April 14, 2012

AARP, Investment Adviser Association, Among Groups Asking the SEC to Make Brokers Abide by 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s Fiduciary Duty

Several industry and consumer groups have written a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking it to put into effect a uniform fiduciary standard for both investment advisers and broker-dealers. The groups are AARP, National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, Fund Democracy, Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., Consumer Federation of America, Financial Planning Association, and the Investment Adviser Association. They want the SEC to extend the duty as it exists under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act to brokerage industry members and not just investment advisers.

“This has been my position since the subject arose. No new definition of ‘fiduciary duty’ is warranted. For hundreds of years laws and legal decisions have fully defined the term,” said stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “ Why should this not simply apply to Wall Street as it does the rest of us, including lawyers?”

Currently, broker-dealers have to abide by the “suitability" standard, which is considers a less strict standard of care. For example, under the suitability standard, brokers don’t have to reveal the majority of conflicts of interest to a client to get out of any obligation to control investment expenses.

Last year, the SEC recommended that its staff engage in rulemaking to create a uniform fiduciary standard. The finding was a result of a study mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. After the study was released, the brokerage industry started advocating for a completely new standard. Last summer, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association also recommended that the Commission set up a framework that is separate and distinct from the existing statutory standard.

SIFMA wants the SEC to create “detail and structure” that would let broker-dealers apply the standard according to their own business models. The securities industry trade group also recommended that key principles be tackled, including the three main principals of a uniform standard, the definition of “personalized investment advice,” clear specification regarding obligations, preservation of principal transactions, and the set up of distinct guidance on disclosure.

In their letter to the SEC, the groups said that although they were in agreement with many components of the framework that SIFMA is recommending, there are others that they strongly oppose. For example, they are concerned that the proposed framework fails to meet Dodd-Frank’s requirement for brokerage firms and investment advisers to have the same standard and that it be “no less stringent” than any standard that is already in place. They also didn’t like the recommendation that the Commission give clear guidance about disclosure for the new fiduciary framework.

Financial Planning Association, e Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors—all adviser groups—don’t want there to be an advisor SRO, which SEC staff had recommended in another Dodd-Frank mandated study.

Our securities fraud law firm represents investors, both individual and institutional, throughout the country. Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

A Standard for Brokers, The New York Times, August 26, 2011

Investment Advisers Act of 1940, SEC.gov (PDF)

A fiduciary relationship is generally viewed as the highest standard of customer care available under law, SIFMA


More Blog Posts:
Don’t Create Uniform Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Say Some Republicans to the SEC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 7, 2011

FINRA May Put Forward Another Proposal About Possible SEC Rule Regarding Fiduciary Duty, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 28, 2011

SEC’s Proxy Access Rule is Rejected by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 5, 2011

March 8, 2012

FINRA May Surrender Proprietary BrokerCheck Lock

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. is thinking of giving up its proprietary lock on BrokerCheck information. This would allow for greater examination of a broker’s disciplinary data, including regulatory and arbitration actions, as well as customer complaints. The SRO is currently seeking public comment on this matter through April 6.

Opening up access to BrokerCheck data would allow commercial users to make the reports, known for being pretty dense, friendlier for users. (Some people have said that the information available is “convoluted” and uses language that can be hard for an investor to comprehend.) This could help investors more easily find information about a broker. Also, vendors might be able to establish comparison data and some complaint data on the firm-level could become accessible.

Up until this point, FINRA has been protective about keeping its disciplinary information confidential. Not only has it prevented the automatic downloading of the BrokerCheck database, but also, this information has only been available through one-off data requests by individuals.

Critics of FINRA’s closed door policy have said these limitations protect the financial industry by keeping embarrassing information about firms and brokers private. While this has allowed financial advisers with numerous complaints against them to keep such secrets quiet, invaluable information, such as whether one broker has received more complaints than another, ends up not becoming known. The SRO, however, maintains that it hasn’t been shielding the industry with its BrokerCheck restrictions.

One reason that FINRA is considering making its BrokerCheck data more easily accessible is because it has been under pressure to merge the database’s search results with the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database. IAPD data is pubic information and can be downloaded automatically. (Last year, FINRA considered putting the two systems together into one database to be made public but now says it is more practically to keep them separate.)

It wasn’t until recently that FINRA was the only regulator to have an online tool that let investors look into the backgrounds of members of the financial services industry. It was in 2010 that the Securities and Exchange Commission widened the IAPD database to include not just investment advisor firm information, but also data about IA representatives.

Last year, as mandated by Dodd-Frank’s Section 919B, the Commission put out a study and recommendations on how to better investor access to information related to broker-dealer and investment adviser registration. AdvisorOne reports that to improve how investors can better access this type of data, the SEC is recommending that search findings for it and the IAPD databases be unified, Zip Code and other location indicator-related searches be implemented, and educational content to help investors navigate any unfamiliar term definitions or links are included. Dodd-Frank wants these recommendations implemented soon, and FINRA plans to have these done by the deadline in July.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represents investors with securities fraud claims. Contact our stockbroker fraud law firm today.

Finra may give up lock on BrokerCheck, Investment News, March 1, 2012

FINRA BrokerCheck®, FINRA

FINRA BrokerCheck System Collapsing Under Weight of Massive Disclosed Industry Wrongdoing, Forbes, October 13, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Despite Reports of Customer Satisfaction, Consumer Reports Uncovers Questionable Sales Practices at Certain Financial Firms, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 7, 2012

Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 28, 2011

SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2012

January 7, 2012

Despite Reports of Customer Satisfaction, Consumer Reports Uncovers Questionable Sales Practices at Certain Financial Firms

According to Consumer Reports, many of online readers are “very satisfied” with the services rendered by almost all 13 major brokerage firms in the US. 7,327 online subscribers took part in the survey to respond to questions about their own experiences between October 2010 and October 2011. Customer service, website advice, phone service, and financial advice were among the criteria evaluated.

USAA Brokerage Services was at the head of the list after having received the highest scores for customer satisfaction. Scottrade Inc. and Vanguard Brokerage Services tied for second. The other financial firms, ranking in the order that follows, are Charles Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Etrade, Fidelity Brokerage Services, WellsTrade (Wells Fargo), Merrill Edge/Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The last three financial firms scored under the 80-point mark, which means that clients gave them an overall ranking of “fairly well satisfied” (but not “very satisfied").

Also according to Consumer Reports, active investors can breathe a sigh of relief about the quality of support and service they are likely to receive at these large US brokerage firms. Several of the broker-dealers are even likely to offer investors free, basic investment plans. (That said, Consumer Reports warned that investors need to be aware that there are limitations to these kinds of plans in order to maximize any benefits.)

Despites such positive investor feedback, Consumer Reports says that its staff members, who acted as undercover researchers when they visited financial firms in New York and Washington, discovered that some broker-dealers continued to engage in questionable sales practices. For example:

• One staffer was shown a chart demonstrating a portfolio’s performance. However, the potential impact of key fees was not highlighted.
• Another staffer was guided toward a complex annuity product even though the financial adviser didn’t know a lot about her.
• One “empty nester” was directed toward a set of funds without being given any other options.
• Another tester, age 60, was advised to put half of his funds in cash and bonds even though he intended to retire in a year and had about a million dollars in investible assets, as well as a significant pension.

As an investor, you should be able to rely on the brokerage firm you work with for sound, customized advice that fits your specific investment needs. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case and every year, there are those that will suffer unnecessary financial losses because they were told to place their funds in investments that were inappropriate for them or were never designed to meet their financial goals, or they were given insufficient information about the degree of risk involved (which they could never have afforded in the first place.)

Consumer Reports: Should brokerage clients be as content as they are?, Consumer Reports, January 5, 2012

Where to put your money, Consumer Reports, February 2012


More Blog Posts:
Former Brookstreet Securities Broker Who Promoted Subprime Mortgages Commits Suicide, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 7, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission Charges Investment Adviser with Committing Securities Fraud on Linked In, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 6, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Charges Life Partners Holdings Inc. in Life Settlement Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2012

Continue reading "Despite Reports of Customer Satisfaction, Consumer Reports Uncovers Questionable Sales Practices at Certain Financial Firms " »

September 17, 2011

Broker-Dealer Pacific West Securities Closes Shop

Broker-dealer Pacific West Securities is going out of business next year. The independent broker-dealer, which has about 290 affiliated advisers and reps, decided to close its doors because staying in operation is costing too much and margins are too thin.

The broker-dealer made $46 million in commission and fees in 2010 and its gross revenue for this year is expected to be $54 million. Pacific West has struck a deal with Cetera Financial Group over the transfer of many of its representatives and advisers to the latter’s subsidiary, Multi-Financial Securities Corp. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, however, must still approve this arrangement.

Unfortunately, dozens of independent brokers that are thinly capitalized have had to close shop or be put up for sale in the last few years. Many took huge hits in the wake of securities fraud lawsuits related to the sale of Provident Royalties LLC preferred stock, Medical Capital Holdings Inc. notes, and DBSI Inc. real estate deals. Although Pacific West didn’t sell any of these financial instruments, it has had to contend with Securities arbitration claims, including losses of nearly $1 million in FINRA arbitration awards over the last 24 months.

Investment News reported not too long ago that at least 2,500 reps have been displaced because of broker-dealers that shut down their operations. It became clear trouble was starting to brew in the industry in 2010, when Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and GunnAllen Financial Inc., which both have hundreds of reps, shut their doors after violating SEC rules dealing with capital. By the end of last year, there were 142 less broker-dealers than in 2009.

In February, QA3 Financial Corp. followed their lead. The broker-dealer, which worked with about 400 reps, couldn’t deal with securities lawsuits costs over the sale of allegedly fraudulent private placements.

The following month, Investors Capital Holdings Inc.’s owner Theodore E. “Ted” Charles submitted an SEC filing giving notice that he was going to sell his stake in the broker-dealer. More brokerage firms have since shuttered. FINRA says that if the broker-dealer you are working announces that it is going out of business, you should contact its offices right away to find out about next steps for you.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents clients that suffered losses because of broker misconduct and other formers of broker-fraud. Please contact our securities fraud lawyers and ask for your free consultation today.

B-D with 290 reps to shutter, Investment News, December 6, 2011

Broker-Dealer Pacific West to Close Its Doors, Adviser One, December 6, 2011

If a Brokerage Firm Closes Its Doors, FINRA


More Blog Posts:

Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 28, 2011

Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011

Tribune Bondholders Can Sue Shareholders for Over $8.2B, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 30, 2011


Continue reading "Broker-Dealer Pacific West Securities Closes Shop" »

July 28, 2011

Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the sales practices that broker-dealers engage in when structured securities are hurting investors. The SEC released this recent finding in a report this week. Structured securities products are derivatives whose value is determined from baskets of indexes, other securities, options, debt issuances, commodities, and foreign securities.

The SEC reached its conclusion after conducting a sweep examination of 11 broker-dealers. The Commission says that the financial firms may have guided clients toward complex products even though they were unsuitable for these investors. In certain instances, they also appear to have:

• Charged too high of prices
Failed to adequately reveal all risks involved
• Traded at prices that were not to the benefit of retail investors
• Committed possible supervisory deficiencies

At the heart of the SEC sweep examination were reverse convertible notes, which is a security that has an embedded put option. RCN are considered among the riskiest structured products. According to the SEC report, there were clients who purchased RCN’ even though these financial products not in line with their investor profiles or stated goals. Many of these RCN investors sustained significant financial losses.

The SEC report is recommending that broker-dealers:
• Implement procedures and controls to detect and stop structured securities-related abuses
• Reveal material facts about the structured product notes when offering them to investors
• Make sure that supervisors and registered representatives undergo specialized training before they sell structured securities
• Properly list structured securities products on client statements

It was just recently that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. warned investors to exercise caution when evaluating whether to buy complex investment products.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent investors that have suffered financial losses because they were encouraged to purchase financial instruments that were inappropriate for them.

SEC blasts B-Ds over sales of reverse convertibles, Investment News, July 27, 2011

Staff Summary Report on Issues Identified in Examinations of Certain Structured Securities Products Sold to Retail Investors, SEC, July 27, 2011 (PDF)


More Blog Posts:

RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

Increase of Structured Notes with Derivatives Sales Seduces Retirees, Reports Bloomberg, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 25, 2010

FINRA Fines H & R Block Financial Advisors (Now Ameriprise Advisor Services) over Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes (RCN), Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 17, 2010

Continue reading "Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC" »

July 16, 2011

Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives

At the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association conference on Wednesday, brokerage executives cautioned against imposing the standards of accountability for investment advisers on brokers. Rather than extending the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to broker-dealers, this year’s SIMFA chair John Taft said that it would be better to create a new standard. Taft is also the head of Royal Bank of Canada’s US brokerage.

Right now, brokers and investment advisers are upheld to separate standards—even though many investors don’t realize that the two belong to different groups. As fiduciaries, investment advisers must prioritize their clients’ interests above that of their own or that of their financial firm. It wasn’t until 2008’s financial crisis when investors lost money on financial instruments that were lucrative for brokers that the call for a higher standard for these representatives grew louder.

At a conference panel, he said that imposing investment adviser accountability standards would not only be bad for the industry, potentially preventing some sales such as IPOs, but also he that this could harm investors.

Will brokers get their way on this? According to Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, the answer is, likely, yes:
“Decades ago, the difference between a ‘stock broker’ and ‘investment advisor’ was that stock brokers simply charged commissions to execute trades. At the time, there was also no online trading so investors could not do-it-themselves. In fact, May 1, 1975 (unaffectionately called “May Day") was the first day stock commissions became negotiable. As commissions eventually eroded to just a few dollars per trade, stock brokerage firms migrated to higher charges on hidden-fee products, options, high volume trading, etc.

More recently, ‘stock brokers’ have dropped that moniker and simply become ‘investment advisors’ (whether called ‘financial consultants’, or whatever). Now that Wall Street’s agents have actually become investment advisors, and should be subject to the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, they instead want to escape the law, which has for 70 years been successful in regulating investment advisors. Why? Simply because they do not want to be responsible to their clients for cheating them.”

Related Web Resources:

Brokers say adviser standards could harm markets, Reuters, July 13, 2011

Is Wall Street Ready for Mayday 2?, The New York Times, April 28, 1985

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association


More Blog Posts:

Do Brokers Owe a Fiduciary Duty to Clients?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 27, 2011

Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2010

House and Senate Negotiators Can’t Seem to Agree on Fiduciary Standard in Financial Regulatory Reform Bill, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 17, 2010

Continue reading "Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives" »

December 15, 2010

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Seeks to Recover $49M From 96 Independent Broker-Dealers Liable Over Sales of Tenant-In-Common Exchanges

The trustee for the DBSI Inc. bankruptcy is suing 96 independent broker-dealers for securities fraud related to suspect tenant-in-common exchanges that were sold to investors. James Zazzali is seeking about $49 million in commissions earned.

In his securities fraud complaint, Zazzali, who is a retired Supreme Court of New Jersey justice, claims that DBSI’s TIC deals were part of a $600 million Ponzi scam. The lawsuit contends that the following companies made the most commissions from selling DBSI:

• Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services Inc.
• QA3 Financial Corp.
• DeWaay Financial Network LLC,
• The Private Consulting Group
• Questar Capital Corp.

22 of the broker-dealers named as defendants are no longer in business. Zazzali contends that the commissions were fraudulent transfers by DBSI and that due to the Ponzi nature of the enterprise, old investors benefited from funds put in by new investors. The trustee believes that the broker-dealers should return investor payments and commissions, which should be distributed to DBSI creditors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not filed securities fraud charges against DBSI. Other private placement issuers, such as Provident Royalties and Medical Capital Holdings, were charged by the regulator last year. Provident Royalties’ receiver sued over 40 broker-dealers this year in an effort to obtain claw-back in principal and commissions from firms that sold private placements.

TICs are a form of real estate ownership involving two or more parties with fractional interests in a property. DBSI Inc. was one of the biggest distributors and creators of the product until it defaulted on investor payments and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November 2008. Before then, independent broker-dealers actively sold DBSI TICs. The financial product grew in popularity in 2002 after the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling that let investors defer capital gains on commercial real estate transaction involving property exchanges.

Related Web Resources:
Sour real estate deals land B-Ds in hot water, Investment News, December 12, 2010

Something in common: Firms that sold TICs from DBSI, Investment News, December 15, 2010

Iowa brokerages included in lawsuit, DesMoines Register, December 14, 2010

Institutional Investors Securities Blog

Continue reading "Securities Fraud Lawsuit Seeks to Recover $49M From 96 Independent Broker-Dealers Liable Over Sales of Tenant-In-Common Exchanges " »

December 9, 2010

The “New” SEC is Acting Just Like The “Old” SEC by Protecting the Securities Industry from Responsibility for its Actions

The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced a proposal to temporarily extend a rule that facilitates certain proprietary trading by entities that are registered as both broker-dealers and investment advisers. The proposed extension would move Rule 206(3)-3T’s expiration date by two years, from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2012. It would also would allow the SEC to complete a study mandated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Rule 206(3)-3T gives dually registered firms another way to satisfy consent and disclosure requirements that they would otherwise only be able to meet on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Having just the one option would limit the availability that non-discretionary advisory clients would have to certain securities.

The extension would give the SEC the time that it needs to study the regulatory issues related to dual registrants' principal trading. Dodd-Frank is requiring the SEC to look at any divergent regulations between investment advisers and brokers and use rulemaking to fix gaps so as to better protect investors. The agency has until January 21, 2011 to notify Congress of its findings.

Dodd-Frank’s Section 913 has generated a lot of debate because it could allow for most broker-dealers to be considered fiduciaries under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act. Right now, brokers don’t have to meet the fiduciary standard that investment advisers must satisfy even though both offer similar services. However, instead of holding brokers to the statutory fiduciary standard, the SEC might end up obligating them to fulfill various consent and disclosure requirements at the start of a retail relationship.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd thinks that it is time to hold brokers responsible to a fiduciary standard: “The only educational requirement to become a licensed securities broker is four months of on-the-job training and the passing of a half-day test. Yet, on average, securities brokers at major firms are paid more than doctors, lawyers and other professionals who must often attain seven or eight years of higher education. Many clients entrust securities brokers with their life savings, retirement assets, and their financial life blood. Why shouldn't these brokers and the firms required to supervise them be held responsible if the investors are ripped-off? Financial advisers perform the same function but have a fiduciary duty to investors, simply meaning they must put the client’s interest first when advising them. Why should securities brokers be held to a different standard and not be allowed to lull investors into trusting them, while selling their victims the highest commission products that they can find without regard to the client’s best interest? In fact, most state laws currently hold that when a broker is recommending securities to an unsophisticated investor, the broker has a fiduciary duty to that client. What the SEC is trying to do is to pass a rule that makes brokerage firms LESS RESPONSIBLE than they are at present. These endless tactics perpetrated by securities regulators, at the behest of Wall Street, and are yet another type of bail-out move by the Securities Cartel that controls this nation.”

Related Web Resources:
Read the Proposed Rule (PDF)

1940 Investment Advisers Act

Institutional Investor Securities Blog

Continue reading "The “New” SEC is Acting Just Like The “Old” SEC by Protecting the Securities Industry from Responsibility for its Actions " »

October 12, 2010

Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC

The North American Securities Administrators Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Investment Adviser Association, the Financial Planning Association, AARP, and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors have sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro asking that the agency examine a recent national survey that shows that the majority of investors don't know the differences between investment advisers, brokers, and financial planners. ORC/Infogroup conducted the survey for the trade groups.

1,319 investors were polled. Per the survey, investors appear to “overwhelmingly believe” that representatives who provide investment advice should disclose conflicts of interest and act in clients’ best interests. Many of them are wrong in their belief that investment advisers, broker-dealers, and insurance agents are currently held to a fiduciary standard.

Among the Survey’s Other Findings:
• More than three out of five investors are under the wrong impression that there is no difference between an investment adviser and a stockbroker.

• About 1/3rd of investors are not clear about the role that stockbrokers play or what services that they offer.

The group told Schapiro that per the survey’s findings, a common standard should apply to investment advice that is given, regardless of whether the recommendation is made by an investment adviser or a broker-dealer. They say that the “principles-based fiduciary duty that applies under the [1940 Investment] Advisers Act” should be the standard. Per the survey, many investors feel that a fiduciary standard should also apply to insurance agents that sell investments.

Related Web Resources:
Investment Adviser Association

SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro

North American Securities Administrators Association

The Consumer Federation of America

Financial Planning Association

AARP

National Association of Personal Financial Advisor

ORC/Infogroup

Continue reading "Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC " »

October 11, 2010

Broker-Dealers Press Clients to Settle Arbitration Claims, Says Illinois Securities Regulator

According to Illinois securities regulator Tanya Solov, brokerage firms are driving investors with securities arbitration claims against them to settle their cases. Solov says that they are doing this by barraging investors with discovery information requests. Solov was quoted at the yearly North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. meeting.

Solov said that broker-dealers’ discovery practices end up making the FINRA arbitration process more costly for investors. Such tactics, says Solov, are compelling investors to settle their securities cases rather than go into litigation. She also noted that while broker-dealers keep pressing investors into coming up with discovery material, many investment firms, when faced with a discovery request by an investor, have been known not to provide the information.

William Shepherd, a securities fraud attorney and the founder of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, represents many clients with securities cases against brokerage firms. He noted the challenges his investment fraud firm has had when trying to obtain discovery information for his clients: “Our firm responds in kind, fighting hard for discovery from the firms as well. We have invested in the latest technology to be able to process millions of documents and search these for clues. We do not let abusive requests thwart our goal and we protect our clients from such abuses. We refuse to be bullied by large financial firms who think they can run over investors and their attorneys. These firms now know we are ready, willing and able to fight them and most have abandoned such tactics against us.”

Related Web Resources:
B-Ds bullying clients to settle arbitration cases: Regulator, Investment News, September 27, 2010

North American Securities Administrators Association

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA

July 20, 2010

Securities Class Action Against Morgan Stanley by Xerox and Kodak Retirees Dismissed by Appeals Court

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has upheld a lower court’s ruling to dismiss that the securities class action filed by Eastman Kodak Co. and Xerox Corp. against Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs, retirees from both companies, are accusing the broker-dealer of advising them that if they retired early their investments would be enough to support them during retirement. They also claim that the investment bank persuaded them to open accounts that cost them the bulk of their wealth. According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the retirees gave up job security and employment rights after they were told that if they retired early they could avail of a 10% withdrawal rate from their individual retirement accounts.

However, upon retiring, the retirees that invested lump-sum retirement benefits with Morgan Stanley experienced “disastrous” value declines. Also, they had invested with two Morgan Stanley broker, Michael Kazacos and David Isabella, that were later barred from the securities industry. Last year the broker-dealer settled FINRA charges over the two men’s activities by paying over $7.2 million.

The appeals court says that because of the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing class state law claims, including misrepresentation claims. While the statute lets plaintiffs file lawsuits in state court to get around 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s securities fraud pleading requirements, federal preemption of class actions claiming “misrepresentations in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” are allowed. The three-judge panel also said that because the retirees waited too long to file their securities fraud lawsuit, they cannot raise other federal securities law claims.

Related Web Resources:
Xerox, Kodak retirees lose Morgan Stanley appeal, Reuters, June 29, 2010

Morgan Stanley to Pay More than $7 Million to Resolve FINRA Charges Relating to Misconduct in Early Retirement Investment Promotion, FINRA, March 25, 2009

1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, The Library of Congress

Continue reading "Securities Class Action Against Morgan Stanley by Xerox and Kodak Retirees Dismissed by Appeals Court " »

June 18, 2010

FINRA Suspends License of Dallas Broker-Dealer Linked to Failed Medical Capital Notes

Dallas-based securities firm Cullum & Burks Securities Inc. has had its license suspended by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. The broker-dealer, which had 1,300 client accounts, 100 affiliated reps, and $150 million in assets, reportedly failed to files its mandatory, quarterly Focus report.

Last November, FINRA said the Texas broker-dealer had violated its net capital requirement because it didn’t have enough capital to stay in business. It was then that Cullum & Burkes raised more capital.

The securities firm was one of three broker-dealers listed as sellers of Medical Provider Funding Corp. V, which is a series of private placements that were created by Medical Capital. Other sellers on the list included Securities America Inc. and First Montauk Securities Corp., which is now defunct.

A Reg D filing with the SEC in 2007 reported that the offering was for $400 million. Medical Capital raised about $2.2 billion in investor funds. Now, over half of the investors’ money has been lost.

Cullum & Burks Securities Inc. is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed over the Medical Capital notes sale. The complaint contend that the notes should have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, the securities firm denies that it engaged in broker-misconduct in relation to the sale and sees itself as a victim of any wrongdoing committed by Medical Capital. In 2009, the SEC charged Medical Capital Holdings Inc. with securities fraud related to private placement sales.

Related Web Resources:
Another broker-dealer down: Dallas B-D capsized by MedCap, Investment News, June 16, 2010

FINRA

Continue reading "FINRA Suspends License of Dallas Broker-Dealer Linked to Failed Medical Capital Notes" »

June 17, 2010

House and Senate Negotiators Can’t Seem to Agree on Fiduciary Standard in Financial Regulatory Reform Bill

According to InvestmentNews, negotiators in the Senate and the House have reached an impasse regarding the fiduciary standard provision found in the financial regulatory reform bill. While the House wants the US Securities and Exchange Commission to impose a universal standard of care that would be applicable to anyone offering personalized investment advice to retail clients, such as investment advisers, insurance agents, and broker-dealers, to reveal conflicts of interests and act in clients’ best interests—the Senate only wants the SEC to examine the issue for a year before proceeding to rulemaking.

According to Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, “Virtually all advisory professionals have a fiduciary duty to their clients, and brokerage firms claim to be professionals. Having a ‘fiduciary duty’ means professionals cannot put their own interests ahead of their clients. All types of ‘financial advisors’ were considered fiduciaries, until some Wall Street-friendly judges said otherwise. Congress needs to pass a law restating that brokers are fiduciaries. If not, rest assured that Wall Street will use lack of clarification as proof they do not owe an affirmative duty to their own clients.”

While speaking before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on May 27, US Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin says that the White House is strongly in favor of making retail brokers subject to the toughest possible consumer protection while also having them abide by a fiduciary duty. Wolin also says that the Obama Administration wants heightened regulation of credit rating agencies, Volcker rule limits on banks’ proprietary trading activities, and effective resolution authority against failed companies.

Stockbroker Fraud Attorney Shepherd says “It is preposterous to even say that stockbrokers are not fiduciaries. The law (Investment Advisors Act of 1940) says that those who advise clients regarding securities are held to a fiduciary standard. Meanwhile, stockbrokers insist they are not just order takers – which people pay $8.00 to get online - but are instead ‘advisors,’ ‘financial consultants,’ etc. who can charge 10 to 100 times what online trades cost. Wall Street wants to make the big bucks, but not have any duties to their clients. It’s simple as that.”

Related Web Resources:
House-Senate negotiators hit impasse on fiduciary standard, InvestmentNews, June 17, 2010

Treasury’s Wolin Vows Fight for Broker Fiduciary Duty in Reform Law, Investment Advisor, May 27, 2010

Financial Regulatory Reform, New York Times, June 15, 2010


Continue reading "House and Senate Negotiators Can’t Seem to Agree on Fiduciary Standard in Financial Regulatory Reform Bill " »

May 3, 2010

Ranking Broker-Dealers According to Highest Average AUM Per Rep

Below you will find Investment News' list of the average assets under management per rep at the biggest independent broker-dealers. The information was compiled from data that came from the investment firms that took part in a yearly survey.

Ranked in the Top 10 were:

1. Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, with a $48,322,148 average AUM/rep
2. Commonwealth Financial Network, with a $39,208,423 average AUM/rep
3. Raymond James Financial Services Inc., with a $36,046,959 average AUM/rep
4. First Allied Securities Inc., with a $30,315,640 average AUM/rep
5. Uvest, a unit of LPL Investment Holdings Inc., with a $29,505,358 average AUM/rep
6. FSC Securities Corp., a unit of Advisor Group, with a $28,705,827 average AUM/rep
7. Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., with a $28,511,100 average AUM/rep
8. VSR Financial Services Inc., with a $28,089,888 average AUM/rep
9. M Holdings Securities Inc. (M Securities), with a $27,684,707 average AUM/rep
10. Securities America Inc., with a $27,418,520 average AUM/rep

“The average commission on money under management is about one percent (except for bond accounts which is lower), which means that brokers in the $50 million under management should generate about $500,000 in gross commissions per year (they receive 30% to 60% of this), says Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “Considering that one doesn’t even need a high school diploma to become a financial advisor, making an average income of $150,000 to $300,000 is not bad at all. Last time I looked, brokers at the large financial firms, on average, made a little less than doctors, but far more than lawyers. Seven years of education does not do much for professionals does it?”

Related Web Resources:
Ranking Broker-Dealers According to Highest Average AUM Per Rep, Investment News,

National Association of Independent Broker Dealers

April 19, 2010

National Securities Corp., Independent Financial Group LLC, & Centaurus Financial Inc. among broker-dealers sought by Massachusetts securities regulators over private placements

The Massachusetts Securities Division is requesting information from six broker-dealers regarding the sales of two private-placements that were marketed by Provident Royalties, LLC and Medical Capital Holdings Inc. The investment firms that have been subpoenaed are Centaurus Financial Inc., Investors Capital Corp., Independent Financial Group LLC, CapWest Securities Inc., National Securities Corp., and QA3 Financial Corp.

According to a statement issued last month by Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Provident and Medical Capital put forth billions in securities that were purchased from the brokerage firms. Now, the state’s securities regulators want information from the broker-dealers regarding suitability data, due-diligence efforts, and promotional materials involving the private placement sales.

The six broker-dealers have expressed surprise that they received the subpoenas. Financial Group claims that the brokerage firm never approved the sale of any offerings from Provident Royalties or Medical Corp. Centaurus Financial is also claiming that it never approved any offerings that were bought from either company.

Investors Capital’s president and CEO, Tim Murphy, says the broker-dealer has never had a selling agreement with Medical Capital, while CapWest CEO Dale Hall says that the brokerage firm has just one client in Massachusetts. QA3 says that two of its clients in Massachusetts purchased $175,000 in Provident offerings but that the brokerage firm did not sell any Medical Capital offerings to investors in the state.

The Massachusetts Securities Division has been intensifying its efforts to examine private placement sales made by independent broker-dealers. Earlier this year, regulators in the state filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Securities America accusing the broker-dealer of misleading investors that bought risky private placements, which included $7.2 million in promissory notes.

Related Web Resources:
Broker-dealers dumbfounded by private-placement subpoenas, Investment News, March 23, 2010

Massachusetts Securities Division

Continue reading "National Securities Corp., Independent Financial Group LLC, & Centaurus Financial Inc. among broker-dealers sought by Massachusetts securities regulators over private placements" »

September 10, 2009

SEC Warns Broker-Dealers to be Mindful of Their Recruiting Bonuses

Securities and Exchange Commission Head Mary Shapiro is warning broker-dealers to be careful of the recruiting tactics they employ—especially those involving recruiting bonuses. She cautioned that attractive compensation packages can compel registered representatives to watch out for their own self-interests over the interests of investors, resulting in acts of securities fraud. For example, Shapiro cautioned that a broker who knows that she or he will be given a larger compensation for meeting certain commission goals might make unsuitable investment recommendations, churn customer accounts, or take part in other commission-revenue focused actions that aren’t necessarily in the clients' benefit.

Shapiro is also asking broker-dealer heads to watch over big up-front bonuses. Brokerage firms continue to offer large recruiting bonuses to top registered representatives at rival investment banks. Recruiting packages at wirehouses Merrill Lynch, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo Advisers are between 200-250% of trailing 12-month production. In many instances, an investment adviser who satisfies production targets and brings in a certain percentage of assets is frequently rewarded.

Shapiro’s letter to the firm’s CEOs reminded them that it is the broker-dealer’s responsibility to “police such conflicts” and supervise broker-dealer activities, especially those related to sales practices. She reminded the broker-dealers that when a sales group expands, it is the investment bank's responsibility to not just supervise advisers but to make sure the compliance structure maintains the adequate capacity. She noted that investor interests must always be of prime importance when investment products, such as securities, are sold.

Unfortunately, there are brokers who choose to place their own financial gain over the interests of their clients. This can result in securities fraud losses for investors. A few examples of broker misconduct include churning, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unauthorized trading.

Related Web Resources:
Read Shapiro's Letter (PDF)

Schapiro Message to B-D CEOs: Watch Your Recruiting Tactics, Research Mag, September 1, 2009

Chairman Mary Schapiro, SEC

Continue reading "SEC Warns Broker-Dealers to be Mindful of Their Recruiting Bonuses" »

August 12, 2009

UBS AG and Merrill Lynch Collectively Fined $250,000 by FINRA for Closed-End Fund Actions

UBS Financial Services Inc. has agreed to be fined $100,000 and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. has consented to a $150,000 fine, says the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, for alleged supervisory failures that resulted in the inappropriate short-term sales of closed-end funds that were bought at initial public offerings for the funds. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealers are not deny or admitting to the FINRA charges. They are, however, consenting to the findings.

FINRA also announced that it was suspending five Merrill Lynch brokers for 15 days. Each of them must pay a $10,000 fine for allegedly making fund recommendations that were unsuitable for investors.

Merrill Lynch brokers that FINRA has sanction include:

• Kenneth C. Iwelumo (his clients lost about $563,000)
• Joseph Miller (approximately $130,000 in client losses)
• Ronald Kemp (about $411,000 in customer losses)
• Michael Kizman (about $210,000 in losses)
• John Ong (about $350,000 in client losses)

The investigation into the activities of a number of former UBS brokers is ongoing.

Closed-End Funds
Closed-End Funds are investment companies that sell a fixed number of shares during an initial public offering. These sales come with built-in sales charges. The CEF’s at issue came with a 4.5% sales charges and a 30-90 day penalty bid period after the IPO. If a client sold the CEF that had been purchased at the IPO during this time period, the broker would lose the commission.

FINRA says that both broker-dealers knew that CEF’s bought at IPO’s are more appropriate for long-term investments and that because of the sales charges that come with their purchases, it is inappropriate to engage in the short-term trading of CEF’s. FINRA claims that Merrill Lynch and UBS did not have the proper supervisory procedures and systems in place so that brokers couldn’t and/or wouldn't make such unsuitable CEF sales.

FINRA also says that both broker-dealers failed to warn supervisors about the potential issues that could result from such activity and did not properly train registered individuals. Due to this improper supervision, brokers for Merrill and UBS recommended that certain clients engage in short-term sales of CEF’s bought at IPOs without fully understanding the financial ramifications these recommendations would have on their clients’ finances.

FINRA is concerned about brokers who convince customers to buy CEF’s during their IPO’s and then wait until after the penalty bid period is over to recommend that clients sell the CEF’s—usually at a loss. These brokers then recommend that clients use the proceeds from the sale to purchase more CEF’s at initial public offerings.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, UBS for Supervisory Failures in Sales of Closed-End Funds; Customers Get More Than $5 Million in Remediation, FINRA, July 28, 2009

Merrill, UBS Are Fined in Closed-End-Fund Case, The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2009

Continue reading "UBS AG and Merrill Lynch Collectively Fined $250,000 by FINRA for Closed-End Fund Actions" »

July 26, 2009

Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Provident Royalties, LLC, Provident Asset Management LLC, and founders Brendan Coughlin, Paul Melbye, and Henry Harrison with Texas securities fraud over their alleged involvement in a $485 million investment scam. The SEC claims the defendants used the ponzi scheme to defraud thousands of natural gas and oil investors.

According to the SEC civil complaint, Provident allegedly made a series of fraudulent offerings of limited partnership interests and preferred stock from at least June 2006 through January 2009 and persuaded about 7,700 US investors to invest half a billion dollars. The Texas-based firm allegedly promised yearly returns of more than 18% and misrepresented the way the funds were going to be used. The SEC is also accusing broker-dealer Provident Asset Management, LLC of making direct retail securities sales, as well as soliciting unaffiliated retail broker-dealers to submit placement agreements for each offering.

The SEC contends that investors thought that 86% of the funds would be used in gas and oil investments, mineral rights, leases, exploration, and development. While less than 50% of the investors’ funds were actually used to acquire and develop gas and oil exploration, the SEC claims the other funds were used to pay previous investors of Provident Royalties.

Coughlin, Harrison, and Melbye have been charged with orchestrating the ponzi scam. Also named in the SEC complaint are the 21 entities that sold securities to investors.

The SEC is charging the defendants with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, a temporary restraining order, financial penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in addition to prejudgment interest. An emergency freeze on the assets has been issued and a receiver has been appointed.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Obtains Asset Freeze in $485 Million Nationwide Offering Fraud, SEC, July 7, 2009

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)


Continue reading "Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC" »

July 12, 2009

Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud

The US Securities and Exchange Commission says Ameriprise Financial Services has consented to pay $17.3 million to settle allegations that it received millions of dollars in undisclosed compensation in exchange for selling certain REITs (real estate investment trusts) to its brokerage customers.

The SEC says Ameriprise demanded and got “revenue sharing” payments to sell the REITs but neglected to disclose it was receiving the payments. The SEC is also accusing Ameriprise of violating a number of federal securities laws when it sold over $100 million in unregistered shares involving one specific REIT.

SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khumazi says the broker-dealer’s clients were not told that brokers had incentives to sell the REITs. He stressed the importance of investors being able to rely on unbiased advice from financial advisers.

The SEC charges come from REITs sales that took place between 2000 and May 2004. CNL Holdings Group, Inc. and W.P. Carey & Co. LLC created, advised, and managed the REITs named in the proceedings.

By agreeing to settle, Ameriprise is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represents Ameriprise investors with securities fraud cases against the broker-dealer. Stockbroker fraud attorney and firm founder William Shepherd says “Our law firm handles claims of all types for investors nationwide who lost in accounts at Ameriprise and other financial firms. Over 90% of our clients recover all or part of their losses. It is sad that many investors choose not to seek recovery from investment firms that commit fraud or and other wrongdoing. We offer a free consultation and most of our clients advance no fees or costs but instead pay these out of their recovery.”

Related Web Resources:
Ameriprise Pays $17.3M To Settle SEC Charges, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2009

REITs, Investopedia


Continue reading "Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud" »

July 6, 2009

Stifel Financial Corp. Says 95% of Clients Agree to Auction-Rate Securities Buyback Plan

According to Stifel Financial Corp., 95% of its clients with frozen auction-rate securities have indicated that they will accept its offer to buy back the investments over a three-year period. Missouri Securities Regulator and Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, however, continues to maintain that the buyback plan is inadequate.

She also disagrees with the broker-dealer’s claim that customers are endorsing the buyback plan by accepting it. Rather, she believes that it is the only option that Stifel has given clients that will allow them to get all of their funds back—and that means that many of them will have to wait three years. Carnahan noted that over 20 other broker-dealers were able to give their clients immediate relief.

Some 1,200 Stifel clients bought ARS before the market collapsed. The firm’s clients currently hold about $170 million in ARS. Some 40% of eligible accounts reportedly were to have received 100% liquidity by June 30. The remaining accounts are to obtain full liquidity by June 2012.

Stifel Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Ronald J. Kruszewski maintains that the broker-dealer did not know that the ARS market was in trouble until it collapsed. This is the main reason that Stifel has given for why it isn’t buying back their clients’ holdings in full the way other brokers have from their clients.

Carnahan’s office, however, alleges that Stifel was aware of the risks involved with investing in ARS and that the broker-dealer should have worked harder to protect investors. Her office sued Stifel in March 2009 over the way the firm marketed ARS and misled investors.

Related Web Resources:
Most Stifel clients accept auction rate securities buyback; Carnahan calls offer ‘inadequate’, St Louis Business Journal, June 23, 2009

Carnahan Sues Stifel Over Auction Rate Securities, iStockAnalyst, March 13, 2009

New Trouble in Auction-Rate Securities, The New York Times, February 15, 2008

Continue reading "Stifel Financial Corp. Says 95% of Clients Agree to Auction-Rate Securities Buyback Plan" »