November 10, 2020 • 15 mins
Join Oyster Consulting's former regulators Patrick M. Dennis, Jeffrey Hiller, Bill Reilly, Evan Rosser and Ed Wegener in our new podcast mini-series, Regulators- Behind the Scenes. In this episode, they share their experiences and perspectives as former SEC, FINRA and State regulators on Document Production and the importance of good communication with examiners.
Oyster Consulting has the expertise, experience and licensed professionals you need, all under one roof. Follow us on LinkedIn to take advantage of our industry insights or subscribe to our monthly newsletter.
Does your firm need help now? Contact us today!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Oyster (00:09):
Welcome to the Oyster Stew podcast, where we discuss
what's happening in theindustry, based on what we see
as we work with regulators andclients.
Oyster consultants are industrypractitioners- we aren't career
consultants.
We've done your job and we knowthe issues you face.
You can learn more about OysterConsulting and the value we can
(00:30):
add to your firm by going to ourwebsite, oysterllc.com.
Patrick Dennis (00:42):
Welcome to "Regulators- Behind the Scenes,"
an Oyster podcast mini-series.
I'm Patrick Dennis, GeneralCounsel of Oyster Consulting,
and with me are other formerregulators who are now working
for Oyster (00:53):
Jeffrey Hiller, former SEC Enforcement Senior
Counsel and CCO of severalnational advisory firms
including Merrill Lynch andMorgan Stanley; Ed Wegener, who
spent over 20 years at FINRA(andleft about nine months ago) as
Senior Vice President andRegional Office Manager for
(01:14):
FINRA's Midwest Region; EvanRosser was also a former FINRA
regulator for over 20 years; andBill Reilley, a State of Florida
regulator for over 30 years.
I, P atrick Dennis, was a t theSEC in Washington as well i n
both C orp FIN and the Divisionof Enforcement for eight and a
half years.
(01:35):
Let's jump in.
In this segment, we're going totalk about exam document
requests and the importance ofgood communications with the
regulators.
Let's talk about actually howyou manage the exam, how you
deal with that document requestand how you can work with it and
work with the regulators onthose kinds of things.
It's certainly been myexperience the best way to do
(01:59):
this is to assign a single pointof contact or a single point
person in connection withregulators.
All of the requests come to thatperson, all of the requests for
interviews, all of theadditional document requests,
all the need for clarification.
It's best if you can ha ve o neperson that manages these, the
(02:20):
entire exam for your firm,whether that's th e C CO or in
-house l egal or however youwant to do it, but that's
certainly been my experience.
We'd love to hear your thoughtson that and Ed's thoughts on
that.
Ed Wegener (02:34):
So I think you're right, Patrick, having a point
person is really important.
The regulators generally areassigning a point person for the
examination, and they'll usuallyannounce who that is in their
introductory letter.
And doing that early isimportant too, because the
document requests start now, notwhen they show up on site, but
(02:55):
several weeks before they showup on site.
So what you're going to see arerequests being made
electronically, the expectationthat documents are provided
electronically back in advanceof the e xaminer showing up on
site so that they can do thosetypes of analytics that we were
talking about earlier.
So, assigning a point person atthe time the examination is
(03:16):
announced is critical.
One nice thing about the factthat the records are being
produced electronically is itmakes it so much easier to
manage document requests.
I remember when we would doexams and we would be requesting
some via paper, some via email,some in person- that it would
(03:39):
get very difficult to keep trackof all that.
And then, when firms respond,knowing what's been responded to
often was an area that we wouldhave discussions about because
those things are providedelectronically.
Now you can see exactly what wasrequested.
You can see what was respondedto when it was responded to, by
whom.
(03:59):
I think that that makes thatpart of the examination go much
better.
Patrick Dennis (04:04):
Thanks, Ed.
Jeffrey HIller (04:05):
I would say on that point that I think naming a
point person and having thatindividual create a good rapport
with the examiners is probablyone of the most important things
you're going to be confrontedwith.
My practice has always been tomeet with them every day for
five minutes to make sure thatwe're on target, that we're
(04:29):
getting the documents we need.
If there is something that wechanged our minds about, or they
said"you don't have to produce Xamount, you can produce Y," that
we document that and go over itin the morning.
And so a good point person withgood communication skills is
probably one of the mostimportant things at the outset
of an examination.
Patrick Dennis (04:50):
Yeah, I would agree with you.
I remember, you know, 20 plusyears ago, before everything was
produced electronically, whenyou had different ideas or
different concepts on how toproduce documents and some folks
would do it in binders,segregated by the request and be
very, very organized.
We're very proud of how wellthey organized everything.
(05:13):
And I remember working with someother folks and other clients
that literally just would put itall in a box and say,"Here it
is," and let the regulators tryand sort through it all.
I'm not sure that wasnecessarily a good idea, but
that was their thought;"they'recoming in and they asked for it
(05:35):
here it is." I don't need toorganize a board or anything
else, but I think all you'redoing is making life more
complicated for them, and thatmaking efficient use of their
time is helpful as well.
But if we could talk a littlebit about the data that people
are asking for how they're doingit, how we can do that, and how
(05:55):
you can organize that kind stuffwould be helpful.
Evan thoughts?
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Yeah.
Going back to that point personand on the data production, you
want that point person tounderstand what's being produced
so that what is being producedto the regulators is, in fact,
responsive to the regulators'request.
And a lot of times theregulators, and I think they
(06:22):
should do this, they should askyou to provide an index or some
other documents so they can tellwhat you're producing in
response to what requests, sothey don't have to go through
and figure out well, is thisresponsive to the item a or B or
C?
But the other thing too,(andI'll address this with the FINRA
(06:43):
standpoint) FINRA has very broadjurisdiction; however, its
jurisdiction does have limits.
They are they're limited tobroker-dealer records.
However, there are a lot ofdocuments that they feel are
within their purview and arerelated to the broker-dealer.
(07:04):
My only point on that would be,you can certainly ask why they
want certain documents, what'stheir basis for asking for
certain documents, but I wouldnot get into a jurisdictional
debate on certain documents withany regulator without the advice
(07:25):
of counsel.
Patrick Dennis (07:27):
Yeah.
I think I would agree with that.
I think historically I would saythat the SEC and FINRA are a
little bit different.
The SEC tends to stick to thefederal rules of evidence and
doesn't ask you to createdocuments.
If you have them, you have toproduce them, but you're not
required to create them.
FINRA, for awhile, and I don'tknow that they're still doing
this, but were very happy to askyou to create a document in a
(07:51):
specific format, including allthis specific information so
they could easily manipulatethat data to figure out what
they wanted or get whatinformation they wanted out of
it.
So it is a little bitchallenging, but I think you do
have a right to ask what thedocument is, why they're asking
for it a nd everything else.
But I would certainly cautionyou that if it's one of the fi
(08:12):
rm's r equired books andrecords, you better have it, i
nstead of asking why they wantit.
Jef frey, y our thoughts.
Jefferey Hiller (08:18):
No, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
And I think that you want toreview every one of these
documents before you submit themto the SEC, because you need to
know what you're saying inaddition to what you're telling
them.
And it would not be unusual forany firm to, in the course of
producing documents, to find anexception.
Well, maybe they reviewedeverybody, they got all 99.9% of
(08:43):
their certifications back, butthey were missing one.
You're going to find stuff likethat.
Just note it, note that youfound it, correct it, tell them
that you corrected it.
And so my experience has beenreally a lot of candor, and
there are firms that have said,"Well, we're going to say that
attorney client privilege startsto...or our internal audit
(09:06):
records..." Or whatever.
I would be very cautious in whatI would withhold and what I
would give them in terms of, Iwould try to be as cooperative
as possible, work with yourCounsel to favor disclosure and
transparency over not.
But I think you do need to talkwith Counsel.
Patrick Dennis (09:25):
Well, let's, let's talk about that a little
bit in terms of, if you find aproblem or if you realize you
didn't get all thecertifications back that you
thought you did, what, what'sthe best approach here.
Bill, your thoughts?
Bill Reilly (09:43):
I think it's important that when that when
records are requested and notprovided, what's the best angle
here.
And I think one of the thingsthat, in order to be able to do
that is, Jeff mentioned aboutgoing to your Counsel.
You want to make sure is thatyou have a clear understanding
that the records that are beingprovided, the firm understands.
(10:06):
If someone comes out and says,for example, we want to look at
your PNS blotter and firms say,"Well, we don't have a PNS
blotter.
We have a Form, 7248.73," orsomething like that.
So I think it's very importantfor the regulator and the firm
to have a good understanding ofan overview of those records.
(10:29):
If records are not provided, andmaybe there's a misunderstanding
again, you want to make surethat the regulator and the firm
are talking the same language.
If there is a question as to whyour record was or was not
provided, I think there needs tobe a conversation.
You know, we asked for thisrecord, or a record that
(10:50):
contains the followinginformation.
Because one of the things thatour regulators going to do, if a
record is not produced andthat's our required record, I
will tell you too, there are acouple of States out there that
are able to request records thatmay not be contained within the
records under SEC 1783 and 84.
(11:11):
And also on the advisor side,they need to be provided.
So it's good idea for the firmsto have an understanding of
their requirements, take a lookat the document request and be
prepared to discuss with Counselas to why a record was or was
not produced.
Jefferey Hiller (11:31):
Usually, I have a spreadsheet where some columns
the regulators can see and somecolumns the regulators cannot
see.
But one of the columns they seeis item number 17.
You requested X, then there'llbe a row on June 20th.
We agreed that we could hone there quest a nd make it the
(11:51):
following, and so I have arecord of that.
And to the extent I find thingsbefore the SEC or the FINRA or
any regulator comes in,depending on the nature and
scope, I would say 99 times outof a hundred, I would say to
them in our opening meeting,during the course of producing
the documents,"We found theseexceptions.
(12:12):
We've corrected them." If duringthe course of the exam, you find
anything and you can let us knowour po licy.
And before you leave, because weknow that there are human
errors, we try to fix it quickly.
So you can use that to yourbenefit, and I think you gain
credibility upfront if you canhave that discussion.
Ed Wegener (12:33):
Yeah.
I think there's a lot of debateabout when and whether to let
the SEC or FINRA or the Statesknow you've identified a
problem, gathering informationbefore they find it.
And to Jeffrey's point, I wouldagree.
I think you get a lot ofcredibility when you identify to
them,"Hey, we noticed theseissues.
(12:55):
We wanted to let you know aboutit.
Here's what we've done to fixthose issues." I think you get a
lot of credibility.
So I would recommend doing it.
I mean, I think it's importantthough, to investigate that
fully, when you identify thoseas issues, identify why they
happened, identify any systemsthat may have caused them to go
(13:16):
unidentified until theexamination started and make
sure not just fixing the issue,but fixing some of the
underlying reasons for the issuewould go a long way as well.
Patrick Dennis (13:26):
Yeah.
I mean, I think whether it's aminor issue, those are pretty
simple, but occasionally you'llcome up with what you would
consider to be a fairly majorissue or a serious problem.
I think even then you'reprobably better off identifying
it and bringing it to theirattention or saying,"You know,
this is an issue and we'reworking on it or we've
identified this and we'reputting together a plan to
(13:49):
correct it," rather thanignoring it or hoping that they
don't find it because chancesare they are going to find it,
and if it's a significant issue,you're going to look even worse
if you didn't bring it to theirattention when you found it.
So your thoughts, Evan?
Evan Rosser (14:02):
I don't think I have anything.
Bill Reilly (14:06):
Patrick, if I can just mention here.
One of the things that I thinkis incumbent and when I was a
regulator, this is somethingthat we had our examiners,
supervisors and so forth, makesure that they do, is that when
a record request is made,document when it was made, how
it was made, what the nature ofthe conversation or the written
(14:27):
documentation and what theconversation was on the other
side, because I can tell you, ifthere was ever a question about
records not being produced.
there would always be aconversation with staff at my
office.
I n the State of Florida and ata mid-level or higher-level
person at the firm, we wouldtalk about it and make all
efforts t o(inaudible)information.
(14:49):
There were situations where wejust came to a situation where
the records either wouldn't be,or couldn't be produced.
And there are potentialrepercussions, whether it be SE,
FINRA or the S tates for failureto produce required and
requested books and records.
Oyster (15:19):
Thanks for listening, and if you like what you heard,
make sure to follow the OysterStew podcast on whatever
platform you listen to.
If you'd like to learn how wecan help firms start, run,
protect, and grow theirbusiness, visit our website at
oysterllc.com.
Welcome to the Oyster Stew podcast, where we discuss
what's happening in theindustry, based on what we see
as we work with regulators andclients.
Oyster consultants are industrypractitioners- we aren't career
consultants.
We've done your job and we knowthe issues you face.
You can learn more about OysterConsulting and the value we can
(00:30):
add to your firm by going to ourwebsite, oysterllc.com.
Patrick Dennis (00:42):
Welcome to "Regulators- Behind the Scenes,"
an Oyster podcast mini-series.
I'm Patrick Dennis, GeneralCounsel of Oyster Consulting,
and with me are other formerregulators who are now working
for Oyster (00:53):
Jeffrey Hiller, former SEC Enforcement Senior
Counsel and CCO of severalnational advisory firms
including Merrill Lynch andMorgan Stanley; Ed Wegener, who
spent over 20 years at FINRA(andleft about nine months ago) as
Senior Vice President andRegional Office Manager for
(01:14):
FINRA's Midwest Region; EvanRosser was also a former FINRA
regulator for over 20 years; andBill Reilley, a State of Florida
regulator for over 30 years.
I, P atrick Dennis, was a t theSEC in Washington as well i n
both C orp FIN and the Divisionof Enforcement for eight and a
half years.
(01:35):
Let's jump in.
In this segment, we're going totalk about exam document
requests and the importance ofgood communications with the
regulators.
Let's talk about actually howyou manage the exam, how you
deal with that document requestand how you can work with it and
work with the regulators onthose kinds of things.
It's certainly been myexperience the best way to do
(01:59):
this is to assign a single pointof contact or a single point
person in connection withregulators.
All of the requests come to thatperson, all of the requests for
interviews, all of theadditional document requests,
all the need for clarification.
It's best if you can ha ve o neperson that manages these, the
(02:20):
entire exam for your firm,whether that's th e C CO or in
-house l egal or however youwant to do it, but that's
certainly been my experience.
We'd love to hear your thoughtson that and Ed's thoughts on
that.
Ed Wegener (02:34):
So I think you're right, Patrick, having a point
person is really important.
The regulators generally areassigning a point person for the
examination, and they'll usuallyannounce who that is in their
introductory letter.
And doing that early isimportant too, because the
document requests start now, notwhen they show up on site, but
(02:55):
several weeks before they showup on site.
So what you're going to see arerequests being made
electronically, the expectationthat documents are provided
electronically back in advanceof the e xaminer showing up on
site so that they can do thosetypes of analytics that we were
talking about earlier.
So, assigning a point person atthe time the examination is
(03:16):
announced is critical.
One nice thing about the factthat the records are being
produced electronically is itmakes it so much easier to
manage document requests.
I remember when we would doexams and we would be requesting
some via paper, some via email,some in person- that it would
(03:39):
get very difficult to keep trackof all that.
And then, when firms respond,knowing what's been responded to
often was an area that we wouldhave discussions about because
those things are providedelectronically.
Now you can see exactly what wasrequested.
You can see what was respondedto when it was responded to, by
whom.
(03:59):
I think that that makes thatpart of the examination go much
better.
Patrick Dennis (04:04):
Thanks, Ed.
Jeffrey HIller (04:05):
I would say on that point that I think naming a
point person and having thatindividual create a good rapport
with the examiners is probablyone of the most important things
you're going to be confrontedwith.
My practice has always been tomeet with them every day for
five minutes to make sure thatwe're on target, that we're
(04:29):
getting the documents we need.
If there is something that wechanged our minds about, or they
said"you don't have to produce Xamount, you can produce Y," that
we document that and go over itin the morning.
And so a good point person withgood communication skills is
probably one of the mostimportant things at the outset
of an examination.
Patrick Dennis (04:50):
Yeah, I would agree with you.
I remember, you know, 20 plusyears ago, before everything was
produced electronically, whenyou had different ideas or
different concepts on how toproduce documents and some folks
would do it in binders,segregated by the request and be
very, very organized.
We're very proud of how wellthey organized everything.
(05:13):
And I remember working with someother folks and other clients
that literally just would put itall in a box and say,"Here it
is," and let the regulators tryand sort through it all.
I'm not sure that wasnecessarily a good idea, but
that was their thought;"they'recoming in and they asked for it
(05:35):
here it is." I don't need toorganize a board or anything
else, but I think all you'redoing is making life more
complicated for them, and thatmaking efficient use of their
time is helpful as well.
But if we could talk a littlebit about the data that people
are asking for how they're doingit, how we can do that, and how
(05:55):
you can organize that kind stuffwould be helpful.
Evan thoughts?
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Yeah.
Going back to that point personand on the data production, you
want that point person tounderstand what's being produced
so that what is being producedto the regulators is, in fact,
responsive to the regulators'request.
And a lot of times theregulators, and I think they
(06:22):
should do this, they should askyou to provide an index or some
other documents so they can tellwhat you're producing in
response to what requests, sothey don't have to go through
and figure out well, is thisresponsive to the item a or B or
C?
But the other thing too,(andI'll address this with the FINRA
(06:43):
standpoint) FINRA has very broadjurisdiction; however, its
jurisdiction does have limits.
They are they're limited tobroker-dealer records.
However, there are a lot ofdocuments that they feel are
within their purview and arerelated to the broker-dealer.
(07:04):
My only point on that would be,you can certainly ask why they
want certain documents, what'stheir basis for asking for
certain documents, but I wouldnot get into a jurisdictional
debate on certain documents withany regulator without the advice
(07:25):
of counsel.
Patrick Dennis (07:27):
Yeah.
I think I would agree with that.
I think historically I would saythat the SEC and FINRA are a
little bit different.
The SEC tends to stick to thefederal rules of evidence and
doesn't ask you to createdocuments.
If you have them, you have toproduce them, but you're not
required to create them.
FINRA, for awhile, and I don'tknow that they're still doing
this, but were very happy to askyou to create a document in a
(07:51):
specific format, including allthis specific information so
they could easily manipulatethat data to figure out what
they wanted or get whatinformation they wanted out of
it.
So it is a little bitchallenging, but I think you do
have a right to ask what thedocument is, why they're asking
for it a nd everything else.
But I would certainly cautionyou that if it's one of the fi
(08:12):
rm's r equired books andrecords, you better have it, i
nstead of asking why they wantit.
Jef frey, y our thoughts.
Jefferey Hiller (08:18):
No, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
And I think that you want toreview every one of these
documents before you submit themto the SEC, because you need to
know what you're saying inaddition to what you're telling
them.
And it would not be unusual forany firm to, in the course of
producing documents, to find anexception.
Well, maybe they reviewedeverybody, they got all 99.9% of
(08:43):
their certifications back, butthey were missing one.
You're going to find stuff likethat.
Just note it, note that youfound it, correct it, tell them
that you corrected it.
And so my experience has beenreally a lot of candor, and
there are firms that have said,"Well, we're going to say that
attorney client privilege startsto...or our internal audit
(09:06):
records..." Or whatever.
I would be very cautious in whatI would withhold and what I
would give them in terms of, Iwould try to be as cooperative
as possible, work with yourCounsel to favor disclosure and
transparency over not.
But I think you do need to talkwith Counsel.
Patrick Dennis (09:25):
Well, let's, let's talk about that a little
bit in terms of, if you find aproblem or if you realize you
didn't get all thecertifications back that you
thought you did, what, what'sthe best approach here.
Bill, your thoughts?
Bill Reilly (09:43):
I think it's important that when that when
records are requested and notprovided, what's the best angle
here.
And I think one of the thingsthat, in order to be able to do
that is, Jeff mentioned aboutgoing to your Counsel.
You want to make sure is thatyou have a clear understanding
that the records that are beingprovided, the firm understands.
(10:06):
If someone comes out and says,for example, we want to look at
your PNS blotter and firms say,"Well, we don't have a PNS
blotter.
We have a Form, 7248.73," orsomething like that.
So I think it's very importantfor the regulator and the firm
to have a good understanding ofan overview of those records.
(10:29):
If records are not provided, andmaybe there's a misunderstanding
again, you want to make surethat the regulator and the firm
are talking the same language.
If there is a question as to whyour record was or was not
provided, I think there needs tobe a conversation.
You know, we asked for thisrecord, or a record that
(10:50):
contains the followinginformation.
Because one of the things thatour regulators going to do, if a
record is not produced andthat's our required record, I
will tell you too, there are acouple of States out there that
are able to request records thatmay not be contained within the
records under SEC 1783 and 84.
(11:11):
And also on the advisor side,they need to be provided.
So it's good idea for the firmsto have an understanding of
their requirements, take a lookat the document request and be
prepared to discuss with Counselas to why a record was or was
not produced.
Jefferey Hiller (11:31):
Usually, I have a spreadsheet where some columns
the regulators can see and somecolumns the regulators cannot
see.
But one of the columns they seeis item number 17.
You requested X, then there'llbe a row on June 20th.
We agreed that we could hone there quest a nd make it the
(11:51):
following, and so I have arecord of that.
And to the extent I find thingsbefore the SEC or the FINRA or
any regulator comes in,depending on the nature and
scope, I would say 99 times outof a hundred, I would say to
them in our opening meeting,during the course of producing
the documents,"We found theseexceptions.
(12:12):
We've corrected them." If duringthe course of the exam, you find
anything and you can let us knowour po licy.
And before you leave, because weknow that there are human
errors, we try to fix it quickly.
So you can use that to yourbenefit, and I think you gain
credibility upfront if you canhave that discussion.
Ed Wegener (12:33):
Yeah.
I think there's a lot of debateabout when and whether to let
the SEC or FINRA or the Statesknow you've identified a
problem, gathering informationbefore they find it.
And to Jeffrey's point, I wouldagree.
I think you get a lot ofcredibility when you identify to
them,"Hey, we noticed theseissues.
(12:55):
We wanted to let you know aboutit.
Here's what we've done to fixthose issues." I think you get a
lot of credibility.
So I would recommend doing it.
I mean, I think it's importantthough, to investigate that
fully, when you identify thoseas issues, identify why they
happened, identify any systemsthat may have caused them to go
(13:16):
unidentified until theexamination started and make
sure not just fixing the issue,but fixing some of the
underlying reasons for the issuewould go a long way as well.
Patrick Dennis (13:26):
Yeah.
I mean, I think whether it's aminor issue, those are pretty
simple, but occasionally you'llcome up with what you would
consider to be a fairly majorissue or a serious problem.
I think even then you'reprobably better off identifying
it and bringing it to theirattention or saying,"You know,
this is an issue and we'reworking on it or we've
identified this and we'reputting together a plan to
(13:49):
correct it," rather thanignoring it or hoping that they
don't find it because chancesare they are going to find it,
and if it's a significant issue,you're going to look even worse
if you didn't bring it to theirattention when you found it.
So your thoughts, Evan?
Evan Rosser (14:02):
I don't think I have anything.
Bill Reilly (14:06):
Patrick, if I can just mention here.
One of the things that I thinkis incumbent and when I was a
regulator, this is somethingthat we had our examiners,
supervisors and so forth, makesure that they do, is that when
a record request is made,document when it was made, how
it was made, what the nature ofthe conversation or the written
(14:27):
documentation and what theconversation was on the other
side, because I can tell you, ifthere was ever a question about
records not being produced.
there would always be aconversation with staff at my
office.
I n the State of Florida and ata mid-level or higher-level
person at the firm, we wouldtalk about it and make all
efforts t o(inaudible)information.
(14:49):
There were situations where wejust came to a situation where
the records either wouldn't be,or couldn't be produced.
And there are potentialrepercussions, whether it be SE,
FINRA or the S tates for failureto produce required and
requested books and records.
Oyster (15:19):
Thanks for listening, and if you like what you heard,
make sure to follow the OysterStew podcast on whatever
platform you listen to.
If you'd like to learn how wecan help firms start, run,
protect, and grow theirbusiness, visit our website at
oysterllc.com.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com