

TopicsCustody & platformsRegulationFamily offices

More from this writer

Latest from the Newsroom

This article draws on reporting by the outlets credited above. Financial ADVSR is not affiliated with them. Spot an error? Tell the newsroom.