REIT Tag Archives — Page 2 of 3 — Securities Lawyers Blog

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against Jeremy Monte

December 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against Jeremy Monte (Monte). According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Monte has been the subject of at least 3 customer complaints and 3 judgment or liens. The customer complaints against Monte allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments among other claims.

The most recent customer complaint was filed in April 2015 and alleges unsuitable investments in non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) and variable annuities by charging advisory fees on these investments in addition to commissions. Another complaint filed in February 2013 alleges unsuitable recommendations from 2005 through 2009 leading to $61,000 in damages.

Monte also has three liens listed. In March 2013, a tax lien of $83,199 was filed. In May 2012, a tax lien of $13,999 was filed. Finally, in April 2010, a tax lien of $24,394 was filed against the broker. A broker with large liens are an important consideration for investors to weigh when dealing with a financial advisor. An advisor may be conflicted to offer high commission investments to customers in order to satisfy liens and debts that may not be in the client’s best interests.

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part II

August 11, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our investigation into whether or not brokerage firms have a basis to continue to sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). Non-Traded REIT sales have exploded becoming the latest it product of Wall Street. However, experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Craig McCann, president of Securities Litigation & Consulting Group, a research and consulting company, “Nontraded REITs are costing investors, especially elderly, retired, unsophisticated investors, billions. They’re suffering illiquidity and ignorance, and earning much less than what they ought to be earning.” In conclusion, “No brokerage should be allowed to sell these things.”

According to his analysis, shareholders have lost about $50 billion for having put money into Non-Traded REITs rather than publicly exchange-traded funds. The data comes from a study of the difference between the performance of more than 80 Non-Traded REITs and the performance of a diversified portfolio of traded REITs over two decades. The study found that the average annual rate of return of Non-Traded REITs was 5.2%, compared with 11.9% for the Vanguard REIT Index Fund.

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part I

August 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As longtime readers of our blog know we have reported numerous instances of sales and other practice violations regarding how brokers and brokerage firms sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). See list of articles below. As Non-Traded REITs have become the latest darling product of the financial industry experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As a background, a Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate assets such as commercial, residential, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, storage, and other industries. There are publicly traded REITs that are bought and sold on an exchange with similar liquidity to traditional assets like stocks and bonds. However, Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers, are illiquid, have no or limited secondary market and redemption options, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

Investors are also often ignorant to several other facts that would warn against investing in Non-Traded REITs. First, only 85% to 90% of investor funds actually go towards investment purposes. In other words, investors have lost up to 15% of their investment to fees and costs on day one in a Non-Traded REIT. Second, often times part or almost all of the distributions that investors receive from Non-Traded REITs include a return of capital and not actual revenue generated from the properties owned by the REIT. The return of capital distributions reduces the ability of the REIT to generate income and/or increases the investment’s debt or leverage.

World Equity Group Alleged to Have Sold Private Placements Without Proper Due Diligence Part III

March 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our firm’s investigation concerning the recent allegations brought by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioning brokerage firm World Equity Group, Inc. (World Equity) concerning at least seven different allegations of supervisory failures that occurred between 2009 through 2012. FINRA’s allegations include failures to implement an adequate supervisory system and concerned both internal processes at the firm and procedures and in the handling of customer accounts in the areas of suitability of transactions in non-traditional ETFs, private placements, and non-traded REITs.

FINRA requires firms preserve for at least 6 years all communications relating to its business and to provide for ways to store electronic media. FINRA found that in May 2011, the World Equity opened a new branch office at 311 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois. FINRA alleged that errors in the process of transferring several representatives at that branch to World Equity emails of the representatives were not maintained and preserved before April 13, 2012. In addition, FINRA found that the firm failed to maintain business related emails for ten representatives who used their personal emails for business purposes.

FINRA also alleged that World Equity failed to conduct due diligence in connection with private placements offering from July 2009, through January 2012. During that time FINRA alleged that the firm conducted at least eight private placements including a product called Newport Digital Technologies, Inc. (NDT) and sold more than $6 million in these offerings. In addition, FINRA found that from August 23, 2010 to July 17, 2012 the firm conducted at least five Non-Traded REIT offerings and sold more than $3 million in these offerings.

World Equity Group Fined $225,000 Over Supervisory Failures Part I

March 17, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm World Equity Group, Inc. (World Equity) alleging that between 2009 through 2012, the firm failed to implement an adequate supervisory system reasonably designed to detect and prevent potential rule violations including: (1) failure to preserve emails; (2) failure to establish and maintain account records and obtain suitability information; (3) failure to implement a supervisory system to ensure suitability of transactions in non-traditional ETFs; (4) failure to properly document adequate due diligence in connection with private placements and non-traded REITs; (5) failure to establish an adequate supervisory system for the review of activity for options activity in unapproved accounts; (6) failure to have a reasonable supervisory system to ensure compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933; and (7) failure to adequately enforce information barrier procedures.

World Equity is a full service broker dealer and has been a FINRA member since 1992. The firm is based in Illinois and has approximately 160 brokers operating out of 68 registered branch offices.

One of the offerings FINRA investigated at World Equity was Newport Digital Technologies, Inc. (NDT). In 2008, according to FINRA, World Equity hired a new syndicate manager by the initials MN to lead the business line out of the firm’s Spokane office. During MN’s tenure as syndicate manager, World Equity was involved in several private offerings including the NDT offering for which the firm acted as the placement agent. NDT had been registered with the SEC since 2000 and originally was known as Golden Choice Foods Corporation and then as International Food Products Group, Inc. (IFPG). These companies were in the consumer food business until December 2008.

Broker Investigation: Stephen Dealy’s Alternative Investment Recommendations

March 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Stephen Dealy (Dealy) concerning allegations that Dealy willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose a federal tax lien. FINRA also alleged that Dealy failed to report written complaints he received from his customers to Investors Capital Corp. (ICC).

Dealy first became registered with FINRA in 1983. From November 21, 2001 to September 12, 2014, Dealy was registered through ICC. On September 12, 2014, ICC filed a Form U5 terminating Dealy’s registration with the firm.

According to Dealy’s public disclosures the broker has been subject to seven customer complaints. These statistics are alarming because multiple customer complaints on a broker’s record are exceedingly rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. FINRA’s disclosure records do not just cover customer complaints but also include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters. Therefore, the number of brokers with multiple customer complaints is constitutes only a very small percentage of licensed brokers.

Regulators On the Look Out for “Reverse Churning”

October 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

It is relatively easy to grasp the concept of excessive trading activity or “churning” in a brokerage account. Churning trading activity has no utility for the investor and is conducted solely to generate commissions for the broker. Churning involves both excessive purchases and sales of securities and the advisors control over the account. But regulators are also looking at another growing trend referred to as “reverse churning.” According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) states that “reverse churning” is the practice of placing investors in advisory accounts that pay a fixed fee, such as 1-2% annually, but generate little or no activity to justify that fee. Regulators are watching for signs of “double-dipping” whereby advisers generate significant commissions in an investor’s brokerage account and then moves the client into an advisory account in order to collect additional fees.

As a background there are many standalone brokerage firms and investment advisor firms where the option does not exist for a client to be switched between types of accounts. However, there are also many dually registered firms which are both broker-dealers and investment advisers. These firms, and their financial advisors have tremendous influence over whether a customer establishes a brokerage or investment advisory account. In the WSJ, the SEC was quoted as saying that “This influence may create a risk that customers are placed in an inappropriate account type that increases revenue to the firm and may not provide a corresponding benefit to the customer.”

However, dumping a client account into an advisory account after the broker ceases trading is only one strategy that should be included in the category of “reverse churning.” There are many other creative ways that brokers can generate excessive commissions for themselves while providing no benefit to their clients. For example, if a broker recommends a tax deferred vehicle, such a as a variable annuity, in an IRA account there is no additional tax benefit for the client. While the recommendation would not result in excessive trading, the broker would earn a huge commission for an investment that cannot take advantage of one of its primary selling points.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Former VSR and Berthel, Fisher Broker, Steven L. Stahler

October 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 27, 2014, FINRA filed a complaint against Steven L. Stahler, formerly a registered representative with multiple broker dealers including Lowell & Company, Inc., Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc., VSR Financial Services, Inc., among others. On November 1, 2013, Lowell & Company terminated Mr. Stahler according to his form U5.

FINRA alleges that Mr. Stahler made unsuitable recommendations to customers in violation of FINRA Rule 2310 and 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010. Under FINRA Rule 2110 and 2310, all financial advisers and brokerage firms have a responsibility to deal fairly with their customers. All sales efforts are judged based upon the standards outlined in the FINRA Rules. Furthermore, all brokers must recommend the purchase, sale or exchange of securities that are reasonable given the customers investment objectives and risk tolerances.

According to the complaint, VSR Financial’s written supervisory procedures specify that no more than 40%-50% of a customer’s liquid net worth should be invested in alternative investments. VSR’s guidelines also required that new account forms used outline the customer’s percentage of the portfolio they would feel comfortable investing in high risk investments. FINRA alleges that from September 13, 2006 through October 24, 2006, Mr. Stahler recommended that a married couple, who had stated that no more than twenty percent of their portfolio be invested in aggressive/high risk investments, invested approximately $837,000 in twelve high risk investments at Mr. Stahler’s recommendation. These alternative investments included:

Unsuitable IRA Investments On the Rise – Part III

June 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues our prior posts concerning a recent report by Bloomberg that noted the rise in rollovers from 401(k) plans into IRA accounts. The article pointed to concerns by regulatory agencies and investors concerning the suitability of the investment choices being recommended by brokers soliciting rollovers.

In another example, a mechanical engineer for Hewlett-Packard in Puerto Rico, rolled over $150,000 from a 401(k) to an IRA with UBS. His broker Luis Roberto Fernandez Diaz, recommended Puerto Rico municipal bond funds that contained a 3 percent upfront sales fee and 1 percent annual expenses. Fernandez’s brokercheck lists 17 customer disputes from 2009 through 2014. As we have reported on multiple occasions, our firm represents investors in claims against UBS concerning the firm’s practices in overconcentrating many of their client’s assets in these speculative highly leveraged bond funds. Those articles can be found here, here, and here.

In the case of an IRA, it makes little sense for a financial adviser to recommend investing in municipal bonds because the bonds main advantage is tax avoidance which already is a benefit of investing in an IRA. The investor interviewed by Bloomberg, says that the bonds plunged in value because of the deteriorating finances of Puerto Rico and are only worth $90,000.

Beware of Brokerage Firms Soliciting 401(k) Rollovers – Part II

June 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article picks up on our prior post concerning a recent report by Bloomberg concerning allegations that brokerage firms have used unscrupulous tactics in rolling over employee 401(k) plans into IRA accounts.

The article highlighted how Kathleen Tarr (Tarr) and Richard McCollam (McCollam) with Royal Alliance Associates gained access to AT&T Inc. employees. Tarr was also associated with SII Investment, Inc., from July 2010 until November 2012. McCollam began marketing to AT&T employees with 401(k) rollovers and lump-sum pension payments. The telecommunications company has 246,000 workers and ranks among the best 15 percent of U.S. plans in terms of fees, charging expenses as low as .01 percent. At AT&T employees can take a pension monthly payment or a lump sum payment.

According to the article the employees looked to Tarr as 401(k) expert and visited their homes and offices in order to advise them on their retirement plans. Bloomberg found that Tarr encouraged hundreds of departing AT&T employees to roll over their retirement savings into risky high-commission investments that the SEC and FINRA have warned customers against investing substantial unsuitable sums into.