Archive for the ‘Securities Fraud’ Category:
In a July 31, 2009 article, Sam Mamundi of Marketwatch.com discussed the hidden sales fees charged by mutual funds. As noted in the article, “[t]he majority of retail funds are sold through brokerages, and each brokerage firm levies a range of charges to the fund for every sale. The cost of these agreements is passed on to investors.” These charges come in a variety of forms, including “revenue sharing agreements” and 12b-1 fees.
Many broker-dealers have revenue sharing agreements with mutual fund companies. Under these agreements, the broker-dealers are paid a percentage of the mutual fund sales they generate by the mutual fund companies. Each firm negotiates its own rates of revenue sharing with each mutual fund company.
Over the past few years, there have been lawsuits involving revenue sharing agreements. These cases were brought against broker-dealers and were largely based upon the premise that these undisclosed fees created a conflict of interest because the firms’ brokers (and also the broker-dealers) had a financial incentive to push the funds managed by the companies with whom the broker-dealer had an agreement, and not based upon their clients’ best interests.
Although mutual fund companies specifically report the amount of 12b-1 fees they charge against shareholders in their annual and semi-annual reports, the amount of money charged to shareholders for these revenue sharing agreements are not specifically disclosed. In fact, as noted in the Marketwatch.com article:
“There’s no direct rule requiring funds or brokerage firms to disclose revenue-sharing deals. Funds simply have to state that they pay for these deals, and often that’s tucked away at the back of a prospectus — which many investors don’t read before they buy into a fund.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission is also reportedly looking into the issue of hidden mutual fund sales fees. In her testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on June 2, 2009, SEC Chairperson Mary Schapiro stated:
I also have asked the staff to prepare a recommendation on rule 12b-1, which permits mutual funds to use fund assets to compensate broker-dealers and other intermediaries for distribution and servicing expenses. These fees, with their bureaucratic sounding name and sometimes unclear purpose, are not well understood by investors. Yet in 2008, rule 12b-1 was used to collect over $13 billion in investors’ funds out of fund assets. It is essential, therefore, that the SEC engage in a comprehensive re-examination of rule 12b-1 and the fees collected pursuant to the rule. If issues relating to these fees undermine investor interests, then we at the SEC have an obligation to step in and adjust our regulations.
President Obama is also focusing on this issue. In a June White Paper (will open in Adobe Acrobat), the President noted that for the country “[t]o rebuild trust in our markets, we need strong and consistent regulation and supervision of consumer financial services and investment markets.” To that end, President Obama recommended “[s]tronger regulations to improve the transparency, fairness, and appropriateness of consumer and investor products and services.” In order to accomplish this goal, the President has set out to increase the power of the SEC so that the agency is better equipped to protect consumers and investors. Whether this will be enough is yet to be determined.
Undisclosed fees and revenue sharing agreements are another example of conflicts of interest between Wall Street firms and Main Street investors. Unfortunately, stockbrokers and financial advisors often lose sight of their clients’ goals and, as a result, their clients suffer unnecessary losses in the value of their IRAs, 401(k)s, college savings plans, or other investments accounts. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors who have suffered losses in their investments as the result of stockbroker or financial adviser misconduct. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.
Technorati : 12b-1, fees, mutual funds
Del.icio.us : 12b-1, fees, mutual funds
Zooomr : 12b-1, fees, mutual funds
Weeks after Edward D. Jones, Ameriprise, Linsco Private Ledger (LPL) and UBS announced that they were restricting the sale of leveraged ETFs (see here), two more broker-dealers have decided to take action related to their sales of these risky, and often misunderstood investments.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney announced that it is reviewing its sales procedures related to leveraged ETFs. In addition, Charles Schwab issued an “unusual” warning to its clients that have purchased leveraged ETFs. This warning provides investors with some background discussion related to these risky investments, as well as examples of how hypothetical leveraged ETFs would perform in a few hypothetical situations.
Although many broker-dealers have instituted these measures, some broker-dealers continue to do nothing. For example, as reported in the Wall Street Journal article, Fidelity Investments continues to make leveraged ETFs available to their customers and leveraged ETFs remain available through TD Ameritrade’s web trading platform.
As previously stated in this blawg, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has declared that leveraged ETFs are typically unsuitable for retail investors. In addition, Massachusetts securities regulators have issued subpoenas to four firms in order to obtain information related to their sales practices involving leveraged ETFs.
Leveraged ETFs are unsuitable for retail investors because of their level of risk. The financial website Investopedia.com defines a leveraged ETF as “an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that utilizes financial derivatives and debt to amplify the returns of an underlying index.” The fund essentially borrows money and combines this money with investors’ money to purchase derivatives such as options, futures, or swaps. Because of the use of debt and derivatives, these ETFs carry a significant amount of risk. These funds also generally charge higher expenses to shareholders, which results in reduced returns (or increased losses if the market goes against the investment objective of the fund).
The most popular of these investments are managed by Rydex, Direxion, and ProShares. If your stockbroker or financial advisor has sold you any leveraged ETFs, or purchased any leveraged ETFs in your accounts, and you have lost money on these investments, you may be entitled to recover these losses. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.
Filed under Investment Fraud, Investments, Investor Education, Leveraged ETF, Mutual Funds, Other Investments, Securities Fraud, Stockbroker and Financial Adviser Misconduct
Tags:direxion, Investment Fraud, leveraged etf, proshares, rydex, Securities Fraud
According to an article on InvestmentNews, Massachusetts securities regulators have subpoenaed four brokerage firms for information related to their sales practices of leveraged ETFs. The subpoenas come only a few weeks after Edward D. Jones, Ameriprise, Linsco Private Ledger (LPL) and UBS restricted the sale of the products or stopped selling leveraged ETFs altogether. This also comes approximately three weeks after FINRA advised firms that leveraged ETFs “typically are unsuitable for retail investors.”
The most widely traded leveraged ETFs are managed by Direxion Funds, ProShares, and Rydex. Because these funds are “leveraged,” they are designed to provide market returns that significantly exceed market indices. For example, the Rydex Inverse Dow 2x Strategy Fund “seeks to provide investment results that inversely correspond to 200% of the daily performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.” (from Rydex Funds’ website.*) Therefore, if the Dow Jones Industrial Average increases by 10%, this fund is designed to lose 20%. Conversely, if the DJIA declines by 10%, this fund is designed to gain 20%. Another example is the Direxion S&P 500 Bull 2.5x Fund, which is designed to provide “daily investment results, before fees and expenses, of 250% of the price performance of the S&P 500 Index.” (from the Direxion Funds’ website.*) Therefore, if the S&P 500 Index declines by 10%, this fund is designed to lose 25%. What most investors are not told is that these funds are designed to produce the stated returns on a daily basis. Therefore, these funds are not designed to be bought and held.
The truth is that leveraged ETFs are unsuitable for retail investors because of their level of risk. As stated on Investopedia.com, a leveraged ETF is “an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that utilizes financial derivatives and debt to amplify the returns of an underlying index.” The fund essentially borrows money and combines this money with investors’ money to purchase derivatives such as options, futures, or swaps. Because of the use of debt and derivatives, these ETFs carry a significant amount of risk. These funds also generally charge higher expenses to shareholders, which results in reduced returns (or increased losses if the market goes against the investment objective of the fund).
From January 2, 2008 through March 6, 2009, the S&P 500 Index declined from 1,447.16 to 683.38. This represents a loss of 52.8% during a 14-month period. As you can imagine, leveraged ETFs that were focused on growth (bullish funds) suffered tremendous declines during this period.
If your financial advisor or stockbroker sold you funds that are managed by Direxion, ProShares, or Rydex and you suffered losses, you may have a claim for recovery of those losses. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.
* This blog intentionally refuses to link to the websites of companies that manage and sell leveraged ETFs because of the riskiness of these funds. If you would like to learn more about these funds, use Google to search for the information. If your adviser has recommended these funds to you, get a new adviser or at least a second opinion.
On July 21, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Morgan Keegan & Company. In its Complaint, the SEC seeks an injunction for violation of the federal securities laws, as well as equitable relief for Morgan Keegan investors. Included in this equitable relief is a request for a court order requiring Morgan Keegan to repurchase illiquid ARS from its customers. More about the SEC’s case, including a link to the Commission’s Litigation Release and Complaint can be found here.
The SEC’s Complaint alleges that Morgan Keegan misled thousands of investors about the liquidity risks related to auction rate securities (ARS). This is another example of the massive fraud related to Auction Rate Securities that was perpetrated by financial services firms across the country. To date, several firms, including UBS, Wachovia, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, and Stifel Nicolaus have entered into settlements with federal and/or state securities regulators. Some of these settlements have broader relief for investors, while others have left many investors still holding onto these illiquid investments.
If you were sold Auction Rate Securities and your positions have not been redeemed or repurchased, you should contact an attorney to discuss your rights. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration and litigation. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Filed under Auction Rate Securities, Investment Fraud, Investments, Investor Education, Retirement Scams, Securities Fraud, Securities Litigation, Securities Regulation, Stockbroker and Financial Adviser Misconduct
Tags:Auction Rate Securities, Investment Fraud, Morgan Keegan, Securities Fraud
This morning, U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin sentenced Bernard Madoff to the maximum sentence of 150 years of prison for his role in a “historic” multi-billion dollar fraud.
Judge Chin stated “Here the message must be sent that Mr. Madoff’s crimes were extraordinarily evil and that this kind of manipulation of the system is not just a bloodless crime that takes place on paper, but one instead that takes a staggering toll.”
Mr. Madoff’s “error of judgment” or “tragic mistake” (as he referred to his fraud) devastated the lives of thousands of people. While it is unlikely that Mr. Madoff’s former clients will receive any significant restitution, it is comforting to see that he was not able to buy leniency and that the maximum sentence was ordered.
xrvdt9s5j8
In a recent article published on Law.com, Sarah S. Gold and Richard L. Spinogatti conduct a thorough analysis of the issues in In re Merck & Co. Secs. Deriv. & ERISA Litig.., a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in In re Merck to resolve when an investor is on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim for purposes of determining when the statute of limitaions begins to run..
The authors note that in In re Merck, the Third Circuit held that “an investor is not on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim until the investor has knowledge of a possible fraud, including scienter.” The authors also note that the Ninth Circuit recently came to a similar conclusion in Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., for which a certiorari petition is currently pending.
The article is a good read for anyone interested in securities fraud litigation.
On June 10, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Matthew Weitzman, a New York investment adviser, with defrauding his clients out of $6 million. According to the SEC’s Litigation Release (No. 21078), some of these clients were terminally ill or mentally impaired.
The SEC filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Litigation Release also states that:
The SEC alleges that Matthew D. Weitzman sold securities in clients’ brokerage accounts and illegally funneled their money to a bank account that he secretly controlled. While Weitzman spent the money on a multi-million dollar home, cars, and other luxury items, he provided false account statements to clients often showing inflated account balances and securities holdings. Weitzman also submitted to a broker-dealer phony letters from clients that purported to authorize the money transfers. When clients questioned Weitzman about the transfers they did not authorize, he misrepresented that he was withdrawing their funds to make legitimate investments.
Mr. Weitzman is the co-founder and a principal of AFW Wealth Advisors, which is an alternative name for AFW Asset Management, Inc., a registered investment advisor located in Puchase, New York. According to the SEC’s release, Mr. Weitzman was also the Compliance Officer for AFW.
This is another example in a long line of instances just this year where an investment adviser has been alleged to have abused the trust and confidence placed in them by their clients. Fortunately, securities regulators are taking a more active role in finding, investigating, and, where appropriate, prosecuting offenders. Unfortunately, clients are suffering millions, if not billions of dollars in losses.
The Kueser Law Firm represents investors that have been the victims of securities fraud, investment fraud, as well as other forms of stockbroker and financial adviser misconduct. In addition, the firm represents consumers that have been defrauded. If you would like to contact the firm for a free consultation, please call 816.374.5865 or visit our website, www.jmkesquire.com, for more information.
The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) has announced that it has committed more than $61 million to victims of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The SIPC has mailed letters to 125 claimants in the SIPA liquidation proceedings. In total, there have been 8,848 customer claims filed.
The SIPC has also announced that it anticipates it will have more than $100 million by Memorial Day. The news release also stated the following recent developments:
- Identification and recovery to date of a total of $1 billion in Madoff-related assets. Related proceeds will be available as “customer property” to make payments to eligible BLMIS customers.
- The filing of lawsuits to recover $10.1 billion in fictitious profits paid out by BLMIS. These funds also would be made available as customer property in order to satisfy valid BLMIS customer claims. That total includes lawsuits filed this week naming various trust funds and partnerships run by investor Jeffry M. Picower and the Harley International hedge fund.
- Expansion of the SIPC Fund. SIPC is committed to advancing funds immediately upon the trustee’s request. Harbeck assured claimants that SIPC will have sufficient funds to carry out this mission. The SIPC Board of Directors has authorized the reinstitution of revenue-based assessments on members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; and
- The creation of a “hardship case” process. Instituted in recent days by the Trustee, this process is intended to expedite the handling of claims from individuals in financial or other distress.
Darren Barbee of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has written a good article that outlines various ways investors can reduce the risk of being defrauded by a financial or investment adviser.
This is a “must read” article that anyone who is dealing with an investment adviser. In addition, The Kueser Law Firm’s website contains an Investor Resource Center that provides helpful links to several sources that investors can utilize to do a background check on their financial or investment adviser (Investment Adviser Public Disclosure) and stock broker (BrokerCheck), as well as insurance agents that are registered to sell variable insurance products (BrokerCheck). In these uncertain times, it is imperative that investors know everything they can about the professionals they entrust with their future.
Earlier today, it was reported through several media outlets (i.e., Reuters, FT.com, CNBC.com) that the federal government pressured Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch in late 2008.
To make matters worse, it appears that the government’s threats may have occurred after Bank of America realized that Merrill Lynch was not a good acquisition. Based upon the reports, Bank of America’s CEO Ken “Lewis testified in February that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke threatened to oust Bank of America’s management if the bank tried to back out of buying Merrill Lynch.” Lewis also testified that Paulson wanted to avoid calamity in the financial markets.
This is a great example of company officers breaching their fiduciary duties to shareholders. Despite the fact that it appears Bank of America recognized that Merrill Lynch’s losses were significantly greater than originally expected (and continuing to grow), the officers chose job security over shareholders’ interests.
Bank of America announced its planned acquisition of Merrill Lynch on September 15, 2008. That day, the price of Bank of America stock closed at $26.55 per share ($25.89 adjusted for subsequent dividend payments). Today, Bank of America stock closed at $8.82 per share. This represents a loss of $17.07 (after dividends), or approximately 66% following the announcement. This equates to more than $100 billion in lost market value. Unfortunately, Bank of America’s officers (and the federal government) chose to make Bank of America’s shareholders shoulder the responsibility for avoiding disaster in the financial markets. Compounding matters, the government then forced taxpayers to shoulder the costs of TARP, including payments of at least $45 billion to Bank of America.
« Newer Posts —
Older Posts »
