Articles Posted in Suitability

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined broker-dealer, Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services and its affiliate, Securities Management & Research, Inc., a combined $775,000. FINRA alleged supervisory deficiencies, including Berthel Fisher’s failure to supervise the sale of alternative investments. FINRA also found that Berthel Fisher’s failure to supervise extended to non-traditional exchange traded funds (ETFs).

FINRA found that from January 2008 to February 2012, Berthel Fisher had inadequate supervisory systems and lacked proper written supervisory procedures with regards to the sales of these alternative investments, namely non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), managed futures, oil and gas programs, equipment leasing programs, and business development companies. In its report, FINRA also alleged that some investors were sold these products at a level of concentration that exceeded their respective investment objectives, making the sales and recommendations unsuitable. FINRA also claims that Berthel Fisher failed to train its employees on individual state suitability standards.

FINRA also found that from April 2009 to April 2012, Berthel Fisher did not have a reasonable basis for the sale of leveraged and inverse ETF’s. Before a registered firm may allow its registered representatives to recommend such products to its customers, it must conduct adequate research and review. Through its investigation, FINRA learned that Berthel Fisher representatives recommended approximately $49 million in these nontraditional ETF’s. Leveraged and inverse ETF’s expose holders to amplified movements that tend to deviate from their related benchmarks over extended periods of time. These products are often focused on short-term investment returns and subject to extreme movements during volatile markets, with the potential for significant loss of principal. According to FINRA, Berthel sold these products to conservative, buy-and-hold investors, sales that FINRA ultimately deemed unsuitable.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) concerning allegations that between January 2008 and July 2009, Edward Jones failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system that were reasonably designed to ensure that the sales of leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds (Nontraditional ETFs) complied with applicable securities laws.  FINRA found that Edward Jones registered representatives recommended nontraditional ETFs to customers without first investigating those products sufficiently to understand the features and risks of the product and that consequently these recommendations were unsuitable.

Edward Jones a Missouri limited partnership and a full-service broker-dealer since 1939.  The firm’s principal offices are located in St. Louis, Missouri and the firm has more than 15,000 registered representatives and more than 10,000 branch offices throughout the United States.

As a background, Non-Traditional ETFs are usually registered unit investment trusts or open-end investment companies and are considered to be novel investment products.  While ETFs came be common place in the 1990s, the first nontraditional ETFs began trading in 2006.  By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs existed in the market place with total assets of approximately $22 billion.  Since 2009, the number of nontraditional ETFs on the market has since increased to more than 250.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner) to pay $707,559 in restitution to 84 customers for sales of unsuitable leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) and for excessive mutual fund switches.  The current fine and is just one of several sanctions that regulators have brought against JP Turner brokers concerning the firms sales and supervisory practices.

Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, was quoted in the settlement stating that “Securities firms and their registered reps must understand the complex products they are selling and the risks inherent to the products, and be able to determine if they are suitable for investors before recommending them to retail customers.”

As a background, Non-Traditional ETFs are novel products that have grown significantly in popularity since 2006.  By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs existed in the market place with total assets of approximately $22 billion.  A leveraged ETF seeks to deliver two or three times an index or benchmark return the ETF tracks.  Non-Traditional ETFs can also be “inverse” or “short” meaning that the investment returns the opposite of the performance the index or benchmark.  While both ETFs and Non-Traditional ETFs track indexes, Non-Traditional ETFs contain significant risks that are not associated with traditional ETFs.   Non-Traditional ETFs have additional risks of daily reset, use of leverage, and compounding.

Most investors know that their financial advisor cannot misrepresent the risks and rewards of investments.  However, many investors do not realize that all brokers have an obligation to deal fairly with investors by only recommending suitable investments or investment strategies.  All sales efforts are judged by the ethical standards of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that sets industry wide investment standards.  The “suitability rule” contains three primary obligations: reasonable-basis, customer-specific, and quantitative suitability.

Reasonable-basis suitability means that the broker must believe, based on appropriate research and due diligence, that the product or strategy being recommended is suitable for at least some investors.  Thus, FINRA recognizes that there are some investment products and strategies that are so risky and likely to fail that they would be inappropriate for all investors.  Other investments may contain risks characteristics that are only appropriate for a very small group of investors or for specialized purposes.

Customer-specific suitability requires the broker to believe that the recommended investment strategy is suitable for that particular customer. The advisor must take into consideration the customer’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, age, financial circumstances, other investment holdings, experience, and other information provided to the broker.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposed a permanent bar against Gary J. Chackman (Chackman) concerning allegations that he recommended unsuitable transactions in the accounts of at least eight LPL Financial, Inc. (LPL) customers by over-concentrating the customers’ assets in real estate investment trusts (REITs).  Additionally, FINRA found that Chackman falsified LPL documents to evade the firm’s supervision by submitting dozens of “alternative investment purchase” forms that misrepresented customers’ liquid net worth.  FINRA found that by submitting falsified documents Chackman increased his customers’ accounts’ concentration in REITs and other alternative investments beyond the firm’s maximum allocation limits.

From December 2001, through March 2012, Chackman was registered through LPL.  On March 2012, LPL filed a Uniform Termination Notice for (Form U5) stating that Chackman was terminated for violating firm policies and procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments.  From March 2, 2012 through April 3, 2013, Chackman was registered through Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. (Summit). In April 2013, Summit filed a Form U5 terminating Chackman stating that the broker was operating a business out of an unregistered location.  According to Chackman’s BrokerCheck there have been at least five customer complaints filed against the broker.  Many of the complaints involve allegations of unsuitable REITs

According to FINRA, from July 2009 to February 2012, Chackman recommended REITs and other alternative investments to at least eight of his LPL customers.  FINRA found that Chackman purchased the REITs at periodic intervals in each of their accounts.  For example, in one customer’s account Chackman made seven purchases of a particular REIT, each for $75,000 over six months. After twelve months, FINRA found that 35% of the customer’s assets and more than 25% of her liquid net worth were invested in REITs and other alternative investments.  In order to evade LPL’s limitation on the concentration of alternative investments in customers’ accounts, FINRA found that Chackman misidentified his customers’ purported liquid net worth on LPL forms. FINRA found that over sixteen months and on seventeen alternative investment purchase forms Chackman tripled the customer’s purported liquid net worth.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Royal Securities Company (Royal Securities) concerning allegations Royal lacked adequate supervision and controls in several areas.  FINRA alleged that Royal Securities failed to properly supervise two of its registered representatives, one of which utilized a unitary investment strategy for virtually all of his customers.  FIRNA also found that other representative made unsuitable recommendations in three customer accounts.

FINRA alleged that between January 2010 and May 2012, representatives of Royal Securities recommended nontraditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to customers without having a reasonable basis to do so.  Further, FINRA found that Royal Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and training regarding the sale of Non-Traditional ETFs that was reasonably designed to comply with FINRA rules.

Royal Securities has been a FINRA member since September 1982 and the firm’s business lines include hedge funds, an investment advisory business, and a traditional brokerage business.  Royal Securities has approximately 41 registered persons operating out of nine offices.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm PNC Investments LLC, (PNC) concerning allegations from January 2008, through June 2009, PNC failed to establish a supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the FINRA rules in connection with the sale of leveraged, inverse, and inverse leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs).

Non-Traditional ETFs have grown in popularity since 2006.  By April 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs had been issued with total assets of approximately $22 billion.  Leveraged ETFs seek to deliver multiples an index or benchmark the ETF tracks.  Some Non-Traditional ETFs are “inverse” or “short” funds that return the opposite of the performance the index or benchmark. ETFs can also be both inverse and leveraged and return a multiple of the inverse performance of a index or benchmark.  Non-Traditional ETFs contain significant risks that are not found in traditional ETFs.   Non-Traditional ETFs have risks associated with a daily reset, use of leverage, and compounding.

In addition, the performance of Non-Traditional ETFs over long periods of time can differ significantly from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark it tracks.  For example, between December 2008, and April 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while a leveraged ETF seeking to deliver twice the index’s daily return fell six percent.  In addition, a related ETF seeking to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent over the same period.  These risks prompted FINRA to issue a Notice to Members clarifying brokerage firm obligations when selling Non-Traditional ETFs to customers.

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating Icon Leasing Fund Eleven and Twelve on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation of these funds. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have filed arbitrations against broker dealers that have sold these illiquid investments to their clients. Both NFP Securities, Inc. and WFG Investments Inc. have been know to sell the Icon Funds to their clients.

Allegedly, many advisors who sold the Icon investments failed to adequately explain that the funds operated as an equipment leasing program. Given the nature of the Icon Funds, in which capital is consolidated for the purchase and leasing of equipment, made the fund illiquid.

According to recent filings in securities arbitrations, during the offering period, the funds paid healthy distributions. However, not long after the funds were closed to new investors, the value of the Icon Funds began to decline and dividend payments became sporadic. By the end of 2012, Icon Leasing Fund 12 lost 53% of its value. For the same time period, Icon Leasing Fund 11 suffered an 84% decline in value. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the Icon Funds did not properly disclose that the distributions included return of original principal and that the fees were extraordinarily high.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered brokerage firms Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Stifel Nicolaus) and Century Securities Associates, Inc. (Century Securities) to pay combined fines of $550,000 and nearly $475,000 in restitution to 65 customers concerning allegations of the improper sale of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs).  Stifel Nicolaus and Century Securities are affiliates and are both owned by Stifel Financial Corporation.

A leveraged ETF employs debt or leverage in order to increase and magnify the returns of the underlying securities.  Leveraged ETFs are generally available for most investment indexes such as the S&P 500, the Dow Jones, commodities, or foreign exchanges.  Many leveraged ETFs carry leverage as high as 300% leverage and will typically return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%.  Leveraged ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or opposite of the benchmark.

Leveraged ETFs are generally used and are only appropriate for short term trading.  The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned that most leveraged ETFs reset daily, meaning that they are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis.  As a result, the performance of nontraditional ETFs held over the long term can differ significantly from the performance of their underlying index or benchmark during the same period.  Thus, even if an index is relatively flat over a period of time, a leveraged ETF may still decline in value during the same period.

Broker Thomas C. Oakes (Oakes) has been suspended and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning allegations from 2005 through May 2008, Oakes had engaged in unsuitable short term trading of low priced and/or speculative securities in the accounts of at least three customers causing substantial losses.

Oakes has been in the securities industry as a member of the FINRA since 1988. Since November 2003, Oakes has been a registered representative of Royal Securities Company (Royal).  Oakes’ BrokerCheck disclosures reveal that at least 9 customer complaints have been filed against the broker.  The customer complaints allege a variety of securities misconduct including securities fraud, unauthorized trading, unsuitable investments, churning, and breach of fiduciary duties.

According to FINRA, in 2005 or 2006, three customers opened new accounts at Royal with Oakes as their registered representative. Each of the customers New Account Form identified a primary investment objective of “Growth.”  Royal defined a “Growth” investment objective as the goal of generating long-term capital growth through high quality equity investments consisting of large cap funds and a balanced portfolio of investment grade growth stocks with smaller positions in high grade corporate bonds.  Growth investors should also be willing to assume more market risks than balance/conservative growth in return for yields that are expected to meet or slightly exceed the S&P 500 stock market index over the long run.

Contact Information