Variable Annuities

Ameriprise Subsidiary RiverSource Fined $5M For Allegedly Improperly Switching Customers’ Variable Exchanges To Earn Commissions

Published on: June 8, 2022 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

RiverSource Distributors Accused of Targeting Retail Ameriprise Financial Customers With VA Sales

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is ordering Ameriprise’s subsidiary brokerage firm, RiverSource Distributors, to pay a $5M fine for alleged violations involving variable annuities (VAs). The regulator contends that several RiverSource employees came up with a sales strategy that caused holders of these products to switch annuities. This purportedly resulted in enhanced sales commissions and boosted VA sales revenues for the firm.

The SEC said that RiverSource Distributors sold the VA exchanges to retail customers through Ameriprise Financial Services. It charged RiverSource with “improper switching or replacing variable annuities.” The case is the SEC’s first-ever enforcement proceeding under the Investment Company Act of 1940’s Section 11.

Transamerica To Pay $8.8M Over Unsuitable Mutual Fund, 529 Plans, and Variable Annuity Sales

Published on: January 5, 2021 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA Settlement Includes Restitution to More than 2,400 Customers

In an agreement reached with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Transamerica Financial Advisors consented to pay $8.8M over the unsuitable sales of mutual funds, variable annuities (VAs) and 529 savings plans to customers.

$4.4M of this is a fine and $4.4M is restitution to about 2,400 customers who were financially harmed. The firm settled with FINRA but without denying or admitting to its findings.

Texas Securities Cases: IMS Securities to Pay $100K Over Variable Annuity Exchanges, State Regulator Bans Broker from Making Nontraded REIT Recommendations, and Former Dallas Billionaire Sam Wyly to Pay $198M To Settle Fraud Case

Published on: October 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Texas-Based Brokerage Firm Accused of Inadequate Supervision Involving VA Exchanges

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering IMS Securities Inc. to pay a $100K fine. The Texas-based brokerage firm is accused of failures related to its monitoring of variable annuity exchanges. By settling, however, it is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

According to the self-regulatory authority, the firm exhibited inadequate supervisory procedures for “problematic rates of exchange” in transactions involving variable annuities. FINRA claims that from 7/ 15/13 through 7/8/14, IMS Securities depended on its CFO to review annuity exchanges but did not provide tools or guidance to help look for “problematic rates of exchange.” The broker-dealer is accused of not probing possibly “problematic patterns” of VA exchanges and not enforcing written supervisory procedures related to consolidated reports.

Royal Alliance Must Pay $1.4M To Retirees for Non-traded REIT, Variable Annuities Sales

Published on: July 21, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. panel says that AIG Advisor Group (AIG) subsidiary Royal Alliance Associates Inc. must pay $1.4 million to three retirees who claim that the brokerage firm was negligent when supervising the sales of variable annuities and nontraded real estate investment trusts.

The investors, who were former AT & T Inc. employees, claim that ex-broker Kathleen Tarr recommended that they take a lump-sum buyout from the communications company instead of a lifetime annuity. The money was then put into non-traded REIT company Inland Real Estate, as well as different variable annuities.

Tarr’s BrokerCheck record shows that she has been named in about forty customer disputes and complaints. She was let go from Royal Alliance in 2010.

The claimants, who are low-wealth, low-income seniors, believe that they should not have been encouraged to take a lump sum and place their funds into non-traded REITs and variable annuities involving an IRA. Even though they did not sustain out-of-pocket losses from the investment recommendations, the retirees purportedly lost out on earnings they would have made if only they had invested their money more reasonably or opted for the lifetime annuity. With the latter, an investor would have given over a lump sum figure in return for a guaranteed payout for the duration of his/her life.
Continue Reading ›