Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC was censured and fined $275,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems related to municipal advisor registration requirements.

The firm had hundreds of municipal entity customers who transacted in both municipal and non-municip...

Read More

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC was censured and fined $275,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems related to municipal advisor registration requirements.

The firm had hundreds of municipal entity customers who transacted in both municipal and non-municipal securities in their accounts. However, the firm was not registered as a municipal advisor. While the firm's procedures prohibited associated persons from advising municipal entities about investing proceeds from municipal securities issuances, the firm did not provide guidance about what constituted such advice or what other activities might require municipal advisor registration.

Critically, the firm had no process for identifying whether deposits in municipal entities' accounts came from municipal securities issuances. There were no controls to detect or prevent associated persons from providing advice about investing such proceeds.

The firm relied on provisions in client account agreements and year-end statement disclosures to help ensure municipal entities were not depositing municipal securities proceeds, but these provisions were not prominent. The firm did not otherwise take reasonable steps to ensure its services did not constitute municipal advisory activity.

Municipal advisor registration requirements were created to protect municipal entities, which include state and local governments, pension funds, and other public entities. These requirements ensure that those advising on the investment of public funds meet specific standards and have fiduciary obligations.

The firm has since modified its supervisory system and procedures relating to municipal advisory activity.

For investors and municipal entities, this case demonstrates the importance of understanding when financial services firms are subject to municipal advisor regulations. Municipal entities should verify that any firm providing investment advice on proceeds from bond issuances is properly registered.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stephens Inc. was censured and fined $90,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems for political contributions by its Municipal Finance Professionals (MFPs).

MSRB Rule G-37(b) restricts political contributions by municipal securities firms and their MFPs to pre...

Read More

According to FINRA, Stephens Inc. was censured and fined $90,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems for political contributions by its Municipal Finance Professionals (MFPs).

MSRB Rule G-37(b) restricts political contributions by municipal securities firms and their MFPs to prevent pay-to-play practices. The rule generally prohibits firms from engaging in municipal securities business with issuers for two years after certain political contributions are made.

While Stephens had procedures for determining whether contribution recipients were issuer officials, the firm employed a different, undocumented process for contributions to state-level candidates. For these contributions, the firm outsourced the determination to a third party who was supposed to obtain signed certifications from candidates confirming they were not issuer officials before contributions were delivered.

However, the firm had no system to verify that the third party actually obtained these certifications before delivering contributions. In some instances, the third party delivered contributions without first receiving signed certifications, including one contribution to an issuer official that exceeded the de minimis exception under Rule G-37.

This created risk that the firm could engage in municipal securities business in violation of the rule's prohibition period.

The firm has since terminated its relationship with the third party and now requires its legal department to review and pre-approve all MFP political contributions.

For investors and municipal issuers, this case highlights the regulatory framework designed to prevent pay-to-play in municipal finance. Political contribution rules help ensure that municipal bond underwriting and other services are awarded based on merit rather than political connections.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated was censured and fined $175,000 for publishing inaccurate and incomplete Rule 606 reports and failing to maintain adequate supervisory procedures.

Rule 606 of Regulation NMS requires broker-dealers to publish quarterly reports disclosin...

Read More

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated was censured and fined $175,000 for publishing inaccurate and incomplete Rule 606 reports and failing to maintain adequate supervisory procedures.

Rule 606 of Regulation NMS requires broker-dealers to publish quarterly reports disclosing how they handle customer orders, including information about payment for order flow, profit-sharing relationships, transaction fees, and rebates. These disclosures help investors understand potential conflicts of interest in order routing.

Stifel published 16 inaccurate or incomplete Rule 606 reports. The reports contained inaccurate information about the net aggregate amount of payment for order flow, profit-sharing payments, transaction fees, and rebates. Additionally, 11 quarterly reports misidentified three broker-dealers as execution venues when they did not qualify as such for Rule 606 purposes.

The firm retained a third-party vendor to prepare its Rule 606 reports but had no procedures to verify that the data provided to the vendor was complete and accurate. The firm also had no supervisory system requiring review of the material aspects disclosures before reports were published, and no procedures requiring post-publication review.

The firm has since updated its supervisory system to establish reviews of information provided to the vendor and published in reports.

For investors, Rule 606 reports provide important transparency about how your broker routes your orders. Payment for order flow and other financial arrangements can create incentives that may not align with getting you the best execution. Understanding these reports helps investors make informed decisions about where to direct their business.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Interactive Brokers LLC was censured and fined $650,000 for failing to exercise reasonable due diligence when approving self-directed customers to trade options.

The firm used a primarily automated process to approve or disapprove options trading requests. When customers did n...

Read More

According to FINRA, Interactive Brokers LLC was censured and fined $650,000 for failing to exercise reasonable due diligence when approving self-directed customers to trade options.

The firm used a primarily automated process to approve or disapprove options trading requests. When customers did not meet eligibility criteria, the system initially displayed error messages that revealed the specific criteria needed to qualify. The firm later changed the messaging but still indicated which category of eligibility criteria customers did not meet.

Crucially, the firm allowed customers to change their account profile information without restriction on frequency. When customers updated their profiles, the firm did not compare the new information to previously submitted data. This meant the firm failed to detect instances where customers submitted inconsistent information about their options trading experience.

The firm approved certain customers for options trading despite red flags indicating options trading may not have been appropriate for them.

Additionally, the firm failed to keep required records of options trading disapprovals. When customers received pop-up screens or error messages denying their options applications, the firm did not preserve records of these disapprovals or when they occurred.

The firm has since begun implementing a process to retain records of all disapprovals.

For investors, this case highlights the importance of options trading approvals. Options are complex instruments that can result in significant losses. Broker-dealers are required to exercise due diligence in determining customer suitability for options. When approval systems can be gamed by simply changing profile information, investors may gain access to products unsuitable for their experience level and risk tolerance.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Navian Capital Securities LLC was censured and fined $40,000 for numerous violations related to TRACE reporting of corporate debt securities transactions.

TRACE (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine) is FINRA's system for reporting over-the-counter transactions in fixed incom...

Read More

According to FINRA, Navian Capital Securities LLC was censured and fined $40,000 for numerous violations related to TRACE reporting of corporate debt securities transactions.

TRACE (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine) is FINRA's system for reporting over-the-counter transactions in fixed income securities. Accurate and timely reporting promotes market transparency and helps regulators monitor trading activity.

The firm failed to timely report approximately 1,200 transactions to TRACE, mostly due to human error. The firm also misapplied the List or Fixed Offering Price Transaction indicator in 179 transactions and reported 586 transactions with inaccurate execution times. One transaction had an inaccurate price, one had an incorrect execution date, and one had an incorrect contra-party identifier.

Furthermore, the firm reported 30 duplicate transactions and failed to report 57 transactions entirely. Many issues arose from incorrectly amending market indicators, miscommunications with third parties, and re-reporting trades without canceling original reports.

The firm's supervisory procedures were inadequate, only prescribing review of unmatched trades rather than addressing timely and accurate reporting. Although FINRA sent communications flagging reporting issues, the firm did not fully remediate problems in a reasonable timeframe.

The firm has since made improvements to its supervisory system and TRACE reporting processes.

For investors, TRACE reporting requirements exist to create transparency in the bond market. When firms report inaccurately or late, it undermines the ability of regulators and market participants to monitor trading activity and ensure fair pricing. This case demonstrates the importance of robust compliance systems for trade reporting.

Show Less

According to FINRA, T3 Trading Group, LLC was censured and fined $175,000 for failing to publish required quarterly reports about its handling of customer orders in National Market System (NMS) securities.

Rule 606(a) of Regulation NMS requires broker-dealers to publish quarterly reports disclosi...

Read More

According to FINRA, T3 Trading Group, LLC was censured and fined $175,000 for failing to publish required quarterly reports about its handling of customer orders in National Market System (NMS) securities.

Rule 606(a) of Regulation NMS requires broker-dealers to publish quarterly reports disclosing information about how they route customer orders, including routing percentages, execution venues, payment-for-order-flow calculations, and material aspects of relationships with execution venues.

T3 Trading Group failed to publish any such reports from April 2020 to July 2021, a period of over a year. Subsequently, from July 2021 through April 2025, the firm published quarterly reports that contained none or very little of the required information.

The firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 606(a).

These disclosure requirements are fundamental to market transparency. Rule 606 reports help investors understand potential conflicts of interest in how their orders are routed and executed. Payment for order flow arrangements, for example, may create incentives for brokers to route orders to venues that pay the highest rebates rather than venues offering the best execution quality.

For investors, this case serves as a reminder to review your broker's Rule 606 reports, which should be publicly available on the firm's website. These reports provide insight into how your orders are handled and whether your broker may have conflicts of interest that could affect execution quality.

Show Less

According to FINRA, U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. was censured and fined $500,000 for failing to timely file 42 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and for inadequate anti-money laundering policies.

The violation occurred because the firm incorrectly applied a $25,000 monetary threshold for SAR f...

Read More

According to FINRA, U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. was censured and fined $500,000 for failing to timely file 42 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and for inadequate anti-money laundering policies.

The violation occurred because the firm incorrectly applied a $25,000 monetary threshold for SAR filings, which is the threshold applicable to banks. Broker-dealers, however, are subject to a lower $5,000 threshold. This error meant that suspicious activity falling between $5,000 and $25,000 went unreported.

The unreported suspicious activity included account intrusions, identity theft, and internet scams, all serious concerns that could indicate customer harm or criminal activity.

The firm discovered the error after reviewing a similar FINRA enforcement action against a different company. To its credit, the firm took prompt remedial action, including conducting a six-year lookback review, retroactively filing the 42 identified SARs, amending written procedures to clarify the correct threshold, providing additional training to relevant personnel, and self-reporting to FINRA.

Despite these remedial efforts, the fine reflects the seriousness of SAR reporting obligations. Suspicious Activity Reports are a critical tool in combating money laundering, fraud, and other financial crimes. When broker-dealers fail to file timely SARs, it hampers law enforcement's ability to detect and investigate criminal activity.

For investors, this case highlights the importance of anti-money laundering programs at broker-dealers. These programs exist not only to comply with regulations but also to protect customers from fraud and other criminal schemes. Firms with robust AML programs are better positioned to detect suspicious activity that might indicate your account has been compromised.

Show Less

According to FINRA, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC was censured and fined $150,000 for failing to maintain supervisory systems reasonably designed to ensure preliminary IPO prospectuses were delivered to institutional customers.

Securities regulations require that customers expected to receive IPO al...

Read More

According to FINRA, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC was censured and fined $150,000 for failing to maintain supervisory systems reasonably designed to ensure preliminary IPO prospectuses were delivered to institutional customers.

Securities regulations require that customers expected to receive IPO allocations be provided with a preliminary prospectus at least 48 hours before the firm sends confirmations of sale. This requirement ensures investors have adequate time to review material information about the offering before committing to purchase.

While J.P. Morgan's written supervisory procedures required delivery of preliminary prospectuses, the supervisory system was not reasonably designed to verify that delivery actually occurred. The system did not provide for review or processes to determine whether prospectuses had been successfully delivered. Available information showing failed deliveries was not reviewed by the firm.

The firm only reviewed electronic consent and email address verification for a sample of three IPOs per quarter, meaning most IPOs received no supervisory review concerning prospectus delivery. Additionally, when customers declined electronic consent, the firm failed to add them to a list for receiving hard copy prospectuses by mail as required by its own procedures.

The firm self-identified certain deficiencies and took remedial actions to correct them.

For investors, preliminary prospectuses contain crucial information about an offering, including risk factors, financial information, and details about how proceeds will be used. The 48-hour delivery requirement exists to ensure you have time to make an informed investment decision. If you participate in IPOs, verify that you receive and review the preliminary prospectus before committing to purchase.

Show Less

According to FINRA, PFS Investments Inc. was censured and ordered to pay $710,738.55, plus interest, in restitution to customers who were overcharged on mutual fund purchases.

The case involved the firm's failure to properly supervise application of rights of reinstatement benefits offered by mut...

Read More

According to FINRA, PFS Investments Inc. was censured and ordered to pay $710,738.55, plus interest, in restitution to customers who were overcharged on mutual fund purchases.

The case involved the firm's failure to properly supervise application of rights of reinstatement benefits offered by mutual fund companies. Rights of reinstatement allow investors who redeem mutual fund shares to reinvest in the same fund within a specified period without paying new sales charges.

PFS Investments, whose customers transact directly with mutual fund issuers, relied entirely on individual registered representatives and customers to manually identify when reinstatement discounts applied. The firm had no automated surveillance designed to flag instances where customers missed discounts for which they were eligible.

As a result, customers paid $710,738.55 in excess sales charges and fees that should have been waived under the mutual funds' rights of reinstatement provisions.

This case highlights an important investor protection issue. Mutual funds offer various breakpoints, waivers, and discounts that can significantly reduce the cost of investing. However, these benefits are often not automatically applied and require the broker-dealer to properly identify when customers qualify.

Investors should be aware of their rights under mutual fund prospectuses, including rights of reinstatement, breakpoint discounts for larger investments, rights of accumulation, and letter of intent provisions. Ask your financial advisor about these benefits and review your statements to ensure applicable discounts are being applied.

If you believe you may have been overcharged on mutual fund purchases, you may be entitled to restitution.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Nathaniel Edwin Mogollan was barred from association with any FINRA member firm in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA requested Mogollan's testimony in connection with an investigation that originated from a tip submitted to the regulator....

Read More

According to FINRA, Nathaniel Edwin Mogollan was barred from association with any FINRA member firm in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA requested Mogollan's testimony in connection with an investigation that originated from a tip submitted to the regulator. Without admitting or denying the findings, Mogollan consented to the bar.

When FINRA conducts investigations into potential securities law violations, it has the authority to require registered persons to provide testimony. This authority is essential to FINRA's ability to protect investors and maintain market integrity. Registered persons agree to cooperate with FINRA investigations as a condition of their registration.

Refusing to testify is treated as a serious violation because it prevents FINRA from fully investigating potential misconduct. A bar from the securities industry is the standard sanction for failing to provide requested testimony.

For investors, this case illustrates that FINRA takes its investigative authority seriously. When registered representatives refuse to cooperate with investigations, they face permanent exclusion from the industry. However, investors should note that the underlying allegations that prompted the investigation were never adjudicated due to Mogollan's refusal to testify. The tip that initiated the investigation remains unresolved.

If you had dealings with Mogollan and have concerns about your accounts or transactions, you may wish to consult with a securities attorney about your options.

Show Less