Consumer Protection

Massachusetts Files Complaints Against Securities American and Its Broker Barry Armstrong

August 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Massachusetts Office of the Secretary of Securities Division filed complaints against brokerage firm Securities America, Inc. (Securities America) and one of its financial advisors Barry Armstrong (Armstrong) concerning allegations that in 2014, Securities America authorized Armstrong to run a deceptive AM radio advertising campaign. According to the complaint, the advertising campaign was designed to target vulnerable Massachusetts senior citizens by trumpeting the looming dangers of Alzheimer’s disease and implying that the brokerage firm has special access to medical information and support.

Massachusetts found that the advertising campaign was a classic “bait and switch” in which callers inquired about Alzheimer’s support and information and instead were solicited solely for brokerage and financial planning services. Massachusetts found that advertising used alarmist language designed to pull in senior citizens with concerns about Alzheimer’s disease while failing to disclose the nature of the services Armstrong actually offers. Indeed, when callers contact the number provided the only information concerning Alzheimer’s that is provided is a Fact Sheet published by the National Institute of the Aging and some other publicly available free information about Alzheimer’s.

Massachusetts found Securities America’s approval of the advertising used “astounding” stating that as a national-scale broker-dealer the firm failed to make “substantive comment or follow up of any kind” when reviewing Armstrong’s advertising materials. In sum, Massachusetts alleged that “Securities America failed to prevent or even flag glaringly unethical conduct.”

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part II

August 11, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our investigation into whether or not brokerage firms have a basis to continue to sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). Non-Traded REIT sales have exploded becoming the latest it product of Wall Street. However, experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Craig McCann, president of Securities Litigation & Consulting Group, a research and consulting company, “Nontraded REITs are costing investors, especially elderly, retired, unsophisticated investors, billions. They’re suffering illiquidity and ignorance, and earning much less than what they ought to be earning.” In conclusion, “No brokerage should be allowed to sell these things.”

According to his analysis, shareholders have lost about $50 billion for having put money into Non-Traded REITs rather than publicly exchange-traded funds. The data comes from a study of the difference between the performance of more than 80 Non-Traded REITs and the performance of a diversified portfolio of traded REITs over two decades. The study found that the average annual rate of return of Non-Traded REITs was 5.2%, compared with 11.9% for the Vanguard REIT Index Fund.

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part I

August 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As longtime readers of our blog know we have reported numerous instances of sales and other practice violations regarding how brokers and brokerage firms sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). See list of articles below. As Non-Traded REITs have become the latest darling product of the financial industry experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As a background, a Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate assets such as commercial, residential, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, storage, and other industries. There are publicly traded REITs that are bought and sold on an exchange with similar liquidity to traditional assets like stocks and bonds. However, Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers, are illiquid, have no or limited secondary market and redemption options, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

Investors are also often ignorant to several other facts that would warn against investing in Non-Traded REITs. First, only 85% to 90% of investor funds actually go towards investment purposes. In other words, investors have lost up to 15% of their investment to fees and costs on day one in a Non-Traded REIT. Second, often times part or almost all of the distributions that investors receive from Non-Traded REITs include a return of capital and not actual revenue generated from the properties owned by the REIT. The return of capital distributions reduces the ability of the REIT to generate income and/or increases the investment’s debt or leverage.

FINRA Sanctions Morgan Stanley and Scottrade for Failing to Supervise Customer Transfers to Third-Party Accounts

August 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a press release concerning two settlements fining Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (Morgan Stanley) $650,000 and Scottrade, Inc. $300,000 for failing to implement reasonable supervisory systems to monitor the transmittal of customer funds to third-party accounts. The settlements included allegations that both firms had weak supervisory systems after FINRA examination teams reviewed the firms in 2011, but neither took necessary steps to correct the supervisory gaps.

Brad Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, was quoted in the press release as stating that, “Firms must have robust supervisory systems to monitor and protect the movement of customer funds. Morgan Stanley and Scottrade had been alerted to significant gaps in their systems by FINRA staff, yet years went by before either firm implemented sufficient corrective measures.”

In the Morgan Stanley settlement, FINRA alleged that from October 2008, to June 2013, three Morgan Stanley brokers in two different branch offices converted a total of $494,400 from thirteen customers by creating fraudulent wire transfer orders and checks to third-party accounts. In one example, the brokers moved funds from multiple customer accounts to their own personal bank accounts. FINRA found that in these instances Morgan Stanley’s supervisory systems and procedures to review and monitor transmittals of customer funds through wire transfers were not reasonable and could not detect multiple customer account transfers to the same third-party accounts and outside entities. In sum, FINRA found that the supervisory failures allowed the conversions to go undetected.

Senior Abuse in the Securities Industry A Major Ongoing Concern

June 23, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As long time readers of our blogs know senior abuse is an ongoing concern in the securities industry. See Massachusetts Fines LPL Financial Over Variable Annuity Sales Practices to Seniors; The NASAA Announces New Initiative to Focus on Senior Investor Abuse; The Problem of Senior Investor Abuse – A Securities Attorney’s Perspective.

Recently, a number of regulatory agencies have begun new initiatives against investment fraud targeted at seniors with the intent to provide resources to seniors and financial advisors. Regulators fear senior abuse in the investment sector will be a growing trend over the next couple of decades if not addressed soon.

According to a National Senior Investor Initiative report cited by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Social Security Administration estimates that each day for the next 15 years, an average of 10,000 Americans will turn 65. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2011, more than 13 percent Americans, more than 41 million people, were 65 or older. By 2040, that number is expected to grow 79 million doubling the number that were alive in 2000.

SEC Warns That Retail Investors May Not Understand the Risks of Complex Investments

May 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

On April 14, 2015, Luis Aguilar, Commissioner to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), gave a speech before the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”), stating that the SEC is looking closely at sales practices with respect complex securities. “Complex securities” refers to securities that include complex features such as imbedded derivatives. Complex securities include, but are not limited to equity-indexed annuities, leveraged and inverse-leveraged exchange traded funds, reverse convertibles, alternative mutual funds, exchange traded products, and structured notes.

The speech cited a 2012 SEC study on investor financial literacy that found that retail investors, and particularly the elderly and minorities, lack basic financial literacy skills. When you combine a general lack of financial literacy with an investment product landscape that increasingly focuses on increasing the complexity of product offerings investors are more reliant on their advisers than ever.

Accordingly these investment products can be very opaque and complex for retail investors to fully appreciate the risks involved. It was also noted that in this environment yield-starved investors become easy prey for fraudulent schemes in complex securities.

FINRA Sanctions Ameriprise Over Arbitration Discovery Abuse Part II

December 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In the prior post we discussed the extremely difficult journey an investor may have to go through in order to obtain relevant discovery documents from the brokerage industry in FINRA arbitration. We also discussed how the system is stacked against the investor’s rights and provides incentives to firms to withhold documents. However, a recent FINRA enforcement order provides some hope that the regulatory watchdog will start taking these issues seriously.

In October 2014, FINRA sanctioned Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise) and its broker for altering documents and refusing to produce documents until the eve of hearing. FINRA’s action resulted from the discovery tactics employed by Ameriprise and its broker David Tysk (Tysk) in a FINRA arbitration.

In the Ameriprise case, the FINRA arbitrators found the firm’s conduct so egregious that it referred the matter to FINRA’s Member Regulation Department. The arbitration panel found that Ameriprise and Tysk produced documents in an arbitration proceeding without disclosing that Tysk had altered the documents after receiving a complaint letter from a customer. The altered documents were printouts of notes of Tysk’s contacts with the customer having the initials “GR.” Tysk was responsible for detailing his contact with customers in a computer system maintained by Ameriprise.

Is FINRA Ready to Get Serious About Arbitration Discovery Abuse? Part I

December 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Many securities arbitration attorneys would agree that discovery abuse in FINRA arbitration is a problem under certain circumstances. A client has a seemingly great and compelling case. Then the brokerage firm produces its “discovery” but something doesn’t seem right. Documents recording decisions on key dates are missing, there are unexpected gaps in the email record, and in the worst cases your client has produced documents that the firm should have a copy of but for some reason does not. How often discovery abuse happens in FINRA arbitration is unknowable.

However, what is known is that system likely fosters discovery abuse. A recent Reuters article highlighted that arbitrators do indeed go easy on brokerage firm discovery abuse. Why does this happen? The first line of defense against discovery abuse is the arbitrators themselves. But most arbitrators simply expect the parties to comply with their discovery obligations without their input. Moreover, arbitrators loath ordering parties to produce documents against their will and prefer the parties to resolve their own disputes. While these goals are noble they also invite abuse.

So how does an investor ultimately get awarded discovery abuse sanctions if a brokerage firm fails to produce documents? First, the client must move to compel the documents and win the motion over the brokerage firm’s objections. Second, the firm must refuse to comply with the order. Usually the firm will interpret the scope of the order as not encompassing the discovery that was actually ordered or will otherwise declaw the order through claims of “privilege” or “confidentiality.” This leads to a second motion to compel and request for sanctions. Again the investor will have to argue the relevance of the initial request as if the panel never ruled that these documents had been ordered to be produced and the brokerage firm gets a second bite of the apple to throw out the discovery.

Massachusetts Fines LPL Financial Over Variable Annuity Sales Practices to Seniors

November 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, LPL Financial, LLC (LPL Financial) was recently fined by Massachusetts securities regulators fined for sales practices concerning variable annuities and agreed to reimburse senior citizens $541,000 for surrender charges they paid when they switched variable annuities. LPL Financial and its brokers have been on the defensive from securities regulators many times in recent years concerning a variety of alleged sales practice and supervisory short comings as shown below.

Do Increased Investor Risks Lurk Behind the SEC’s Revisiting of the Accredited Investor Definition Part II

November 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues to opine on an InvestmentNews article, describing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) revisiting the accredited investor standard that determines who is eligible to invest in private placements. It is the opinion of this securities attorney who has represented hundreds of cases involving investors in private placement offerings that some of the IAC’s proposals are severely flawed and will only enrich the industry at investor’s expense. While proposals to increase standards through sophistication tests and limiting the amount of private placement investments to a certain percentage of net worth are constructive, it is clear that some will attempt to use the review to water down the current requirements. Below are some of the reasons why proposals to abandon the income and net worth approach and instead use a definition that takes into account an individual’s education, professional credentials, and investment experience will be a disaster for investors.

First, many private placements such as equipment leasing and non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) already skirt these rules and offer non-traded investments to those with income of $70,000 and net worth of $250,000. If you want to see what the world would be like without the $1,000,000 constraint on private placements, it’s already here and it’s not pretty.

Non-Traded REITs are a $20 billion a year industry that basically ballooned overnight. These non-traded investments act like private placements and charge anywhere from 7-15% of investor capital in the form of commissions and selling fees. In addition, there is little evidence to support that these investments will largely be profitable for investors. In fact, because non-traded REITs offer products with very limited income and net worth thresholds brokers have loaded up clients accounts to such an extent that the NASAA has proposed universal concentration limits to curb these abusive practices. But as bad as many of these products are, many other private placements that would be allowed to be sold to investors under some of the IAC proposals are far worse.