Articles Tagged with FINRA

|

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has responded to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study that estimated the cost of FINRA becoming the investment adviser self regulatory organization (SRO). The BCG study, which we have discussed in a previous blog, was sponsored by the Financial Planning Coalition, comprised of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers. The Financial Planning Coalition, along with a number of other groups, is urging Congress to maintain investment adviser oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The BCG study concluded that, if FINRA were to become the investment adviser SRO, the one-time start-up cost would be between $200 million and $255 million, and the annual cost would be about $550 million to $610 million. In response to the BCG study, last month FINRA released its own cost estimates. According to FINRA, its start-up cost would be approximately $12 million to $15 million, with annual cost of about $150 million to $155 million. FINRA contends that the BCG projection is inaccurate because “BCG used as its base the costs for establishing the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) and the CFPB from scratch. BCG used figures – set up costs for organizations that didn’t even have one desk or employee to start with – and provided for only a 20% discount off the from-scratch start-up costs to allow for efficiencies in FINRA’s existing infrastructure.”
Continue reading ›

|

An independent insurance agent, Glenn Neasham, was convicted on a felony-theft charge in March for selling a complex indexed annuity to an 83-year old client in a California court. He was sentenced to spend ninety days in jail. Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Neasham’s client had exhibited signs of dementia and was not capable of consenting to the transaction.

This case has stirred fear among insurance and securities agents. The state’s then-insurance commissioner stated in 2010, after Mr. Neasham’s arrest, that agents “who steal from vulnerable seniors will not get away with their shameful tricks.” Agents are attracted to indexed annuities because they receive high commissions, which can be 12% or more of the invested amount. As a result of this case and heightened regulatory scrutiny, agents will have to think twice before selling indexed annuities to the elderly. The $14,000, or 8%, commission that Mr. Neasham received was a factor used against him to prove his criminal intent.
Continue reading ›

|

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) has reintroduced his bill calling for a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. The bill has a Democratic co-sponsor, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), indicating that it may have some bipartisan support. Rep. Bachus said that the bill was drafted in response to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) study which showed that the SEC does not have sufficient resources to adequately monitor and regulate the 12,000 registered investment advisers. The SEC examined only 8% of advisers in 2011, which is significantly less than the 58% of broker-dealers that were examined.

The bill calls for the creation of one or more SROs which would be called a “National Investment Adviser Association” (NIAA). NIAA would report to the SEC, and investment advisers with retail customers would be required to become members. The bill provides an exception from the membership requirement for investment advisers with less than $100 million in assets under management. The bill gives individual states the authority to regulate those investment advisers as long as the states conduct periodic on-site examinations.
Continue reading ›

|

With the passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to create a number of new rules, in addition to the rules already required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).

The first deadline that the SEC faces under the JOBS Act is adopting rules eliminating the ban on general solicitation of certain private offerings. It will have 90 days to revise Rule 506 of Regulation D to allow those securities to be sold using general solicitation or advertising when all of the purchasers of the securities are “accredited investors.”

The JOBS Act also created a new crowdfunding exemption to registration. The SEC will have 270 days to adopt the rules and regulations effectuating this exemption, as the SEC determines to be necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority may also adopt rules regulating “funding portals” for issuers.
Continue reading ›

|

The Investment Advisers Association (IAA) believes that it needs to become more outspoken and involved in order to deter Congress from passing legislation requiring a self-regulatory organization (SRO) be designated for registered investment advisers. The IAA is concerned because Congress is fully aware of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) position and its desire to become the SRO for investment advisers. IAA vice president for government relations Neil Simon stated, “Despite our best efforts, there is still a woeful ignorance of the role investment advisers play. They’re aware of FINRA. We need to help educate policymakers so they make informed decisions.”

Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prepare a report considering whether there should be an SRO for investment advisers, as there is for broker-dealers. The SEC set forth three possible models to help the agency better oversee advisers: (1) allow the SEC to charge user fees for exams, (2) establish a new SRO, or (3) allow FINRA to be the SRO for both registered investment advisers and broker-dealers. The IAA is supporting the user fee approach, while FINRA is aggressively pursuing becoming the designated SRO. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) previously offered a bill which would provide for an SRO in response to the SEC’s recommendations, which were delivered to Congress in January 2011. Some industry observers believe that Rep. Bachus is likely to release a revised discussion draft of his bill and push it, because he will leave his post of Financial Services Chairman in January 2013 due to term limits.
Continue reading ›

|

As a result of the financial crisis, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has significantly increased number of enforcement actions and the amount of sanctions imposed on broker-dealers in the previous year. According to Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP’s annual sanctions survey, the 13% increase in disciplinary actions resulted in increased fines of 51%.

FINRA filed 1,488 disciplinary actions in 2011, an increase from the 1,310 actions that it initiated in 2010. This made 2011 the third straight year in which the number of FINRA disciplinary actions has grown. The survey also found that the number of professionals barred by FINRA increased from 288 in 2010 to 329 in 2011.

Total fines jumped from $45 million in 2010 to $68 million in 2011, which is a 51% increase. The survey report stated, “While the $68 million reported in 2011 is still a far cry from the $184 million and $111 million that FINRA fined firms and representatives in 2005 and 2006, respectively, it may signal continued enforcement efforts for the near future.”
Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a letter addressing broker-dealer’s practices in recommending high-yield products to clients. The letter states, “FINRA is informing its examination priorities against the economic environment that investors have faced since 2008, as these circumstances have steadily contributed to conditions that foster an increased risk of aggressive yield chasing, inappropriate sales practices, unsuitable product offerings, and misappropriation and fraud.” The purpose of the letter is to warn broker-dealers not to engage in practices intended to beat the market and instead to promote what is suitable for the investor.

Investors are being urged by their brokers to engage in yield chasing, which means they are seeking higher returns on their investments. The investors in this situation may not completely understand the risk versus reward tradeoffs by investing in this manner especially when brokers are recommending more complex products as discussed in a previous blog, FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products. FINRA’s concerns include the full disclosure of material risks, mispricing and overcharging issues, and the suitability of products based on those underlying risks. It urged firms to increase their supervisory systems to ensure that firms are complying with regulations.
Continue reading ›

|

In a move that signals the need for heightened due diligence and supervision among financial advisory firms, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Regulatory Notice 12-03 in relation to complex products last month. It is intended to guide firms to increase their supervision of activity involving complex products such as structured notes, reverse convertibles, inverse or leveraged exchange traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products. FINRA has already brought a number of enforcement actions against firms relating to complex products, charging inadequate supervision, unsuitable recommendations and misleading price sales.

Among the problems noted by FINRA is the uncertainty of how these products will behave in the market, as opposed to theoretical projections. The notice states, “Regulators have expressed concern about complex products because the intricacy of these products can impair the ability of registered representatives or their customers to understand how the product will perform in a variety of time periods and market environments, and can lead to inappropriate recommendations and sales.”

FINRA chose not to define a complex product in the notice due to the ever changing innovation in the marketplace; however, the notice states that “any product with multiple features that affect its investment returns differently under various scenarios is potentially complex.” The notice goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of examples of complex products. FINRA advises firms that are unsure whether a product is complex to err on the side of applying their procedures for enhanced oversight to the product.
Continue reading ›

|

One year ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff recommended that a uniform fiduciary standard be applied to both broker-dealers and investment advisers. Recently, however, the SEC postponed a corresponding rule proposal for a second time.

In January, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sent a letter to Congressman Scott Garrett, Chairman of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, stating that it needs to gather additional information for an economic analysis of the impact of a standard of care regulation. Although the SEC had previously set it for action in 2011, that time frame has now been changed to “date to be determined.” The SEC has already designated specific time frames for 51 other rules and reports required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the letter to Rep. Garrett, Chairman Schapiro wrote, “SEC staff are drafting a public request for information to obtain data specific to the provision of retail financial advice and the regulatory alternatives. In this request, it is our hope commentators will provide information that will allow commission staff to continue to analyze the various components of the market for retail financial advice.”
Continue reading ›

|

In a letter sent to the Financial Industry Regulator Authority (FINRA) last November, the Securities Industry and Financial Market Association (SIFMA) wants FINRA to give harsher punishments to brokers who have failed to pay back promissory notes to firms. It specifically sought to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The purpose of the notes is to provide cash for recruiting and retention incentives. They are typically designed as forgivable loans as long as the broker stays at the firm for a specified amount of time. If the brokers choose to leave early, then they are required to pay back the note.

As a result of not paying the promissory note back, firms have gotten more aggressive in filing arbitration claims for repayment, and in most cases the firm wins. In 2011, there were 778 promissory note cases filed which is a decrease from 2010 during which 1,152 cases were filed. If a broker does not pay the promissory award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. Once a monetary award has been issued in a FINRA arbitration proceeding, the broker has 30 days to pay the award. If the broker can show an inability to pay back the note; however, he/she will not be suspended and can continue to work for another firm.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2302 Parklake Dr NE
#420
Atlanta, GA 30345
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design