Suitability

What are Leveraged or Non-Traditional ETFs?

November 6, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

A leveraged Exchange Traded Fund (non-traditional or leveraged ETFs) is a security that employs debt, or leverage, in order to amplify the returns of an underlying stock position. Leveraged ETFs are generally available for most security indexes such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100. A leveraged ETF with 300% leverage will return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse of the benchmark.

Leveraged ETFs are generally used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned that most leveraged ETFs reset daily, meaning that they are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. As a result, the performance of nontraditional ETFs held over the long term can differ significantly from the performance of their underlying index or benchmark during the same period. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has acknowledged that leveraged ETF carry significant risks and are inherent complexity of the products. Accordingly, FINRA advises brokers that nontraditional ETFs are typically not suitable for retail investors.

Recently, FINRA sanctioned and suspended broker Michael E. French (French) over allegations that the broker recommended unsuitable transactions in leveraged and inverse ETFs in the accounts of elderly customers. FINRA also alleged that French held the leveraged ETFs in his customers’ accounts for extended periods contrary to Wells Fargo Advisor’s (Wells Fargo) written supervisory procedures.

FINRA Bars Broker Over Allegations of Churning (Excessive Trading) and Unauthorized Trading in Customer Accounts

October 7, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has barred Chad David Kelly (Kelly) concerning allegations of churning (excessive trading) and unauthorized trading. “Churning” is excessive investment trading activity that serves little useful purpose or is inconsistent with the investor’s objectives and is conducted solely to generate commissions for the broker. Churning is also a type of securities fraud.

FINRA alleged that Kelly willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act of 1934”), Rule 10b-5, and violated FINRA Rules 2020, and 2010, NASD Rules 2120, 2110, 2310, and IM-2310(a) and (b).

According to FINRA, excessive trading violation occurs when: 1) a broker has control over the account and the trading in the account, and 2) the level of activity in that account is inconsistent with the customer’s objectives and financial situation. Where an intent to defraud or reckless disregard for the customer’s interests is present the activity is also churning. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits the use of “any manipulative or deceptive act or practice” in connection with the purchase or sale of a security and Rule 10b-5 prohibits “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.” NASD Rule 2310(a) provides that when recommending the purchase, sale, or exchange of any security a broker “shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for such customer…” A broker’s recommendations must “be consistent with his customer’s best interests.” NASD IM-2310-2(a)(1) also require that the broker must “’have reasonable grounds to believe that the number of recommended transactions within a particular period is not excessive.” NASD IM-2310-2(b)(2) prohibits brokers from excessively trading in customer accounts.

Darrell Frazier Accused of Selling Variable Annuities by Misleading Customers

September 28, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Darrell G. Frazier (Frazier) was recently barred from the securities industry by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) over allegations that Frazier made fraudulent statements in the sales of variable annuities. Frazier is also alleged to have made unsuitable variable annuity sale recommendations to customers.

Frazier first became registered with a FINRA member firm in March 1988. Frazier was registered with Park Avenue Securities LLC from July 2002 through June 2010. From August 2010 through May 2011, Frazier was associated with MML Investors Services, LLC.

FINRA alleged that from 2004 to at least 2009, Frazier made materially false and misleading statements in connection with recommending customers purchase variable annuity products issued by Guardian Insurance & Annuity Company, Inc. A variable annuity is a contract where an insurance company agrees to make periodic payments to an investor either immediately or at some future date. The purchase of a variable annuity contract either involves a single purchase payment or a series of purchase payments.

Massachusetts Securities Regulator Subpoenaed 15 Brokerage Firms Over Products Sold to Senior Investors

September 21, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

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.

Sunset Financial Services, Inc. Fined by FINRA Regarding Private Placement Sales

July 13, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On July 12, 2013, Sunset Financial Services, Inc. (Sunset) reached a settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning allegations that Sunset failed to supervise the sale of certain private placement securities. FINRA accused Sunset of failing to establish and maintain appropriate supervisory systems in compliance with FINRA rules regarding the sale of private placements.

The FINRA complaint alleges that the improper activity took place between January 2008 and March 2011. Sunset began private placement investment sales in 2001 and in 2004 the fund at issue was approved for sale to customers by Sunset. The private placement provided bridge loans for short-term mortgages for properties in California and Arizona. Sunset was paid 2% of sales plus trail concessions from the fund. In 2008, Sunset made $1.14 million form the total $57 million raised for the private placement.

According to FINRA, the first red flag indicating that the private placements were not as safe as the firm was advertising to customers occurred in 2008. At that time, a third party published a report on that highlighted that the mortgages the fund invested in had experienced a 20% increase in the rate of default. Sunset failed to follow up on the report such as re-evaluating the adequacy of keeping the fund on an approved sales list. The second red flag occurred from 2008-2009 when the private placement no longer allowed fund redemptions due to financial difficulties. It was also later discovered that the CEO of the private placement was also the son of a registered representative of Sunset.