Non-Traded Reits

Regulators On the Look Out for “Reverse Churning”

October 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

It is relatively easy to grasp the concept of excessive trading activity or “churning” in a brokerage account. Churning trading activity has no utility for the investor and is conducted solely to generate commissions for the broker. Churning involves both excessive purchases and sales of securities and the advisors control over the account. But regulators are also looking at another growing trend referred to as “reverse churning.” According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) states that “reverse churning” is the practice of placing investors in advisory accounts that pay a fixed fee, such as 1-2% annually, but generate little or no activity to justify that fee. Regulators are watching for signs of “double-dipping” whereby advisers generate significant commissions in an investor’s brokerage account and then moves the client into an advisory account in order to collect additional fees.

As a background there are many standalone brokerage firms and investment advisor firms where the option does not exist for a client to be switched between types of accounts. However, there are also many dually registered firms which are both broker-dealers and investment advisers. These firms, and their financial advisors have tremendous influence over whether a customer establishes a brokerage or investment advisory account. In the WSJ, the SEC was quoted as saying that “This influence may create a risk that customers are placed in an inappropriate account type that increases revenue to the firm and may not provide a corresponding benefit to the customer.”

However, dumping a client account into an advisory account after the broker ceases trading is only one strategy that should be included in the category of “reverse churning.” There are many other creative ways that brokers can generate excessive commissions for themselves while providing no benefit to their clients. For example, if a broker recommends a tax deferred vehicle, such a as a variable annuity, in an IRA account there is no additional tax benefit for the client. While the recommendation would not result in excessive trading, the broker would earn a huge commission for an investment that cannot take advantage of one of its primary selling points.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Former VSR and Berthel, Fisher Broker, Steven L. Stahler

October 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 27, 2014, FINRA filed a complaint against Steven L. Stahler, formerly a registered representative with multiple broker dealers including Lowell & Company, Inc., Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc., VSR Financial Services, Inc., among others. On November 1, 2013, Lowell & Company terminated Mr. Stahler according to his form U5.

FINRA alleges that Mr. Stahler made unsuitable recommendations to customers in violation of FINRA Rule 2310 and 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010. Under FINRA Rule 2110 and 2310, all financial advisers and brokerage firms have a responsibility to deal fairly with their customers. All sales efforts are judged based upon the standards outlined in the FINRA Rules. Furthermore, all brokers must recommend the purchase, sale or exchange of securities that are reasonable given the customers investment objectives and risk tolerances.

According to the complaint, VSR Financial’s written supervisory procedures specify that no more than 40%-50% of a customer’s liquid net worth should be invested in alternative investments. VSR’s guidelines also required that new account forms used outline the customer’s percentage of the portfolio they would feel comfortable investing in high risk investments. FINRA alleges that from September 13, 2006 through October 24, 2006, Mr. Stahler recommended that a married couple, who had stated that no more than twenty percent of their portfolio be invested in aggressive/high risk investments, invested approximately $837,000 in twelve high risk investments at Mr. Stahler’s recommendation. These alternative investments included:

Business Development Companies (BDC) – Investment Risks to Be Aware of – Part II

August 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In our prior post we recently highlighted, the rising popularity of non-traded business development companies (BDCs). BDCs may be one of the latest and greatest products that Wall Street is promoting that will provide outsized yield with less risk. As usual, these “new ideas” end with brokerage firms making lots of money and investors suffering the consequences.

BDCs make loans to and invest in small to mid-size, developing, or financially troubled companies. BDCs now fill the role that many commercial banks left during the financial crisis to lend to those companies with questionable credit. While BDCs are not new products, until very recently investors had only publicly traded closed-end funds that acted like private equity firms to invest in. These funds are risky enough. During the last downturn some of the publicly traded funds fell by 60%, 70% or more.

Like their non-traded REIT cousins, non-traded BDCs utilize a non-traded REIT-like structure and promote very high yields of 10% or more. There are some differences between BDCs and REITs, BDCs are regulated under the 1940 Act that governs mutual funds. There is also a big difference in valuation. BDCs are valued quarterly while non-traded REITs publish their valuations no later than 18 months after the offering period.

Business Development Companies (BDC) – The Next Risky Wall Street Cash Cow?

August 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Since the financial crisis, the product development squad on Wall Street has been hard at work putting new spins on old ideas. The usual plan is merely to rebrand an old idea with a new label and convince investors looking for the latest and greatest product that the investment will provide outsized yield with less risk. It’s no coincidence that these new ideas make lots of money for the brokers selling them.

Enter the non-traded business development companies (BDCs). Now that many regulators and investors have begun to wise up and sour on the high commission and uncertain return approach offered by non-traded REITs, BDCs have entered into the fray as the non-stock market, non-real estate, high yield alternative. However, BDCs appear to be just as speculative – likely even more so – and inappropriate for most investors as non-traded REITs with many of the same failings such as obscenely high up-front fees, limited liquidity, and reliance on leverage to juice returns.

BDCs make loans to and invest in small to mid-size, developing, or financially troubled companies. BDCs have stepped into a role that many commercial banks left during the financial crisis due to capital raising requirements. In sum, BDCs lend to companies that may not otherwise get financing from traditional sources. While BDCs are not new, until very recently the market has been served by publicly traded closed-end funds that act like private equity firms. Just like the market was served just fine by publicly traded REITs before the non-traded variety showed up on the scene. One would think that the publicly traded BDCs provided high enough returns and were risky enough for even the most speculative investor considering that during the last downturn some of the funds fell by 60%, 70% or more. But greed is good.

James Bracey Barred Over Allegations of Taking Loans from Customers

July 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred from the financial industry broker James Bracey (Bracey) concerning allegations that in or about February 2008, Bracey, received a $175,000 loan from a customer without notifying Multi-Financial, now known as Cetera Advisor Network LLC. FINRA alleged that on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2011, Bracey renegotiated the interest payments on the customer’s loan. FINRA also found that in December 2009, while associated with Multi-Financial, Bracey falsified a customer’s written wire transfer instructions in order to execute an unauthorized fund transfer from a customer’s brokerage account to that customer’s personal bank account outside of Multi-Financial. FINRA determined that Bracey caused the creation and maintenance of inaccurate books and records through the falsifying the customer’s wire transfer.

FINRA also alleged that between October 31, 2001 and April 30, 2012, Bracey failed to timely notify Multi-Financial, and later LPL Financial LLC, of two separate outside business activities. FINRA also found that in October 2004, after soliciting 17 investors to purchase securities away from Multi-Financial, Bracey failed to provide written notice to or firm approval to engage in private securities transactions in violation of NASD Rules 3040 and 2110. FINRA’s allegations are consistent with a “selling away” violation in which a broker solicits investors to invest in unapproved investments. Finally, FINRA found that between 2004 and 2012, Bracey willfully failed to timely disclose material information to Multi-Financial and LPL Financial in order to update his Form U4 concerning two liens and two creditor compromises.

In addition to the slew of violations alleged by FINRA, Bracey has been the subject of at least three customer complaints and terminated by three brokerage firms. The customer complaints against Bracey concern private placements (direct participation programs), equipment leasing investments, unsuitable investments, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and misrepresentations in the sale of securities.

Gana LLP Investigates Broker Angelo Talebi’s Investment Activities: Attention Iranian Investors in California

July 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims that broker Angelo Talebi (Talebi) made misrepresentations regarding investments in alternative investments such as Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and oil and gas limited partnerships. Upon information and belief, Talebi is targeting Iranian investors in California. According to Talebi’s BrokerCheck, at least 13 customer complaints have been filed regarding Talebi’s sales practices in FINRA arbitration. Some of the complaints also allege that Talebi unsuitably invested clients in various investments including variable annuities and private placements including KBS 1 REIT, Leaf Equipment finance, Inland American Real Estate Trust, Atlas Resources. Another complaint alleges unsuitable equity investments and excessive use of margin.

From 1999 through December 2012, Talebi was associated with LPL Financial LLC (LPL Financial). Thereafter, until April 2014, Talebi was a registered representative of Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. Currently, Talebi is associated with Independent Financial Group, LLC.

The investment products that Talebi is alleged to have inappropriately recommended to clients are part of a growing industry trend of placing investors heavily in alternative investments and illiquid products. Many times brokers tell investors that these products are more stable and predictable than the stock market. After the financial crisis many investors were receptive to these sales pitches. However, brokers sometimes fail to disclose that the stability of these investments is artificially generated by the lack of disclosure and trading market for these products. In the cases of REITs and oil and gas private placements investors may only learn years after investing that the value of these assets has fallen substantially and some investors do not know of their losses until the investment goes completely bust.

Unsuitable IRA Investments On the Rise – Part III

June 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues our prior posts concerning a recent report by Bloomberg that noted the rise in rollovers from 401(k) plans into IRA accounts. The article pointed to concerns by regulatory agencies and investors concerning the suitability of the investment choices being recommended by brokers soliciting rollovers.

In another example, a mechanical engineer for Hewlett-Packard in Puerto Rico, rolled over $150,000 from a 401(k) to an IRA with UBS. His broker Luis Roberto Fernandez Diaz, recommended Puerto Rico municipal bond funds that contained a 3 percent upfront sales fee and 1 percent annual expenses. Fernandez’s brokercheck lists 17 customer disputes from 2009 through 2014. As we have reported on multiple occasions, our firm represents investors in claims against UBS concerning the firm’s practices in overconcentrating many of their client’s assets in these speculative highly leveraged bond funds. Those articles can be found here, here, and here.

In the case of an IRA, it makes little sense for a financial adviser to recommend investing in municipal bonds because the bonds main advantage is tax avoidance which already is a benefit of investing in an IRA. The investor interviewed by Bloomberg, says that the bonds plunged in value because of the deteriorating finances of Puerto Rico and are only worth $90,000.

Beware of Brokerage Firms Soliciting 401(k) Rollovers – Part II

June 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article picks up on our prior post concerning a recent report by Bloomberg concerning allegations that brokerage firms have used unscrupulous tactics in rolling over employee 401(k) plans into IRA accounts.

The article highlighted how Kathleen Tarr (Tarr) and Richard McCollam (McCollam) with Royal Alliance Associates gained access to AT&T Inc. employees. Tarr was also associated with SII Investment, Inc., from July 2010 until November 2012. McCollam began marketing to AT&T employees with 401(k) rollovers and lump-sum pension payments. The telecommunications company has 246,000 workers and ranks among the best 15 percent of U.S. plans in terms of fees, charging expenses as low as .01 percent. At AT&T employees can take a pension monthly payment or a lump sum payment.

According to the article the employees looked to Tarr as 401(k) expert and visited their homes and offices in order to advise them on their retirement plans. Bloomberg found that Tarr encouraged hundreds of departing AT&T employees to roll over their retirement savings into risky high-commission investments that the SEC and FINRA have warned customers against investing substantial unsuitable sums into.

Sales of Non-Traded REITs Contributes to Increased Broker Dealer Revenues

May 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Despite the broad market’s recent volatility, 2013 brought the twenty-five largest independent broker dealers double-digit revenue growth on average, according to an Investment News report. After a weak 2012, these independent broker dealers roared to a 13.2% year over year increase in revenue, recording $18.46 billion in 2013 according to this year’s Investment News survey.

The overall strength of the S&P 500, gaining 29.6% in 2013 was one contributing factor to the 2013 success of independent broker dealers. The other factor however, was a flood of commissions generated from record sales of alternative investment products, namely non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). As Eric Schwartz, chief executive of Cambridge Investment Research explained, “There were two reasons for last year’s results. The stock market was up 30%, and there was an unusually high percentage of dollars in alternatives and REITs being sold. Remember, a number of REITs had public listings, and clients reinvested back into other REITs.”

According to the Investment News survey, the top ten independent broker-dealers with the most growth from alternative investments include: (1) Independent Financial Group; (2) Triad Advisors; (3) Royal Alliance Associates; (4) National Planning Corp.; (5) First Allied Securities; (6) Lincoln Financial Network; (7) Cambridge Investment Research; (8) Commonwealth Financial Network; (9) Ameriprise Financial Services; 10) LPL Financial.

Colorado Financial Service Fined By FINRA Over Private Placement Supervisory Failures

April 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined Colorado Financial Service Corporation (Colorado Financial) concerning allegations that the firm violated NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rule 2010, among other violations, by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the securities rules pertaining to the supervision of electronic communications and due diligence review of new private placement offerings.

Colorado Financial is based in Centennial and became a FINRA member in 2000. Currently, there are approximately 82 persons registered with Colorado Financial in thirty six branches. The firm’s primary lines of business include investment banking, private placements, mutual funds, and variable life insurance or annuities.

FINRA alleged that Colorado Financial did not establish, maintain, and enforce adequate procedures to supervise and review electronic communications for the period of February 2009 to September 2012. According to FINRA, Colorado Financial only manually reviewed between .1% and 1.5% out of approximately 325,900 archived e-mails during the period of January 2012 to September 2012. FINRA found that Colorado Financial’s written supervisory procedures relating to electronic communications did not indicate who at the firm was responsible for the supervisory review, how the review would be conducted and documented, or establish protocols for escalating regulatory issues in e-mails.