Search results

This article offers a practical approach to demonstrating the pitfalls of broker‐dealers not preparing written supervisory procedures. By showing examples of legal complications that can arise, as well as outlining the current regulatory directives in favor of written procedures, the author emphasizes that written supervisory procedures cannot be treated lightly or as a back‐burner issue.

To discuss the scope and limits of the compliance department's responsibilities in securities firms.

Describes the background to establishing stand‐alone compliance departments; the organizational structure of compliance departments; typical compliance functions; how the compliance department coordinates with business units, senior management, internal audit, and risk management; the distinction between a firm's responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations and the role of the compliance department; the distinctions between responsibilities of the compliance department and those of supervisors and senior management; and emerging regulatory trends impacting the compliance department.

New business activities and new regulations have placed increased demands on, and scrutiny of, compliance activities over the past few years. Regulators are looking to compliance departments to play an increasingly important role in identifying proactively and responding to potential wrongdoing.

Explains the critical importance of a well staffed, experienced, and adequately funded compliance department.

To explain FINRA’s new 529 Plan Share Class Initiative, which encourages broker-dealers to self-report violations.

This article provides an overview of 529 plans, the various fee structures of the underlying investment funds, and guidance that broker-dealers should tailor their recommendations to the needs of the individual customer. The article discusses FINRA’s initiative for broker-dealers to self-report if they have violations in this area. It describes various supervisory failures brokerage firms may experience in connection with recommending 529 plans, eligibility for the self-reporting initiative and benefits of self-reporting.

This FINRA initiative provides an opportunity for firms to reflect on their supervisory systems and provide restitution to harmed customers. It also provides relevant fee-based investment information to customers.

529 plans are valuable tax-advantaged tools to encourage saving for the future educational expenses of a designated beneficiary. If brokerage firms lack reasonable supervisory procedures to recommend appropriate investments based on the length of the investment horizon, this FINRA initiative provides a unique and limited opportunity for firms to assess their supervisory systems and procedures governing 529 Plan share-class recommendations, to identify and remediate any defects, and to compensate any investors harmed by supervisory failures, while possibly avoiding fines for such conduct.

Expert guidance from experienced financial services regulatory and public finance lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Regulatory Notices issued from April to June 2008 and a sample of disciplinary actions during that period.

The paper provides excerpts from FINRA Regulatory Notice 08‐16, Third Party Research Reports; 08‐17, Customer Complaint Reporting; 08‐18, Unauthorized Proprietary Trading; 08‐21, Partial Redemption of Auction Rate Securities; 08‐22, Definition of Public Arbitrator; 08‐27, Midleading Communications about Expertise; 08‐30, Illiquid Investments; 08‐31, Trading Ahead of Customer Orders; and 08‐33, Minor Rule Violation Plan Amendment.

Useful information may be found in each of these notices.

The paper provides direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff is aware of this summary but has neither reviewed nor edited it.

The purpose of this summary is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Regulatory Notices issued from October to December 2007 and a sample of disciplinary actions during that period. In July 2007, FINRA Regulatory Notices replaced NASD Notices to Members.

Provides excerpts from FINRA Reg Notice 07‐54, Fairness Opinions; Reg Notice 07‐57, Representation of Parties in Arbitration and Mediation; Reg Notice 07‐59, Supervision of Electronic Communications; Reg Notice 07‐61, Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE), and Reg Notice 07‐65, Amendments to NYSE Rule 409(f).

The paper finds useful information in each of these Notices.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff is aware of this summary but has neither reviewed nor edited it. For further detail and FINRA contacts for each notice, as well as other notices and useful information, the reader is directed to www.finra.org

The focus on supervision began in the 80’s when the insider trading scandal resulted in visions of Wall Street investment bankers in handcuffs being led away from their offices. The New York Stock Exchange was on the hot seat for perceived failings. The 90s were dominated by the “price‐fixing” scandal in the over‐the‐counter markets, with OTC traders and the NASD sharing the limelight. Then there were mutual fund late trading, research, variable annuities, 529 college savings plans, etc., Now a branch manager in Cleveland, Ohio has precipitated a new wave of supervisory rules.

To explain the SEC's focus on the appropriate use of fee-based accounts and disciplinary efforts to identify and prevent “reverse churning.”

Describes the quantitative analytics used in the SEC's Risk Analysis Examinations (RAEs) to identify reverse churning and other problematic behaviors, explains why the inappropriate use of fee-based or “wrap fee” accounts and “double charging” can be unfair to investment clients, summarizes prior NASD and FINRA guidance and enforcement regarding fee-based account supervision, and recommends account monitoring actions that firms should take to ferret out reverse churning.

The SEC's continuing interest in reverse churning and double-charging, and its use of new examination and investigation tools, together suggest that the future will see more investigations and enforcement actions against firms who place clients in a fee-based or “wrap-fee” account without having adequate supervisory procedures to determine and monitor whether such accounts are appropriate for those clients.

Monitoring accounts to ferret out reverse churning has proven difficult for firms in the past, since spotting inactivity might be more challenging than detecting excessive trades (known as “churning”). However, it seems that the SEC and its staff are enhancing their ability to identify and address these violations.

Practical advice from experienced financial services lawyers.

The purpose of this summary is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) regulatory notices and disciplinary actions issued in July and August 2009 and a sample of disciplinary actions during that period.

The paper provides excerpts from FINRA Regulatory Notice 09‐42, Variable Life Settlement Transactions; 09‐49, Conflicts of Interest; 09‐52, Trade Reporting; and 09‐53, Non‐traditional ETFs.

(09‐42) FINRA is concerned about variable life settlements because they involved materially different factors and raise materially different issues than more widely held securities such as stocks or bonds. (09‐49) Rule 2720 prohibits a member firm with a conflict of interest from participating in a public offering, unless the nature of the conflict is prominently disclosed and certain other specific requirements are met. (09‐52) Effective January 11, 2010, firms that execute OTC trades in equity securities during the hours that a FINRA trade reporting facility is closed must report the trade within 15 minutes of the opening of the facility. (09‐53) Effective December 1, 2009, FINRA is implementing increased customer margin requirements for leveraged ETFs and uncovered options overlaying leveraged ETFs.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff are aware of this summary but have neither reviewed, nor edited it. For further detail as well as other useful information, the reader should visit www.finra.org.

To analyze FINRA’s focus on broker-dealer culture in its 2016 annual priorities letter and the application of the concept in FINRA disciplinary proceedings, to explain how that focus will affect FINRA’s examinations of firms, and to provide recommendations as to how a firm can develop or improve its culture of compliance.

This article examines FINRA’s current and historic pronouncements about “culture” in speeches, guidance, and decisions in disciplinary proceedings, and looks for common themes that should guide broker-dealers’ compliance.

This article concludes that even if the focus on culture might be regarded as an unnecessary overlay to the panoply of securities laws and regulations to which broker-dealers already are subject, firms should still take it seriously. It is now a focus of FINRA examinations for the purpose of fact-gathering, but FINRA might well elevate their concerns about culture into examination findings or worse.

This article gathers together all available information about the concept of firm “culture” and examines what aspects of the current focus represents legitimate concerns, and what aspects are unnecessary. The article takes the best of the guidance about culture and offers suggestions about how to improve a firm’s culture and, correspondingly, its compliance.

Investor trust in the mutual fund industry has been undermined seriously in recent months by the wide range of abuses brought to light by federal and state regulators. While NASD does not have jurisdiction or authority over mutual funds or their advisors, it does regulate the sales practices of broker‐dealers that sell mutual funds to investors. It also has jurisdiction over the broker‐dealer affiliates of mutual fund complexes that are part of the underwriting and distribution chain for investment company securities. Accordingly, broker participation in illegal or unethical sales practices is a very direct concern of NASD. The organization has approached these problems on two different fronts. The first is in the area of rulemaking proposals for better and more extensive disclosure. The second is through tough and swift enforcement in the areas of compensation arrangements, revenue sharing, breakpoints, and after‐hours trading and market timing.