REITs

Non-Traded REITs, Structured Products, and Private Placements Remain Under Regulator Scrutiny

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

According to state regulators, non-traded real estate investment trusts, structure products, and private placements, are some of the financial instruments that the states and insurance regulators are watching closely. First Deputy Commissioner of the Iowa Insurance Division Jim Mumford and Alabama Securities Commission director Joseph P. Borg recently spoke at a panel at the Insured Retirement Institute’s Government, Legal and Regulatory Conference.

Borg noted that a growing number of agents are now selling unlicensed financial products, with insurance agents selling private placements and getting clients away from insurance products and into Regulation 506 of Regulation D. The rule establishes a safe harbor for securities’ private offerings. Such instruments are only supposed to be made available to accredited investors and non-accredited investors that have enough sophistication to be able to assess this type of investment. Agents, however, have tried to circumvent securities laws by claiming that a (nonexistent) attorney gave them a letter stating that the private offering actually wasn’t a security.

Also up for sale lately are self-directed IRAs and promissory notes. Structured products have also been quite popular, although unfortunately, Borg noted, many agents and brokers don’t even understand what they are selling.

Boston Investment Firm Accused of $5 Million Real Estate Investment Fraud Targeting Senior Investors

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

The state of Massachusetts has filed a complaint against Cabot Investment Properties and its principals Timothy J. Kroll and Carlton P. Cabot. Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin is charging the firm with defrauding mostly elderly investors through fraudulent real estate investment sales.

The administrative complaints contends that Massachusetts residents wanting retirement income invested over $5 million in eight tenancy-in-common investments and misappropriated more than $9 million of the investment proceeds. Cabot Investment Properties had bought 18 business centers, malls, and other real estate properties in the US and structured them as securities.

Galvin claims that the respondents committed fraud when offering and selling the securities and made omissions and misrepresentations about their backgrounds and the consequences involved in securitizing the underlying TIC mortgages into commercial mortgage-backed securities. He contends that they misled investors by providing disclosures that downplayed how much liability was involved.

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.

California Regulators Probe Inland American Real Estate Trust REIT

Published on: May 15, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The California Department of Business Oversight is looking into the Inland American Real Estate Trust Inc. This is the largest nontraded real estate investment trust with $9.7 billion in assets. Earlier their year, Inland American announced to shareholders that it would become a self-managed REIT.

Inland American is one of the big REITs that experienced a swift drop in valuation when the real estate market crashed in ’07-’08. While the nontraded REIT is currently not under investigation, state regulators want clarification about the offering price in the recent repurchase of shares of the REIT.

In a letter written last month, the department’s corporation counsel Danielle Stoumbos asked why Inland is selling shares at up to $8.03/share in its distribution reinvestment plan when the share price pursuant to the latest tender offer is just $6.10 to $6.50. The state also wants to know how Inland compensates its manager/internal adviser and whether there might be conflicts of interest.

Non-traded REITS Exhibit Unbelievable Resistance to FINRA Disclosure Rules

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

The non-traded real estate investment trusts industry wants to delay the implementation of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority disclosure rule until the end of 2015. The rule would require that investors be given more accurate data about the valuation of direct participation programs and non-traded REITs.

This should provide investors with a more accurate picture of how much it costs to buy non-traded REIT shares. Currently, the self-regulatory authority’s proposal would put the rule change into effect at the end of 2014, which would be about six months after obtaining Securities and Exchange Commission approval.

Almost all non-traded REIT vendors are independent brokerage firms. Generating close to $20 billion in sales last year, which is twice as much as the year prior, broker-dealers and their representatives have gotten commission boosts due to their typical 7% commission.

FINRA Awards Nearly $1M in Florida Non-traded-REIT Cases

Published on: February 14, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered two Retirement Securities Inc. and Sterling Enterprises Group Inc. to pay an individual and two trusts over $900,000 in a Non-traded real estate investment trust case. The individual is investor Kristopher Brownlow and the two trusts are the Martha H. Mason Trust and the Derek Mason Trust. Both Retirement Securities and Sterling Enterprises are no longer registered with FINRA.

The two trusts and Brownlow brought the case to the SRO, contending that they lost money because of the investments that Sterling Enterprises and Retirement Securities recommended to them. Per FINRA documents, the investments were made in REITS offered by Inland American Real Estate Trust Inc. and they were non-tradable. Inland Real Estate Trust Inc. is one of the biggest non-traded REITs with over $11 billion in assets.

At the dispute resolution hearing, the claimants argued that the investment advisors breached their fiduciary duty, were negligent, took part in common law fraud, violated the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and breached contracts. Except for the allegation involving the Florida act, all allegations were thrown out.

FINRA Bars Ex-LPL Broker Over Nontraded REIT Sales

Published on: December 27, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has barred ex-LPL Financial (LPLA) representative Gary Chakman over securities industry rule violations related to the sale of non-traded real estate investment trusts. Chackman was registered with the brokerage firm from 2001 until 2012. LPL then ended his registration with the firm for purportedly violating its procedures and policies related to alternative investment sales.

According to the SRO, Chackman “recommended and effected” transactions that were unsuitable in several LPL customer accounts. He did this by overconcentrating clients’ assets in illiquid securities, including REITs. Chackman is also accused of falsifying LPL documents to avoid firm supervision and making the broker-dealer’s records and books inaccurate because he turned in purchase forms misrepresenting clients’ liquid net worth.

FINRA’s settlement letter says that when Chackman submitted falsified documents, this allowed him to increase how much of customers’ accounts could be concentrated in REITs and other investments even though these amounts went over LPL’s allowed allocation limits. The alleged overconcentration took place between January 2009 and February 2012.

Broker-Dealer National Planning to Pay $6.2M FINRA Arbitration Award to Two Minnesota Investors Over REITs

Published on: December 3, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that National Planning Corp. must pay a $6.2 million REIT arbitration award to Minnesota investors Stacy and Ronnie Erickson. The Erickson and trusts on their behalf accused the independent brokerage firm and its ex-brokers Christopher R. Olson of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations, and industry rule violations involving real estate investment trusts.

According to the FINRA award, which doesn’t name the REITs that the Ericksons invested in, the claimants also invested in real estate investments in Waterway Holdings Group, which Olson and a Preferred Resource Group Inc. employee owned. Olson has since filed for bankruptcy and all claims against him have been halted. (Olson was allowed to resign from NPC after he failed to disclose his external business activities or the involvement of his clients in these undertakings. After he quit he registered with Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services Inc.)

The Ericksons say that in addition to becoming the victims of broker fraud, they had to fulfill outstanding loans on mortgages on the real estate investments to avoid foreclosure. They contend that Olson manipulated them into taking on significant debt, paying millions of dollars that they cannot get back, and annuitizing, liquidating, and structuring their investment assets that were for their retirement to pay back the “staggering” debt that resulted from the real estate investment recommendations.

North American Securities Administrators Association Releases 2013 List of Top Threats to Investors

Published on: October 22, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrators Association has issued its yearly list of the top investor threats. The list is compiled through a poll of its member state securities administrators. With the enactment of Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which takes away the advertising restrictions when it comes to soliciting securities and other investments, now more than ever investors should be cautious.

The List:
Private Offerings (especially fraudulent private placement offerings, also known as Reg D/Rule 506 offerings): These are limited investment offers that are very liquid, poorly regulated, and have very little transparency. They are risky and might not be suitable for individual investors. Now, with the JOBS Act, these private placement offerings can be promoted to the general public, which means ads for them may be placed on billboards, social media, and other platforms even though not everyone who sees them is qualified to invest.

REITs: Real estate investment scams may involve new development projects or buying, or beleaguered properties. Non-traded real estate investment trusts that are owned by banks or waiting for foreclosure or short-sale can be problematic for customers, as can investment funds purportedly tied to interest in real property that has no equity and is very leveraged.

Ponzi Scams and High-Yield Investments: High-yield typically translates to greater risk. This type of investment program and Ponzi scams promise great returns and low risk while justifying why the opportunity is so great. Financial fraudsters will typically tout bogus credentials or belong to a certain organization or group and early investors get a return as they market to new investors. Such financial scams eventually collapse.

Affinity Fraud: This type of financial fraud targets members of a particular organization or group. Often, the fraudster is trusted because of the shared affiliation (ie. age demographic, membership, alma mater, ethnicity, religion, etc.)

Self-Directed IRAs Used to Cover up Fraud: Self-directed individual retirement accounts, which are typically safe investments, can be used to conceal a financial scam. Fraudsters may claim that the custodian of an account has more obligations than actual to investors, causing the latter to wrongly believe that their investments are protected from loss and/or legitimate.

High Risk Oil and Gas Drilling Programs: Energy investments that for some investors are becoming a preference over traditional bonds, stock, and mutual funds. They are very risky and really only appropriate for investors that can take huge losses. Unfortunately, some promoters will hide these risks and pressure customers to invest.

Proxy Trading Accounts: This can involve allowing individuals who say that they are experienced traders to manage or set up a trading account for you. It is not recommended for investors to let unlicensed persons have access to your brokerage account information or set up an account for you. Anyone who manages such an account for an investor should be properly registered and have a clean record.

Digital Currency: Virtual money such as PP Coin, Bitcoin, and others. Such coinage isn’t backed by tangible assets, not subject to a lot of regulation, and not government issued. Digital currencies’ value can be very volatile.

NASAA’s Top Investor Threats, North American Securities Administrators Association
Securities and Exchange Commission

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
SEC Looking to Simplify Disclosure Rules to Minimize “Information Overload” for Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 16, 2013

Puerto Rican Bond Crisis Places Oppenheimer Funds at Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 15, 2013
Detroit Becomes Largest US City to File Bankruptcy Protection, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 18, 2013 Continue Reading ›

LPL Financial Places Independent Reps Under Supervision

Published on: August 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

LPL Financial Inc. (LPLA) is no longer allowing independent representatives to supervise themselves and will impose a fee increase on some 2,200 one-person shops. These changes are among the firm’s steps to restructure oversight and compliance. With over 13,000 registered investment advisers and financial representatives, LPL is the biggest independent-contractor brokerage firm.

The reps that opt to have LPL Financial home office supervise them will pay a fee hike of $4,800 in 2015. Reps with one-adviser shops can also choose to have an existing office of supervisory jurisdiction (OSJ) that is qualified to supervise them, which cost them another 5% on production. They would pay 4% – 30% of gross fees and commissions. Those that pay the most would get more service.

These changes come right before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority will enact its consolidated supervision rule 3110 that will mandate that firms provide an on-site supervisory structure for single-person OSJs that would employ designated senior principals. Generally, industry regulators have been wary of these solo OSJs because of insufficient oversight over the investment product recommendations that representatives make to clients. LPL spokesperson Betsy Weinberger says these modifications are the latest in the broker-dealer’s efforts to enact better compliance oversight and ensure company success and growth.