FINRA

Silver Oak Securities Fined Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales

March 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Silver Oak Securities, Inc. (Silver Oak) concerning allegations from January 2009, to December 2010, Silver Oak failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws regarding the sale of leveraged and inverse Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs). Silver Oak has been a FINRA member since 2007 and is in Jackson, Tennessee, and employs 122 registered individuals at 28 branch offices.

Non-Traditional ETFs have grown significantly in popularity since 2006. By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs had been issued with total assets under management 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” returning the opposite of the performance the index or benchmark. Non-Traditional ETFs contain significant risks that are not found in traditional ETFs. Non-Traditional ETFs have risks associated with a daily reset, use of leverage, and compounding.

In addition, the performance of Non-Traditional ETFs over long periods of time tend to differ significantly from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark the fund tracks. For example, between December 2008, and April 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while a leveraged ETF that tracked the index’s daily return fell six percent. Another related leveraged ETF seeking to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent. These risks, among others, prompted FINRA to issue a Notice to Members clarifying brokerage firm obligations when selling Non-Traditional ETFs to customers.

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.

Sterne Agee Financial Services Fined Over Failing to Supervise Excessive Trading or “Churning” Activity

March 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined SAL Financial Services, Inc. dba Sterne Agee Financial Services, Inc. (Sterne Agee) concerning allegations that Sterne Agee failed to implement reasonable supervisory procedures to detect and prevent excessive trading activity, otherwise known as churning, in client accounts.

Sterne Agee has been a FINRA member since 1986 and the firm’s main office is located in Birmingham, Alabama. Sterne Agee has 137 branch office locations and employs 304 registered representatives.

FINRA alleged that from August 2009, through November 2010, Sterne Agee failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and enforce written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to identify and prevent unsuitable excessive trading and churning in customer accounts. Specifically, FINRA found that Sterne Agee relied solely on a single exception report with inadequate parameters to identify active accounts with patterns of unsuitable and excessive trading. FINRA alleged that Sterne Agee had access to its clearing firm’s additional exception reports but that Sterne Agee failed to use those reports. Consequently, FINRA concluded that Sterne Agee failed to identify at least thirty-nine accounts where thirty of the instances came from the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida office.

Merriman Capital Sanctioned Over Private Placement and Supervisory Failures

March 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Merriman Capital, Inc. (Merriman) concerning allegations that for more than three years Merriman’s written supervisory procedures were not reasonably designed to achieve compliance the FINRA rules. FINRA alleged that Merriman’s written supervisory procedures failed to describe the specific procedures to be followed and the persons responsible for carrying them out. In addition, according to FINRA, between May 2009, and September 2013, Merriman Capital raised more than $16 million for its parent company through several private offerings of securities even though Merriman did not have written procedures related to the sale of private placements.

Merriman has been a FINRA member since November 1986 and its business is focused on offerings of growth companies and institutional investors. Merriman is headquartered in San Francisco, California and employs fifty-five registered persons.

FINRA alleged that Merriman Capital’s written supervisory procedures, at fifteen pages long, listed legal rules and regulations that had to be complied with but failed to describe the specific procedures to be followed by the firm or how compliance with the procedures would be documented. Further, FINRA found that until June 2011, Merriman written supervisory procedures failed to address private placements even though the selling private placements was a substantial portion of the firm’s business. FINRA found that Merriman failed to address private placements in the firm’s supervisory manual even though Merriman Capital raised more than $16 million for its parent company through several private offerings.

FINRA Alleges Royal Securities Company Had Numerous Supervisory Deficiencies – Part I

March 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Royal Securities Company (Royal Securities) concerning allegations Royal lacked adequate supervision and controls in several areas. FINRA alleged that Royal Securities failed to properly supervise two of its registered representatives, one of which utilized a unitary investment strategy for virtually all of his customers. FIRNA also found that other representative made unsuitable recommendations in three customer accounts.

FINRA alleged that between January 2010 and May 2012, representatives of Royal Securities recommended nontraditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to customers without having a reasonable basis to do so. Further, FINRA found that Royal Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and training regarding the sale of Non-Traditional ETFs that was reasonably designed to comply with FINRA rules.

Royal Securities has been a FINRA member since September 1982 and the firm’s business lines include hedge funds, an investment advisory business, and a traditional brokerage business. Royal Securities has approximately 41 registered persons operating out of nine offices.

Center Street Securities Fined by FINRA Over Email Supervisory Failures

February 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) concerning allegations that the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce adequate supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures to monitor the use of external email accounts to conduct firm-related business by the firm’s registered representatives. The firm was fined $30,000.

Center Street has been a FlNRA member since February 7, 1991 and employs approximately 84 registered persons out of 74 branch offices. Center Street’s principal office is in Nashville, Tennessee. Center Street sells variable life insurance and annuities, mutual funds, private placements, options, corporate equities, debt securities, U.S. government securities and municipal securities.

The duty to supervise is a critical component of the securities regulatory scheme. The duty to supervise is an affirmative responsibility of all brokerage firms. The SEC has found that effective supervision by a broker-dealer must provide effective staffing, efficient resources and a system of follow-up and review to determine that any responsibility to supervise is being diligently exercised. Evidence that there is a variance between the conduct called for by a firm’s procedures and the actions actually undertaken by a firm supports a finding of liability and failure to supervise.

FINRA Proposes Rule Addressing Valuation Issues of REITs and DPPs

February 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

FINRA has recently proposed a rule change that would amend the procedures for valuing Direct Participation Programs (DPPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). The rule change is intended to provide greater clarity to investors concerning the value of these investments, an extremely contentious issue.

A REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate such as commercial properties, home mortgages, or other specialty niche real estate markets (e.g., golf courses, malls, hotels). REITs can be publicly traded or privately held. Publicly traded REITs can be sold on an exchange and have the liquidity traditional associated with other liquid stocks and bonds. Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers and are illiquid.

Increased volatility in the stock market in recent years led some investment advisors to increasingly recommend REITs as a purported stable investment during unstable times. However, claims of stable REITs have been shown to be false. The stability of non-traded REITs only exists because brokerage firms and issuers have control over the value of the security listed on an investor’s account statements and not because the security will actually sell at that value or is stable over time.

FINRA Alleges that Cambridge Investment Research Failed to Supervise Broker Emails

February 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. concerning allegations that from January 2009, to July 2010, Cambridge failed to ensure that the firm preserved, maintained, and reviewed the business emails of two of its registered representatives. FINRA found that during this time Cambridge was relying upon its representatives to forward copies of their emails but did not have effective procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the representatives actually forwarded emails in violation of FINRA supervision rules.

Cambridge has been a FINRA member since December 1995 and has 3,044 registered individuals in 1,530 branch offices.

The duty to supervise has been held to be a critical component of the securities regulatory scheme. Supervisors have an obligation to employ systems and processes designed to ferret out wrongful behavior. In addition, firms must respond vigorously to indications of irregularity, commonly referred to as “red flags” of misconduct.

Will I Win My FINRA Securities Arbitration Claim?

February 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

One of the most common questions I receive as a FINRA securities attorney is whether or not a client is likely to prevail at a FINRA arbitration hearing. My first gut reaction, and the one I tell clients, is honestly I just don’t know. Most clients are puzzled by this answer because after handling hundreds of arbitration claims one would think I would have a better sense and certainty as to the strength of the case. However, the answer to whether the client would win at arbitration is not just a function of the strength of the case.

The better way to phrase the question is: What is the likely outcome of my securities case? That question is more readily answerable. I tell clients that it has been our experience that approximately 80% of all cases filed will be resolved through settlement or other means sometime prior to hearing. Recent data released by FINRA supports that approximately 80% of cases never make it to hearing. According to FINRA, of all arbitrations decided between 2009 and 2013 between 75% and 79% of those claims are resolved either through settlement, withdrawn, or means other than a hearing.

But what of the 20% of cases that do go to hearing? What are the chances of success at the FINRA arbitration hearing? The answer to that question is again usually unknowable at the time it’s first asked. There are so many considerations that go into determining the likelihood of success, many of which are unknown at the outset. Once of the biggest unknowns at the outset is who the arbitrators will be.

FINRA Debates Rule Allowing Matters to Be Referred to Enforcement During Arbitration Cases

February 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

A recent InvestmentNews article highlighted a proposed rule change that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has proposed to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would allow arbitrators to direct cases to FINRA enforcement during the pendency of the case. FINRA enforcement is responsible disciplining brokers and brokerage firms for securities misconduct and fraud. FINRA has the authority to suspend, sanction, fine, or bar individuals and companies from involvement in the securities industry based upon the findings of its investigation.

Under the current rules, arbitrators must wait until the case concludes before submitting a report of concerns to FINRA. But FINRA believes that making arbitrators wait until the end of the arbitration could delay the regulator’s ability to take action against a parties and to collect evidence.

I believe there are pluses and minuses to allowing mid-litigation referral of customer claims to FINRA. On the benefit side, FINRA would receive information faster and be able to protect more investors. Although arbitrations are routinely completed within one year to a year and half after filing, a delay in submitting evidence of misconduct allows wrongful actors to continue to hurt investors. In addition, sometimes counsel representing brokerage firms, on rare occasions, abuse the FINRA process in order to satisfy a demanding client. However, brokerage firms, even in litigation, must conduct themselves fairly under the FINRA rules. The power of an arbitrator to refer instances of repeated or significant abuse of the FINRA process will make firms think twice before simply ignoring panel orders.