Articles Tagged with REITs

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned financial advisor John H. Towers (Towers) of VSR Financial Services, Inc. (VSR) concerning allegations of unsuitable sales of over $6,000,000 in alternative investments including oil and gas interests, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other speculative private placement investments to an investor.  FINRA’s determinations in this matter is significant because some in financial industry take the position that wealthy customers are automatically sophisticated and therefore fair game to recommend positions in speculative private placement securities.  The theory goes that if you have a lot of money then it is ok for you to lose some of it speculating in alternative investments.

Towers entered the securities industry in 1970.  From 2002 until December 2013, Towers was associated with VSR.  According to Towers’ BrokerCheck at least 14 customers have filed complaints against Towers.  The vast majority of those complaints involve claims concerning the improper sale of various private placement securities.

FINRA alleged that in September 2005, Towers recommended that a married couple invest $25,000 in APC 2005-B, a high risk private placement.  Over the next five years, FINRA found that Towers continually recommended that the couple make an additional eighty-eight investments in private placements and REITs totaling approximately $6,259,400 and representing approximately 72% of their investments purchased at VSR.  FINRA alleged that the private placements and REITS were all described in the offering documents as high risk investments.  FINRA also found that the couple had stated a moderate risk tolerance on their new account forms and specified that no more than 10% of their accounts were to be invested in high risk products.

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.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), VSR Financial Services, Inc. (“VSR”), and Donald J. Beary (“Beary”) have reached a settlement concerning charges brought by the securities regulator that VSR violated customer concentration guidelines and otherwise failed to reasonably supervise its brokers in the sales of alternative investments.  The settlement led to VSR paying a $550,000 fine and Beary being suspended from associating with a FINRA firm for 45 days and a $10,000 fine.

VSR is based in Overland Park, Kansas, has 211 branch offices, and employs approximately 460 registered personnel.  Beary is a co-founder of VSR and is its executive vice-president, chairman of the board, and direct participation principal.

According to FINRA, from 2005 until 2010 VSR and Beary failed to adequately implement the firm’s supervisory procedures concerning concentration limits in customer accounts for alternative investments.  The settlement details that VSR’s supervisory failures regarding concentration limits occurred because the firm used inaccurate statements reflecting the customer’s true concentration in alternative investments and because the firm used inaccurate risk ratings of products to increase allowable concentration levels.

In July 2013, William Galvin, the Massachusetts (MA) Secretary of the Commonwealth, began an investigation into “the marketing of complicated financial investments to older people.” In the process of the investigation, Galvin subpoenaed fifteen different brokerage firms in order to obtain information on investments that were sold to senior citizens in Massachusetts. The investigation sought to uncover the way the firms have sold “high-risk, esoteric products to seniors” as well as information on the firms’ compliance, supervision and training.

The firms that were included in the investigation were Morgan Stanley, LPL Financial, Merrill Lynch, UBS AG, Bank of America Corp., Fidelity Investments, Wells Fargo and Co., Charles Schwab Corp., and TD Ameritrade along with other firms. Galvin has stated that the investigation was not an indication of any wrongdoing on behalf of the brokerage firms. The purpose of the investigation was to get more information on brokers’ business practices in offering products to seniors and unsophisticated investors. Regulators have shown concern about “opaque products” advertised to unsophisticated investors looking for higher returns than what most interest rates have to offer.  Brokers often pitch these types of products because they will usually get a higher commission rate than by selling other lower risk products such as mutual funds.

This recent investigation is a result of past inappropriate Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) sales to seniors.  Last year, the SEC probed the probe improper sale of REITs to seniors that led to five broker-dealers settling.  The settlement for the improper REIT sales included $975,000 in fines and $8.6 million in restitution to the customers.

The Massachusetts Securities Division reached a settlement of $9.6 million with five independent broker dealers concerning allegations that the firms improperly sold non-traded real estate investments trusts (REITs) to hundreds of investors within the state.  The firm’s fined include Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., Commonwealth Financial Network, Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. Securities America, Inc., and Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.  The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin announced that a part of the settlement would be used to distribute $6.1 million to investors as restitution.

A REIT is a security that invests in real estate directly either through properties or mortgages. REITs can be publicly traded on a national exchange or privately held.  Private REITs are often referred to as non-traded REITs.  Non-traded REITs have become increasingly popular as increased volatility in the stock market has led many investors to look for investment products that offer more stable returns.  However, non-traded REITs may not be as safe and stable as advertised.  Because non-traded REITs do not trade publicly the REIT itself determines its own asset values and only publishes updated valuations sporadically.  Thus, a REITs volatility includes not only real estate market volatility but also management decisions and potentially leverage positions that investors may simply not be informed about.

Massachusetts alleged that the firms engaged in a “pattern of impropriety” selling these “popular but risky investments.”  Massachusetts alleged significant and widespread problems with the firms’ compliance policies, practices, and procedures in the sale of non-traded REITs.  In addition, Massachusetts alleged that the firms failed to only sell non-traded REITs to qualifying investors.  Massachusetts allegations concerning each firm are as follows:

Contact Information