FINRA

SEC Fines Investment Adviser Over Lack of Heightened Supervision

May 13, 2016 | Steve Parker

Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted and simultaneously settled an administrative enforcement case in which a civil penalty of $225,000.00 was assessed against Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc. (Cambridge). The action illustrates the importance of designing and implementing effective heightened supervision programs for investment adviser representatives who have a history of allegations of rules violations or other misconduct or disclosure items on the Form U-4.

The case stemmed from an incident that was the subject of a separate SEC proceeding filed in 2013 against Richard P. Sandru, who was an investment adviser representative operating from Cambridge’s Perrysburg, Ohio branch office. In that proceeding, Sandru was found to have forged clients’ signatures on financial planning agreements or, in some cases, adding client charges to the agreements without the clients’ knowledge and without obtaining additional signatures from the clients authorizing the additional charges. Sandru’s conduct, which the SEC characterized as a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate client funds, took place between 2009 and 2011 and potentially affected 47 advisory clients, from whom Sandru allegedly misappropriated “at least $308,850.00.” Sandru was, at this time, an OSJ of Cambridge and supervised two other Cambridge representatives and other administrative assistants.

FINRA Provides Effective Practices for Digital Investment Advice

May 10, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently released guidance on effective practices for financial services firms that provide digital investment advice services. While the report analyzed rules of the securities industry that relate to such services, it discusses effective practices that “may be valuable to financial professionals generally,” including registered investment advisers. With the increasing use of digital investment advice tools in the financial services industry, FINRA undertook to review a broad range of these tools to ensure broker dealers as well as investment advisers are complying with their legal obligations.

The digital investment advice tools FINRA is referring to include both financial professional-facing tools and client-facing tools. These tools typically perform the necessary functions involved in managing an investor’s portfolio, including customer profile development, asset allocation, portfolio selection, trade execution, portfolio rebalancing, and tax-loss harvesting. Client-facing tools which perform these functions are commonly known as “robo advisors.” Financial professional-facing tools usually include portfolio analysis capabilities in addition to those listed functions.

FINRA Sanctions Personnel for Compliance Failures

May 4, 2016 | Steve Parker

A compliance advisor working for City Securities Corporation (“City Securities”) has agreed to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) in a FINRA enforcement case alleging deficiencies in the way the advisor performed his compliance duties at the broker-dealer. John Walter Ruggles, who first became registered in 1993 and became associated with City Securities in May 2014, was charged with failing to generate monthly Municipal Continuing Disclosure Reports (MCDs), which are required in order to comply with the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board’s (MSRB) disclosure requirements. More specifically, among Ruggles’ tasks were to populate the MCDs with transaction data on behalf of City Securities’ customers and to email the data to the private client group, who would then routinely use the information contained in Ruggles’ emails to prepare customer satisfaction letters to City Securities’ clients regarding recent municipal bond trading activity.

The AWC alleges that Ruggles’ supervisor confronted Ruggles with the fact that he had not received the MCDs due for February 2015, and asked Ruggles to produce documentation showing that Ruggles had performed the tasks going back to June 2014. Ruggles provided six printed emails to his supervisor in response to the supervisor’s request. Those emails contain the trade details that were supposed to have been included in the MCDs. The supervisor, however, attempted to verify the data contained in Ruggles’ printed emails, but in investigating the situation found (1) that City Securities’ email backup files did not contain any of the emails that Ruggles provided, (2) that several of the execution dates referenced on the bond trades in the emails were different from the actual execution dates as reflected in the transaction data, (3) that for a period of approximately five months, the firm’s compliance system showed that Ruggles had not opened and viewed the MCDs from which he was supposed to have taken the data, and (4) that the falsified emails contained erroneous dates in the subject lines.

FINRA Files Revised Pay-to-Play Rule Proposal with SEC

February 15, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently filed its revised pay-to-play rules proposal with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Investment advisers have been awaiting FINRA’s pay-to-play rules ever since the SEC announced last year that it would not recommend enforcement action against an investment adviser or its associated persons for the payment to a third party for the solicitation of a government entity for investment advisory services until either FINRA or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) had adopted its own pay-to-pay rules for broker-dealers.

Pay-to-play activities involve the practice of making cash or in kind contributions, or soliciting others to make those contributions, to state or local officials or other government entities as an incentive for the receipt of government contracts. Pursuant to Rule 206(4)-5, investment advisers are prohibited from providing a government entity with investment advisory services for compensation within two years of contributing monetarily to that government entity. In addition, and of particular interest here, under Rule 206(4)-5 investment advisers may not provide payment to any third party to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless that third party is a registered investment adviser, a registered broker-dealer, or a registered municipal adviser.

Texas Securities Board Approves Advisory Payments to Retiring Advisers

December 28, 2015 | Steve Parker

In a letter dated December 11, 2015, the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) granted a no-action request by Managed Financial Service Corporation, Inc. (“MFSC”) that paves the way for a retiring investment adviser representative to receive continuing compensation after retirement. The Board confirmed that it would not commence or seek enforcement proceedings against either MFSC or a specified retiring investment adviser representative if certain procedures were followed. MFSC and its retiring representative requested the no-action letter in order to implement a plan under which the retiring representative would continue to receive compensation derived from the residual value of the work as an investment adviser for certain accounts.

The no-action was requested based on a concern, predominant in the investment adviser industry, that receipt by a retired adviser representative of ongoing advisory fees or a portion of advisory fees received by a successor adviser or firm would subject the retired representative to discipline for conducting business without registration.

The no-action relief granted by the Board is similar to the practice in the brokerage industry that has been codified in FINRA Rule 2040 (b) in which, prior to that date, was sanctioned by a FINRA no-action letter issued to Merrill Lynch in March 2012.
Continue reading ›

FINRA Amendments to Relax Filing Rules Governing Retail Communications

July 24, 2015 | Shay Virtue

FINRA has recently released Regulatory Notice 15-16 which contains proposed amendments to the rules currently governing public communications they will make reporting by FINRA member firms regarding public communications less onerous due to more lenient filing requirements. If the proposed amendments are adopted, the rules proposed to be amended are FINRA Rules 2210, 2214 and 2213.

FINRA Rule 2210 relates to communications of a firm with the public. Under the current regime new firms are required, at least 10 days prior to making any retail communications, to file such communications with FINRA for the first year of the firm’s membership. Under the proposed amendment, new firms would only be required to file their websites and any material changes thereto within 10 days of first use of the website for the first year of the firm’s membership. This proposed change was prompted by FINRA’s recognition that the primary form of retail communications is now done through the firm’s websites and that the 10-day waiting period served no significant investor protection function.
Continue reading ›

LPL Financial Ordered by FINRA to Pay $11.7 Million

May 15, 2015 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) announced that it had fined LPL Financial (“LPL”) $10 million for lack of supervision in several areas of its operations, including sales of ETFs, variable annuities, REITs, and other complex products. In addition, FINRA found LPL failed to monitor trades and failed to report them to FINRA and failed to deliver more than $14 million in trade confirmations to customers. FINRA also ordered LPL to repay certain customers $1.7 million in restitution relating to the purchases of ETFs. Among FINRA’s findings were that the firm did not have a system that monitored how long customers were holding ETFs in their accounts, information that would be important in formulating advice as to whether the ETFs should have been purchased in the first place and how long the client should be recommended to hold the ETFs in their portfolios. Additionally, even though LPL had created policies limiting the concentration of ETFs in customer accounts, it failed to enforce the limits it had established and had not trained its registered representatives on the risks of those products.

With respect to variable annuities, FINRA found that in several instances, LPL had permitted said annuities to be sold without proper disclosure of surrender fees. Additionally, although LPL employed an automated surveillance system, that system failed to adequately review transactions commonly known as mutual fund “switches,” which involve a redemption of one mutual fund in order to purchase another.
Continue reading ›

Investment Advisers and Social Media

January 2, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

As the use of social media becomes more prevalent and popular, businesses and financial institutions have begun to utilize the new methods of communication that social media can provide. Many businesses already maintain blogs or interactive accounts like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram as a method of marketing and interacting with clients or prospective customers. However, social media is a relatively new and constantly changing technology that can create unique and unforeseen risks to a businesses image and regulatory compliance policies. These risks are particularly acute for registered investment advisers.

In the broker-dealer world, FINRA has already adopted rules and issued regulatory notices designed to protect investors from false or misleading claims and representations and guide member firms on how to appropriately monitor their social media participation. Although not strictly applicable to pure RIAs, these rules should be viewed as best practices:

FINRA Rule 2210 and NASD Rule 3010 govern the supervision of a firm’s social media communications;

FINRA Rule 2111 requires that social media communications, if recommending a security, must be considered suitable for the targeted investors; and

Record keeping of all social media communications is required under FINRA Rule 4510.

SEC Approves FINRA Self-Trading Rule

May 28, 2014 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 5210. The rule now requires member broker-dealers to implement and enforce policies and procedures “reasonably designed” to monitor and prevent “self-trading” activity. See SEC Release No. 34-72067.

The rule, in its amended form, is designed to provide FINRA with increased ability to monitor and limit the “unintentional” interaction of orders that come from the same firm. This issue is distinct from any self-trading that are the products of fraudulent or manipulative design. Rather, FINRA’s rule will attempt to limit the misleading impact that this unintentional self-trading has on marketplace data and trade volume of a security.

The rule change will place new restrictions on self-trading activity that occurs as a result from one or related algorithms or that originate in one or related trading desks. Self-trading, as used by FINRA, does not result in a change in beneficial ownership and may or may not be a bona fide trade. The agency believes that self-trading, even conducted without fraudulent or manipulative intent, may be disruptive to the marketplace and distort information on a given security. The agency points to data it has collected that show self-trading of this kind may account for five percent or more of a security’s daily trading volume.
Continue reading ›

FINRA Addressing Self-Trading in New Rule

May 28, 2014 | Parker MacIntyre

Earlier this month, the SEC approved FINRA’s rule change addressing the limitation and monitoring of self-trading in SEC Release No. 34-72067. FINRA Rule 5210 will put restrictions on self-trading activity that occurs as a result from one or related algorithms or that originate in one or related trading desks. Self-trading, as used by FINRA, does not result in a change in beneficial ownership and may or may not be a bona fide trade. The agency believes that self-trading, even conducted without fraudulent or manipulative intent, may be disruptive to the marketplace and distort information on a given security. The agency points to data it has collected that show self-trading of this kind may account for five percent or more of a security’s daily trading volume.

The rule, in its amended form, is designed to provide FINRA with increased ability to monitor and limit the “unintentional” interaction of orders that come from the same firm. This issue is apart from any self-trading that are the products of fraudulent or manipulative design. Rather, FINRA’s rule will attempt to limit the misleading impact that this unintentional self-trading has on marketplace data and trade volume of a security.
Continue reading ›