Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative

Published on: October 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two years after San Antonio broker was sentenced to prison for Texas securities fraud, FINRA has fined Merrill Lynch $1M for not properly supervising its former employer. These failures allegedly allowed Bruce Hammonds to run a Ponzi scam that defrauded investors of $1.4M.

Hammonds persuaded 11 people to invest in the Texas Ponzi scam, which he operated under the name B&J Partnership. It was supervisors at Merrill Lynch that gave the green light for him to open an account for B & J. The supervisors also are accused of not monitoring the funds that moved between customers and Hammonds.

Rather than putting investors’ money in a Merrill Lynch fund, he put $1.4 million of their funds in his working capital account. He even gave clients charts showing how the B & J fund was performing even though the fund wasn’t real. Hammonds used the money to pay for his personal spending, including a supposed house-flipping business.

He later pleaded guilty to federal securities charges. In addition to five years behind bars and three year supervised release. Hammond has been barred from the securities industry. All investors have been paid back in full for their losses.

In deciding to fine Merrill Lynch, FINRA found that the financial firm did not have a supervisory system that did a satisfactory enough job of monitoring accounts of employees for signs of possible misconduct. The system was only able to immediately capture accounts opened by an employee if he/she used his/her social security number as the main tax identification number. The SRO also said that between 1/06 and 6/10 Merrill Lynch did not monitor another 40,000 employee/employee-interested accounts.

By agreeing to settle, Merrill is not denying or admitting to the charges.

Failure to Supervise
It is a brokerage firm’s responsibility to establish written procedures for how to properly supervise its employees’ activities. These procedures must then be implemented to prevent broker fraud. When misconduct does arise and failure to supervise played a role in allowing the incident to happen, the financial firm can be held liable for securities fraud.

Brokerage companies have to supervise every broker that they license to work for them. Even if an accused broker is later found not liable, there is still a possibility that the brokerage firm or supervisor can be held liable for failure to supervise and be ordered to pay damages. For example, a broker may not have received the proper training or was given the wrong information by the financial firm, and this resulted in Texas securities fraud that caused an investor to suffer losses.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $1 Million for Supervisory Failures That Allowed a Registered Representative to Operate a Ponzi Scheme, FINRA, October 4, 2011
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is Investigating Merrill Lynch in Light of Recent FINRA Fines Against the Firm for Failure to Supervise, MarketWatch, October 5, 2011
More Blog Posts:
Former Merrill Lynch Employee, Guilty of $1.4 Million Texas Securities Fraud Scheme, Receives Prison Term, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, October 5, 2009
Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, August 31, 2011
Actions of Former Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Accused of Supervising Rogue Broker to be Reviewed by SEC, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, December 9, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Don’t Create Uniform Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Say Some Republicans to the SEC

Published on: October 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

House Financial Services subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) is encouraging the Securities and Exchange Commission to refrain from rulemaking for establishing a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both broker-dealers and investment advisers unless the federal agency can come up with adequate evidence to support this action. Garrett made his views known at a Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises oversight hearing. Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) also echoed these same sentiments.

Says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Washington is again bowing to Wall Street pressure to exempt them from liability for their wrongful acts. It is incredible that, considering the unmitigated investment fraud perpetrated on the American public in the last decade, Congress would even consider thwarting the very investors who elected them from receiving the justice they deserve!”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, the SEC has the authority to start up the rulemaking for this uniform fiduciary standard but is under no obligation. Earlier this year, the SEC put out a report recommending that it take up this rulemaking.

While Garrett questioned whether “hard factual data” existed demonstrating that a suitability standard is not enough to protect investors, others noted that it is a fiduciary standard and not a suitability standard that addresses cost, which impacts investors’ long-term performance. The majority of those that testified at the hearing also supported a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both investment advisers and broker-dealers. Consumer Federation of America director of investor protection Barbara Roper said that investors lose money when the person giving them investment advice must only meet a suitability standard and not a fiduciary one.

Meantime, while financial industry representatives have expressed support for a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers, they don’t believe that it could be properly executed under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act.

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association senior managing director and general counsel Ira Hammerman has said that the Act is unable to work with the business models for broker-dealer, while Financial Services Institute government affairs director and general counselor David Bellaire said that imposing a 1940 Act fiduciary duty on broker-dealers would decrease investor choice and decrease services, which would all significantly affect the market.

Currently, broker-dealers have to abide by a suitability standard, which is more lenient than the fiduciary duty standard for investment advisers. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has told staff that they need to recommend a proposal before the year is over.

Also up for discussion was the draft that Senator Bachus released last month mandating that there be at least one self-regulatory organization tasked with overseeing investment advisers. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is a top candidate for the role and has expressed interest in taking on this new responsibility. However, not everyone is a supporter of FINRA becoming SRO.

More Blog Posts:
Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2010

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2010

FINRA Will Customize Oversight to Investment Adviser Industry if Chosen as Its SRO, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2011

Govt.’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan Case Leads to Lawsuit Against 23 Former Washington Mutual Employees

Published on: October 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The federal government has filed a securities lawsuit against 23-ex Washington Mutual employees and a number of WaMu’s subsidiaries. The complaint contends that these persons signed off on documents that included misleading and false information that was used to sell billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The case stems from the government’s MBS lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, which acquired nearly all of WaMu’s banking assets and liabilities a few years ago. That securities complaint is one more than a dozen brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency last month against the large banks that packaged and sold MBS at the height of the housing boom.

In this latest lawsuit, the government contends that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought their 35 issues of securities worth $12.9 billion during the bubble, they depended on the registration statements, prospectuses, and other documents that WaMu and its subprime unit Long Beach Mortgage had filed. Unfortunately, the documents that Fannie and Freddie depended on included omissions and misstatements that misrepresented that the underlying mortgage loans were in compliance with certain underwriting standards and guidelines, including representations that “significantly overstated” the borrowers’ ability to pay back their mortgage loans.

One example cited involves the LBMLT 2006-1, which is a subprime security. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s had both given it an AAA rating and the offering document noted that almost 73% of the underlying mortgages had an 80% or lower loan-to-value ratio. Less than 25% were supposedly on non-owner occupied homes.

The government is now saying, however, that WaMu pressed appraisers to raise property values so that these lower LTV ratios could be obtained and that, in fact, only 50% of underlying loans in LBMLT 2006-1 had LTV ratios of 80% or lower. Also, the government believes that almost one third of LBMLT 2006-1 loans were on nonowner occupied homes and not the lower percentage that was quoted. Close to 56% of LBMLT 2006-1 have since defaulted, gone into foreclosure, or become delinquent.

Most of the ex-WaMu and Long Beach officers named in the complaint, save for ex-chief financial officer Thomas Case and ex-Home Loans group head Craig Davis, were midlevel employees. It was just earlier this year that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sued three ex-WaMu executives for allegedly gambling billions of the bank’s money on risky home loans while they lined their own pockets.

Defendants named then were ex-Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, ex-Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella, and ex-WaMu home loans division president David Schneider. The three men are accused of earning $95 million in compensation between 2005 and 2008.

US banking regulators have sued over 150 bank officials in their efforts to get back at least $3.6 billion in losses linked to the 2007-2009 economic crisis.

If you are an investor that suffered losses related to mortgage-backed securities when the housing bubble burst, you might have grounds for a securities fraud case.

Ex-WaMu Execs Sued By FDIC For Gross Negligence Over Bank’s Collapse – READ The Lawsuit, Huffington Post, March 17, 2011

More Blog Posts:

NCUA Sues Goldman Sachs for $491M Over $1.2B of Mortgage-Back Securities Sales That Caused Credit Unions’ Failure, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2011

Class Action Securities Case Accusing SunTrust Banks of Faulty Financial Disclosures Can Proceed

Published on: September 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has ruled that Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks Inc., a putative class securities action claiming that a 2008 SunTrust (STI) securities’ offerings documents contained faulty financial disclosures, can proceed. According to Judge William Duffey Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, investors’ claims made against SunTrust and affiliates, and a number of underwriters, and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act are enough for moving forward with the case. The statutory provisions place liability on specific participants in a securities offering where these documents have material omissions and misstatements.

Per the court, SunTrust put out securities that were pursuant to a registration statement. This was done as amended by a prospectus supplement, which incorporates by reference SunTrust’s 2007 Form 10-K. In their initial securities lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that when the offering was made three years ago, the US housing market was in chaos. To raise funds, SunTrust allegedly put out the securities and a prospectus supplement that included misleading and false information about is reserves, capital, and ability to manage risk.

As a result, investors were misled about the degree of risky loans that SunTrust was exposed to in the housing market. An amended complaint was submitted by the plaintiff pushing forward similar claims that were made in the first lawsuit. However, clarifying allegations supporting the claim that the prospectus supplement was misleading because it failed to adequately disclose SunTrust’s ALLL and because the financial firm’s loss reserves were not enough to cover its loan losses were also included with this lawsuit.

The plaintiff contends that SunTrust knew that it used flaw financial information that would lead to misleading information being added to its prospectus supplement. This flawed information was allegedly used to determine loan loss reserves, ALLL, and loan loss.

Because the court determined that there is sufficient grounds to allege that SunTrust defendants “did not truly believe” the Provision and ALLL that were disclosed, the plaintiff was able to sufficiently allege plausible claims. The court said that claims against the underwriter defendants can also proceed. Except for a few exceptions, claims against outsider auditor Ernst & Young can also move forward.

If you have been the victim of securities fraud, you may be able to recover your losses from the negligent party. The best way to do this is to work with an experienced securities fraud attorney. Your case may be able to be resolved in arbitration or in court.

More Blog Posts:
Investor May Proceed With Suit Alleging Faulty Financial Disclosures by SunTrust, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 17, 2011

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed

Published on: September 24, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has thrown out some of the Securities and Exchange Commission charges against GSCP (NJ) managing director Edward Steffelin for his alleged involvement in a JP Morgan Securities LLC collateralized debt obligation deal. GSCP (NJ) was the collateral manager for the CDO transaction.

While JP Morgan Securities settled for $153.6 million the SEC’s allegations that it misled investors about the CDO deal by agreeing to pay $153.6 million, Steffelin opted to fight the charges. He claimed that there was no reason for him to think that the CDO offering documents were problematic. He argued that nothing had been left out and nobody was “defrauded.”

In district court, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted Steffelin’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s 1933 Securities Act Section 17(a)(3) claims against him. Per the Act, any person involved in the sale or offer of securities is prevented from taking part in any transaction or practice that would deceive or be an act of fraud against the buyer. Cedarbaum said it would be a “big stretch” to conclude that Steffelin owed the investors that bought the CDO a fiduciary duty. However, she decided not to throw out the SEC’s securities claims related to the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, which has sections that make it unlawful to sell or offer securities to get property or money as a result of an omission or material misstatement. The act also prevents investment advisers from taking part in a transaction or practice that performs a deception or fraud on a client.

The SEC’s charges revolved around a JPM-structured CDO called Squared CDO 2007-1. It mainly included credit default swaps that referred to other CDOs linked to the housing market. Per the Squared CDO’s marketing collaterals, GSCP was noted as the one choosing the portfolio’s deals. What wasn’t included in the disclosure was the fact that Magnetar Capital LLC, a hedge fund, played a key part in choosing the CDOs and had a short position in over 50% of the assets. This meant that Magneta Capital stood to gain financially if the CDO portfolio failed.

JP Morgan Securities is JP Morgan Chase affiliate. Under the terms of its $153.6 million settlement, the financial firm agreed to fully pay back all monies that investors lost. By agreeing to settle, JP Morgan Securities did not admit to or deny wrongdoing. Other large financial firms that have settled SEC securities fraud cases related to CDOs in the last 16 months include Citigroup, which recently reached a $250 million settlement and Goldman Sachs, which settled its case with the SEC last year for $550 million.

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rackoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 27, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

***This post has been backdated.

UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss

Published on: September 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Kweku Adoboli, a UBS trader, has been charged with false accounting and fraud allegedly resulting in about $2 billion in losses. Adoboli, 31, was arrested in London.

The alleged financial misconduct is said to have taken place between 10/8 and 12/09 and 1/10 and 9/11 while Adoboli, who works out of UBS’s office in London, was a senior trader with UBS Global Synthetic Equities. FSA, which is Britain’s financial watchdog, and FINMA, which is Switzerland’s, have instigated an investigation into the loss. UBS will pay for the probe, which will be conducted by an independent third party.

UBS is also investigating this trading loss but says that no client positions have been impacted. The financial firm has said that most of the risk exposure went undetected because bogus hedging positions were placed in the bank’s systems.

Adoboli’s arrest for “suspicion of fraud by abuse of position” is bringing up questions about UBS’s risk management systems, which are supposed to prevent unauthorized trading. It was just in 2008 that UBS wrote down $50 billion in securities trades, leading to losses of 34.4 billion francs. That was the year that the Swiss Central Bank had to rescue UBS, which then closed down significant parts of its trading division and revised its risk-management systems.

News of Adoboli’s alleged fraud and the $2B loss has caused shares in UBS to drop, while the expense of insuring its 5-year bonds against default for a year became expanded by 15 basis points to 225 basis points. According to Reuters, analysts are saying that that this latest loss is the “final nail in the coffin” for UBS, which has had to deal with plunging markets, strict new regulation, and a Swiss franc that has gotten stronger.

Moody’s and Standard Poor’s now say that UBS’s credit rating is on negative watch. Meantime, Fitch says it has the financial firm’s viability rating on negative watch and that this latest incident only lends to the argument that UBS needs to downsize its investment banking unit.

The $2B loss and Adoboli’s arrest is unfortunate for UBS, which had just started to regain client confidence this year. This huge loss has pretty much cost the financial firm its first year of saving that was supposed to come from a cost-cutting plan involving the elimination of 3,500 jobs. UBS Chief Executive Oswald Gruebel and Chairman Carten Kengeter, who is the head of UBS’s investment bank division, are also now under fire. Gruebel has dismissed calls to step down.

UBS Raises Tally on Losses, Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2011
UBS trader charged with $2 billion fraud, Reuters, September 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 13, 2011
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011
UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, May 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC Proposes Restricting Financial Firms From Betting Against Financial Products Sold to Investors

Published on: September 20, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has taken steps to prevent financial firms from betting against their packaged financial products that they sell to investors. Its proposal, introduced this week, also seeks to prevent the types of conflict witnessed in last year’s civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs through a ban on third parties being able to set up an asset-backed pool allowing them to make money from losses sustained by investors.

The proposal comes following a report by US Senate investigators accusing Goldman of setting itself up to make money from investor losses sustained from complex securities that the financial firm packaged and sold. It would place into effect a provision from the Dodd-Frank Wall Reform Consumer and Protection Act, which requires that the commission ban for one year placement agents, underwriters, sponsors, and initial buyers of an asset-backed security from shorting the pool’s assets and establishing material conflict. Restrictions, however, wouldn’t apply when a firm is playing the role of market-maker or engaged in risk hedging. The SEC also wants the industry to examine how the proposal would work along with the “Volcker rule,” which would place restrictions on proprietary trading at banks and other affiliates.

SEC’s Securities Case Against Goldman
The SEC accused Goldman of creating and marketing the ABACUS 2007-AC1, a collateralized debt obligation, without letting clients know that Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities that the latter then went on to bet against. Last year, Goldman settled the securities case with the SEC for $550 million.

In settlement papers, Goldman admitted that it did issue marketing materials that lacked full information for its ABACUS 2007-AC1. The financial firm said it made a mistake when it stated that ACA Management LLC “selected” the reference portfolio and did not note the role that Paulson & Co. played or that the latter’s “economic interests” were not in line with that of investors. The $550 million fine was the largest penalty that the SEC has ever imposed on a financial services firm. $250 million of the fine was designated to go to a Fair Fund distribution to pay back investors.

Volcker Rule
Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the proposed rule is designed to limit the kinds of high-risk investments that helped contribute to the recent financial crisis. It would also restrict the financial firms’ use of their own money to trade. Bloomberg.com reports that overseas firms with businesses in the US may also be subject to these limits on proprietary trading. Per Dodd-Frank, October 18 is the deadline to establish rules to execute the provision.

Volcker Rule May Be Extended to Overseas Banks With Operations in the U.S., Bloomberg, September 16, 2011

SEC moves to limit firms’ bets against clients, Reuters, September 19, 2011

Volcker Rule Delay Is Likely, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures

Published on: September 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has imposed a 60-day suspension on Carmela L. Knieriem, a former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney female employee over allegations that while employed by the financial firm, she signed other employees’ signatures without obtaining the required approvals and authorizations. FINRA is also fining Knierem $5,000. While she has submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent to settle the charges, Knierem is not denying or admitting to the findings.

According to Forbes.com, Between November 2009 and October 14, 2010, Knieriem was associated with the financial firm’s Rancho Bernardo Branch, where she was tasked with providing branch managers, financial advisers, and other employees with administrative support. Part of her job was to prepare specific internal administrative forms related to the processing and documenting of verbal requests, known as “Verbal Forms,” that were made by customers.

FINRA says that when Knieriem made the unauthorized signatures when preparing these Verbal Forms she violated FINRA Rule 2010 10 times. The SRO contends that in six instances, at the request of the financial advisor EP, she prepared an instruction form documenting a client’s verbal request for journal funds between the client’s accounts, the transfer of money from a client’s account, the release of account statements to a third party, and the issuance of a $75,397.22 check from the customer’s account. Knieriem also is said to have followed a financial advisor GT’s request to prepare an instruction form for a client’s verbal request that a stop payment be placed on one of his checks. She also followed the request of a financial adviser CL, who asked her to prepare an instruction form to issue a $95.62 for a client. Also, FINRA says that branch manager RL asked her to prepare an instruction form to journal funds between accounts.

Broker-Dealer Pacific West Securities Closes Shop

Published on: September 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Broker-dealer Pacific West Securities is going out of business next year. The independent broker-dealer, which has about 290 affiliated advisers and reps, decided to close its doors because staying in operation is costing too much and margins are too thin.

The broker-dealer made $46 million in commission and fees in 2010 and its gross revenue for this year is expected to be $54 million. Pacific West has struck a deal with Cetera Financial Group over the transfer of many of its representatives and advisers to the latter’s subsidiary, Multi-Financial Securities Corp. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, however, must still approve this arrangement.

Unfortunately, dozens of independent brokers that are thinly capitalized have had to close shop or be put up for sale in the last few years. Many took huge hits in the wake of securities fraud lawsuits related to the sale of Provident Royalties LLC preferred stock, Medical Capital Holdings Inc. notes, and DBSI Inc. real estate deals. Although Pacific West didn’t sell any of these financial instruments, it has had to contend with Securities arbitration claims, including losses of nearly $1 million in FINRA arbitration awards over the last 24 months.

Investment News reported not too long ago that at least 2,500 reps have been displaced because of broker-dealers that shut down their operations. It became clear trouble was starting to brew in the industry in 2010, when Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and GunnAllen Financial Inc., which both have hundreds of reps, shut their doors after violating SEC rules dealing with capital. By the end of last year, there were 142 less broker-dealers than in 2009.

In February, QA3 Financial Corp. followed their lead. The broker-dealer, which worked with about 400 reps, couldn’t deal with securities lawsuits costs over the sale of allegedly fraudulent private placements.

The following month, Investors Capital Holdings Inc.’s owner Theodore E. “Ted” Charles submitted an SEC filing giving notice that he was going to sell his stake in the broker-dealer. More brokerage firms have since shuttered. FINRA says that if the broker-dealer you are working announces that it is going out of business, you should contact its offices right away to find out about next steps for you.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents clients that suffered losses because of broker misconduct and other formers of broker-fraud. Please contact our securities fraud lawyers and ask for your free consultation today.

B-D with 290 reps to shutter, Investment News, December 6, 2011
Broker-Dealer Pacific West to Close Its Doors, Adviser One, December 6, 2011
If a Brokerage Firm Closes Its Doors, FINRA

More Blog Posts:
Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 28, 2011
Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011
Tribune Bondholders Can Sue Shareholders for Over $8.2B, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 30, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions

Published on: September 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. $1 million for charging excessive markdowns and markups to corporate and municipal bond transactions clients. The SRO has also ordered that the financial firm pay $371,000 plus interest in restitution to these investors. By agreeing to settle, Morgan Stanley has not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

According to FINRA, the markdowns and markups that Morgan Stanley charged ranged from under 5% to 13.8%. Considering how much it costs to execute transactions, market conditions, and the services valued, these charge were too much.

The SRO also determined that the financial firm had an inadequate supervisory system for overseeing markups and markdowns of corporate and municipal bonds. Morgan Stanley must now modify its written supervisory procedures dealing with markups and markdowns involving fixed income transactions.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira has said that Morgan Stanley violated fair pricing standards. He noted is important for financial firms that sell and purchase securities to make sure that clients are given reasonable and fair prices whether/not a markdown or markup exceeds or is lower than 5%.

A Markup is what is charged above market value. It is usually charged on principal transactions involving NASDAQ and other OTC equity securities. Markups on principal transactions usually factor in the type of security, its availability, price, order size, disclosure before the transaction is effected, the type of business involved, and the general markups pattern at a firm.

A markup on an equities security that is over 5% is seldom considered reasonable or fair. Regulators have rules in place for how much registered representatives can charge customers for services rendered. Not only do the charges have to be reasonable, but also they must be fair and not show particular preferences to any clients.

The 5% policy also applies to agency transactions. Commissions for such transactions also must be “fair and reasonable.” Commissions that go above that must be justified and are often closely examined by regulators.
While most securities professionals are committed to doing their jobs fairly and ethically, there are those determined to take advantage of the system to defraud investors. There are also honest mistakes that can occur that also can result in investor losses.

Financial firms and their representatives are responsible for protecting investors and their money from unnecessary losses resulting from securities fraud or other negligence.

Morgan Stanley Fined $1M Over Muni-Bond Markups, Bloomberg, November 10, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Whistleblower Claims SEC is Illegally Destroying Records of Closed Enforcement Cases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2011

Ex-Bank of America Employee Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scam Using Stolen Identities to Buy Homes Not For Sale, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 30, 2011

Securities Lawsuits Expected to Reach Record High in ’11, Says Advisen Ltd. Report, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 23, 2011

**This blog has been backdated.