Articles Posted in Mutual Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into whether Franklin Templeton, Oppenheimer Funds (OPY), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), and other mutual fund managers are charging investors for fund fees that have not been fully disclosed. While money managers are allowed to use some of investors’ money to pay compensation to the brokers who sell a fund’s shares, as well as for certain marketing purposes, the regulator wants to know whether firms are exceeding the allowed limits.

The Commission is trying to find out whether mutual fund companies have come up with ways to make extra payments to brokers by using investor assets to cover certain services, such as the consolidation of client trading records. The agency is worried that proper disclosure of these added fees are not being made to investors. The SEC is also wondering if brokers are more inclined to recommend funds that provide such additional payments, compelling them to prioritize profit over funds.

Fund companies have said that they do properly disclose fees for marketing. Oppenheimer, which is one of the companies that the SEC has investigated over this issue, has said that it doesn’t bill mutual fund clients for recordkeeping costs but that the money comes from the firm.
Continue Reading ›

William Galvin, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, is investigating the sale of 25 alternative mutual funds, including those created by Wells Fargo (WFC), JPMorgan (JPM), Eaton Vance (EV), and BlackRock (BLK). The state’s securities division sent subpoenas to registered investment advisers that deal with the funds. It noted, however, that receiving a subpoena is “not an indication of wrongdoing at this time.”

A full list of the funds under investigation can be found here. Galvin’s office wants to see documents related to the recommendations the firms made make to retail investors. The Massachusetts regulator’s spokesperson, Brian McNiff, said that the funds were selected because of their size, investment strategies, and sales volumes.

Alternative funds, also called liquid alts, are often marketed as tools that involve hedge-fund-style investment strategies to mitigate risks found in bonds, stocks, and other traditional investments. Alternative funds are not like typical mutual funds. Liquid alts usually hold more investments that are non-traditional. They typically employ trading strategies that are more complex.

Alt funds may invest in global real estate, leveraged loans, commodities, unlisted securities, and start-up companies. Strategies used may include short selling, hedging and leveraging via derivatives, opportunistic tactics that change with market conditions, or even single strategy tactics. There are risks involved.
Continue Reading ›

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that LPL Financial, LLC (LPLA), Raymond James & Associates (RJF), Raymond James Financial Services, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (WFC), and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC must pay over $30M in restitution plus interest to customers who were impacted when the firms did not waive mutual fund sales charges for certain retirement and charitable accounts. According to the self-regulatory organization, between July 2009 and the end of 2014 the financial firms either improperly overcharged certain investors who had purchased Class A mutual fund shares or sold them Class B or C shares instead. The latter two come with ongoing, high back-end fees.

Mutual funds typically offer different share classes for sale. Each class has its own sales fees and charges. Although Class A shares come with an initial sales charge, they usually have lower annual fees than Class B and C shares. However, mutual funds will usually waive Class A sales charges when selling them to charities and some retirement accounts.

The broker-dealers offered these waivers for the retirement and charitable plan accounts under limited conditions. The waivers also were disclosed in prospectuses. Yet, according to FINRA, at various times since at least July 2009, the firms did not actually waive the sales charges for these customers when they were offered the Class A shares.

Because of this, contends the agency, over 50,000 eligible retirement accounts and charitable organizations either paid sales charges for the Class A shares or bought other share classes that required them to pay higher ongoing fees and other expenses. FINRA said that the firms did not properly supervise the sale of these mutual funds and depended on its brokers to offer the waiver discounts even though they weren’t properly trained.

Continue Reading ›

Securities and Exchange Commission employees are appealing a ruling by an administrative law judge dismissing charges against two financial advisers accused of not notifying clients that Fidelity Investments (FNF) had paid them to sell specific mutual funds. In the Texas securities case, SEC Administrative Law Judge James E. Grimes rejected claims that The Robare Group and two of its owners violated the law by failing to adequately disclose that they had a financial relationship with the brokerage firm. Grimes said that from listening to Mark L. Robare and his son-in-law Jack L. Jones Jr. testify, he was hard pressed to imagine them attempting to bilk anyone. This is one of the few cases presided over by one of its judges that the SEC has lost.

Fidelity is The Robare Group’s custodian. For the last 11 years, the registered investment advisor has been part of a program in which Fidelity pays it a portion of the revenue earned from the sale of certain third-party mutual funds. The payment goes to the adviser who made the mutual fund sale happen.

Advisors are given access to the funds without any transaction fees. As the custodian, Fidelity refers to payments made to advisers not as commission but as compensation for shareholder administrative fees.

In their appeal, the SEC staffers said that they feared Grimes’ ruling in this case establishes a troubling precedent that shifts the burden of full disclosure of a conflict interest from an investment adviser to a compliance consultant. They said this could allow an investment adviser to be excused from certain securities violations as long as he has a compliance consultant that has not “affirmatively” objected to a “particular disclosure.”
Continue Reading ›

Atlanta, GA Man Accused of Making $740,000 for Insider Trading

The Securities and Exchange Commission is filing charges against a Georgia man who is accused of insider trading and making about $740,000 in illicit profits. Charles L. Hill allegedly traded in Radiant Systems stock based on the confidential insider data a friend gave him about an upcoming tender offer to purchase the company. The friend was a friend of a Radiant Systems executive.

In 2011, Hill bought about 100,000 shares valued at close to $2.2 million on the final day of trading prior to the public announcement of the acquisition. That was his first time buying stock of Radiant Systems, and before that it had been years since he’d purchased equity securities.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil case against alternative fund manager Daniel Thibeault accusing him of taking some $16 million in assets from the GL Beyond Income Fund (GLBFX). Thibeault was arrested on securities fraud charges over the same matter last month.

According to the SEC, Thibeault took out faked loans using Taft Financial Services, which is an intermediary that he allegedly controlled, to steal money from the funds. The purported securities scam is said to have begun in 2013, after the GL fund started losing money. The Commission says that in certain cases documents for the loans that were withdrawn via Taft are missing or had errors in them, including inaccurate birth dates for borrowers.

The regulator’s complaint also names GL Investment Services, which Thibeault indirectly owns. The registered investment adviser, which had about $130 million in assets from approximately 700 clients, is accused of advising customers to put money in the GL fund.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is developing regulations that would make sure that mutual funds are liquid enough to satisfy client redemptions and money managers have a plan should a fund fail. Part of the regulator’s strategy may include limiting how mutual funds are allowed to place in assets that are hard-to-sell and use derivatives to enhance returns.

InvestmentNews reports that according to a report issued by the International Monetary Fund last month, mutual funds’ holdings of leveraged loans, junk bonds, and other assets that don’t trade often had higher market and liquidity risks. The IMF said that this could “compromise” financial stability unless the matter is dealt with. Mutual funds also have come under the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s scrutiny.

Per the SEC’s agenda, regulators could propose new mutual fund rules in October of next year. Earlier this year, when Commission Chair Mary Jo White talked about an action plan that the agency was developing to enhance asset management oversight, she noted that the regulator intends to mandate that mutual fund investments provide more disclosures. The SEC has been seeking to gain greater insight into whether the asset management industry presents a risk to the financial system.

The Securities and Exchange Commission introduced a two-year plan to examine municipal advisers who assist localities and states to raise money in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market. During this period, regulators plan to look at a significant chunk of the approximately 1,000 SEC-registered municipal advisers.

These advisers are usually small firms with one or two employees. They are not affiliated with banks. Municipal advisers are retained to time, price, and market muni-bond transactions.

The SEC has been clamping down on municipalities for not updating investors about their financial health. The regulator wants the U.S. Congress to give it more authority in the market. Right now, muni issuers are exempt from disclosure requirements that corporations have to make when selling securities. Now the agency wants to know whether municipal advisers are meeting their fiduciary duty and placing clients’ interests before their own.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Director Andrew Bowden says that investment advisers should be careful when putting investors in alternative mutual funds. The agency says there has been a rise in complex trading strategies in mutual funds and nontraditional investments, with assets in alternative mutual funds reaching $168 billion in October. This is an increase from the $158 billion achieved the previous year.

While using these mutual funds may raise returns, investors can be placed at greater risk in the event that the market were to drop, especially if these products involved have limited secondary markets. Bowden says the agency intends to conduct a sweep of the $200 billion alternative find industry and examine the way it uses specific private fund strategies in public-traded investments.

It was last month that the SEC announced that it would look at both hedge fund and alternative investment strategies in exchange-traded funds, open-ended funds, and variable annuity structures. The regulator wants to look at if the ways that the funds are being promoted comply with regulations.

Even as alternative mutual funds have become very popular among financial advisers and investors These investments employee a variety of complex investment strategies and opportunities to create portfolio diversification that are supposed to protect clients from steep market drops. Already, billions of dollars have gone into these funds in recent years. Their total assets, at around $234 billion right now, are a 33% increase from last year. However, just because so many people are interested in alternative mutual funds doesn’t mean they are good for the average investor.

According to The New York Times, there are some financial advisers who are cautioning customers to exercise great care for the same reason that a lot of investors decide not to go with traditional mutual funds that are actively managed-because it is tough to identify which alternative investment managers are talented/skilled enough to do the job right and which ones could end up getting lucky.

Also, it can be hard enough comprehending any fund prospectus. Multi-alternative funds have hedge-fund-like strategies and managed futures. Then, there are the nontraditional bond funds, which trade on anticipating what bonds will do next and hedging risks linked to rates. Seeing as it is important for investors to be able to comprehend what they are getting into, alternative mutual funds might not be the best choice for the average investor.

Contact Information