Articles Posted in Mutual Funds

79 investment advisors have settled charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accusing them of not properly disclosing conflicts of interests involving the sale of costlier mutual fund share classes that caused them to earn more fees.

The regulator’s action is related to its Share Class Section Disclosure Initiative. Announced by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement early last year, the initiative gives firms the chance to report disclosure failures that violate the Advisors Act, while offering them more “favorable settlement terms” in return.

Which Investment Advisors Are Involved in This Case?

Virginia Regulator Fines UBS Financial After Its Broker Makes Unsuitable Recommendations

To settle charges brought by Virginia’s State Corporate Commission accusing a UBS (UBS) broker of making unsuitable recommendations involving gold and precious metals securities to 18 clients, UBS Financial Services will pay $319K—$289K to the clients and $30K to the state.

Virginia’s regulator contends that unsuitable recommendations were made in 2013 and 2014 and caused UBS clients to hold an overconcentration of these securities, which were not even suitable for some of them. The state said that this violated its securities rules.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) has permanently barred fired Merrill Lynch broker Bhenoy (Ben) Dembla. According to InvestmentNews, The former broker was let go from the financial firm in 2016 for “falsifying documents” related to mutual fund sales.

Dembla, who worked for Merrill the entire time he was a broker from 2001 to 2016, is accused of submitting fake sell orders to get around the firm ’s electronic order system protections. The protections should have stopped the submission of Class B share purchase orders once these had exceeded the accumulation limit.

According to FINRA, Dembla would submit the bogus sell orders, which the system would accept, and then he would cancel the orders. All of this made it possible for certain customers to go over Class B share thresholds with their purchases.


Lincoln Investment Planning to Pay Clients For Not Giving Discounts on Mutual Fund Shares

FINRA is ordering broker-dealer Lincoln Investment Planning to pay $1.37M to clients to whom it did not give the discounts they were entitled to when they purchased mutual fund A shares between 1/2011 and 6/2018.

The self-regulatory organization contends that the firm placed certain charitable organizations and retirement plan customers at a disadvantage by charging them a front-end sales charge even when they qualified to not pay the fees.

Direct Services LLC and Voya Investment LLC, two Voya Holdings Inc. investment adviser subsidiaries, will pay about $3.6M to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing them of failing to make certain disclosures related to securities lending. Of that amount, over $2M will go straight to mutual funds that were impacted.

The two investment advisers worked with a number of “insurance-dedicated mutual funds” that insurers affiliated with Voya Holdings and Direct Services offer to life insurance and annuity customers. The two advisers lent fund-held securities to certain parties. They then called back the securities so that the insurer affiliates would get a tax benefit. These same affiliates were record shareholders for the funds’ shares. Meantime, this led to the funds and their investors losing income while not getting to avail of the tax benefit.

According to SEC Enforcement Division Asset Management Co-Chief Anthony S. Kelly, the mutual funds and its investors were not notified that they would be losing money in order for the affiliates to get this tax benefit. The regulator said that Voya advisors did not disclose that this conflict of interest existed.

Continue Reading ›

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil charges against Ameriprise Financial Services (AMP). The regulator is accusing the brokerage firm and investment adviser of recommending to retail retirement account customers that they purchase mutual fund shares that charged higher fees. Ameriprise purportedly failed to employ sales charge waivers when applicable.

The Commission’s order contends that the broker-dealer neglected to determine when certain retirement account customers qualified for mutual fund share classes that were not as costly.

Instead, the firm would recommend and sell the more costly mutual fund shares even when the less pricey options were available. Ameriprise is accused of not letting these customers know that the firm would make more from the costly mutual fund shares even as their overall investment returns were harmed.

The SEC said that about 1,971 customer accounts paid nearly $1.8M in up-front sales fees that were not warranted, costlier ongoing fees, “contingent deferred sales charges,” and other expenses because of the way that Ameriprise handled the recommendation and sale of mutual funds to retirement account clients.

The firm is cooperating with the regulator and has paid back customers that were affected with interest. Retirement account customers eligible for the less expensive mutual fund share classes have been moved to those classes free of charge.

Continue Reading ›

The LJM Preservation and Growth Fund (LJMIX, LJMAX, LJMCX) is facing allegations that it made false and misleading statements to investors. In particular, the fund represented that it was appropriate for capital preservation investors who wanted conservative growth of their account. In reality, the mutual fund exposed investors to high risks that made them vulnerable to massive losses when it lost nearly all of its value within two days, dropping more than 80% earlier this month. In a filing with securities regulators, The LJM Partners, LTD., which is based in Chicago, announced that it was shuttering operations by March 29 and is going into liquidation.

The latest earnings report for the fund, filed at the end of October, noted $768 million of net assets. Reuters reports that the fund’s net assets were $812 million at the start of month but that is now reduced to $14 million. After this massive drop, the fund announced that it would no longer be open to new investments. Soon after, investors brought a class action securities lawsuit against the mutual fund. The plaintiffs are alleging that the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund violated the Securities Act and misled them by claiming it was committed to “preserve capital, particularly in down market.”

LJM, operated by Anthony Caine and Anish Parvatanen, was among a number of companies involved in selling liquid alternative funds that were complex and came with high fees. Investors that sought these funds out were generally hoping to enhance their returns even while reducing the risks. However, the fund did not accomplish that goal. It instead embarked on a risky strategy involving complex options trading and other investments that are not appropriate for any investor seeking capital preservation.

Continue Reading ›

Two Brokers Barred After Not Appearing at FINRA Hearings

Guillermo Valladolid, an ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) broker, has been barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. According to the regulator, Valladolid did not show up at a hearing into whether, according to InvestmentNews, he “sold investments away from his employer” and neglected to disclose certain outside business activities.

Morgan Stanley terminated Vallodolid’s employment. Previous to that he worked with Merrill Lynch.

In a different FINRA case, the regulator barred another broker, Bradley C. Mascho, also after he did not appear at his hearing. Some of Mascho’s activities while at Western International Securities had come under question. The firm fired him last month, which is also when the US Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against Mascho and Dawn Bennett of the Bennett Group Financial and DJP Holdings. Mascho was CFO of the latter.

Continue Reading ›

UBS Financial Services Inc. (UBS) has agreed to settle US Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing the brokerage firm of not ensuring that certain charitable brokerage accounts and retail retirement accounts received the sales charge waivers or reduced fee share classes to which they were entitled when they purchased certain mutual funds. However, despite settling, including agreeing to pay a $3.5M penalty, the firm did not admit to or deny the SEC’s findings.

The regulator’s order states that from at least 1/2010 through 6/2015, UBS did not confirm certain customers’ eligibility to purchase from a less costly mutual fund share class and instead recommended that they buy more expensive ones. The customers that were affected purportedly did not have enough information at their disposal to understand that UBS had a conflict of interest when recommending the costlier share classes, such as Class A shares that came with an upfront sales fee and Class B/C shares that charged contingent deferred sales fees at the back-end plus came with costlier ongoing expenses and fees. All of the customers affected had been eligible to buy either no-load Class R shares or load-waved Class A shares.

As a result, claims the Commission, 15,250 customer accounts paid more than $18.5M in excess fees and expenses, upfront sales fees, and “contingent deferred sales charges.” Also, by selling investors the more expensive share classes, UBS earned higher compensations. The brokerage firm is accused of not disclosing to these customers that buying the costlier share classes would hurt their investments’ returns.

Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges SunTrust With Collecting Over $1.1M in Excess Mutual Fund Fees

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges accusing SunTrust Investment Services of collecting over $1.1M in unwarranted fees from mutual fund clients. The SunTrust Banks subsidiary will pay an over $1.1M penalty to resolve the regulator’s civil charges.

According to the regulator’s order, SunTrust Investment Services improperly recommended costlier mutual fund share classes to clients when less expensive shares of these funds were available. The SEC says this was a breach of the investment services firm’s fiduciary duty to take actions in the client’s best interests.

Contact Information