FINRA

FINRA Arbitration Panel Orders Stifel Nicolaus to Pay $2.7M to Ex-Head Trader

Published on: June 24, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Arbitration Panel says that Stifel Financial Corp. (SF), the brokerage unit of Stifel Nicolaus, must pay $2.7 million to, Sean Horrigan. Stifel’s ex-head trader claims that the brokerage firm defamed him and withheld his bonus without just cause. Now, the panel is holding the broker-dealer liable.

Horrigan was fired from Stifel in 2012. According to his lawyer, his termination happened several weeks after he overheard a phone call in which a manager insulted his wife to a salesperson. Horrigan’s wife was also employed at Stifel at the time. After the incident, he reacted emotionally. It was after trading hours. The firm then demoted him before letting him go just weeks prior to giving him his bonus for 2011.

Stifel contended that Horrigan was not entitled to get that money because on the day that the bonuses were issued he no longer worked for the firm. His attorney, however, says that unless an industry professional signs a contract mandating that an employee has to be employed on bonus payout day, he/she is still entitled to that money.

FINRA Orders Merrill Lynch to Repay $89M in Restitution, $8M Fine for Excessive Mutual Fund Fees for Charities, Retirement Accounts

Published on: June 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says Bank of America (BAC) Merrill Lynch failed to waive mutual fund sales charges for a number of retirement accounts and charities. Now the wirehouse must pay as restitution $89 million and a fine of $8 million. The firm settled without denying or admitting to the findings.

The majority of mutual funds with the firm’s retail platform are supposed waive specific fees for charities and retirement plans that qualify for this consideration. However, Merrill Lynch neglected to ensure that its advisers were correctly implementing these waivers. This impacted 41,000 accounts.

The SRO says that from about ’06 – ’11, firm advisers put tens of thousands of accounts into certain funds, including Class A mutual fund shares, and promised to waive specific sales charges for charities and retirement accounts. It then did not act to ensure that all of the fees were actually waived.

Regulator Headlines: SEC Commissioner Stein Wants Updated Capital Rules for Brokerage Firms, FINRA’s BrokerCheck Link Proposal Faces Opposition, & CFTC Appoints New Enforcement Head

Published on: June 12, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Commissioner Wants Big Broker-Dealers To Hold More Capital

Securities and Exchange Commissioner Kara M. Stein wants the regulator to modify its capital rules for large brokerage firms so that they would be required to hold more capital in the event of a funding crisis. Stein wants the regulation to better factor the risk involved in short-term funding markets on which brokers depend. She also would like the latter to protect against failures that could upset the financial system.

Right now, the SEC is looking at new funding rules for brokers and placing limits on leverage, not unlike what regulators require for banks. However, Stein believes that the agency’s current approach, which is to protect customers but without considering how to keep companies in operation, needs work. The SEC Commissioner believes that the agency’s capital rules for big brokers should be based on preventing the failure of “systemically significant” firms. Stein also wants the SEC to finally implement the rules that were called for by the 2010 Dodd Frank Ac, including those that would limit the risks involving swap contracts.

FINRA Headlines: SRO Fines Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Barclays Capital $1M Each & Makes Dark Pool Data Available

Published on: June 7, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, Goldman, and Barclays Capital $1M Each Over Blue Sheet Data

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has issued a censure that fines Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., and Barclays Capital Inc. $1 million each. The firms are accused of not submitting accurate and complete data about trades conducted by them and their customers to the SRO and other regulators. This information is known as “blue sheet” data. Firms are legally required to give regulators this information upon request.

Blue sheets give regulators specific information about trades, including the name of a security, the price, the day it was traded, who was involved, and the size of transaction. This information is helpful to identify anomalies in trading and look into possible market manipulations.

FINRA Delays Submitting REIT Share Price Rule to the SEC, Revises Trading Surveillance System, Gets Approval to Rule Limiting Self-Trading

Published on: May 24, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is postponing when it will send to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission its proposed new rules that would give investors a more accurate overview of the costs involved in buying nontraded real estate investment trust shares. The proposed change to NASD Rule 2340, if approved by the SEC, would no longer allow brokerage firms to list a nontraded REIT’s per-share value at the common price of $10, which is the price that they are sold to clients.

Instead, the different fees and commissions that deal managers and brokers are paid would have to be factored in, which would lower each nontraded REIT’s share price in a customer’s account. Independent brokerage firms and their affiliated reps are the ones that would be most affected since practically all they sell is nontraded REITs. Unlisted private placements would also be impacted.

Although the comment period on the proposed rule changes ended in March, FINRA now says that it is not yet done looking at these comments. One group, the Investment Program Association, wants the proposed rule changes—in particular, the one that modifies to the way REIT valuations show up on client statements—delayed until 2015 so that nontraded REIT sponsors and brokerage firms that sell these investments have enough time to make their modifications so they are in compliance.

FINRA Conducts 170 Probes Into Possible Algorithmic Abuse

Published on: May 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that is looking to identify and stop trading incidents linked to algorithmic abuses. The self-regulatory agency is currently conducting about 170 investigations into this matter.

FINRA wants to find out if any brokerage firms either engaged in algorithmic abuses to trade or did not properly supervises advisers who committed such abuses. The SRO is worried that there are algorithms that are specifically intended set off illegal, manipulative behaviors on the market.

The use of algorithms to influence the markets have garnered lots of attention lately, specially with the release of author Michael Lewis’s book, “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt.” He contends that high-frequency traders have the greater advantage because their extremely fast computers can manipulate stock prices to their benefit.

FINRA Panel Tells Ameriprise to Pay Elderly Couple $1.7M Over Unsuitable Real Estate Investments

Published on: May 5, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Arbitration panel says that Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. (AMP) must pay $1.17M to two senior investors for getting them involved in investments that failed. The panel said that the financial firm acted inappropriately when it advised Albertus Niehuis Jr., 82, and his wife Andrea, to put $1.03M into high-risk tenant-in-common investments involving hotels and office complexes six years ago. They are retired school teachers.

One of the investments failed. The other two lost significant value. Despite the ruling, the financial firm insists that it gave the Niehuises the appropriate investment advice and it stands behind the recommendations.

In 2012, ThinkAdvisor.com said that the number of senior investors is expected to reach 89 million in 2050. Currently, there are close to 40 million Americans belonging to the age 65 and over group. Unfortunately, elder financial fraud continues to be a serious problem.

FINRA Sees 10% Rise in Arbitration Cases, Puerto Rico Bond Claims A Factor

Published on: April 27, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to statistics put together by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the number of securities arbitration cases brought by the self-regulatory agency is on target to exceed last year’s total. A likely contributor to the increase can be attributed to the numerous Puerto Rico municipal bond cases already filed by investors who sustained huge losses. More of these are inevitable, especially as FINRA just increased its arbitrator pool to deal with cases involving muni bonds from the US territory.

The broker-dealer regulator said that during this first quarter alone, 1,011 FINRA arbitration cases were submitted-a definite increase from the 919 securities arbitration claims filed during 2013’s first three months. However, the number of arbitration cases that were closed during this first quarter is less than in two years prior, with just 946 resolved. Compare that to the over 4,400 and 4,800 cases in 2013 and 2012, respectively.

That said, 5O% of arbitration cases decided during this initial quarter rendered damage awards, which is more than in the last two years. The most common claim in FINRA arbitration cases filed in 2014 so far is breach of fiduciary duty. Negligence, failure to supervise, and breach of contract are the other leading claims.

The Brokerage Industry Responds to FINRA’s Broker Compensation Proposal

Published on: April 19, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number brokerage firms, including Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, LPL Financial (LPLA), and Stifel Nicolaus (SF) have responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request for comments about FINRA-proposed rule about broker compensation. Proposed rule 2243 would require greater disclosure about the financial incentives that is offered to representatives who change jobs. The information would need to be conveyed to the self-regulatory agency.

Under Rule 2243, clients who go with a broker to a new firm would have to be apprised of any recruiting compensation the representative gets if the amount is $100,000 or greater. This would include bonuses at the front and back ends, signing bonuses, transition assistance, and accelerated payouts. The disclosure would be applicable for one year after the representative begins association or employment with the new broker-dealer.

The rule also would apply if the brokerage firm expects total compensation paid during the representative’s first year of association to result in a $100,000 or 25% increase in compensation from the year prior. Firms also would have to notify FINRA about such a rise in compensation. (The SRO wants to use the data to look for signs of potentially related sales abuses.)

FINRA Doesn’t Want Oversight Over Financial Advisers, Says CEO Ketchum

Published on: April 12, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority CEO Richard G. Ketchum, the regulator no longer wants to be given oversight over financial advisers. Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, Ketchum said the self-regulatory agency had done all it could to be granted authority over investment advisers and has decided to stop with additional attempts.

FINRA currently oversees brokers. Meantime, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the states oversee registered investment advisers. The SEC had been exploring having FINRA or another agency police RIAs instead. However, the majority of investment advisers were against such a move because of the way FINRA handles enforcement. They don’t think the regulator understands the way investment advisers operated.

Ketchum is now saying that Congress should give the SEC the resources it needs to enhance its examination program of advisers. The Commission has been asking for more money because it can only afford to examine investment advisor firms about once a decade, which isn’t much oversight at all.