Articles Tagged with Non-traditional ETFs

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.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Silver Oak Securities, Inc. (Silver Oak) concerning allegations from January 2009, to December 2010, Silver Oak failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws regarding the sale of leveraged and inverse Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs).  Silver Oak has been a FINRA member since 2007 and is in Jackson, Tennessee, and employs 122 registered individuals at 28 branch offices.

Non-Traditional ETFs have grown significantly in popularity since 2006.  By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs had been issued with total assets under management 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” returning the opposite of the performance the 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 tend to differ significantly from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark the fund tracks.  For example, between December 2008, and April 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while a leveraged ETF that tracked the index’s daily return fell six percent.  Another related leveraged ETF seeking to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent.  These risks, among others, prompted FINRA to issue a Notice to Members clarifying brokerage firm obligations when selling Non-Traditional ETFs to customers.

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.

A leveraged Exchange Traded Fund (non-traditional or leveraged ETFs) is a security that employs debt, or leverage, in order to amplify the returns of an underlying stock position.  Leveraged ETFs are generally available for most security indexes such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100.  A leveraged ETF with 300% leverage will return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%.  Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse of the benchmark.

Leveraged ETFs are generally used only 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.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has acknowledged that leveraged ETF carry significant risks and are inherent complexity of the products.  Accordingly, FINRA advises brokers that nontraditional ETFs are typically not suitable for retail investors.

Recently, FINRA sanctioned and suspended broker Michael E. French (French) over allegations that the broker recommended unsuitable transactions in leveraged and inverse ETFs in the accounts of elderly customers.  FINRA also alleged that French held the leveraged ETFs in his customers’ accounts for extended periods contrary to Wells Fargo Advisor’s (Wells Fargo) written supervisory procedures.

The New Jersey Bureau of Securities alleged that Morgan Stanley violated state securities laws and regulations in connection with the sale of non-traditional Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), including leveraged ETFs and inverse leveraged ETFs.

Non-traditional ETFs use derivatives and debt to magnify market returns.  There are several types of non-traditional ETFs.  Leveraged ETFs are designed to deliver two or three times the performance of the index or benchmark they track.  Inverse-leveraged ETFs are designed to deliver multiples of the opposite of the performance of the index or benchmark they track.  These non-traditional ETFs can present a significant amount of risk that the general public may not realize.

In 2009 the Financial Investment Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Notice 09-31 drawing attention to the “highly complex” nature of the ETF, while also reminding firms of their sales practice obligations in connection with leveraged and inverse ETFs. In a statement, Abbe R. Tiger, Chief of the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, said investigators “found that Morgan Stanley’s staff lacked proper training about non-traditional ETFs, and that the company failed to adequately supervise its personnel handling ETF transactions, to the detriment of investors.”  As part of its settlement with the Bureau, Morgan Stanley was ordered to pay $100,000 in penalties and costs. Morgan Stanley has also already paid restitution to some investors.

Contact Information