In a decision last month, the California Court of Appeals may have opened the door for brokers to bypass the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) rigid expungement rules in order to remove matters from their CRD records. Currently, brokers must abide by Rule 2080 in order to expunge their records. The FINRA rule allows for expungement only upon meeting one of three tests: (1) the claim is factually impossible, (2) the broker was not involved in the conduct or (3) the information is false. The rule states that a broker who seeks expungement "must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief."

In its recent decision, the California Court of Appeals held that a court may expunge a broker's CRD record in the interest of fairness and equity, regardless of FINRA's rule. Edwin Lickiss filed a petition in the court in April 2011 seeking expungement of 17 customer complaints and a regulatory action from his CRD record claiming that they were old and irrelevant and negatively affected his profession. The customer complaints against Mr. Lickiss had resulted in total payments of $831,000, and Mr. Lickiss was required to personally pay a $5,000 settlement. FINRA objected to Mr. Lickiss's expungement request, stating that he was trying to "sanitize his record and prevent regulators, brokerage firms and investors from learning of this history for what amounts to 'time served.'" The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing the requirements of Rule 2080. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that it should have looked to equitable principles instead of FINRA rules.

According to an InvestmentNews poll, 58.7% of 293 advisers who responded to a recent survey support the option of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging user fees to defray the costs of increased examinations. This is an increase from a year ago when only 27.8% of 335 responding advisers supported the user fee approach. The poll also concluded that 74.7% of advisers said they oppose permitting the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) from becoming the self regulatory organization (SRO) for advisers.

The increased willingness of advisers to pay user fees suggests that there could be more support for the bill soon to be introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would authorize the SEC to charge user fees for advisers to cover or defray the costs of examinations. Rep. Waters's bill would combat the SRO bill introduced by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Al) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a Regulatory Notice in May clarifying its new suitability rule, Rule 2111. The rule, which was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in November 2010, will be implemented on July 9, 2012. The Notice is intended to answer industry questions and provide guidance on the new rule.

According to FINRA, the new rule imposes the same obligations as the predecessor rule and related case law. It is intended to clarify and codify three main suitability obligations.

The first obligation is reasonable-basis suitability, which has two components: a broker must (1) perform reasonable diligence to understand the nature of the recommended security or investment strategy involving a security or securities, as well as the potential risks and rewards, and (2) determine whether the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors based on that understanding.

The second obligation is customer-specific suitability, in which the broker must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommendation of a security or investment strategy is suitable for the particular customer based on the customer's investment profile.

The Financial Services Institute (FSI) Chair, Joe Russo, recently released a letter stating that the FSI supports the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as the new self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. Russo stated that the FSI has conducted two polls of its financial adviser members to determine whether they support FINRA as the SRO and 75% agreed that FINRA should become the SRO.

FSI has been asked by a number of critics why it has not advocated repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In response, FSI says that the act will likely not be repealed as a practical matter. Therefore, FSI has decided to focus its legislative efforts on securing for its members the least intrusive of the three options for investment adviser regulation posed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Those options are (1) the SEC charging user fees to fund more examiners, (2) FINRA becoming the dual SRO for broker-dealers and investment advisers, or (3) creating a new SRO.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan investigative agency of Congress, conducted a study which criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The purpose of the study was to determine how the SEC has conducted its oversight of FINRA, including the effectiveness of FINRA rules, and how the SEC plans to enhance its oversight.

The GAO found that both the SEC and FINRA do not conduct retrospective reviews of the impact of FINRA's rules. As a result, the GAO believes that "FINRA may be missing an opportunity to systematically assess whether its rules are achieving their intended purpose and take appropriate action, such as maintaining rules that are effective and modifying or repealing rules that are ineffective or burdensome." The GAO also noted that the SEC does not conduct sufficient oversight over FINRA's governance and executive compensation. The SEC has responded to the survey by saying that it is focused primarily on oversight of FINRA's regulatory departments, which the SEC claims has the biggest impact on investors.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), on May 29, wrote to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposing the self-regulatory organization (SRO) bill that was reintroduced in the House of Representatives in April. We discussed the bill in a previous post, SRO Redraft Bill Reintroduced. POGO joins a long list of groups, including the Investment Advisers Association, the Financial Planning Coalition and the American Institute of CPAs, opposing the bill. POGO is particularly opposed to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) becoming the SRO because it believes that "FINRA's regulatory effectiveness is undermined by its inherent conflicts of interest, its lack of transparency and accountability, its lobbying expenditures, and its executive compensation packages, among other issues."

The letter addresses each area of concern POGO has relating to FINRA becoming the SRO for investment advisers. First, POGO states that FINRA's "conflicted mission" will lead "to cozy ties with the industry." POGO says the conflict arises because FINRA collects fees from member firms and is also charged with regulating the investment adviser industry. POGO believes that FINRA's "inherently conflicted self-funding model has contributed to an incestuous relationship between FINRA and the industry it is tasked with regulating." In contrast, POGO contends that government agencies are not conflicted because they must comply with federal ethic laws and agency regulations designed to alleviate the conflicts.

Another large group in the financial service industry has come forward to oppose authorizing the Federal Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to become the self regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has voiced its desire to keep the oversight of investment advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The AICPA is the world's largest association representing the accounting profession. It is interested in the oversight of investment advisers because a number of its members work for firms that are registered or affiliated with a registered investment adviser. Members also provide audit, tax, retirement consulting, plan administration and financial planning services to their clients.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has proposed a rule which would allow individuals who are not named as parties to a customer-initiated arbitration case to seek expungement relief by initiating "In re" expungement proceedings. Currently, unnamed persons do not have a prescribed way to seek these types of expungements, and must seek relief by:

• Asking their current or former firm that is a party to the arbitration to request expungement on their behalf;


• Seeking to intervene in the arbitration filed by the customer; or


• Initiating a new arbitration case in which the unnamed person requests expungement relief and names the customer or firm as respondent.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has responded to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study that estimated the cost of FINRA becoming the investment adviser self regulatory organization (SRO). The BCG study, which we have discussed in a previous blog, was sponsored by the Financial Planning Coalition, comprised of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers. The Financial Planning Coalition, along with a number of other groups, is urging Congress to maintain investment adviser oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The BCG study concluded that, if FINRA were to become the investment adviser SRO, the one-time start-up cost would be between $200 million and $255 million, and the annual cost would be about $550 million to $610 million. In response to the BCG study, last month FINRA released its own cost estimates. According to FINRA, its start-up cost would be approximately $12 million to $15 million, with annual cost of about $150 million to $155 million. FINRA contends that the BCG projection is inaccurate because "BCG used as its base the costs for establishing the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) and the CFPB from scratch. BCG used figures - set up costs for organizations that didn't even have one desk or employee to start with - and provided for only a 20% discount off the from-scratch start-up costs to allow for efficiencies in FINRA's existing infrastructure."

An independent insurance agent, Glenn Neasham, was convicted on a felony-theft charge in March for selling a complex indexed annuity to an 83-year old client in a California court. He was sentenced to spend ninety days in jail. Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Neasham's client had exhibited signs of dementia and was not capable of consenting to the transaction.

This case has stirred fear among insurance and securities agents. The state's then-insurance commissioner stated in 2010, after Mr. Neasham's arrest, that agents "who steal from vulnerable seniors will not get away with their shameful tricks." Agents are attracted to indexed annuities because they receive high commissions, which can be 12% or more of the invested amount. As a result of this case and heightened regulatory scrutiny, agents will have to think twice before selling indexed annuities to the elderly. The $14,000, or 8%, commission that Mr. Neasham received was a factor used against him to prove his criminal intent.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) has reintroduced his bill calling for a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. The bill has a Democratic co-sponsor, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), indicating that it may have some bipartisan support. Rep. Bachus said that the bill was drafted in response to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) study which showed that the SEC does not have sufficient resources to adequately monitor and regulate the 12,000 registered investment advisers. The SEC examined only 8% of advisers in 2011, which is significantly less than the 58% of broker-dealers that were examined.

The bill calls for the creation of one or more SROs which would be called a "National Investment Adviser Association" (NIAA). NIAA would report to the SEC, and investment advisers with retail customers would be required to become members. The bill provides an exception from the membership requirement for investment advisers with less than $100 million in assets under management. The bill gives individual states the authority to regulate those investment advisers as long as the states conduct periodic on-site examinations.

The Investment Advisers Association (IAA) believes that it needs to become more outspoken and involved in order to deter Congress from passing legislation requiring a self-regulatory organization (SRO) be designated for registered investment advisers. The IAA is concerned because Congress is fully aware of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) position and its desire to become the SRO for investment advisers. IAA vice president for government relations Neil Simon stated, "Despite our best efforts, there is still a woeful ignorance of the role investment advisers play. They're aware of FINRA. We need to help educate policymakers so they make informed decisions."

Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prepare a report considering whether there should be an SRO for investment advisers, as there is for broker-dealers. The SEC set forth three possible models to help the agency better oversee advisers: (1) allow the SEC to charge user fees for exams, (2) establish a new SRO, or (3) allow FINRA to be the SRO for both registered investment advisers and broker-dealers. The IAA is supporting the user fee approach, while FINRA is aggressively pursuing becoming the designated SRO. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) previously offered a bill which would provide for an SRO in response to the SEC's recommendations, which were delivered to Congress in January 2011. Some industry observers believe that Rep. Bachus is likely to release a revised discussion draft of his bill and push it, because he will leave his post of Financial Services Chairman in January 2013 due to term limits.

As a result of the financial crisis, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has significantly increased number of enforcement actions and the amount of sanctions imposed on broker-dealers in the previous year. According to Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP's annual sanctions survey, the 13% increase in disciplinary actions resulted in increased fines of 51%.

FINRA filed 1,488 disciplinary actions in 2011, an increase from the 1,310 actions that it initiated in 2010. This made 2011 the third straight year in which the number of FINRA disciplinary actions has grown. The survey also found that the number of professionals barred by FINRA increased from 288 in 2010 to 329 in 2011.

Total fines jumped from $45 million in 2010 to $68 million in 2011, which is a 51% increase. The survey report stated, "While the $68 million reported in 2011 is still a far cry from the $184 million and $111 million that FINRA fined firms and representatives in 2005 and 2006, respectively, it may signal continued enforcement efforts for the near future."

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a letter addressing broker-dealer's practices in recommending high-yield products to clients. The letter states, "FINRA is informing its examination priorities against the economic environment that investors have faced since 2008, as these circumstances have steadily contributed to conditions that foster an increased risk of aggressive yield chasing, inappropriate sales practices, unsuitable product offerings, and misappropriation and fraud." The purpose of the letter is to warn broker-dealers not to engage in practices intended to beat the market and instead to promote what is suitable for the investor.

Investors are being urged by their brokers to engage in yield chasing, which means they are seeking higher returns on their investments. The investors in this situation may not completely understand the risk versus reward tradeoffs by investing in this manner especially when brokers are recommending more complex products as discussed in a previous blog, FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products. FINRA's concerns include the full disclosure of material risks, mispricing and overcharging issues, and the suitability of products based on those underlying risks. It urged firms to increase their supervisory systems to ensure that firms are complying with regulations.

In a move that signals the need for heightened due diligence and supervision among financial advisory firms, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Regulatory Notice 12-03 in relation to complex products last month. It is intended to guide firms to increase their supervision of activity involving complex products such as structured notes, reverse convertibles, inverse or leveraged exchange traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products. FINRA has already brought a number of enforcement actions against firms relating to complex products, charging inadequate supervision, unsuitable recommendations and misleading price sales.

Among the problems noted by FINRA is the uncertainty of how these products will behave in the market, as opposed to theoretical projections. The notice states, "Regulators have expressed concern about complex products because the intricacy of these products can impair the ability of registered representatives or their customers to understand how the product will perform in a variety of time periods and market environments, and can lead to inappropriate recommendations and sales."

FINRA chose not to define a complex product in the notice due to the ever changing innovation in the marketplace; however, the notice states that "any product with multiple features that affect its investment returns differently under various scenarios is potentially complex." The notice goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of examples of complex products. FINRA advises firms that are unsure whether a product is complex to err on the side of applying their procedures for enhanced oversight to the product.

One year ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff recommended that a uniform fiduciary standard be applied to both broker-dealers and investment advisers. Recently, however, the SEC postponed a corresponding rule proposal for a second time.

In January, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sent a letter to Congressman Scott Garrett, Chairman of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, stating that it needs to gather additional information for an economic analysis of the impact of a standard of care regulation. Although the SEC had previously set it for action in 2011, that time frame has now been changed to "date to be determined." The SEC has already designated specific time frames for 51 other rules and reports required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the letter to Rep. Garrett, Chairman Schapiro wrote, "SEC staff are drafting a public request for information to obtain data specific to the provision of retail financial advice and the regulatory alternatives. In this request, it is our hope commentators will provide information that will allow commission staff to continue to analyze the various components of the market for retail financial advice."

In a letter sent to the Financial Industry Regulator Authority (FINRA) last November, the Securities Industry and Financial Market Association (SIFMA) wants FINRA to give harsher punishments to brokers who have failed to pay back promissory notes to firms. It specifically sought to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The purpose of the notes is to provide cash for recruiting and retention incentives. They are typically designed as forgivable loans as long as the broker stays at the firm for a specified amount of time. If the brokers choose to leave early, then they are required to pay back the note.

As a result of not paying the promissory note back, firms have gotten more aggressive in filing arbitration claims for repayment, and in most cases the firm wins. In 2011, there were 778 promissory note cases filed which is a decrease from 2010 during which 1,152 cases were filed. If a broker does not pay the promissory award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. Once a monetary award has been issued in a FINRA arbitration proceeding, the broker has 30 days to pay the award. If the broker can show an inability to pay back the note; however, he/she will not be suspended and can continue to work for another firm.

In a previous blog, we discussed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA's) proposed Rule 2210 regarding social media. FINRA responded to comments by amending the proposed rule, and filing it with the SEC for approval. The amended rule was designed to respond to concerns about whether certain types of communications should be considered correspondence or public appearances.

In the rule as originally proposed, interactive social media communications would be classified as public appearances such as television interviews, and would have to be filed with regulators. As a result of comments to the proposal, FINRA amended the rule to exclude messages on online interactive forums from a post-use filing requirement.

FINRA explains that the reasoning behind this change is due to the belief that participation in online forums occur in real-time, that it is not practical to require pre-use approval of such postings by a principal, and that these types of communications should be classified as retail communications. According to FINRA, "retail communication would include any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-day period. 'Retail investor would include any person other than an institutional investor, regardless of whether the person has an account with the member.'" This means that the retail communication category would instead be supervised by broker-dealers in the same manner as correspondence.