Sometimes, ten people read the same thing but only one spots the typo or notices an inconsistency. Today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog
offers insights into how our publisher Bill Singer, Esq., sees things and interprets them differently than others. It's a fun and interesting exploration of how a veteran industry lawyer dissects regulations and interprets purported facts. For some of you, it may all come off as little more than nit-pickin'. That's okay, Bill enjoys his gadfly role as a fastidious pain in the ass. For others, the vivisection of a recent FINRA Outside Business Activities settlement may open your eyes and give you pause before throwing in the towel and agreeing that you are guilty as charged. READ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3604/finra-awc-dinar/
At the heart of Wall Street regulation is the inescapable fact that we are dealing with human beings. To read through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's disciplinary docket is to experience a spectrum of idiocy that runs from seemingly inadvertent goofs to detestable acts that cause inestimable harm. When observing the tawdry human pageant reported by FINRA, we often come upon cases where we applaud the regulator's actions and sanctions but, nonetheless, are saddened by the circumstances of a Respondent who is clearly struggling with life, stumbling, and making bad choices. We can't always know what prompts misconduct. We can't always understand or appreciate the stress that sets some folks down the wrong path. That being said, our first concern must always be for the victims. A recent FINRA disciplinary settlement highlights many of these factors. READ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3603/finra-child-endangerment/
In today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, publisher Bill Singer, Esq. dissects a FINRA arbitration and two FINRA regulatory settlements involving a father and son. What ties these matters together is an allegation by FINRA that the father had lied under oath during his arbitration case against former employers and associates. This is a rare, a very rare, case in which FINRA regulatory action is taken against an arbitration Claimant/witness for lying under oath.
If FINRA the self-regulator is now going to act as a lie detector and bar registered representatives for perjury during arbitrations (as should certainly
be the consequence), then such regulatory action will likely influence arbitration settlements and may also prompt more parties to demand regulatory referrals from arbitrators. Assuming that FINRA is now placing such arbitration-perjury matters on its regulatory agenda, the self-regulator must pursue such allegations with equal zeal against its member firms, who are often accused of lying during customer and industry arbitrations. Similarly, given FINRA's inability to "bar" public customers for perjury, the regulator must commit to referring such findings to local, state, and/or federal prosecutors. READ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3601/finra-awc-perjury/
How long is too long? That's a very fair question to ask of any Wall Street regulator when it comes to the amount of time that elapses between when they are on notice of misconduct and until such time as they either settle their case or file charges. In a recent FINRA regulatory settlement, we are left with troubling questions about why Wall Street's self-regulator apparently sat on its butt for some four years after a member firm had fired a registered rep for several instances of regulatory and compliance violations. READ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3600/finra-kwan-awc/