Investors Gone Wild? Consumer Groups Think So

Posted on March 16, 2015 by admin

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of InvestmentNews’ Mark Schoeff Jr.’s 12 March article “Consumer groups accuse SEC of ignoring investors”. The SEC holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws, proposing securities rules, and regulating the securities industry, the nation’s stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations, including the electronic securities markets in the United States.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is not fulfilling its duty to protect retail investors, particularly in how it regulates financial advisers, a number of consumer groups asserted in a letter to the agency.

The eight-page letter dated March 10 outlines several areas that the groups say the SEC “can no longer afford to relegate … to a back burner.”

Most of the letter concentrates on ways the groups want the agency to improve regulation of financial advisers and urged the SEC to take “concrete steps” to raise investment-advice standards for brokers.

The Dodd-Frank law gave the SEC the authority to promulgate a uniform fiduciary standard for retail investment advice that would require all advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. The SEC has not acted. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor is poised to re-propose its own fiduciary-duty rule for advice to retirement accounts.

The topic has split the five-member commission. Chairwoman Mary Jo White has promised since November to make her position on fiduciary duty known in the “short term.”

Duane Thompson, senior policy adviser for Fi360, a fiduciary-duty training firm, agreed with the consumer groups that fiduciary duty has languished.

“The SEC seems to have looked more at capital-formation issues,” Mr. Thompson said. “The elephant in the living room is the uniform fiduciary standard. While Mary Jo White has repeatedly said it’s a priority, I’ve never seen it show up on the SEC’s regulatory agenda.”

Other topics the letter highlights include strengthening financial adviser disclosure about conflicts and compensation, reforming revenue-sharing, limiting mandatory arbitration for investor disputes, and beefing up regulation of risky financial products, including some kinds of exchange-traded funds.

“We are concerned that the Securities and Exchange Commission — which has always prided itself on serving as ‘the investors’ advocate’ — appears in recent years to have strayed from its primary focus on its investor protection mission,” the letter stated. “Given the vital role that average investors play in our markets and the overall economy, and the serious shortcomings that exist in the regulatory protections they receive, it is time in our view for these issues to be prioritized.”

Click here to read the entire article from InvestmentNews.

Broker-Dealer Enforcement Cases and Developments: Fines & Restitution Record

Posted on February 26, 2015 by admin

Brokerdealer.com blog update is courtesy of the law firm, Morgan Lewis.

In a record year for enforcement, the SEC brought a landmark number of cases, and FINRA imposed an exceptional level of fines and restitution.

This LawFlash highlights key U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC or the Commission) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) enforcement developments and cases regarding broker-dealers during fiscal year 2014. The full 2014 Year in Review is available here.

The SEC

There were few significant personnel changes at the SEC last year. The Commission’s composition was stable in 2014 with Chair Mary Jo White continuing to lead the SEC. The other commissioners are Luis A. Aguilar, Daniel M. Gallagher, Kara M. Stein, and Michael S. Piwowar. Notable changes were made with appointments in two major SEC divisions (Stephen Luparello was named the director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and Stephanie Avakian was named the new deputy director of the Division of Enforcement). New directors were also appointed to lead the Philadelphia and Atlanta regional offices.

The enforcement statistics compiled by the SEC during fiscal year 2014 (which ran from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014) set several records. Other aspects of the enforcement program led the Commission to dub fiscal year 2014 “A Year of Firsts.”

In fiscal year 2014, the SEC brought a record 755 cases, a figure likely boosted by the number of open investigations carried over from the prior year. Moreover, the SEC’s actions resulted in a record tally of monetary sanctions being imposed against defendants and respondents.

With respect to its caseload, in what has become a trend, the SEC brought 7% fewer cases against investment advisers and investment companies—130 cases in fiscal year 2014, compared to 140 actions in fiscal year 2013. To contrast, in fiscal year 2014, the SEC reversed its downward trend from fiscal year 2013, bringing 37% moreactions against broker-dealers—166 in fiscal year 2014, compared to 121 in fiscal year 2013. Nevertheless, taken together, the SEC continues to devote significant resources to investigating regulated entities: cases in these areas have represented about 39% of the Commission’s docket in each of the last two fiscal years.

After a sharp decline in 2013, the Commission brought 52 insider trading cases in fiscal year 2014, an 18% increase from fiscal year 2013, but this increased number is still lower than the fiscal year 2012 total. We will see in the coming year how changes to the legal landscape may affect the SEC’s enforcement in this particular area.

FINRA

An interesting enforcement record emerged at FINRA last year. Although it instituted fewer disciplinary cases in 2014, its fines doubled from the prior year. Moreover, the amount of restitution that FINRA ordered in 2014 more than tripled the amount that had been returned to investors in 2013.

Specifically, in 2014, FINRA brought 1,397 new disciplinary actions, a noticeable decline from the 1,535 cases initiated in 2013. Along the same lines, FINRA resolved 1,110 formal actions last year; 197 fewer cases than it had in the prior year. With respect to penalties and restitution, in 2014, FINRA levied $134 million in fines (versus $60 million in 2013) and ordered $32.3 million to be paid in restitution to harmed investors (versus $9.5 million in 2013).

FINRA’s use of Targeted Examination Letters seems to be declining. In 2014, FINRA posted only two letters on its website, versus three in 2013 and five in 2012. Last year’s letters sought information on cybersecurity threats and order routing/execution quality. (In February 2015, FINRA published its Report on Cybersecurity Practices.)

To read the entire article from Morgan Lewis, click here.

Obama Chimes In On Brokers’ Fiduciary Obligation

Posted on February 24, 2015 by admin

Brokerdealer.com blog update is courtesy LinkedIn “InFluencer” and Business Analyst at CBS News, Jill Schlesinger.

The White House wants to change the way brokers provide advice on retirement accounts. President Obama will endorse a Department of Labor proposal, which would require brokers to act in a customer’s best interest—the so-called FIDUCIARY duty—when working with retirement investors. The rule change is intended to crack down on “backdoor payments and hidden fees,” which cost retirement savers $8 – $17 billion a year, according to Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

As you might expect, the financial services industry is not happy about the potential shift. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association says “This proposal would lead to a number of negative consequences for individual investors.”

I know what you’re thinking: How could a rule that puts my interests first, be bad? Well, according to the SEC, the idea that the industry is plagued by conflicts of interest, “has nowhere been proven,” and would effectively overhaul the entire regulatory regime, ignoring “eight decades of securities laws and regulations. The real kicker, however, is that this is not a Commission rulemaking.” This is a not-so-subtle shot at the Department of Labor, which in issuing this rule change, is stomping on SEC territory. Nothing like an inter-departmental catfight!

In fact, SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher thinks that it is “curious” that the DOL didn’t consult with the SEC, especially given that the SEC maintains comprehensive oversight authority with respect to the investment advisers and broker-dealers who would be impacted by the change. Gallagher underscores that the DOL ignores SEC rules, which already address underlying conflicts of interest. But here’s the nut of the problem, according to the SEC: there is no evidence that the industry is plagued by conflicts of interest and the new rules could limit investor access to qualified investment advice and investment products.

The proposal will likely be put out for public comment for several months, so for those who need a refresher on investment professionals and their designations, here are some terms to consider:

Investment advisor: If the advisor is registered as an IA, he or she owes you a fiduciary duty, which is a fancy way of saying that she must put your needs first. Investment professionals who aren’t fiduciaries are held to a lesser standard, called “suitability,” which means that anything they sell you has to be appropriate for you, though not necessarily in your best interest.

CFP® certification: The Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFP Board) requires candidates to meet what it calls “the four Es”: Education (Education (through one of several approved methods, must demonstrate the ability to create, deliver and monitor a comprehensive financial plan, covering investment, insurance, estate, retirement, education and ethics), Examination (a 10-hour exam given over a day and a half), Experience (three years of full-time, relevant personal financial planning experience required) and Ethics (disclosure of any criminal, civil, governmental, or self-regulatory agency proceeding or inquiry). CFPs must adhere to the fiduciary standard.

CPA Personal Financial Specialist (PFS): The American Institute of CPAs® offers a separate financial planning designation. In addition to already being a licensed CPA, a CPA/PFS candidate must earn a minimum of 75 hours of personal financial planning education and have two years of full-time business or teaching experience (or 3,000 hours equivalent) in personal financial planning, all within the five year period preceding the date of the PFS application. They must also pass an approved Personal Financial Planner exam.

Membership in the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA): NAPFA professionals must be RIAs and must also have either the CFP or CPA-PFS designation. Additionally, NAPFA advisers are fee-only, which means that they do not accept commissions or any additional fees from outside sources for the recommendations they make. In addition to being fee-only, NAPFA advisers must provide information on their background, experience, education and credentials, and are required to submit a financial plan to a peer review. After acceptance into NAPFA, members must fulfill continuing education requirements.

For the original article found on LinkedIn, click here.

“SEC-Approved” Ponzi Scheme Shut Down, 10 Years Later…

Posted on February 13, 2015 by admin

Brokerdealer.com update courtesy of Mandy Perkins from Bank Investment Consultant.

California-based RIA is in big trouble after leading investors to believe that what they were doing was given the OK from the SEC. GLR Advisors were running a basic ponzi scheme over the last ten years with no one including the SEC noticing until recently.

Most advisors know better than to oversell a product’s performance, but what about its “approval” by the SEC?

The SEC barred a California-based RIA from the industry this week after the firm was charged with misleading investors — including falsely claiming that its fund was “SEC approved.”

According to charges filed by the SEC in 2012, John A. Geringer of GLR Advisors and GLR Capital Management raised over $60 million by inflating the performance and misrepresenting the strategy of a private investment fund he told investors was “SEC approved.”

Between 2005 and 2011, the SEC says, the firm advertised its “SEC approved” GLR Growth Fund as having returns of 17%-25% during every year of its operation.

The commission says GLR’s marketing materials claimed the fund was “tied to well-known stock indices such as the S&P 500, Nasdaq and Dow Jones, as well as in oil, natural gas and technology-related companies.” But since mid-2009, the regulator says, the fund did not invest in any publicly-traded securities. Instead, funds were placed in “illiquid investments” in two private startups and used to pay back other investors and fund the “entities Geringer controlled,” the SEC says.

Beyond that, the SEC charges, “to the extent Geringer engaged in actual securities trading, far from generating high annual returns, he consistently lost money.”

Geringer could not be reached for comment. His attorney William Michael Whelan declined to comment on the case.

‘CAN’T CATCH EVERYBODY’

Needless to say, registration with the SEC does not imply endorsement by the regulator. So why were these advisors able to get away with it — not to mention the Ponzi scheme — for so long?

According to Todd Cipperman, principal at Cipperman Compliance Services, the SEC can only examine about 10% of advisors each year, making it easier for bad behavior to go undetected.

“This stuff goes on. There are bad folks out there and they lie to people,” he says. “You know, it’s just like any other law enforcement…[the SEC] can’t catch everybody and they eventually caught these guys.”

Third-party examinations could help solve this problem, Cipperman argues. “This is exactly the kind of case that it could have helped with,” he says. “A small advisor like this is not a targeted priority.”

But even advisors who aren’t using false statements or running fraudulent schemes should be careful about how they market their services — particularly when mentioning SEC registration.

Cipperman’s advice? “At the end of the day, if you have to scrunch up your nose when you make statements, it’s not a good statement to make,” he says. “We all accept a certain level of puffery in marketing, but when you’re a fiduciary, you can’t do that…you need to back up your statements with facts.”

PRISON SENTENCE

The SEC’s decision to bar Geringer comes just weeks after one of his partners in the business, Chris Luck, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay over $33 million in restitution for his role in the scheme.

Last year, both Luck and Geringer pleaded guilty to securities fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, according to SEC and Justice Department documents. During the trial, Luck told a California court that investor money brought in by the fund paid both his salary and bonus payments, according to the sentencing statement.

Both Geringer’s case and that of another partner, Keith Rode, are ongoing, according to court records.

BrokerDealer Fiduciary Standards and White House Leak: “I’m Shocked!” Says Frmr SEC Honcho Schapiro

Posted on February 9, 2015 by admin

BrokerDealer.com blog is not as easily shocked as former SEC Chair Mary Shapiro seems to be, but then again, Ms. Shapiro left the SEC top job a mere two years after being appointed.

This update is courtesy of BankInvestmentConsultant.com

A leaked White House memo supporting a fiduciary definition for brokers selling retirement investments proposed by the Department of Labor was “pretty shocking,” according to former SEC chairwoman Mary Schapiro.

But in a discussion of industry issues at the NICSA Strategic Leadership Forum, Schapiro said that there was no clarity as to how the regulator would handle the proposal.

“It’s a muddled mess,” Schapiro said.

The memo, which was first reported by The Hill, states that there was evidence that “the current regulatory environment creates perverse incentives that ultimately cost savers billions of dollars a year.” The memo is in support of a proposed fiduciary definition for professionals selling retirement investments to 401(k) beneficiaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Schapiro said it is difficult to understand how the proposal will ultimately be received by the SEC, as it has its supporters and detractors within the commission. “The issue is politically difficult within SEC,” she said.

Those who do not see any benefit for the proposal note that broker-dealers are already subject to more stringent regulation and scrutiny than financial advisors, Schapiro said.

She added that if the SEC does throw its support behind the proposal, it might cause SIFMA to walk away from its support of a fiduciary standard.

SIFMA believes the DOL proposal “is an overbroad expansion of the fiduciary standard,” but it does support a uniform fiduciary standard.

Raymond James Financial CEO Paul Reilly is among the industry executives against the proposal, calling it in a recent email to employees “an example of biased and distorted research (that) impugns the integrity of the work our advisors do every day to help clients achieve their financial goals.”

Schapiro said the goal in helping investors gain a better understanding of their investment options was valid. “We have to make things easier for investors one way or another,” she said, but predicted more debate before any resolution on the fiduciary standard matter.

“It’s completely unclear where it will go, but it will continue to be a fight,” she said.