BrokeAndBroker.com Blog by Bill Singer Esq WEEK IN REVIEW
May 12, 2018
Was
That Stockbroker's Customer Blowing Steam Or Making A
Complaint?(BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3969/finra-customer-complaint/
Listen . .
. I'm not happy with my REIT investment . . . damn thing is illiquid . . . get
me out of that dog as soon as you can. Okay, so, put your
FINRA regulatory thinking caps on. If you are a stockbroker and you get the
above in an email from a customer, would you deem the language to constitute a
"complaint"? If you disclose that email on all of your industry
records as a complaint, it will be seen as a mark against you because, well,
you know, it's a customer complaint. What part of the email is actually
complaining about anything that the stockbroker did versus the toxic nature of
an investment? Does that matter? Should it
matter?
The
Gambling Stockbroker, His Elderly Customers, And Their Loans To
Him (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3962/finra-loans-elderly/
When regulators and prosecutors
realize that they're dealing with a defendant or respondent who simply wants to
get it over with and settle, it's sometimes viewed as an invitation to pile on
the prose and paint a far worse picture of what allegedly happened. After all,
if the adversary has thrown in the towel and there's no chance of going to
trial, why not burnish your image and do a little bit of self-serving public
relations? In a recent FINRA regulatory settlement, it's hard to tell where the
reality of what seems a horrific scenario begins and where the fiction of
making a bad situation look even worse ends. We got a stockbroker with gambling
debts. We got elderly customers. We got loans from those customers to their
stockbroker. It could all be benign. Then again, it may be as frightening as it
seems. Unfortunately, FINRA's statement of facts is so pregnant with negative
possibilities that it's impossible to come away from this case with any sense
that you know what went on and you understand how it all got wrapped up. And if
the misconduct is truly as bad as FINRA suggests it is, then how are we to
explain what comes off as a somewhat tepid fine and
suspension?
Money
For Nothing Leaves Stockbroker In Dire Straits With
FINRA(BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3963/finra-awc-reimbursement/
Money for
Nothing. Take the Money and Run. Catchy tunes. You get them
in your head and they stay there. Sort of like today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog
in which we watch a stockbroker push the plunger on his career -- even if only
for a few months -- because of a measly $555. Maybe this respondent sort of
confused a "sweep account" with his "business development
account" and figured that he should sweep the year-end remaining balance
from his firm into his own pockets? I mean, okay, we all have been tempted by
such an impulse from time to time. On the other hand, most of us avoid that
temptation. Most of us distinguish between that's mine, that's theirs, and,
geez, if I get caught this could end in disaster. How's that lyric
go? Money for nothing and . . . oops, I don't think the
rest of that lyric is still politically correct. How's that other song go? Oh
yeah: Bill Mack is a FINRA detective. You know he knows just exactly what the
facts is. He ain't gonna let those two escape justice.
FINRA
Orders Partial Restitution In Activity Letter
Settlement (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3961/finra-activity-letter/
Imagine
that a contractor installed a state-of-the-art sprinkler system but never
connected it to any water source. Now start a fire. With that image in mind,
consider today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, which discusses a recent FINRA
regulatory settlement involving allegations that a member firm botched its use
of so-called activity letters. It's a fairly compelling effort by FINRA but for
the fact that the published settlement agreement raises a few questions that
aren't answered.
Sharemaster
The Beastmaster Tames FINRA And SEC In PCAOB
Dispute(BrokeAndBroker.com
Blog)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3964/sharemaster-finra-sec/
Come with me as we journey back in time some nine years to
December 2009, when FINRA member firm Sharemaster submitted its 2009 annual audit.
That 2009 audit was submitted without an attestation that it had been conducted
by a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") registered
accounting firm. On May 3, 2010, the FINRA Department of Member Regulation (the
"Department") notified Sharemaster that its membership would be
suspended because the firm had submitted its 2009 audit without the PCAOB
attestation allegedly required pursuant to '34 Act Rule 17a-5. Some nine years
later, after hearings at FINRA, and appeals at the SEC and the 9th Circuit, the
SEC finally puts this beast out of its misery. What a pathetic misuse of FINRA
and SEC regulatory staff and resources, and what a goddamn waste of
time!