Broker-Dealers

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

Published on: June 17, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

Ranking Broker-Dealers According to Highest Average AUM Per Rep

Published on: May 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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

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

Published on: April 19, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

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

Published on: September 10, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

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

Published on: August 12, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

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

Published on: July 26, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud

Published on: July 12, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

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

Published on: July 6, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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 ›

Former Stifel Nicolaus and A.G. Edwards Stockbroker Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud

Published on: June 25, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A former stockbroker that used to work for A.G. Edwards and Stifel Nicolaus has pleaded guilty to mail fraud. Neil R. Harrison, could spend up to 27 months behind bars-although his agreement to repay $85,739, cooperate with police, and lack of a criminal record could help him receive less than the 21-month minimum sentence. Harrison is accused of defrauding clients at two Illinois firms. He solicited investors to place their money in commodities futures and the gold market but instead used their funds for gambling. The mail fraud charge is based on a wire transfer confirmation mailed to a Stifel client.

While this may be Harrison’s first official brush with the law, he was let go from A.G. Edwards in 2005 for failing to cooperate with a probe regarding his efforts to get a loan from a client. A.G. Edwards filed the necessary securities documents regarding his firing. Even though Stifel Nicolaus was aware of Harrison’s background, the broker-dealer still hired him-with a special supervised agreement-just 10 days after A.G. Edwards terminated him.

Stifel would eventually fire the stockbroker in 2008 for “unethical and professional misconduct.” The broker-dealer accused Harrison of soliciting and getting money and personal loans from clients for fraudulent investments.

Per Harrison’s plea agreement: The ex-stockbroker persuaded clients to sign paperwork to open margin accounts without making sure that they had a good understanding of what these accounts were or the interest rates associated with them. He would then direct his broker-dealer to issue wire transfers to the investors’ checking accounts to replace money that was issued to him for the bogus investments. He also made material misrepresentations to clients and prospective investors. He told them they could make a lot of money but they would have to go outside the traditional brokerage account for diversity when making investments.

At least five investors were defrauded.

Related Web Resources:

Illinois Securities Department
Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan & Co’s Regions Financial May Face SEC Charges Over Improper Auction-Rate Securities Sales

Published on: May 12, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Regions Financial Corp, a Morgan Keegan & Co brokerage unit, says the US Securities and Exchange Commission may file a civil proceeding against it over charges that the firm allegedly engaged in the improper sale of auction-rate securities. The regulator filed a “Wells Notice” against Morgan Keegan in March. The notice means that a civil proceeding could be next. It also gives Morgan Keegan the opportunity to prepare a defense.

The SEC is examining the degree to which Morgan Keegan revealed to its clients the risks associated with investing in the auction-rate market and whether the firm sold a huge amount of that debt even when its ability to support the auction had declined.

Morgan Keegan is purchasing back the ARS it sold to clients. According to Morgan Keegan spokesperson Kathy Ridley, the investment firm has already gotten back $28 million in ARS.

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP are working with numerous clients on claims against Morgan Keegan and Regions Financial over failed auction-rate securities investments, as well as investor claims involving these Morgan Keegan Bond Funds:

• RMK Strategic Income Fund (RSF)

• RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA)

• RMK Multi-Sector-High Income Fund (RHY)

• RMK High Income Fund (RHM)

• RMK Select High Income Funds: C (RHICX), I (RHIIX), and A (MKHIX)

• RMK Select Intermediate Bond Funds: A (MKIBX), C (RIBCX), I (RIBIX)

The collapse of the $330 billion auction-rate securities market left many investors unable to sell auction-rate debt that they were told were safe to invest in and that were the liquid equivalent of cash. Since then, many investors have come forward complaining that they were misled about the risks tied to investing in the market.

Regions Financial unit may face SEC charges, Reuters, May 11, 2009
Regions Financial says Morgan Keegan unit received ‘Wells notice’, The Birmingham News, May 12, 2009 Continue Reading ›