From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:
In an effort to thwart the Protocol, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) filed suit against an advisor who did not comply with the requirements of the Protocol. First, the rep allegedly altered his clients’ telephone numbers in the company’s computer database on the afternoon before he abruptly resigned. Second, the advisor resigned without giving notice on October 25, 2013. On that afternoon, the advisor altered 206 telephone numbers belonging to 156 accounts in the Morgan Stanley computer database. These clients were reassigned to four other financial advisors in the office; however, the advisors were unable to reach the clients by telephone. Morgan Stanley is seeking a temporary injunction which would bar the advisor from soliciting the clients in his new position with Raymond James Financial Services Inc. (“Raymond James”). Moreover, Morgan Stanley has also filed an arbitration request against the advisor before FINRA. Without the protections of the Protocol, Morgan Stanley argues that the advisor’s actions violate the employee agreement he signed when he joined Morgan Stanley, which stated that he would not take any client information with him, and that he would not solicit any Morgan Stanley clients that he served for one year after leaving. The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services. |
admin
Wells Fargo Head Nudges Advisors Away from Picking Individual Stocks
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:
Wells Fargo & Co.’s (WFC) new brokerage chief, Mary Mack, plans to deter advisers from picking individual stocks instead putting more retail clients into managed accounts.
U.S. banks are seeking to tighten their grip on clients and make it harder for advisers to take customers and assets if they defect. In addition, centrally managed accounts with broader holdings make it less likely that brokers can violate suitability obligations.
At Wells Fargo, assets in managed accounts rose 18% to $331 billion last year, an amount that is meager compared with those at Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp. Firms view managed accounts as a way to bolster customer loyalty and foster a willingness to pay for advice.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: Panel Orders First Command to Pay $1.1M to Former Advisors
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:
A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered First Command Financial Planning (“First Command”) to pay $1.1 million in deferred compensation to a group of eight advisors and staff who left the firm back in May 2012. According to the arbitration award, First Command “switched back to a commissions sales model, hurting their business.” In addition, the panel reprimanded First Command for filing U5 termination forms saying the reps were let go for wrongdoing, and ordered their disciplinary records to be expunged to indicate they left voluntarily. The dispute occurred in 2012, when a branch manager left First Command with his team to form an independent hybrid firm clearing through LPL Financial (“LPL”).
The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: Non-Solicitation Agreements: What Can You Say Without Crossing the Line?
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
John Lindsey, a former Edward Jones broker, found himself in hot water after accusations that he violated his non-solicitation agreement. In March 2012, Mr. Lindsey left Edward Jones to go independent, taking with him about half his clients. In response, Edward Jones promptly filed a request for an injunction and temporary restraining order. Edward Jones claimed Mr. Lindsey had violated his one-year non-solicitation agreement by misappropriating client information and wrongly soliciting clients. Specifically, Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement prohibits an advisor from soliciting clients of the firm for one year after the advisor’s departure.
In May 2012, the Ventura County Superior Court in Ventura, California granted the injunction, upholding Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement. However, Judge Tari Cody’s also found that nothing in that agreement prohibited Mr. Lindsey from servicing Edward Jones clients who reached out to him directly. Subsequent to the ruling, Edward Jones asked a FINRA arbitration panel to make the injunction permanent and requested $5 million in compensatory damages. Both of those requests were denied.
The arbitrators’ decision reaffirmed previous guidance given by FINRA’s predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, which had issued a notice stating “that obtaining temporary restraining orders to prevent customers from following a registered representative to a different firm may be similar to the unfair practice of delaying transfers” of clients to a new advisor.
FINRA’s position has been that firms cannot do anything to stop clients from going to a broker of their choice. The court’s ruling reflects a similar position, stating that “[n]othing herein [the non-solicitation agreement] shall prohibit [Mr. Lindsey] or anyone else from: (a) continuing to provide services to [Mr. Lindsey’s] clients who have already moved business away from Edward Jones; (b) providing services to persons who have indicated that they wish to transfer their accounts from Edward Jones to permit [Mr. Lindsey] to continue as their financial advisor.”
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: FINRA’s Proposed Procedure for Reps Not Named in Arbitration to Obtain Expungement of U-4 and U-5 Filings
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
FINRA has proposed new rules that would permit unnamed financial advisers who are the “subject of” allegations of sales practice violations made in investment-related customer-initiated arbitration claims, but who are not named as parties to the arbitration, to seek expungement relief by initiated In reexpungement proceedings at the conclusion of the underlying customer-initiated arbitration case. Specifically, the following are the new proposed FINRA rules: Rule 12100(z) (“Unnamed Person”); Rule 12806 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by Persons Named as Parties); Rule 13100(cc) (“Unnamed Person”); Rule 13806 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by Persons Named as Parties); and Rule 13807 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by an Unnamed Person”).
The current Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes do not provide unnamed persons with express procedures to seek expungement of those types of allegations. The SEC is expected to set an approval date of early 2014.
There are several benefits for brokers. First, the new rules would allow unnamed brokers to use this explicit procedure instead of having to intervene in the arbitration filed by the investor or initiate a new arbitration case in which the broker requests expungement relief and names the investor or firm as the respondent. Another benefit is that the expungement proceedings would commence only after the underlying customer arbitration is concluded. Another benefit is the possibility that the arbitrator reviewing the In reexpungement proceedings will already be familiar with the case. Under the proposed rules, the public chairperson of the underlying arbitration would handle the In reexpungement proceedings.
While our adviser clients currently do have avenues for expungement, FINRA’s new rule proposals greatly would expedite and simplify the entire process.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: Ponzi Scheme Perpetrated by Richard Schwartz Leads Indiana Officials to Freeze Assets | Investor
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
The State of Indiana has sought to freeze the assets of the estate of a former Kokomo investment adviser in order to provide possible, partial restitution to victims of a Ponzi Scheme. At the time, Mr. Schwartz was employed by and under the supervision of a major brokerage firm still in existence. According to Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, this Ponzi scheme allegedly includes former National Football League players. Specifically, the Indiana Attorney General’s office filed the lawsuit in Howard Superior Court in Kokomo against the estate of Richard Schwartz, whom Lawson alleges deceived clients across the country out of $5 million to $10 million.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: Increase in Actions Against RIAs Inevitable as Industry Shifts | Investor
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
State finance regulators see an uptick in actions against registered investment advisers (RIAs) since states took on the oversight of advisers with $100 million or less in assets. This increase has exposed flaws in the RIA compliance functions.
RIAs now account for 23.9% of regulatory actions by states, while broker-dealers account for 29.2%. In particular, individuals who are not licensed to sell securities account for the most actions by the states, which is 42.5%. The increase in state actions against investment advisers is also inevitable due to the fact that many broker-dealer reps have left their broker-dealer firms to open investment advisory firms.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Jim Eccleston: UBS Faces Legal Fight Over Puerto Rico Bond Funds | Investors
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
UBS faces arbitration and regulatory exposure connected with its Puerto Rico Bond Funds.
So far, the focus has been on the Puerto Rican arm of UBS and its 132 financial advisers face a legal fight with investors who purchased proprietary closed-end bond funds heavily invested in Puerto Rican municipal debt and created by a unit of UBS AG. Specifically, the UBS Puerto Rico family of funds consists of 14 such closed-end funds, sold exclusively through registered representatives and brokers with UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico. According to marketing materials, UBS has sold more than $10 billion of the funds through the end of 2012.
Moreover, according to a report by the New York Times, UBS has put one broker on administrative leave after claims emerged that the adviser encouraged clients to buy securities on a line of credit. The eroding municipal bond market has taken a toll on UBS’s proprietary closed-end funds. For example, at the end of August 2013, the Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund Inc. reported a net asset value (NAV) of $5.46 per share. Less than a month later, on September 25, 2013, the fund reported a NAV of $3.74 per share, which is a decline of 31%.
Like the other series of UBS Puerto Rico funds, the Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund mandated an allocation of at least 67% of its assets to local securities, which exist in a thinly traded market. In particular, closed-end municipal bond funds domiciled in the U.S. can only have leverage of up to 30% of the fund’s assets. Since the UBS Puerto Rico municipal closed-end funds are not domiciled in the U.S. and have different rules regarding debt, the funds can have leverage of up to 50% of total assets, and extra 5% in special circumstances. Leverage on such investments can magnify losses.
UBS clients who invested in the closed-end municipal bond funds were heavily invested in these funds, with retirees or near retirees investing as much as 100% of their portfolios in them, along with individual Puerto Rican municipal securities. Some UBS clients reportedly even borrowed on margin or used credit line to buy individual Puerto Rico bonds and the UBS closed-end funds.
One general weakness, of many, is the lack of liquidity of these securities. UBS has been monitoring this situation and continuously provided its clients with research and insights on interest rates risks and municipal bond price fluctuations. Over a year ago, the SEC flagged UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico for sale practices surrounding the municipal securities. Further, in 2008 and 2009, UBS’s former CEO and its head of capital markets made misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to numerous retail customers in Puerto Rico regarding the secondary market liquidity and pricing of the UBS Puerto Rico non-exchange traded closed-end funds. UBS ended up paying $26.6 million in fines and restitution to settle the SEC action.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
Muni Bonds Rocked by Puerto Rico Debt | Investor
From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:
OppenheimerFunds’ municipal bond funds have backfired again due to the Puerto Rican debt, stirring up memories of its Coe Bond Fund’s disastrous 2008. Oppenheimer Rochester Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (ORVAX) is down more than 15% this year, coming in dead last among single-state municipal bond funds and second-worst among all municipal bond funds. The average single-state municipal bond is down only 5.58%.
The main culprit behind the fund’s underperformance has been its big bet on Puerto Rican bonds, which have tremendously underperformed the broad municipal bond market. In particular, the S&P Municipal Bond Puerto Rico Index was down 21% year-to-date through October 10, 2013, which is 1,900 basis points worse than the S&P Municipal Bond Index. According to Morningstar Inc., the Virginia fund held 33% of its assets in Puerto Rican debt as of August 31, 2013, which is the most of any single-state municipal bond fund.
Puerto Rican debt is not entirely unheard of in single-state bond funds because they are exempt from state taxes in most states. But Puerto Rico bonds carry higher yields because of the risks surrounding the territory’s pension deficits and slow economic growth, leading to high risk credit ratings. Investing in high risk Puerto Rican bonds is not prudent for mutual funds and investors seeking more conservative investments.
The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.
FINRA Provides Additional Guidance for Financial Services Firms to Comply with New Suitability Rule
FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) has had an opportunity to examine how financial services firms are complying with FINRA Rule 2111, effective July, 2012. The new rule made several important changes, especially related to recommendations of investment strategies and recommendations to hold securities positions. Based upon examinations of firms conducted during the last year, FINRA has issued Regulatory Notice 13-31. Let’s highlight the key provisions.
As background, Rule 2111 relates to recommendations made by a financial adviser and his or her firm. Historically, the application of the rule was limited to recommendations to buy or sell securities. In the new rule, FINRA added recommended investment strategies involving a security or securities, including the explicit recommendation to “hold” a security or securities.
Also, in making a recommendation, Rule 2111 continues with the requirement that the financial adviser and his or her firm have a “reasonable basis” to believe that the recommendation is “suitable.” However, the new rule added several requirements. First, FINRA expanded the list of information required to ascertain the customer’s suitability profile. The list includes the customer’s age, investment experience, time horizon, liquidity needs and risk tolerance as information items that advisers and their firms must attempt to obtain and analyze.
Second, the new rule recited the “three main suitability obligations” according to Regulatory Notice 13-31. They are “reasonable-basis”, “customer-specific” and “quantitative” suitability obligations. In short, reasonable basis means that a recommended security or investment recommendation is suitable for at least some investors; customer-specific means that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer; and quantitative means that “a series of recommended transactions, even if suitable when viewed in isolation, are not excessive.”
In light of the new requirements of the suitability rule, FINRA examiners have analyzed the firms’ “controls”, including testing the firms’ supervisory and compliance systems. FINRA examiners also have reviewed for “Red Flags” of possible deficiencies. Those Red Flags include: a long term investment for an investor with a short term time horizon; or a speculative investment or strategy held in the account of a conservative investor. FINRA concludes in its regulatory notice that the most common deficiency among firms was having inadequate procedures for “hold” recommendations.
Based upon those examinations, Regulatory Notice 13-31 discusses numerous “observations of effective practices” to provide guidance to firms and their advisers. For example, in the guidance regarding reasonable-basis suitability, FINRA commented on an effective way some firms use to ensure that their financial advisers understand the (sometimes complex) products that they are recommending. Those firms “post due diligence on products (and accompanying documents) to an internal website that [advisers] can access when recommending a product.” The information “includes audited financial statements, notes of interviews with key individuals of the product sponsor or issuer, and other information relevant to understanding the product and its features.”
Likewise, in the guidance related to customer-specific suitability, FINRA comments that some firms bolstered compliance by requiring specific customer suitability information such as high risk tolerance, low liquidity needs, substantial investment experience, and an indication that the recommended transaction represents a small percentage of a balanced portfolio.
Finally, the guidance regarding investment strategies and hold recommendations is notable. FINRA notes that effective compliance and supervisory systems included the following:
• A “hold ticket” or “hold blotter” that captures hold and, in certain instances, other types of strategy recommendations;
• Notes of discussions with clients regarding explicit hold or other strategy recommendations by associated persons maintained in customer files;
• Firm branch office inspections focused on the documentation of hold and other strategy conversations with clients;
• Modified new account forms to include specific investment strategies (determined by the firm) which could be identified if an adviser recommends them at the time of the account opening;
• New or amended account opening forms that must be signed by the customer when advisers recommend changes to a previously recommended account investment strategy; and
• A prohibition on advisers’ engaging firm clients in any business activity that an adviser conducts outside of his or her firm.
Although FINRA states that Rule 2111 generally does not impose explicit documentation requirements, some documentation likely is necessary for adequate supervision. The regulatory notice states, “The type or form of documentation that may be needed is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the investment strategy or hold recommendation, including the complexity and risks associated with the security or investment strategy at the time of the recommendation.” Firms must find a way “to capture hold and other strategy recommendations.”
As one can see, Regulatory Notice 13-31 contains a great deal of helpful guidance for firms to implement to ensure that recommendations are suitable.