brokers

Wirehouse Reps Move Dramatically to Fee-based Model

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

Wirehouses are shifting away from a commission-based brokerage model to a fee-based business model. Over the past decade, the number of fee-only and fee based advisers has increased to 84% at the wirehouses, compared with about 57% for the rest of the brokerage industry.

The challenge is to find an appropriate price for advice which is competitive with what others in the industry are charging. Some advisors charge between 0.75% and 1% of assets under management as an annual fee rather than drawing commissions.  In order to offset the decline in commission, advisers undertaking the move must be prepared to generate revenue from different sources or to make the shift incrementally.

The fee-based account gives advisers a more stable source of revenue that, over time, allows them to market and to focus on existing clients.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments

Wirehouses Hunt for Bank Channel Talent

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

Wirehouses are recruiting top advisors from the bank channel. As the broker-dealer industry becomes more competitive, even big firms are becoming much more flexible and open in their recruitment in order to ensure success and meet their aggressive recruiting goals.

The effort historically has been risky. Most bank advisers build their businesses through company referrals rather than prospecting, so clients often are less willing to transfer their assets. Moreover, bank advisers pose legal risk. While most brokerage firms have signed the Protocol for Broker Recruiting, banks have shied away.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch is a member of the protocol, for example, but that does not apply to advisers in its bank channel, Merrill EdgeJ.P. Morgan Securities signed on earlier this year, but clarified that it was limited only to the few hundred advisers in its private client group and excluded the JPMorgan Chase Private Bank.

In addition, bank advisors face tighter restrictions on what client information can be taken. Morgan Stanley was sued earlier this year when it recruited a trust adviser from PNC Bank. PNC accused the firm of helping the adviser misappropriate trade secrets. Bank advisers have employment contracts that have non-solicits or non-competes, or event sometimes a garden leave provision of 30, 60, or 90 days. Competent legal counsel, such as Eccleston Law, should be retained to review and consult.

Another concern is that many bank advisers are working with mass- affluent clients with less than $250,000 in assets, while most wirehouse accounts require investible assets of greater than $250,000 for the adviser to receive a payout. Still, wirehouse managers are willing to take on the risk, especially if a successful bank hire can provide a connection to a big-name client.

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.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments

An Expected Acquisition Trend in Broker-Dealer Industry

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

According to a report from InvestmentNews, given the higher cost in the broker-dealer business over the past few years, some broker-dealers that don’t have strong capital behind them may have no choice but to look for an exit strategy. In 2014, six to eight broker-dealers are expected to be acquired by larger entities.

Advisors who work for a broker-dealer that is being acquired need to assess acquisition. For example, doesthe acquiring firm plan to leave the broker-dealer as a stand-alone or roll it up into another broker-dealer? Advisors need to keep a watchful eye on it, because even if the acquirer announces a plan to leave the firm as a stand-alone, it could change the plan quickly after due diligence. In addition, advisors need to understand possible administrative changes. For example, advisors who are working in a smaller broker-dealer where they enjoy the accessibility of key senior management may find that if the firm is purchased by a larger firm with plans for a roll-up, the new situation may not suit them.

Likewise, advisors need to do their own due diligence to clarify if the new culture, technology, clearing platform, business model, and compliance/supervision structure etc. are a good match for themselves.

If due diligence shows that the firm acquiring the broker-dealer will add value and fulfill the adviser’s needs and wants, then the change could be beneficial. If the new firm doesn’t offer that, another firm may be a better fit.

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.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments

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.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments

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.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments

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.

Posted by admin in Blog Posts, 0 comments