Suitability

FINRA Sanctions Michael Wurdinger and Anil Vazirani Over GWG Debenture Sales

August 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims concerning allegations made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that Michael Wurdinger (Wurdinger), from approximately February 2012, to February 2013, Wurdinger failed to adequately supervise sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures (GWG), an illiquid and high-risk alternative investment in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rule 2010. As a result of FINRA’s investigation Wurdinger was suspended for six months.

Wurdinger was associated as a securities principal with Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) from June 2009, until April 2013, when he resigned. Since November 4, 2013, Wurdinger has been associated as with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. Center Street has 84 registered representatives and 67 branches offices nationwide.

As a background, GWG Holdings, Inc. purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to the face value of the policies. Once purchased, GWG pays the policy premiums until the insured dies. GWG then collects the face value of the insurance benefit and the company hopes to earn returns by collecting more upon the maturity of the policies than it has paid to purchase the policy and service the premiums. FINRA found that the company has a limited operating history and has yet to be profitable.

Moloney Securities Fined Over Supervisory Failures Concerning Non-Traditional (Leveraged) ETFs

July 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Moloney Securities Company, Inc. (Moloney Securities) concerning allegations Moloney Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written policies, regarding the sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) that was reasonably designed to meet the requirements under the securities laws.

ETFs attempt to track a market index, sector industry, interest rate, or country. ETFs can either track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns. For example, a leveraged ETF with 300% leverage attempts to return 3% for every 1% the underlying index returns. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark. In general, Leveraged ETFs are used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned investors that most Non-Traditional ETFs reset daily and are designed to achieve their stated objectives in a single trading session. In addition to the risks of leverage, Non-Traditional ETFs held over the long term can differ drastically from the underlying index or benchmark during the same period. FINRA has also acknowledged that leveraged ETFs are complex products that carry significant risks and ”are typically not suitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for more than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.”

FINRA found that from January 2011, through December 2012, Moloney Securities allowed its representatives to recommend and sell Non-Traditional ETFs to customers. At this time, FINRA found that Moloney’s written supervisory procedures did not address the sale or supervision of Non-Traditional ETFs. In addition, FINRA alleged that Moloney Securities did not conduct due diligence of Non-Traditional ETFs before allowing financial advisors to recommend them to customers. Despite the unique features and risk factors of Non-Traditional ETFs that FINRA has noted, FIRNA found that Moloney Securities did not provide its brokers or supervisors with any training or specific guidance as to whether and when Non-Traditional ETFs would be appropriate for their customers. FINRA also found that Moloney Securities did not use any reports or other tools to monitor the length of time that customers held open positions in Non-Traditional ETFs or track investment losses occurring due to those positions.

Infinex Investments Fined Over Unsuitable Sale of Non-Traditional (Leveraged) ETFs

July 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Infinex Investments, Inc. (Infinex Investments) concerning allegations that from April 2009, through March 2011, Infinex Investments permitted 35 registered representatives who received minimal training on inverse and inverse-leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to sell them to customers. FINRA alleged that the firm and brokers failed to perform reasonable due diligence to understand the risks and features of the product necessary in order to recommend 229 customers approximately 835 transactions in these products. In addition, FINRA also found that some of the recommendations were also unsuitable on a customer specific basis. Finally, FINRA also found that Infincx Investments also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable FINRA rules relating to the sale of Non- Traditional ETFs.

Infinex Investments has been a FINRA firm since 1994, is a full service broker-dealer with its primary business being the retail sale of mutual funds and variable annuities. The firm employs approximately 400 registered representatives located in approximately 500 branches.

As a background, ETFs attempt to track a market index. ETFs can be either attempt to track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns of an underlying stock position. A leveraged ETF with 300% leverage will attempt to return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark. Leveraged ETFs are generally used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned that most Non-Traditional ETFs reset daily and are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. In addition to the risks of leverage the performance of Non-Traditional ETFs held over the long term can differ drastically from the underlying index or benchmark during the same period. FINRA has also acknowledged that leveraged ETFs are complex products that carry significant risks that are typically not suitable for retail investors.

LPL Financial Fined by FINRA for Failing to Supervise Sales of Alternative Investments

April 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial LLC, the fourth largest broker dealer, measured by number of salespersons, was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise the way that its brokers marketed and sold nontraditional investments. The fine is one of many that have recently been imposed on LPL and other “independent broker-dealers,” firms that provide products, marketing, and regulatory services to independent brokers who are not their full-time employees.

LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision as it related to the sales of alternative investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, managed futures, and other illiquid pass through investments. FINRA found that from January 1, 2008, to July 1, 2012, LPL failed to adequately supervise the sales of theses alternative investments that violated concentration limits.

Investors often rely on professional advisors like LPL Financial, which help them to diversify their portfolio while minimizing risk. LPL, like many states, has limits in place, on the portion of a client’s portfolio that can be concentrated in these riskier, alternative investments. According to FINRA, however, LPL failed to ensure adherence to these limits. FINRA explained that between 2008 and 2012, LPL utilized a manual process that relied on outdated data to conduct suitability reviews. FINRA further stated that once LPL transitioned to a new automated review system, its database was built with faulty programming.

FINRA Investigating Newest Puerto Rico Issuance of Municipal Bonds

April 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 21, 2014, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it is investigating trading in Puerto Rico, examining secondary trades in Puerto Rico’s blockbuster $3.5 billion bond deal. FINRA is looking at possible violations of rules requiring minimum sales of $100,000. The greatest concern is that the bonds are being sold to individual investors in violation of securities regulations and FINRA Rules, including FINRA Rule 2111, which requires that a trade be suitable for particular investors. Given the prospectus’ apparent intent to make these institution-only bonds, sales to individual investors would be highly improper.

The self-governed United States territory sold the debt on March 11, 2013, in the largest high-yield offering for the municipal market. The issue provided Puerto Rico with enough cash to pay its bills through June 2015, as the island attempts to prop its budget, giving officials more time to jump-start the economy.

The FINRA investigation comes amid concerns that the new bonds—which now carry junk status after Puerto Rico was cut to junk last month—are being improperly sold to individual investors. The bonds’ prospectus provides that the debt will be issued in denominations of $100,000, absent an upgrade in Puerto Rico’s credit rating. Industry professionals have noted that making the trade size contingent on credit ratings is unusual, and suggests that the writer of the documents intentionally meant to prevent trades to small investors. However, recent trading activity has shown trades in denominations of as little as $5,000—smaller size trades that are more typical of individual investors.

Berthel Fisher fined $775,000 by FINRA for Failing to Supervise the sale of Alternative Investments

April 9, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined broker-dealer, Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services and its affiliate, Securities Management & Research, Inc., a combined $775,000. FINRA alleged supervisory deficiencies, including Berthel Fisher’s failure to supervise the sale of alternative investments. FINRA also found that Berthel Fisher’s failure to supervise extended to non-traditional exchange traded funds (ETFs).

FINRA found that from January 2008 to February 2012, Berthel Fisher had inadequate supervisory systems and lacked proper written supervisory procedures with regards to the sales of these alternative investments, namely non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), managed futures, oil and gas programs, equipment leasing programs, and business development companies. In its report, FINRA also alleged that some investors were sold these products at a level of concentration that exceeded their respective investment objectives, making the sales and recommendations unsuitable. FINRA also claims that Berthel Fisher failed to train its employees on individual state suitability standards.

FINRA also found that from April 2009 to April 2012, Berthel Fisher did not have a reasonable basis for the sale of leveraged and inverse ETF’s. Before a registered firm may allow its registered representatives to recommend such products to its customers, it must conduct adequate research and review. Through its investigation, FINRA learned that Berthel Fisher representatives recommended approximately $49 million in these nontraditional ETF’s. Leveraged and inverse ETF’s expose holders to amplified movements that tend to deviate from their related benchmarks over extended periods of time. These products are often focused on short-term investment returns and subject to extreme movements during volatile markets, with the potential for significant loss of principal. According to FINRA, Berthel sold these products to conservative, buy-and-hold investors, sales that FINRA ultimately deemed unsuitable.

Edward Jones Sanctioned Over Unsuitable Nontraditional ETF Sales

March 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) concerning allegations that between January 2008 and July 2009, Edward Jones failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system that were reasonably designed to ensure that the sales of leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds (Nontraditional ETFs) complied with applicable securities laws. FINRA found that Edward Jones registered representatives recommended nontraditional ETFs to customers without first investigating those products sufficiently to understand the features and risks of the product and that consequently these recommendations were unsuitable.

Edward Jones a Missouri limited partnership and a full-service broker-dealer since 1939. The firm’s principal offices are located in St. Louis, Missouri and the firm has more than 15,000 registered representatives and more than 10,000 branch offices throughout the United States.

As a background, Non-Traditional ETFs are usually registered unit investment trusts or open-end investment companies and are considered to be novel investment products. While ETFs came be common place in the 1990s, the first nontraditional ETFs began trading in 2006. By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs existed in the market place with total assets of approximately $22 billion. Since 2009, the number of nontraditional ETFs on the market has since increased to more than 250.

JP Turner Sanctioned By FINRA Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales and Mutual Fund Switches

March 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner) to pay $707,559 in restitution to 84 customers for sales of unsuitable leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) and for excessive mutual fund switches. The current fine and is just one of several sanctions that regulators have brought against JP Turner brokers concerning the firms sales and supervisory practices.

Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, was quoted in the settlement stating that “Securities firms and their registered reps must understand the complex products they are selling and the risks inherent to the products, and be able to determine if they are suitable for investors before recommending them to retail customers.”

As a background, Non-Traditional ETFs are novel products that have grown significantly in popularity since 2006. By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs existed in the market place with total assets of approximately $22 billion. A leveraged ETF seeks to deliver two or three times an index or benchmark return the ETF tracks. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be “inverse” or “short” meaning that the investment returns the opposite of the performance the index or benchmark. While both ETFs and Non-Traditional ETFs track indexes, Non-Traditional ETFs contain significant risks that are not associated with traditional ETFs. Non-Traditional ETFs have additional risks of daily reset, use of leverage, and compounding.

Are Your Investments Appropriate for You?

March 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Most investors know that their financial advisor cannot misrepresent the risks and rewards of investments. However, many investors do not realize that all brokers have an obligation to deal fairly with investors by only recommending suitable investments or investment strategies. All sales efforts are judged by the ethical standards of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that sets industry wide investment standards. The “suitability rule” contains three primary obligations: reasonable-basis, customer-specific, and quantitative suitability.

Reasonable-basis suitability means that the broker must believe, based on appropriate research and due diligence, that the product or strategy being recommended is suitable for at least some investors. Thus, FINRA recognizes that there are some investment products and strategies that are so risky and likely to fail that they would be inappropriate for all investors. Other investments may contain risks characteristics that are only appropriate for a very small group of investors or for specialized purposes.

Customer-specific suitability requires the broker to believe that the recommended investment strategy is suitable for that particular customer. The advisor must take into consideration the customer’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, age, financial circumstances, other investment holdings, experience, and other information provided to the broker.

FINRA Bars Gary Chackman Over Allegations of Unsuitable Non-Traded REIT Sales

March 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposed a permanent bar against Gary J. Chackman (Chackman) concerning allegations that he recommended unsuitable transactions in the accounts of at least eight LPL Financial, Inc. (LPL) customers by over-concentrating the customers’ assets in real estate investment trusts (REITs). Additionally, FINRA found that Chackman falsified LPL documents to evade the firm’s supervision by submitting dozens of “alternative investment purchase” forms that misrepresented customers’ liquid net worth. FINRA found that by submitting falsified documents Chackman increased his customers’ accounts’ concentration in REITs and other alternative investments beyond the firm’s maximum allocation limits.

From December 2001, through March 2012, Chackman was registered through LPL. On March 2012, LPL filed a Uniform Termination Notice for (Form U5) stating that Chackman was terminated for violating firm policies and procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments. From March 2, 2012 through April 3, 2013, Chackman was registered through Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. (Summit). In April 2013, Summit filed a Form U5 terminating Chackman stating that the broker was operating a business out of an unregistered location. According to Chackman’s BrokerCheck there have been at least five customer complaints filed against the broker. Many of the complaints involve allegations of unsuitable REITs

According to FINRA, from July 2009 to February 2012, Chackman recommended REITs and other alternative investments to at least eight of his LPL customers. FINRA found that Chackman purchased the REITs at periodic intervals in each of their accounts. For example, in one customer’s account Chackman made seven purchases of a particular REIT, each for $75,000 over six months. After twelve months, FINRA found that 35% of the customer’s assets and more than 25% of her liquid net worth were invested in REITs and other alternative investments. In order to evade LPL’s limitation on the concentration of alternative investments in customers’ accounts, FINRA found that Chackman misidentified his customers’ purported liquid net worth on LPL forms. FINRA found that over sixteen months and on seventeen alternative investment purchase forms Chackman tripled the customer’s purported liquid net worth.