Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, NewEdge Securities, Inc., formerly known as Mid Atlantic Capital Corporation (CRD #10674), based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was fined $90,000 and ordered to pay $44,927.83 in restitution on March 7, 2024, for charging unfair prices in bond transactions and failing to maintain a...

Read More

According to FINRA, NewEdge Securities, Inc., formerly known as Mid Atlantic Capital Corporation (CRD #10674), based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was fined $90,000 and ordered to pay $44,927.83 in restitution on March 7, 2024, for charging unfair prices in bond transactions and failing to maintain an adequate supervisory system.FINRA found that the firm charged customers unfair prices in corporate and municipal bond transactions. Under FINRA Rule 2121 and MSRB Rule G-30, broker-dealers are required to buy or sell securities at prices that are fair and reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors including the prevailing market price of the security. These fair pricing obligations are fundamental protections for investors, ensuring that firms do not take excessive markups or markdowns that erode investment returns.The investigation revealed that the firm failed to consider appropriate pricing information when executing bond transactions for customers. This means the firm did not adequately reference prevailing market prices, recent comparable transactions, or other relevant pricing benchmarks when determining the prices it charged. As a result, customers paid more than they should have when buying bonds or received less than they should have when selling them.Compounding the pricing violations, FINRA found that NewEdge Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure compliance with fair pricing obligations. Effective supervision is the first line of defense against pricing abuses, and firms are required under FINRA Rules 3110 and 3120 to implement written supervisory procedures that address fair pricing reviews. Without proper supervisory systems, unfair pricing practices can go undetected and uncorrected, resulting in ongoing harm to customers.The $90,000 fine and nearly $45,000 in restitution ordered in this case reflect both the pricing violations and the supervisory failures that allowed them to occur. The restitution is designed to make harmed customers whole by returning the excess amounts they were charged.This case offers important lessons for bond investors. Unlike stocks, which trade on exchanges with readily visible prices, bonds often trade in less transparent over-the-counter markets. This makes it harder for individual investors to determine whether they are receiving fair prices. Investors should compare prices across multiple dealers when possible, review trade confirmations carefully, and be aware that both the purchase price and the sale price of a bond can be affected by markups and markdowns. Firms have a clear obligation to price bonds fairly, and FINRA actively monitors and enforces these requirements to protect investors in the fixed-income markets. (FINRA Case #2021070609301)

Show Less

According to FINRA, GTS Securities LLC (CRD #149224), based in New York, New York, was fined a total of $100,000 on March 13, 2024, with $50,000 payable to FINRA, for failing to maintain reasonable risk management controls and for routing erroneous orders generated by its trading algorithms.FINRA's ...

Read More

According to FINRA, GTS Securities LLC (CRD #149224), based in New York, New York, was fined a total of $100,000 on March 13, 2024, with $50,000 payable to FINRA, for failing to maintain reasonable risk management controls and for routing erroneous orders generated by its trading algorithms.FINRA's investigation found that the firm routed erroneous orders that were generated by its trading algorithms. In a particularly concerning finding, the firm manually disabled a price band risk control — a safeguard specifically designed to prevent orders at prices significantly away from the prevailing market from being routed for execution. With this critical risk control disabled, 348 orders received partial or full execution, representing over $1.5 million in notional value. These erroneous executions had the potential to disrupt orderly markets and cause financial harm.The firm was found in violation of its obligation to establish, document, and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of its market access business. Under SEC Rule 15c3-5, commonly known as the Market Access Rule, broker-dealers with market access must implement risk controls that are reasonably designed to prevent the entry of erroneous orders, prevent orders that exceed appropriate pre-set credit or capital thresholds, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.The deliberate disabling of a price band risk control is especially noteworthy. Risk controls exist precisely for situations where automated systems may malfunction or produce unintended results. When a firm manually overrides these safeguards, it removes a critical layer of protection not only for itself but for the broader market. Algorithmic trading can generate orders at extremely high speeds, and without proper controls, a single malfunction can result in significant market disruption and financial losses.The $100,000 fine signals that regulators take risk management failures seriously, particularly when firms actively circumvent their own protective measures. In today's highly automated trading environment, the integrity of risk controls is essential to market stability.Investors should be aware that the firms executing their orders are required to maintain robust risk management systems. When these systems fail or are intentionally bypassed, the consequences can include erroneous executions that may affect market prices and investor portfolios. This case underscores the importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring that trading firms maintain the technological safeguards necessary to protect market integrity and investor interests in an era of increasingly complex algorithmic trading strategies. (FINRA Case #2019064352201)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Osaic Wealth, Inc., formerly known as Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (CRD #23131), based in Jersey City, New Jersey, was fined $150,000 on March 14, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer records and information in complianc...

Read More

According to FINRA, Osaic Wealth, Inc., formerly known as Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (CRD #23131), based in Jersey City, New Jersey, was fined $150,000 on March 14, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer records and information in compliance with the Safeguards Rule.FINRA found that Osaic Wealth failed to implement adequate cybersecurity protections across its branch office network. The firm allowed individual branch offices to develop their own security controls without firm-level oversight or standardization. This decentralized approach created significant vulnerabilities, as individual branches may lack the expertise, resources, or awareness needed to implement effective cybersecurity measures.Among the specific deficiencies identified, the firm did not require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for accessing systems containing customer information until March 2023. MFA is widely regarded as one of the most basic and effective cybersecurity measures available, adding a critical second layer of protection beyond passwords alone. The firm also failed to require email encryption, leaving sensitive customer communications vulnerable to interception. Additionally, the firm did not maintain email access logs, which are essential for detecting unauthorized access to customer accounts and investigating potential breaches.As a direct consequence of these cybersecurity failures, the firm experienced numerous cyber intrusions. These intrusions potentially exposed sensitive customer information, including personal and financial data, to unauthorized parties. The Safeguards Rule, derived from SEC Regulation S-P, requires broker-dealers to adopt written policies and procedures that address administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of customer records and information.The $150,000 fine reflects the seriousness of the firm's failure to protect customer data. In an era of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, firms have a heightened obligation to implement robust security measures and to ensure consistent application of those measures across all offices and platforms.This case carries important lessons for investors. Customers entrust broker-dealers with highly sensitive personal and financial information, and they have a right to expect that this information will be protected with reasonable security measures. Investors should ask their financial firms about the security measures in place to protect their data, including whether MFA is required and whether communications are encrypted. If investors receive notifications of data breaches from their financial firms, they should take immediate steps to monitor their accounts and credit reports for signs of unauthorized activity. Cybersecurity is no longer optional in the financial services industry — it is a regulatory obligation and a fundamental component of investor protection. (FINRA Case #2021071722201)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Securities America, Inc. (CRD #10205), based in La Vista, Nebraska, was fined $150,000 on March 14, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer records and information in compliance with the Safeguards Rule. This action was part o...

Read More

According to FINRA, Securities America, Inc. (CRD #10205), based in La Vista, Nebraska, was fined $150,000 on March 14, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer records and information in compliance with the Safeguards Rule. This action was part of a joint case that also included Osaic Wealth, Inc.FINRA's investigation found that Securities America, like its co-respondent, failed to implement adequate cybersecurity protections to safeguard the sensitive personal and financial information of its customers. The firm allowed branch offices to develop their own security controls without sufficient firm-level oversight, creating an inconsistent and inadequate patchwork of cybersecurity measures across the organization.Specifically, FINRA found that Securities America did not require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for accessing systems that contained customer information until March 2023. Multi-factor authentication is considered a baseline cybersecurity measure by industry standards and regulatory guidance, requiring users to verify their identity through multiple methods before gaining access to sensitive systems. The firm also failed to require email encryption, which left customer communications susceptible to interception by unauthorized parties. Furthermore, the firm did not maintain email access logs, undermining its ability to detect and investigate unauthorized access to customer information.These cybersecurity deficiencies were not merely theoretical risks. FINRA noted that the firm experienced numerous cyber intrusions as a result of its inadequate safeguards. Each intrusion represented a potential exposure of customer data, including names, account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other sensitive information that could be exploited for identity theft or financial fraud.The Safeguards Rule requires broker-dealers to implement written policies and procedures that provide for administrative, technical, and physical safeguards designed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of customer records and information. Securities America's failure to meet these requirements across its branch network constituted a violation of its supervisory obligations under FINRA rules.Investors can draw several important lessons from this case. The protection of personal data is a fundamental obligation of financial firms, not a discretionary practice. Customers should proactively inquire about the cybersecurity measures their broker-dealer employs, including whether multi-factor authentication is mandatory and whether sensitive communications are encrypted. Investors should also regularly review their account statements for any unauthorized transactions and promptly report suspicious activity. In an increasingly digital financial landscape, robust cybersecurity practices are essential to maintaining trust between investors and the firms that serve them. (FINRA Case #2021071722201)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (CRD #793), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $400,000 and ordered to pay $59,360.43 in restitution on March 15, 2024, for failing to supervise the transmittal of customer funds and failing to detect red flags of unsuitable trading a...

Read More

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (CRD #793), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $400,000 and ordered to pay $59,360.43 in restitution on March 15, 2024, for failing to supervise the transmittal of customer funds and failing to detect red flags of unsuitable trading activity.FINRA's investigation uncovered serious supervisory failures that allowed a registered representative to exploit a position of trust. The firm failed to adequately supervise the transmittal of customer funds in situations where the representative held power of attorney (POA) authority over customer accounts. This lack of oversight enabled the representative to convert at least $105,000 from a senior customer — effectively stealing funds from a vulnerable client who had entrusted the representative with authority over their financial affairs.The conversion of customer funds is among the most egregious forms of misconduct in the securities industry. When a representative holds POA authority, additional safeguards are essential to prevent abuse. Firms are expected to implement heightened supervision over accounts where representatives have such authority, including independent reviews of fund movements and regular verification with the account holder.In a separate but related finding, FINRA found that the firm failed to follow up on red flags indicating unsuitable options trading in another customer's account. The customer, a 64-year-old retired schoolteacher, lost approximately 80 percent of her account value due to unsuitable options trading. FINRA noted that more than 10 automated surveillance alerts were generated by the trading activity in this account, yet the firm failed to adequately investigate these warnings. Each alert represented an opportunity for the firm to intervene and protect the customer, but the firm's supervisory personnel did not take the steps necessary to address the concerning pattern.The combined $400,000 fine and nearly $60,000 in restitution reflect the severity of the firm's supervisory lapses, which resulted in direct financial harm to vulnerable customers. The case demonstrates that firms will be held accountable not only for the misconduct of their representatives but also for their own failure to detect and prevent that misconduct through adequate supervision.Investors, particularly senior investors, should be cautious when granting power of attorney over their accounts and should regularly review account statements for unauthorized transactions. Any unusual fund movements should be promptly questioned. Investors should also be aware that aggressive trading strategies, such as options trading, may not be suitable for conservative or retired investors, and they have the right to question any trading activity that does not align with their stated objectives. (FINRA Case #2019062348302)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Tourmaline Partners, LLC (CRD #154492), based in Stamford, Connecticut, was fined $75,000 on March 22, 2024, for failing to maintain accurate order memoranda and for related supervisory failures in connection with options order processing.FINRA's investigation found that Tourmali...

Read More

According to FINRA, Tourmaline Partners, LLC (CRD #154492), based in Stamford, Connecticut, was fined $75,000 on March 22, 2024, for failing to maintain accurate order memoranda and for related supervisory failures in connection with options order processing.FINRA's investigation found that Tourmaline Partners failed to record accurate order receipt and transmission times on approximately 30 percent of its order memoranda for options orders. Under FINRA Rule 4515 and related regulations, broker-dealers are required to maintain records that accurately reflect the time an order is received and the time it is transmitted for execution. These timestamps are critical for regulatory oversight, as they allow FINRA and other regulators to reconstruct trading activity, detect potential market manipulation, and ensure that firms are handling customer orders in a timely and fair manner.An error rate of 30 percent represents a substantial and systemic failure in the firm's order documentation practices. Inaccurate timestamps can obscure the true sequence of events in order handling, making it difficult for regulators to determine whether orders were executed promptly, whether any orders were improperly prioritized, or whether trading ahead of customer orders occurred. Even in the absence of intentional misconduct, inaccurate order records undermine the transparency and integrity of the markets.Compounding this issue, FINRA found that the firm also failed to supervise the accuracy of order times recorded on its order memoranda. Under FINRA Rule 3110, firms are required to establish and maintain supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable rules. By failing to implement adequate procedures to verify the accuracy of order timestamps, the firm allowed widespread inaccuracies to persist without detection or correction.The $75,000 fine reflects FINRA's view that accurate recordkeeping and effective supervision are essential obligations that firms cannot neglect. These requirements are not mere administrative formalities — they form the foundation of the regulatory framework that protects investors and maintains market integrity.Investors should understand that the timing of order execution matters. When a firm fails to maintain accurate records of when orders are received and transmitted, it becomes more difficult to ensure that customers are receiving the best available prices and that their orders are being handled with the care and diligence required by law. This case highlights the importance of regulatory enforcement in holding firms accountable for maintaining the infrastructure of accurate recordkeeping that supports fair and efficient markets. (FINRA Case #2021069333101)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stifel Independent Advisors, LLC, formerly known as Century Securities Associates, Inc. (CRD #28218), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $80,000 and ordered to pay $100,095.63 in restitution on March 25, 2024, for failing to supervise the suitability of non-traditional excha...

Read More

According to FINRA, Stifel Independent Advisors, LLC, formerly known as Century Securities Associates, Inc. (CRD #28218), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $80,000 and ordered to pay $100,095.63 in restitution on March 25, 2024, for failing to supervise the suitability of non-traditional exchange-traded products (NT-ETPs) recommended to customers.Non-traditional ETPs, including leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds, are complex financial products designed to achieve specific daily return objectives. Because these products reset daily, holding them for periods longer than one trading day can produce returns that diverge significantly from the underlying index they track. Prospectuses for these products typically warn that they are intended for short-term trading and may not be suitable for investors who plan to hold them for longer periods.FINRA found that the firm's written supervisory procedures (WSPs) failed to adequately address holding periods for non-traditional ETPs. This meant the firm lacked clear guidance for its supervisors and registered representatives regarding the risks of recommending that customers hold these products beyond their intended time horizons. Despite the known risks, representatives at the firm recommended that customers hold NT-ETPs on a long-term basis, beyond the periods described in the products' prospectuses.The supervisory failures were compounded by a troubling decision: the firm deactivated an automated surveillance alert that had been generating more than 2,000 daily hits related to NT-ETP positions. Rather than investigating the root cause of these alerts or refining the alert parameters, the firm chose to turn off the alert entirely. This effectively blinded the firm to one of its primary tools for detecting potentially unsuitable NT-ETP positions.The consequences for customers were significant. FINRA found that 438 daily-reset NT-ETP positions were held for more than seven days, and the resulting customer losses totaled $1,289,937.17. The $100,095.63 restitution order is intended to compensate customers who were specifically harmed by the unsuitable recommendations identified in the investigation.Investors should exercise caution with non-traditional ETPs. These products can be appropriate for sophisticated, short-term trading strategies, but they carry significant risks when held over longer periods. Investors should read prospectuses carefully, understand the daily reset feature, and ensure that any recommendation to hold these products aligns with their investment objectives and risk tolerance. If a broker recommends holding a leveraged or inverse ETP for weeks or months, investors should ask detailed questions about why such a strategy is appropriate for their circumstances. (FINRA Case #2019061350401)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (CRD #793), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $920,000 and ordered to pay $1,189,841.54 in restitution on March 25, 2024, for failing to supervise the suitability of non-traditional exchange-traded products (NT-ETPs) recommended to c...

Read More

According to FINRA, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (CRD #793), based in St. Louis, Missouri, was fined $920,000 and ordered to pay $1,189,841.54 in restitution on March 25, 2024, for failing to supervise the suitability of non-traditional exchange-traded products (NT-ETPs) recommended to customers. This was part of a joint action with Stifel Independent Advisors, LLC.Non-traditional ETPs, which include leveraged, inverse, and inverse-leveraged exchange-traded funds, are complex products that use derivatives and financial engineering to achieve specific daily return targets. Due to their daily reset feature, the performance of these products over periods longer than one day can differ substantially — and sometimes dramatically — from the performance of the underlying index. Product prospectuses explicitly warn that these instruments are designed for short-term trading and are generally unsuitable for buy-and-hold investors.FINRA found that Stifel Nicolaus's written supervisory procedures failed to adequately address holding periods for non-traditional ETPs, leaving supervisors without the framework needed to evaluate whether customers were being placed into unsuitable positions. Despite this gap, the firm's registered representatives recommended that customers hold NT-ETPs on a long-term basis, well beyond the periods described in the products' prospectuses.In a particularly significant finding, FINRA determined that the firm deactivated an automated surveillance alert after it generated more than 2,000 daily hits related to NT-ETP holding periods. Rather than using the alert data to investigate and address potential suitability concerns, the firm simply turned the alert off. This decision removed a critical safeguard designed to detect problematic positions before they resulted in customer harm.The scale of the harm was substantial. FINRA found 438 daily-reset NT-ETP positions held for more than seven days across the Stifel firms, with total customer losses reaching $1,289,937.17. The $920,000 fine imposed on Stifel Nicolaus — significantly larger than the $80,000 fine imposed on Stifel Independent Advisors — reflects the larger share of the violative activity attributable to this firm, along with the $1,189,841.54 restitution order.This case underscores the critical importance of understanding the products in your investment portfolio. Non-traditional ETPs can play a legitimate role in short-term trading strategies, but they require active monitoring and a clear understanding of how daily resets affect longer-term returns. Investors who are told to hold leveraged or inverse ETPs as long-term investments should treat such recommendations with skepticism and seek clarification about the specific risks involved. Firms have a clear obligation to supervise these complex products appropriately, and this enforcement action demonstrates that FINRA will hold firms accountable when they fail in that duty. (FINRA Case #2019061350401)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Palladium Capital Group, LLC (CRD #129400), based in Venice, Florida, was fined $75,000 on March 26, 2024, for failing to implement an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program and for related failures in detecting and reporting suspicious transactions.Anti-money la...

Read More

According to FINRA, Palladium Capital Group, LLC (CRD #129400), based in Venice, Florida, was fined $75,000 on March 26, 2024, for failing to implement an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program and for related failures in detecting and reporting suspicious transactions.Anti-money laundering requirements are among the most critical regulatory obligations for broker-dealers. Under the Bank Secrecy Act and FINRA Rule 3310, firms must establish and implement AML programs that are reasonably designed to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions. These programs serve as a vital line of defense against financial crimes, including money laundering, terrorist financing, and securities fraud.FINRA found that Palladium Capital Group failed to implement its AML compliance program in a manner that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act. Specifically, the firm failed to detect and report suspicious transactions, depriving regulators and law enforcement of information needed to identify and investigate potential financial crimes. The firm also failed to investigate red flags regarding both issuers and investors, meaning that warning signs of potentially illicit activity were overlooked or ignored.In a particularly concerning finding, FINRA determined that the firm failed to detect suspicious trading patterns that suggested possible stock manipulation. Stock manipulation schemes can cause significant harm to ordinary investors who may unknowingly purchase inflated securities, only to suffer losses when the manipulation ends and prices collapse. A firm's AML program is one of the key mechanisms for identifying and disrupting such schemes before they cause widespread harm.Additionally, FINRA found that the firm conducted unreasonably narrow due diligence on private placement offerings. Private placements carry inherent risks because they involve securities that are not registered with the SEC and are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as publicly traded securities. Firms recommending private placements must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure they are not facilitating fraudulent offerings or placing customers in unsuitable investments.Investors should recognize the importance of AML compliance in protecting the integrity of the financial markets. When firms fail to monitor for suspicious activity, they create opportunities for bad actors to exploit the financial system at the expense of honest investors. Investors who participate in private placements should ask their broker-dealer about the due diligence process and be wary of offerings where the firm cannot clearly articulate the steps it has taken to evaluate the legitimacy and risks of the investment. (FINRA Case #2019064878901)

Show Less

According to FINRA, Coughlin & Company, Inc. (CRD #185), based in Denver, Colorado, was fined $40,000 on March 28, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with contingency offering rules and related requirements.Contingency offerings are securiti...

Read More

According to FINRA, Coughlin & Company, Inc. (CRD #185), based in Denver, Colorado, was fined $40,000 on March 28, 2024, for failing to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with contingency offering rules and related requirements.Contingency offerings are securities offerings that require a minimum amount of investor funds to be raised before the offering can close and the issuer can access the funds. These offerings are governed by SEC Rule 15c2-4, which requires that investor funds be promptly deposited into a separate escrow account at an independent bank and held there until the contingency — typically the minimum offering amount — is met. This escrow requirement exists to protect investors by ensuring their money is safeguarded and returnable if the minimum threshold is not reached.FINRA found that Coughlin & Company's supervisory system was not designed to ensure compliance with these important investor protections. The firm had no procedures in place for the establishment and monitoring of escrow accounts, a fundamental requirement for firms participating in contingency offerings. Without escrow procedures, there was no mechanism to ensure that investor funds were being properly segregated and protected.The firm also failed to maintain a system to detect whether the offering minimum had been met, which is the central question in any contingency offering. Without this monitoring capability, the firm could not ensure that offerings were being properly administered in accordance with their stated terms. Additionally, the firm did not designate a principal responsible for supervising contingency offering activities, leaving this important function without clear accountability or oversight.Most troubling, FINRA found that the firm transmitted investor funds directly to the issuer before the contingency was met, in violation of the escrow requirements. This practice placed investor funds at risk because, if the offering minimum was not ultimately reached, the funds might not be available to return to investors as required. The escrow requirement exists precisely to prevent this scenario.Investors participating in contingency offerings should understand that their funds should be held in escrow until the minimum offering amount is raised. Investors should receive documentation indicating where their funds will be held and under what conditions they will be released. If funds are sent directly to an issuer before the offering closes, that is a red flag that the proper protections may not be in place. This case serves as a reminder that even fundamental investor protections require active supervision by firms, and that FINRA will take action when firms fail to implement the systems needed to safeguard investor interests. (FINRA Case #2021071226601)

Show Less