FINRA and MSRB Pair Up Re Pay-To-Play Rules

pay-to-play rules

(National Law Review)-FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

The following brokerdealer.com update is courtesy of submission to National Law Review by Greenberg Traurig, LLP

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

Industry Regulators Block Disclosure of Bad Actor BrokerDealers; BrokerCheck System is Broken

California, Nevada , Arizona, Florida, New York & NJ have highest number of bad apple brokers.

BrokerDealer.com blog update courtesy of extract from Dec 26 WSJ story by Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry …

brokercheckIn what can best be described as a Faustian tale taken from Alice in Wonderland, it should be no wonder that bad apple brokers continue to prey on investors, with no thanks to the archaic system overseen by financial industry regulators, most notably the “self-regulated” Financial Industry Regulatory Authority aka Finra. WSJ reporters Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry provide insight into the dumb data system employed by the industry’s watchdog:

Wall Street’s own national watchdog doesn’t make public all the regulatory red flags it has about brokers, prompting calls from state regulators for more expansive disclosure.

Investors checking disciplinary records from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, can see that in Bennett Broad ’s 35-year career as a stockbroker, he has faced 25 customer complaints involving alleged trading abuses, and that 15 ended in payouts to clients.

What they won’t see is that a former employer, UBS AG , launched an internal investigation into Mr. Broad’s business practices back in 2003 and then, according to state regulators, “permitted” him “to resign.” At least eight of his 25 complaints involved conduct after that investigation.

Finra, an industry-funded overseer of brokers, encourages investors to check its BrokerCheck Web page to look for regulatory red flags about individual brokers, including complaints, regulatory actions, terminations for cause and personal bankruptcies. Mr. Broad’s BrokerCheck reveals neither the UBS investigation nor his resignation—even though they show up on his state regulatory record.

A Wall Street Journal examination of federal and state regulatory data revealed that a wealth of information about brokers is reported to the national regulator but not made public by it. The Journal found at least 38,400 brokers have regulatory or financial red flags that appear only on state records, which in most states aren’t available without contacting state regulators. Of those, at least 19,000 had completely clean BrokerCheck records. A comprehensive database of brokerdealers registered in the US and major countries throughout the globe is available here.

California, Nevada , Arizona, Florida, New York & NJ have highest number of bad actor brokers.

The Journal’s analysis included 6,527 registered stockbrokers with offices in Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Fla., highlighted on the adjacent map. Of those, 342, or 5.2%, reported three or more red flags on their disciplinary records. For every 10 brokers in this area, there were 4.9 disclosures, 126% higher than the rate among all brokers in the Journal’s data.

Brokers with troubled regulatory records were often found in areas with wealthy, elderly populations. In this hot spot, the share of households headed by people aged 65 and up with incomes in excess of $100,000 was about 39% greater than the nation as a whole.

For the entire article from WSJ, please click here.

Expert Lawyer Says SEC Broken Windows Approach to Enforcement is Broken

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of extracted opinion piece published Dec 22 by Pensions & Investments Magazine and submitted by Andrew Stoltmann, a partner at Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices PC, who represents investors in securities litigation and FINRA arbitration claims.

brokenwindows1“..The Securities and Exchange Commission is unfortunately pursuing a fundamentally flawed strategy to police the capital markets and protect investors.

Last year, SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White disclosed she intends on pursuing a “broken windows” strategy for securities enforcement. The SEC intends on prosecuting even minor violations of the federal securities laws in order to prevent wrongdoers from engaging in even more egregious conduct.

The theory is that when a window is broken and someone fixes it, it is a sign that disorder will not be tolerated. When a broken window is not fixed, it is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows, and more serious crime, will follow. This approach is the one taken in the 1990s by New York City’s then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton back when Ms. White was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan.

Unfortunately, the “broken windows” strategy championed by Ms. White is fundamentally flawed. By going after minor offenses, it artificially inflates the SEC’s enforcement actions and gives the appearance of being tough on bad actors. In reality, it is a mirage. Continue reading

FINRA makes it clear for Brokerdealers, Their Rules Aren’t Toys

Brokerdealer.com Blog update courtesy of Investment News.

FINRA, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, fined 10 banks on Thursday for total of $43.5 million for promising positive analyst coverage after initial public offering.

Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. were among 10 banks fined for failing to shield analysts from pressure to promote stocks a decade after a U.S. crackdown sought to end Wall Street conflicts of interest.

MW-BX587_toys_r_MG_20140326121052The investment banks promised favorable research to Toys “R” Us Inc.
and its private-equity owners in 2010 to win roles in its initial public offering, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said Thursday in a statement. The regulator fined the firms a total of $43.5 million, faulting them for “implicitly or explicitly” making promises that their analysts would give positive coverage. Six of the 10 firms didn’t have adequate supervisory procedures to prevent the practice.

Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group AG, Barclays Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were fined $5 million each. Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of America Corp., Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo & Co. will pay $4 million. Needham & Co. will pay $2.5 million. The firms didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, according to FINRA.
“The firms’ rush to assure the issuer and its sponsors that research was in sync with the pitch being made by their investment bankers caused them to overstep the prohibitions against analyst solicitation and the promise of favorable research,” Brad Bennett, FINRA’s chief of enforcement, said in the statement.

FINRA said Thursday that Toys “R” Us and its owners demanded that analysts and bankers agree on valuation. For example, the owners told Barclays that they were interviewing analysts “after having been burned” on other deals in which they learned too late about analysts’ negative sentiments, according to FINRA.

Brokerdealer.com offers many databases full of brokerdealers who choose to abide by the rules of FINRA and you can find them here.

For the entire article from Investment News, click here.

 

BrokerDealer Banks Bagged in IPO Mess: Finra Claims Conflict of Interest is Widespread

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of excerpt from Bloomberg LP and reporters Leslie Picker and Dakin Campbell

conflictWall Street brokerdealers are changing the way they pitch for IPOs as investment banks prepare to settle with regulators, people with knowledge of the matter said, following claims analysts inflated estimates to win business for their banks.

The settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, which may be announced next month, will focus on meetings between analysts and companies ahead of their IPOs, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. At least seven banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), may be asked to pay a fine of about $50 million collectively as part of an agreement, the people said.

“We cannot confirm the existence of enforcement investigations or related matters,” Nancy Condon, a spokeswoman for Finra, said in a statement.

Continue reading