Non-Traded Reits

Equipment Leasing Programs LEAF and ICON: Too Costly to Invest In

December 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm has written numerous times about investor losses in programs such as various equipment leasing programs like LEAF Equipment Leasing Income Funds I-IV and ICON Leasing Funds Eleven and Twelve. These direct participation programs, like their non-traded REIT and oil and gas cousins, all suffer from the same crippling flaw that dooms these investments to a high likelihood of failure from the get go. The costs and fees associated with all of these investments cause the security to be so costly that only unprecedented market boom conditions can lead to profitability. Market stagnation or decline makes any significant return a virtual impossibility.

Yet, investors are in no way compensated for these additional risks. These investments tout high yield like returns for risks far in excess of traditional high yield investments. In fact, the only reason brokers sell these products is because of the high sales commissions coupled with the lack of price transparency that allows these products to be displayed at inflated values for years on investor account statements.

In an equipment leasing program a sponsor sells limited partnership units then takes out substantial offering costs and fees and invests the remainder in a pool of equipment leases that are leveraged up with additional borrowing. Brokers market these products as a predictable income stream but in fact, and what nearly all brokers fail to mention, is that a substantial portion of investor distributions are actually a return of their original investment and not actually income generated from operations.

Global Brokerage Services Fined Over Misleading Account Statements

December 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Global Brokerage Services, Inc. (Global) over allegations that from approximately February 2011, to August 2013, Global failed to establish and enforce a reasonable supervisory system regarding the use of consolidated reports by registered brokers with the firm. FINRA found that Global’s brokers provided consolidated reports to their customers that lacked required disclosures and/or contained misleading information. ln addition, FINRA alleged that one the brokers disseminated consolidated reports that included his own inaccurate and potentially misleading valuations for non-traded REITs and other illiquid investments.

Global has been a FINRA member since 1995, employs fourteen registered representatives, and its main office is in Hunt Valley, Maryland.

FINRA found that certain of Global’s brokers created consolidated reports using Morningstar or Excel for distribution to their customers. FINRA alleged that Global failed to have written supervisory procedures specific to consolidated reports. Instead, FINRA determined that consolidated reports at Global were treated as correspondence requiring only a sample (10%) be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Gana LLP Broker Investigation – Former Berthel Fisher Broker Robert Smith

December 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a series of claims before The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in relation to the conduct of financial advisor Robert Smith (Smith). Smith has been accused by at least 10 customers over his career concerning allegations that Smith overconcentrated the customer’s accounts in private placement securities including equipment leasing programs, oil & gas investments, and non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-traded REITs).

Smith has been registered with several broker dealers over the years. Starting in 2000 Smith was registered with American General Securities (n/k/a SagePoint Financial, Inc.) until May 2006. Thereafter, Smith was associated with ProEquities, Inc. until June 2010. Finally, from June 2010, until June 2014, Smith was registered with Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. (Berthel Fisher). Currently, Smith is not registered with any FINRA firm. Upon information and belief, from 2006 on Smith operated his securities business under a DBA called Proactive Retirement Investing.

The large number of complaints against Smith concerning the same or similar charges of misconduct is unusual in the brokerage industry. Most brokers go their entire careers without a single complaint. A small number have one or two complaints. But only a tiny percentage have more than two customer complaints. Here, at least 10 customers have made allegations against Smith all concerning difficult to value private placement securities.

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.

SEC Approves Changes to Value of Non-Traded REITs on Account Statements

November 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule change proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that will give investors greater insight into the costs of purchasing shares of non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs).

As reported by InvestmentNews, the SEC approved FINRA’s proposal on October 10. The rule change would require broker-dealers to include a per-share estimated value for an unlisted direct participation program (DPP) or a REIT on customer statements in addition to other related disclosures. The current practice is to list the value of Non-Traded REITs at a per-share price of $10, or simply the purchase price of the investment.

As a background, a Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate assets such as commercial real estate properties, residential mortgages of various types, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, and other industries. REITs can be publicly traded and when they are, can be 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 and are illiquid, have no market, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

Brokerage Firms Halt Sales of American Realty Capital Related REITs

November 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, recently several brokerage firms including Securities America Inc., with 1,772 registered reps and advisers, and the four National Planning Holdings Inc. firms with 3,954 registered reps and advisers including INVEST Financial Corp., Investment Centers of America Inc., National Planning Corp., and SII Investments Inc., announced that they are temporarily suspending some or all of the non-traded real estate investment trust (Non-Traded REITs) sales sponsored or distributed by American Realty Capital and its affiliated companies.

These Non-Traded REITs include investments such as the Phillips Edison-ARC Grocery Center REIT II and Cole Capital Properties V. The decision to halt sales come as Nicholas Schorsch, ARC’s chairman, faces further investigation after it had been revealed that the traded REIT he controls, American Realty Capital Properties Inc., made a $23 million accounting error that resulted in the firing of its chief financial officer.

The firms halted the sales in order to conduct further due diligence on the Non-Traded REIT products. Suspending sales of these products will likely help protect the firms if it is later revealed that the irregularities are more widespread. Brokers have a duty to have a reasonable basis for recommending that Non-Traded REITs are suitable for investors. This means that the firm has investigated the product and believes that the information disclosed to investors has a factual basis. If a Non-Traded REIT, its parent company, or principals are under investigation for making material misstatements it would be difficult for the firm to later argue that it had a basis for believing that the information it provided to investors was accurate.

Non-Traded REITs Sales Grow As Shown in Second Quarter 2014 Rankings

October 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Since the financial crisis the non-traded real estate investment trust (REIT) market has been a financial boon for the brokerage industry. A REIT is a security that invests typically in real estate related assets. Generally, REITs can be publicly or privately held. While publicly held REITs can be sold on an exchange, are liquid, and have lower commissions and fees, non-traded REITs are sold are private, are speculative, illiquid, and often charge fees of over 10%. Nonetheless, non-traded REITs have become a darling product of the financial industry, mostly because of the fat fees brokers earn for recommending these speculative products.

Brokers selling these products sometimes claim that non-traded REITs offer stable returns compared to the volatile stock market. As the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have recently noted, these products may not be as safe and stabile as advertised.

InvestmentNews recently ranked non listed REITs by second quarter 2014 invested assets. As shown below, investment in these funds are substantial and continues to grow each quarter

Company	2Q invested assets ($M)	Original share price	Current share value	Original distribution rate	Current distribution rate	2Q14 FFO 2 payout ratio
Inland American Real Estate Trust	$10,128.5	$10	$6.94	6.20%	5.00%	75%
Corporate Property Associates 17 Global	$4,564.7	$10	$9.50	6.50%	6.50%	81%
Apple Hospitality	$3,960.0	$11	$10.10	8.00%	7.25%	83%
Industrial Income Trust	$3,747.6	$10	$10.40	6.00%	6.00%	100%
Tier REIT	$3,455.8	$10	$4.20	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
CNL Lifestyle Properties	$3,343.4	$10	$6.85	6.25%	4.25%	108%
Griffin-American Healthcare REIT II	$3,056.2	$10	$10.22	6.50%	6.65%	143%
Monogram Residential Trust	$2,879.1	$10	$10.03	7.00%	3.50%	189%
Cole Credit Property Trust IV	$2,833.0	$10	$10.00	6.25%	6.25%	145%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II	$2,714.1	$10	$10.29	6.50%	6.50%	98%
Cole Corporate Income Trust	$2,606.3	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.50%	94%
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,422.1	$10	$6.40	6.00%	2.90%	88%
American Realty Capital Trust V	$2,233.5	$25	$25.00	6.60%	6.60%	86%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,058.0	$10	$4.45	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
Landmark Apartment Trust	$1,889.4	$10	$8.15	6.00%	3.00%	38%
Phillips Edison – ARC Shopping Center	$1,846.9	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.70%	129%
Steadfast Income REIT	$1,592.7	$10	$10.24	7.00%	7.00%	165%
Strategic Storage Trust	$731.5	$10	$10.79	7.00%	6.50%	120%
Signature Office	$676.4	$25	$25.00	6.00%	6.00%	83%
Lightstone Value Plus REIT	$643.2	$10	$11.80	7.00%	7.00%	69%

Many brokerage firms have come under fire for their non-traded REIT sales practices. For instance LPL Financial in particular has been accused by several regulators of failing to reign in their broker’s sales practices concerning alternative investments. On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise its brokers’ marketing of nontraditional investments. LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision in the sale of certain alternative investment products, including REITs, oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, and managed futures.

LPL Financial also paid a $500,000 fine to the Massachusetts Securities Division and was ordered to pay $4.8 million in restitution for supervisory and suitability related violations concerning non-traded REITs. In total six firms paid $11 million in restitution and fines related to REIT sales. The other firms including Ameriprise Financial Inc., Lincoln National, Commonwealth Financial Network, Royal Alliance Associates, and Securities America.

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are experienced in representing investors to recover their financial losses through the misrepresentation of non-traded REITs. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.

Broker Thomas Sharp Sanctioned by FINRA Over Misleading Statements Concerning Non-Traded REITs

October 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Thomas Sharp (Sharp) concerning allegations that Sharp violated NASD Rule 2210(d) by sending emails to potential investors in a non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) that were not fair and balanced and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts. Sharp was associated with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise) from 1987 through September 2013.

The Non-Traded REIT market has been a financial boon for the brokerage industry in recent years. A Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests mostly in real estate or property assets. While publicly traded REITs can be sold on an exchange, are liquid, and have lower commissions and fees, non-traded REITs are sold in the form of private placement offerings, are speculative, illiquid, and often charge fees of over 10%. Nonetheless, brokers have recommended these products to many investors, in part driven by the fat fees they can earn.

Brokers’ selling practices have come under scrutiny because sometimes brokers claim that Non-Traded REITs offer stable, safe returns compared to the volatile stock market. However, the stability is only a result of the fund setting its own price and illiquidity, not because the product is immune to market fluctuation.

An Examination of LPL Financial’s Recent Regulatory Woes

October 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial, LLC (LPL) is one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the United States employing approximately 13,840 registered reps and advisers. However, the firm’s growth has come with a host of regulatory actions focusing on the firm’s alleged supervisory failures.

Recently, InvestmentNews reported that the firm was hit with a $2 million fine, and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for failing to maintain adequate books and records documenting variable annuity exchanges. The mounting firm fines have led to flat second quarter earnings at LPL. The firm has stated that the company is instituting enhanced procedures with a view to ensuring that surrender charges incurred in connection with variable annuity exchange transactions are accurately reflected in the firm’s books and records as well as in any disclosures given to clients. The firm is also purportedly taking steps to make sure that its advisers are adequately documenting the basis for their variable annuity recommendations.

LPL has been on the radar of FINRA and several state regulators that have focused on the firm’s supervisory and other record systems as well as examining sales of investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). In February 2013, LPL settled with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to pay at least $2 million in restitution and $500,000 in fines concerning the firm’s non-traded REIT practices. In addition, in the last year, FINRA has fined LPL Financial $7.5 million for significant e-mail system failures. Moreover, we have reported on numerous LPL registered representatives who have been fined over the past year for a variety of misconduct ranging from misappropriation of funds, sales of alternative investments, selling away activities, and private placements.