June 17, 2017
[phone number redacted]
ANSWERING THE RFC, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS: (firstname.lastname@example.org)
© Carrie Devorah May Be Re-Printed With Permission Only [redacted]
As comments began to trickle in to the SEC RFC, “Request For Comments” “IA-BD-Conduct-Standards," a few things caught my attention (i) how few comments are submitted.
(ii) of those submitted comments, few address the SEC “Request For Comments.”
I also came across two stories both relevant to the request the SEC has issued.
Full disclosure, 7 years after the SEC requesting me to be a whistleblower on a matter that has hit one summit in 2017, I have become more learned than any Investment Client thought they could be. My piece is lengthy, fact based, documented. And my piece is a step forward in a promise I made to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton in 2013. Eleanor asked me what I wanted to see happen to “FINRA.” I said, “shut down so I will never have to watch one more episode of American Greed showcasing yet another elder, disabled, single mom or other Investment Client who lost their complete life savings because they trusted a faulty system that protects flim flam, not Investment Clients…”
This lengthy detailed piece is a start.
I am well known to the FINRA. I am well known to the SEC. I am Public Investor 12-03894 unable to say more on that. As I say and write, I can talk about FINRA. I can talk about the SEC. And I do. I am not the only Investment Client speaking up. The problem for Investment Clients is the Investment Client is not being listened to. Moreso, the problem is the exponential escalation of crimes against Investment Clients is at a time when assets are shrinking, regulatory and enforcement staff are under-manned. And, illiterate about their own industry.
The law says ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The two stories I want to share are insightful. The first story involves a veteran. The second story involves a veteran of another kind- a Wall Street scam artist veteran better known as Bernard Madoff.
There may be some repetition of details. Be patient. God willing, change is here. Cops I know do not like criminals are being hidden from them. Cops I know are ok letting minor drug infractions go. Cops I know want criminals locked up.
I know cops need to know how to find them. Allow me this, my pitch to “Shark Tank” that only got past the first level of consideration.
“…I am Carrie Devorah, Public Investor 12-03894.
I am from Arlington Virginia. I brought my story to Congress. I told the legislators, “Think Eric Garner “I can’t breathe”. Think Wolf Of Wall Street. Think Madoff.”
Madoff told the truth when he said “They knew.” “They”, did. 1963. Madoff turned himself in 50 years after being disciplined for his first No Product censure. Pled ‘without admitting or denying.’ Wall Street Regulators who knew, reported Madoff to Law Enforcement. Cops never heard of Madoff. Cops knew where to find Eric Garner each and every time after Garner’s first arrest. Garner had to plead “guilty or not guilty.”
The Eric’s, the Freddie Grays go to jail. The Madoffs do not.
This is wrong.
There are 2 differing sets of regulatory rules for Main Street and Wall Street, an injustice to investors, to incarcerated felons.
There is one law.
I saw this hole. I plugged it…” asking the question, “… what the hell is without admitting or denying…”
In the realm of Investor Protection, under the oversight of the Congress to whom the Commission is answerable, I ask, “… what the hell is without admitting or denying…” then continue my writing, starting to answer Brad Pitt’s questionand vow to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton as to ‘why do they not go to jail…’ The rest of the answer is coming in time….
Of the two stories I alluded to, the first story I read is that from Indianapolis newspapers announcing the death of a Korean War Veteran. The second story published in the Atlantic, May 20, 2017, is written by two defense counsel for Bernie Madoff’s associated employees. Both articles affirm the more things change, the more things stay the same, because, as the expression, not everything we are seeing is what it is or what it should be.
Protecting Investment Clients is a ruse used to keep the Wall Street fraud machine ‘rolling.’ The SEC uses that ruse to elicit Legislator favors such as increasing funding. The Commission’s sole approved (ever) S.R.O. FINRA/NASD uses the Investment Client ruse to cover up their dues paying members crimes. The NASAA uses the Investment Client ruse to camouflage their existence, explaining to regulators what Congress says and meant. The list goes on. SIFMA former President RBC’s CEO John Taft testified to Barney Frank 10-6-2009 on Investor Protection while failing to disclose before-after-during his testimony RBC was under a nationwide investigation for RR and CA failures. Investigation began from a tip 11-2008 as the market was closing. That hearing title is “Capital Markets Regulatory Reform: Strengthening Investor Protection, Enhancing Oversight of Private Pools of Capital, and Creating a National Insurance Office.” (http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1126) Witnesses included the Commission sole approved SRO NASD/FINRA CEO Rick Ketchum (Hearing Transcript)
That was not the only investigation in to RBC and consumer protection (https://disb.dc.gov/release/disb-finalizes-settlement-agreement-rbc-capital-markets-corporation); (http://www.dbo.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2013/RBCCapMrkt_ConsentOrder.pdf). There were others (https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-recommend-royal-bank-of-canada-unit-face-criminal-charges-for-complicity-in-tax-fraud-1424970477) including money laundering by opening up accounts in names of existing clients or adopting clients closed accounts (http://presscore.ca/canadian-banks-guilty-of-money-laundering-counterfeiting-fraud-forgery-and-misappropriation-of-depositors-funds) news of which was not given to existing clients to weigh to consider moving their life savings elsewhere; news of which was not given to prospective clients considering moving their life savings to RBC.
California’s DBO Philip Behren said he had no idea how to tell people. Behren is a California State employee. California is the only state whose settled agreement with RBC allowed for people to bring suit on their own. Problem is no one told the investors of the crime, the investigation, the settlement. Most important, no one stopped the statutes from tolling. Investment Clients lost by coverup.
That is what the Commission Congress created has become expert in- covering up crimes so statutes are tolled without telling Judges and lawyers the Commission Congress created approved one only soley SRO, self regulatory organization, that pushes Investment Clients past statutes and away from courts.
To many, the Investment Client in first story, I am sharing, has passed on. To you and me the Korean War Veteran’s name means nothing. To the business world, his name rang success. To the SEC, his name should have rung warnings on the Investment Client’s experience, amber alerting, yellow highlighting, that the Investment Client’s need for this DOL fiduciary is real.
Robert Skinner the Korean War Veteran, the founder of Broadbent Company, died at age 93. Skinner served his country enroute to becoming a magnate. Robert Skinner was a shopping center tycoon. Skinner Robert Skinner’s family “and entities” sued RBC seeking damages of $19.6 million dollars. Skinner’s FINRA award? $3.5 million dollars. https://advisorhub.com/rbc-broker-resigns-firm-settles-customer-3-5-million/?utm_source=Pinpointe+-+All+AdvisorHub+Aficionados%E2%80%93Wires+and+RIAs+active++%28Main+%2B+Active+%2B+Opened%29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6%2F12%2F17+Monday+3%3A00+pm
The second story, is written by two defense counsel of Bernard Madoff employees. Gordo Mehler and Larry Krantz wrote their article responsive to the spate of Madoff biopics, including “The Wizard of Lies”, HBO, and ABCs miniseries, “Madoff.” hitting the screens and alternative media. In their piece “No Movie Could Capture The Crazy Details of Bernie Madoff’s Story,” Mehler and Krantz make their point ‘subtlety- a key ingredient of a successful fraud scheme- doesn’t make for good drama.’
Mehler and Krantz make their comparison to Madoff being a good actor with a talent for lying. Pathalogical, maybe.
But, documented, Bernie told the truth, “they knew.”
I found the document that shows Bernie wasn’t a 100% talented liar, that people were hearing what they were told not knowing that Wall Street has an alternative reality Investment Clients do not know about, industry accepted as being ‘the way things are done’ and lawyers, well, lawyers don’t have much respect for minutia and investigators preferring to laser in on case precedence. For the record, Judges are lawyers, too.
This significant detail on Bernie is what I gave to Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe’s office that allowed Terry to ignore the Virginia Supreme Court decision barring Terry from giving voting rights to Virginia felons who served their time.
206,000 Virginia felons have a step forward in their dignity having served their sentence for crimes that are miniscule to the financial assaults on Investment Clients.
One article I wrote (http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html). One walk through, carefully, slowly of Terry’s legislative aide assigned to the felon issue is what Bernie’s telling the truth did, allowing me to lay out ‘idiot proof’, side by side, same month, same year, there may be one law, except when it comes to Wall Street and Main Street. Investment clients, Main Street, felons go to jail for far less crimes than Wall Street covers up away from law enforcement and cops.
Regulators know. Legislators know.
I personally put my article in to the hands of Jeb Hensarling. I personally told Maxine Waters. Maxine wants to give more money to the SEC. The Commissions one and only approved SRO FINRA/NASD gets a ripple of cash as SEC and FINRA/NASD employees go back and forth for jobs from the Regulatory Agency to the one and only SRO the Commission approved.
Bernie is the ‘one,’ the thief we heard about. There are countless others, many not known because records on criminal acts pre- 1996 are not made public. Investment Clients are unable to know who the good guy or who the bad guy is that they hear about on paid for radio show hours, at free lunches held in local hotels and restaurants as ways to solicit clients, late night TV infomercials, websites, their own PR puff pieces put out to look like ‘news’ created by others than them, faked news on business schools they appear to have graduated from like Whartons but did not, taking interviews of guests on their podcasts then copying and pasting those interviews in to TV and radio low monitored websites drawing a ‘connection’ to the news source, or creating domain names using the Identity of the unsuspecting guest that their identity was stolen or that their interviewer was hustling Investment Clients for their business, booked to appear as ‘experts’ on shows like Larry Kudlow listing the appearances on their website as another blue ribbon of their expertise, or written up in Barron’s Magazine as #1-#5 of Top 100 Women, or Men, financial advisors in 2009 and since. Barron’s bought Winners Circle 2008 (http://www.adweek.com/digital/the-winners-circle-organization-sells-to-barrons/). Barrons, Dow Jones, CNBC are hallmarks Investment Client trust, the alleged Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for the Investment Client world. Barron’s scrutiny of documents Investment Advisors submit is said to be rigorous.
It is not until an Investment Client is pulled in to a Dispute Resolution Forum that Investment Clients begin to learn that was never the case even then never learning the rest of their Investment Advisor, securities broker and securities brokerage story, not learning until it is too later, one more component of this unbalanced stool is the Clearing House who cleared their cash like JP Morgan where Madoff worked out of, the Clearing House, also for Lady Madoff who never had a contractual clearing agreement for the Investment Clients drawn in under another firm’s name.
More than one of Barron’s #1-#5 have been up before the SEC ALJ Courts but, oddly, still not turned over to cops for stealing millions from Investment Clients including disabled, elderly and Veterans. Wealthy or not, they are veterans who served their country being robbed by people these men and women put their lives on the line for.
Nor are the denied complaints, the settled complaints, the arbitrated and the expunged that I wrote about. Madoff did not have a forty year clear history. Nor did his peers, many before him and many since except Wall Street waves its wand making crimes you and I go to jail for, go away. That these two authors, both former federal prosecutors did not know Madoff’s earliest confirmed crime is fifty years back with some, documented since, should scare the hell out of Investment Clients. It does not scare the hell out of the SEC working to keep these criminal incidents covered up.
There is more to this topic I will be writing about off this comment with documentation confirming the Commission Congress created is not about Investor Protection. Aside from ‘feel-good-vote-me-in’ rhetoric, neither is well intentioned Congress. Confirmed.
The secrecy Mehler and Krantz put full weight of on Madoff’s shoulders is not of Madoff’s creation. The cartels and collegian advisors have carved out a system that keeps live crimes and criminals camouflaged even working with the SEC POSITIER Summit (Policy Oriented Stakeholder and Investor Testing for Innovative and Effective Regulation (POSITIER, pronounced “poz-it-teer”) to understand the how of Investment Clients (https://www.sec.gov/page/positier). One only needs to listen to the academics the SEC funds to understand that Investment Client analytics are a tool against Investment Clients who just want to trust in the person, the system their life savings have been handed over to.
There is far more to the game that lawyers don’t take time to learn about. Lawyers don’t always care to know the minutiae that is a case game changer.
1963. Madoff’s crimes were known. A $500 check cut to cover the cost of his fine. Ruth was Bernie’s bookkeeper (http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html.) For Investor Protection, for Madoff Investment Client victim satisfaction, Ruth’s cash she got to keep may be up for clawing back if archived records confirm Ruth was handling Bernie’s books at the time, clawbacks from the deeper pockets, too, as I point out to the SEC and the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD- accessories to crimes- before, during and after the fact.
The evolution and handling of Madoff’s and Lady Madoff’s frauds are how Wall Street business is done and arbitrations are won under the oversight of the SEC. The SEC’s sole job is to effect the laws Congress writes. Congress’ intent, Congress’ Fiduciary is to the Investment client. That has been ignored.
On first blush, affirmed by FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher, the Commission’s sole approved SRO owes its existence to
“…The statute authorizing national securities associations such as FINRA is 15 U.S.C. sec. 78o-3, Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Here is a link…” (no link was provided).
Reicher confirms the Congress authorizes ‘…national securities associations such as FINRA…’. SEC FOIA response confirms there is/always has been only one approved SRO, causing blockage to Investor Protections. Moreso, the Commission has allowed the sole approved SRO to sue and block parties trying to become SROs competitive to the FINRA/NASD.
One can only question the legal representative competency of these competitive aspiring SROs to have not advised their clients to submit applications to the Commission. Aspiring SROs have been subjected to false claims and harassment by the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD. This same treatment extends to dues paying business league members who whistleblow on the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD, men and women standing for Investment Client protection shedding light on racial bias by the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD; character assaults against brokers and military veteran brokers. And, citizen whistleblowers.
The SRO FINRA/NASD created by the Commission is to guarantee that the FINRA/NASD case work for investment clients protection not for protection of managers that work for FINRA/NASD. FINRA/NASD arbitrators are trained by FINRA/NASD not JAMS, ABA or local bar associations. The Commission is to do Congress’ bidding to guarantee Employees, partners, co-owners, covering brokerages and clearing houses are not kept out of the fray, instead held accountable to the same laws Main Street is accountable too. This is not the case. Fewer than 30 Commission employees have been referred to law enforcement in a handful of years.
Moreso, the Commission and its sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD ‘lose’ Investment Clients in the course of an Investment Client claimants claim against Wall Streetrs. It is really quite an amazing thing to read a statement of claim, notate who the Wall Street defendants are and then see the brokerage does not appear at the FINRA/NASD arbitration nor does the Investment Client claim appear in the brokerage’s CRD; nor do the Independent Contractors partners, employees, interns and others appear at the table in the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD DRS forum.
The award is issued naming all parties appearing on the statement of claim. If the arbitrators conspire to find the Investment Client claimant in Bad Faith, that same Brokerage the Independent firm has clearing access through ie. JPMCC, is named on the matter taken in to the Civil Court, despite that DRS defendant not being present at the DRS table.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher wrote in an electronic communication,
“…You evidently misunderstand our role--we administer arbitration claims that people bring to our forum if they fall under our rules for eligibility. You, a customer represented by counsel, came to FINRA and filed a claim in our arbitration forum. We only check to see whether the parties named in the claim hold or held a securities registration…”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher further wrote, “…We do not, and cannot, look beyond your claim into your thought process when you hired (________), and whether you thought you were hiring a broker or an IA. We took the claim that you filed because it falls into the scope of claims eligible for arbitration under our rules…”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher further communicated electronically, “ FINRA does not “send claims” to court or other forums, but FINRA does not accept claims that are not eligible for arbitration under the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure. While FINRA does not have jurisdiction over registered Investment Advisers, but FINRA does accept arbitration claims against Investment Advisers, if all parties seek to submit the claim to the FINRA Dispute Resolution forum. Information about the availability of the arbitration forum to investment advisers is available on the FINRA website at the following URL: http://www.finra.org/arbitrationandmediation/arbitration/specialprocedures/p196162...”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher re-iterated electronically again, “…This does not appear to have been an issue in the (___________) case, since he is also a registered securities representative subject to FINRA jurisdiction. (___________) was obligated to arbitrate your claim and did so. The same is true for (___________), who also holds dual securities and investment adviser registrations…”
It is not written by Congress that if an Investment Client sues the Investment Advisor the Investment Client hired who also happens to hold a Securities Brokerage license that the Investment Client loses their right to pursue their Claim in the Court where Investment Client and Investment Advisor claims belong, so stated by the Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD on their website (https://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/investment_advisers)
The Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD does- Investment Client complaint after Investment Client complaint after Investment Client complaint.
Investment clients are not eligible for FINRA/NASD arbitration forum, “…FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution has received inquiries from lawyers who represent investors and those who represent investment advisers (IAs) which are not FINRA members about the availability of FINRA’s arbitration and mediation forum to resolve their disputes. Currently, such disputes are resolved in court or in non-FINRA dispute resolution forum…” (https://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/investment_advisers/a>)
“FINRA rules bind FINRA firms and their registered representatives, but do not impose conditions precedent to a filing in federal court to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher wrote in an electronic communication
“The motion to confirm arbitration award pending in federal court is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, not by FINRA rule…”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher neglected to state FINRA/NASD dues paying business league members have signed on to compliance of FINRA/NASD Rules and Procedures that do not comply with rules and procedures of the Court system the SEC sole approved SRO removes Investment Client complaints and Investment Advisor litigation from jurisdiction in. FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher continued in an electronic communication
“…Dispute Resolution generally loses jurisdiction over the arbitration once the award is issued…”
FINRA/NASD trained arbitrators issue an award that provides for,
“FINRA's award allows 30 days to file a valid reason for non payment (http://www.finra.org/arbitrationandmediation/arbitration/process/decisionawards/) but only for FINRA/NASD dues paying business league members.”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher writes in her electronic communication,
“…The rule you cite only applies in to arbitration awards that award damages to a claimant against a firm or registered representative…”
FINRA “registered representatives” are licensed state to state, bound to State laws, states regulations and the UCC, Uniform Commercial Code.
The sole SRO the Commission approved, FINRA/NASD explains this phenomenon away as it operates under rules different from the Courts. The sole SRO the Commission approved, FINRA/NASD, has no oversight of Investment Clients. Its own website says so
“FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution has received inquiries from lawyers who represent investors and those who represent investment advisers (IAs) which are not FINRA members about the availability of FINRA’s arbitration and mediation forum to resolve their disputes. Currently, such disputes are resolved in court or in non-FINRA dispute resolution forums. In response to these inquiries…” (https://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/investment_advisers)
A “special submission agreement” is supposed to be signed by Investment Clients and Investment Advisors opting away from the courts or a non-501(c)(6)-business-league-peer-to-peer arbitration forum where arbitrators bios and resumes and decision records are publicly viewable. This is not the case. The sole SRO the Commission approved, FINRA/NASD gives Investment Clients and Investment Advisors a Securities Brokers and Brokerages ‘submission agreement’ to sign so outwardly it appears the SRO is acting compliant to the laws Congress wrote.
FINRA/NASD, Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher clarifies important details on Investment Client protection, via electronic transmissions,
“…I am responding to your July 3 letter because it contains several fundamental misstatements of FINRA’s status…”
“…First, while FINRA’s existence is authorized pursuant to a federal statute, it is not a government agency; it receives no appropriations from Congress or any other government entity; it is not operated by the government; and no government official is employed by FINRA, or sits on any FINRA board or committee. Quite simply, FINRA has no Congressionally-imposed obligation to you “to answer questions and address issues” that you present. We have responded to you as a courtesy, and because we want you to understand FINRA’s role in arbitration, and what we can and cannot do. But we have provided you with all of the explanation and information we can. We cannot give you what you apparently want—a “pass” on complying with the arbitration award. That power lies only with the court….”
Investment Clients visiting the updated FINRA/NASD website are confusingly misled in to believing FINRA/NASD is a governmental entity in that the website parodies the SEC website with, amongst other things, comment solicitation.
A pass is given to the dues paying business league member of the sole Commission approved SRO, FINRA/NASD.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher communicated electronically,
“…an exception for “valid basis for non-payment.” The By-Law in question permits FINRA to suspend the licenses of firms and associated persons who fail to pay an arbitration award, unless they present a valid reason for not paying the award. The By-Law does not apply to you because you are not a firm or associated person subject to FINRA’s regulatory jurisdiction. You do not hold a securities license that FINRA could suspend…”
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher communicated electronically, continues
“…Finally, the term “valid basis for non-payment” applies only to the FINRA By-Law; it does not apply in any court proceeding that the firm might bring against you to enforce the award. FINRA has no role in judicial proceedings to confirm or vacate arbitration awards, and FINRA By-Laws do not relieve you of any obligation imposed by the arbitrators. Only the court can do that under the law governing judicial enforcement and vacatur of arbitration awards…”
The Commission is allowing the sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD to kidnap Investment Client complaints away from the Courts where case records are public and researchable in to a non-neutral private business league forum covering up crimes.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher continued communicating electronically, “If you contact anyone at FINRA, they will not respond—they will only forward your communication to me, as Ms. Fienberg did. And I will only respond if I deem it appropriate to do so…”
Ms. Fienberg was asked by FINRA former CEO to communicate with me. I met Rick Ketchum while I was covering the 10-6-2009 Financial Services Committee hearing. Ketchum was a Panel 1 witness alongside RBC former CEO John Taft. Both sat on the Investor Protection panel, “Capital Markets Regulatory Reform: Strengthening Investor Protection, Enhancing Oversight of Private Pools of Capital, and Creating a National Insurance Office.” (http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1126)
The Commission, the Commissioners, Mary Jo White and other SEC Commissioners, have allowed this fraud on Investment Clients to be perpetrated for decades.
Records of Wall Street’rs are not always ‘clean’ just laundered. And in an industry where the wolves write the rules, accommodating crime cover up is simplified with language tweaks. Wall Streetrs are ‘disciplined’ while Main Streetrs go to jail. Wall Streets answer to charges with ‘without admitting or denying’ and Main Streetrs choices are only ‘guilty or not guilty.’ Why the lawyers did not recognize this is at question.
Wall Streets have firms that are presented to the Investment Client as one firm but in disclosures written as ‘separate but unaffiliated.’ Employees are not employees according to the SRO Madoff was a member of for decades. SEC Form ADV Part II’s are not signed. Finger print cards are another of the missing things of Madoff and his peers accountability.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher wrote via electronic communication,
“These documents are filed electronically with FINRA’s WebCRD system, so the signature is electronic. Firms are obligated to retain manually signed copies of the U4, but these manually signed documents are not submitted to FINRA. Fingerprints are submitted via a separate fingerprint card and submitted to the FBI—they are not recorded on the U4. I believe that many firms use an electronic device that digitizes fingerprints, but I can’t speak for the practice of every firm. Here is the information we provide to firms about processing fingerprints. https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2015.1_Electronic_Fingerprint_Processing.pdf..”
One need only look at a CRD and IADP filed with the SEC and with the Commission’s only approved SRO FINRA/NASD to note this is not the case. CRDs and IADPs are unsigned. The FBI said this is not the case. Securities brokers say they are told to go to local police to have prints done.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher wrote via electronic communication,
“From FINRA’s standpoint, there is no distinction—both employees and independent contractors are “persons associated with a member” who are subject to FINRA rules. The distinction may apply in other areas of the law that treat employees and independent contractors differently for purposes of overtime, benefits, taxation, etc. Nothing in Brokercheck requires a firm to disclose whether its registered representative is an employee or an independent contractor, so I don’t know where that information would even appear in Broker Check.”
FINRA/NASD states on its website, “…FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation of broker-dealers. FINRA is not part of the government. We’re a not-for-profit organization authorized by Congress to protect America’s investors by making sure the broker-dealer industry operates fairly and honestly. We do this by: writing and enforcing rules governing the activities of 3,800 broker-dealers with 633,800 brokers; examining firms for compliance with those rules; fostering market transparency; and educating investors….” (https://www.finra.org/about)
FINRA does not warn Investment Clients on its finrabrokercheck.org website, in TV ads, radio and print, that FINRA/NASD is a 501(c)(6) business league Investment Advisors, Securities brokers and securities brokerages self-report crimes/complaints/bankruptcies/litigation history to, information is aged off, complaints are removed once a FINRA/NASD member barr ends or fine is paid up, that members may have operated under different names or CRD numbers. Information is not reliable for the Investment Client or for media and lawyers investigating potential news stories and Respondents.
FINRAbrokercheck.org is the ‘baby’ of former Congressman now Senator Ed Markey.
The sole SRO FINRA/NASD approved by the Commission states,
“…The content of this summary, and the available detailed report, is governed by FINRA Rule 8312, and is primarily based on information filed on uniform registration forms…”
At a later date, FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher communicated electronically,
“…FINRA regulates firms and their associated persons. How the relationship between firms and associated persons is structured is up to the individual firm. Some firms have employees. Others use an independent contractor model. From our standpoint it doesn’t matter—as associated persons they are still subject to FINRA rules and jurisdiction. The rules governing the obligations of associated persons, and the obligations of firms supervising them, are found in the FINRA Manual. Here is the link to the FINRA Manual where you can find these rules: https://www.finra.org/industry/finra-rules...”
Furthermore the Investment Advisor claims “securities broker” protection under the Commission sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD, (i) via their language in their business email communication signature sent to prospective, existing, past Investment Clients and others, maybe even Regulators, the Commission and the SRO(s); (ii) the Investment Advisor criminal complaints are hijacked away from law enforcement oversight by the Commission’s sole appointed SRO, FINRA/NASD umbrella-ing Congressionally allowed securities brokers, Congressionally allowed Securities brokerages and Investment Advisors not allowed by Congress under the umbrella of “financial consultants.” The scheme defrauding Investment Clients forced in to the business league arbitration away from their day in court is easily explained, easily was able to be stopped, yet going on under the overview of the Commission.
The Commission’s sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD has removed the “financial consultants” description from the current FINRA/NASD website. Prior formats with that umbrella-ing description are in the public record. Currently, what sits on the FINRA/NASD website is this language
“…B: Broker- A brokerage firm, also called a broker-dealer, is in the business of buying and selling securities – stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and certain other investment products – on behalf of its customer (as broker), for its own bank (dealer), or both. Individuals who work for broker-dealers - the sales personnel are commonly referred to as brokers.
IA: Investment Adviser- An investment adviser is paid for providing advice about securities to clients. In addition, some investment advisers manage investment portfolios and offer financial planning services. It is common for a financial professional to act as both a broker and an investment adviser. Because of this, we include investment advisers on BrokerCheck, and provide links to the SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website so you can research further…”
This description still on the FINRA/NASD website is a confirmation that a ‘financial professional’ acts as “both a broker and an investment adviser.” Acting as “both a broker and an investment adviser” does not mean the Investment Client retained a broker. This blur is how Investment Clients who hired Investment Advisors are pulled in to a forum Congress never approved the Commission to take Investment Advisors and Investment clients in to.
FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, General Counsel Terri Reicher communicated electronically, “…Many firms use the term “Investment Adviser” to refer to brokers as well as investment advisors…”
Investment Client claimants are bullied inside the forum Respondents Counsel and Brokerages pull the matter in to, badgered in examination by Respondents counsel with questions like “… how could you say you do not know you are a brokerage client…” or such. When an Investment Advisor is an Investment Advisor. A securities broker is a securities broker except in the oversight of the Commission. Nary does the Clearing House clearing for an uncontracted Investment Advisor get dragged in to the fray because the Clearing House ‘client’ is the ‘brokerage’.
The confusing language in the Investment Advisor’s electronic communication signature goes something like this,
“Securities and investment advisory services offered through (_____ ____) Associates, Inc., member FINRA/SIPC and a registered investment advisor. Additional investment advisory services offered through (_____ ____) Financial Services, LLC, a registered investment advisor not affiliated with (_____ ____) Associates, Inc…”
Furthermore, a fear factor is put in to the Investment Client when they read further,
“This message and any attachments contain information from (_____ ____) Associates, Inc. which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited…”
“The information contained herein is based on sources believed to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. Any securities research is for information purposes only and is not intended to be an offer to buy or sell the securities referred to herein. Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice, and past performance is not indicative of future results…”
Investment Clients assume the person handling their life savings, stating in an email or other communication to be a member of “FINRA/SIPC and a registered investment advisor…” has been vetted out. This is the farthest thing from the Investment Client’s reality they do not learn about until or after a Commission sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD DRS, arbitration.
The sentences the Judge meted out were out of whack with sentences meted out to low level drug offenders. Ignorance of the law was given a pass. This does not happen for Main Streetrs. Wall Streetrs jury and judge were their peers, people just like Madoff, people who volunteered to sit on the committees to decide if his firm, if he and brother Peter learned their lessons enough able to be allowed to continue on working, being recidivous. Sometimes fines were issued. Sometimes the Wall Streetr was barred for a period of time, then going back to work with their crime unknown to the public.
What Bernie did, so did RBC, JP Morgan, all of them, Wells Fargo, too. The failure is the lawyers failure for going along with the Wall Street conspiracy rather than standing for Best Practice and Ethics.
The regulators are not lax as suggested by the author lawyers. Regulators do not know the laws. Few regulators know that the SEC only approved SRO, FINRA/NASD, is a .org not a .gov. Significance? Only a .gov can claim FOIA exemption. A .org cannot. The SEC approved SRO FINRA/NASD has been claiming FOIA protection for decades, for decades unbelievably.
As with the DTC number failure the lawyers describe in their article, other criminals continue their crimes for years. Minutiae common sense is ignored. Crimes are not undetected because Investors are made in to the fall guys- Tax Returns for 5 years demanded while Respondents produce nothing or do dumps of irrelevant documents. Financials are not produced. Commingled funds are ignored. Multiple business operate from the same address by the same staff. The crimes are ignored. Sloppy investigating is at fault too. ‘Investigator’ is often a job with a higher salary but no formal training other that what the person in their job before them taught. Neither SEC investigators nor the local regulators like the SEC got to perform an onsite investigation. Newer reality is that Madoff’s crimes, gone on for 50 years, are likely greater than the to date accepted $17 billion losses in actual losses and $65 billion on paper.
The author lawyers describe ‘disciplinary sanctions meted out to eight SEC employees stemming from their failed investigations of Madoff.’ United States Government employees are not above the law unless they work for regulatory agencies, with fiduciary.
Fiduciary is an assumed not a conversation. Failure to hold financial industry parties accountable to fiduciary is the problem. If your car was stolen, you would call the cops. Not here. And that is the failure of the DOL rule.
Not much is fair for the Investment Client the Wall Street industry bands around alleging to protect. The standard FINRA arbitration payout to victims of crime is 1/10th of what is sought in the Statement of Claim, if that. And there is a required confidentiality agreement binding the financial crime victim to not talk, if the financial crime victim wants to get paid their minimized award. Silencing the victim is part of the scam. If the victim is silenced, there will be nothing in the public record that will warn other victims of the financial criminal or the victims representing attorney that the accused is up to old business that has been covered up. Covered up crimes are hidden from court clerks and judges wanting to research case history for precedence.
My response is lengthy, I know. It is not long enough to cover all the points needed to be made, 7 years in learning how Main Street is scammed. Eleanor Holmes Norton asked what I wanted to see happen to FINRA, as I knew the entity then. I answered “shut down.” My answer to Congressman Ed Royce when he asked why he had not heard prior to my telling him Madoff’s crimes go back 50 years and that even the attorneys that wrote up the counts on Madoff had no clue his crimes went back along time. I could not answer Ed other than, “they should have.” I don’t have their level of education. I figured things out.
Investment Clients are robbed through a system of Rules and Procedures set up to pass as ‘laws’ by two cartels creating ‘policy’ intended to keep their clients out of jail while Eric Garners and Freddie Gray are caught and die because, as with Main Street, cops know where to find them, us, to hold us accountable to a standard different than Wall Street is held to.
I am asked over and over again “When is the book coming out”. Not soon enough.
This public lengthy answer will help change the way forward.
Sincerely Carrie Devorah Public Investor 12-03894 aka Six Pack Sally Swinging At Low Hanging Fruit On Wall Street aka a whistleblower the SEC asked for help in 2010 then threw under the bus to cover up SEC failures aka the investor the Commission sole approved SRO FINRA/DRS arbitrators hot mic’d themselves stating they were going to use to teach a lesson to activist investors
The Department of Labor recently stated that the applicability date for what is commonly referred to as the "Fiduciary Rule" would be June 9, 2017:
1.- The DOL Fiduciary Rule will have no significant effect on Retail Investors and Entities regulated by the SEC.
The SEC has no effect on Retail Investors or should not, so to speak. Congress created the Commission with an Act of Congress. Congress gave the Commission oversight of securities brokers and brokerages, only, not Investment Clients, not Investment Advisors. Congress told the Commission to establish multiple SROs, self regulated agencies to adjudicate issues between securities brokers and securities brokerages, not Investment Clients and Investment Advisors.
SRO? A ‘.gov’ definition says, “Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) are industry-financed, non-governmental groups working to supplement and replace regulatory activities that might otherwise emanate from local, state, and/or federal agencies.’
FINRA’s General Counsel Terri Reicher emailed,
The Commission, in all these decades, only approved one entity to be the SRO, self- regulatory organization addressing issues between securities brokers and securities brokerages, not multiple, one. The sole approved SRO was called the NASD. 2007, the sole approved SRO changed its name to FINRA.
FINRA is not a new SRO. FINRA is the NASD. FINRA is 100% owned by NASD Holdings. The NASD Holdings, created multiple entities that Congress did not stipulate the Commission SRO would have oversite of. One of those entities, FINRA DRS, is now shuttered after I began to publicly present documents confirmed Congress did not authorize FINRA DRS.
FINRA DRS was bringing Investment Clients and Investment Advisors issues in to the FINRA DRS forum using ‘funny’ paperwork and fraud perpetrated on Investment Clients, fraud Investment Advisors are complicit in.
There is more to this that will be detailed.
For the record, I am an SEC whistleblower but I cannot be. Whistleblowers are corporate employees. I am not Wall Street industry. I am an Investment Client, Public Investor 12-03894, the SEC asked for help on a case in 2010. The SEC took case to SEC ‘court’ in 2015-2017, not to real court. FOIAs confirmed the SEC court is not ordered as law by Congress. SEC courts are unconstitutional. SEC criminals should be turned over to law enforcement at the first accusation of a crime. This is not the system the Commission requires its sole only ever SRO to oversee. This is not the system the SEC has allowed to foster for decades.
A Wall Streeter cannot go to jail or their crimes be known unless someone calls the cops. If there is no ‘crime’ one cannot do the time.
I laid this information out in an idiot proof detailed article I wrote, confirming to legislators that
(i) Madoff’s crimes where known as far back as 1963
(ii) the Commission and the Commission’s only ever SRO that misled Investors to believing a safer more protective environment had been created to protect investors.
Such an environment has not been created. Tragically, nor will it be until the weight of ‘fiduciary’ is met with a requirement that any and all investor complaint be made public just the way court cases information is, that the Commission make the securities brokers, securities brokerages and their Investment Advisory business arms make it clear that Investment Client complaints are taken to Courts or to non industry arbitration forums where results are published publicly allowing Investment Clients and their attorneys to research the history of the assigned arbitrators, the history of the ‘financial consultant’ as the Commission approved their only approved SRO to call their members.
Members of the Commission only approved SRO pay dues to the SRO. This is significant, and a fact I made widely public that forced the SRO to withdraw its FINRA DRS, dispute resolution licensing in DC for sure and possibly other forums. DC is where the SRO was housed, the SEC is housed and under Federal oversight being a District and not a state.
Congress never gave the SEC authority over Investment Clients and Investment Advisors. The Investment Advisor’s firm the SEC sued is not the firm the Investment Advisor had a Clearing House contract with. The SEC was given that contract by me in the course of the SEC requesting me to provide data.
The SEC's mission may be to protect investors “maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation,” but the SEC has not been doing that. The SEC largely filled with prior SRO employees and using SRO trained arbitrators have been throwing investors under the bus. The loss of capitol to investors weighs heavily on the states and Federal government to pick up the slack on lost finances.
That said, the Federal government helping elders, disabled and others left destitute by the Commission’s SRO is for the most part where the Feds role with investors should be other than writing policy and laws. Somehow, via the collusion of two cartels, the SEC approved only SRO and the securities attorney business league whose clients are the Wall Street companies the Investment Client victims sue.
Congress never gave the Commission any authority to write policy. The Commission working with PIABA founding attorneys and other since, working with college professors and think tanks to create policy have created policy using the reality shielding umbrella of claiming ‘Investment Client protection.’
Investor protection is the farthest reality from the truth.
Fiduciary failure starts even before from the bringing Investment Clients on board as clients or until Investment clients learn they are having a problem of theft of funds, ID, IP, with their financial consultant whom is revealed to them to be a broker working with a brokerage, at a fatal moment, when the client’s dispute has been bound to a FINRA/NASD dispute resolution.
1- Investment client victims are set up by the SEC, ripe, for identity theft. A victim, in the client stage, is required to provide all documents that are usable in ID theft- finances, funds, home address, drivers license and/or passport. The ‘financial consultant’ the buzzword the Commission and its SRO use to deflect litigation by a wronged client, gives the victim, in the client stage, nothing that confirms who that ‘financial consultant’ is- no driver’s license, no passport, no home address or other. The ‘financial consultant’ is not putting money in to escrow to protect the victim, nor is the ‘financial consultant’ or their firm providing the victim in the client stage with proof of current insurance the victim can vet out.
Moreso, how may investment clients even know their ‘financial consultant’ is supposed to be fingerprinted. They are not. One ‘financial consultant’ had several names, variations of the same name.
2- Victims in the client stage are told to look the ‘financial consultant’ up on finrabrokercheck.org not being told that is the Commission’s sole approved SRO’s website and that (i) data deemed age by the SRO is removed from that website (ii) the information is self provided by the SRO’s own members hustling clients (iii) no one vets the information for factual correctness (iv) data is expunged without the ‘financial consultant’ going in to courts for a judicial decision on the ‘financial consultant’ request to clean up their image.
Information is expunged from FINRA database is done without being ordered, contrary to what FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher wrote electronically,
“FINRA expunges information from its registration database when ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction…”
Reicher wrote, “…A U4 cannot be expunged unless a court so orders…” yet FINRA/NASD arbitrators ask Respondents counsel in FINRA/NASD DRS forums if Counsel wants the claim against Counsel’s client expunged.
3- The SRO, the FINRA/NASD, is established with the IRS as a 501(c)(6)- one of twenty nine categories the IRS has approved as a non-profit. A victim taken in to this IRS approved 501(c)(6) for adjudication of a complaint of theft by one of the dues paying business league’s members is not being taken in to what the FAA calls a neutral forum. A forum cannot be neutral if one side pays dues to belong and the other party does not.
4- Victims are given by the Commission approved SRO, the FINR/NASD, a Submission Agreement to sign hence maintaining the Commission approved SROs appearance of being SEC rules compliant
5- Victims are not aware their defense attorney mat not be not licensed inside the state or country the cartels, NASD/FINRA hold their arbitrations in.
6- The official word from FINRA attorney Terri Reicher is that FINRA does not turn Investment Clients away alleging that FINRA cannot explain what is in the mind of the Claimants attorney. Reicher also wrote the SRO has nothing to take away from Investment clients found in Bad Faith but that the SRO can take away a dues paying laywers. The onus is on the Commission to assure the sole approved SRO is functioning compliant to Congress’ laws the SEC is responsible to effect. As I put it, the role of the Commission is to put the staple at the top page left on Monday, if that is the law Congress wrote, and to remove the staple out of the top of the page on Tuesday, if that is the law Congress wrote.
The Commission staff have no idea what are the laws Congress wrote.
7- The Commission moreso along with all the State Securities Commissions and Regulators is accepting tainted data from the Commission’s sole approved SRO. FINRA/NASD Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Terri Reicher communicated electronically, “…FINRA operates a separate registration system for investment advisers called “IARD”. FINRA operates this system strictly as a vendor to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and does not “vet out” the information reported on the forms…”
FINRA/NASD operates the IARD for the SEC at a $0 contract. $0 is the SEC valuation for Investment Client protection.
I keep harping the words “sole approved SRO” because Congress’ approved multiple SROs- The original laws of 1933 and 1934.
The DOL, Department of Labor, requires Congress to understand there is no enforcing authority for investment advisors. The Investment Act of 1940 must be read and understood. Terri Reicher, FINRA’s General Counsel says the Commissions sole approved SRO has no oversight of lawyers. The Act addresses lawyers are held accountable with fates of jail and fines for aiding and abetting.
The DOL must understand the enforcing authority for brokers, brokerages and investment advisors is the State oversight, not oversight of the Federal Government. The securities brokers and brokerages and Investment Advisors are licensed state to state not by the Federal Government hence misbehaviours of the ‘financial consultants’ is under the UCC, Uniform Commercial Court not the FAA, Federal Arbitration Act, as the Commission’s sole approved SRO has wrapped itself in to cover up its dues paying business league members crimes.
The Commissions sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD state,
“…State regulators are governed by their public records laws (not FINRA Rule 8312), and may provide information not in BrokerCheck, including information no longer required to be reported or updated on uniform registration forms due, for example, to its age or final disposition…”
As I remind the SEC and FINRA/NASD, time and again- accessory to a crime before, during and after its commission.
The Commission staff wrongfully believe they are protected from Investor, above the law. The Commission sole approved SRO mislead their arbitrators and staff they are above the law. No. Accountable to the law, problem being, it feels like until I was forced to learn all the above and below, no one was listening. Madoff told the truth when Madoff said ‘they knew.’ 1963. Disciplined by a jury of his peers, voting 50 years until Bernie turned himself in http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html
There is no ‘best interest’ in mind by the Commission employees when staffers like David Henshall laugh at a FOIA request checkoff stating not getting the requested information can be a matter of life and death. Yet another Madoff victim took a penthouse leap to his death in NYC. Henshall has not called me and laughed since then. FOIA requests are being taken more seriously.
The Commission’s sole approved SRO took a unique tactic with me when I continued to unwittingly piece together the outcome of my DRS inside FINRA that was the beginning of this ball of wickedness I continue to unravel and educate with- local enforcement, bar associations, investment clients that are victimized and others wanting advice. And I took their step further. I make it public that I spoke to Piwowar. Michael was told nose to nose about a matter early on hence recusing from signing the SEC final opinion, I guess.
Piwowar may be looking forward to working with his fellow Commissioners, the SEC staff, retail investors- knowing of a crime, not calling cops, which is something the SEC does not do nor does its SRO. Simply, as are all regulatory agencies, the Commission is neutered, the SRO is not a government agency hence has a duty to turn criminals over to cops.
It does not. As a result, FINCEN crime stats are skewed, local cops are not told about a spate of thefts going on in their District. 17+ in one current matter still not turned over to cops in DC is a crime spree, unless the involved party is hidden inside the dues paying membership of the Commission securities brokers and brokerages only SRO. Oh, this crime model does not only take place here. It takes place in all the countries the SRO has MoU’s with, Memorandums of Understanding ie. Canada, Hong Kong, UK, AU.
The money paid out responsive to a victimized Investment Client’s claims? 1/10 of what has been asked for. Quite the score. Imagine, a $1.2 million Investment claim will get back about $100,000. To get the cash in hand must sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding the client from talking to cops.
The money the SEC collects as fines goes to the Treasury not to the victims so the victim is victimized a second time.
The crimes go undetected for decades as did Madoffs because the Commission only requires the SRO dues paying members to give clients statements once a quarter, not every month (ii) how many harmed Investment Clients know to tell that a statement is factored, falsified or what to do when no one listens or takes the victim seriously.
The money the SRO collects in its fines paid by its accused dues paying member? The SRO fines go to itself while the SRO dues paying member collects the rest… quite the score, keeping over a mil for a crime you and I go to jail for.
This question of Fiduciary is not that complicated. Arbitrators have hot mic’d themselves debating Fiduciary in conversation with who to believe, the Investment Client or the ‘poor’ Wall Streeter. So the victim was found in Bad Faith and 7 years later after the SEC, the local regulator, et al screwed up the initial case, the Wall Street’r is still not in jail out voting.
There are far too many rules without a whole lot of common sense being used by the Regulatory employees who get paid whether they do a good job or not. Make jail time a component to breaching Fiduciary, make holding lawyers to Best Practice a component then maybe then the Commission will be doing Fiduciary and their jobs they were hired to do.
An SEC lawyer’s case papers were corrected by the Deputy Commissioner’s opinion that confirmed the Respondent was an Investment Advisor not a brokerage and that the IA’s crimes in this matter dated back to 2009 not starting in 2014 as alleged in sworn docs. And in this interim, the IA was active online and elsewhere hustling new clients.
Superior Respondeat. This is on Piwowar, SEC.
Superior Respondeat. Piwowar failed to assure the securities brokerage was sued.
Problem. Statutes are lost- a matter detailed in all matters of enforcement. By the hell things are figured out statutes are run. The Investment Client is victimized again. Besides, the way things are set up the Commission does not force the securities brokers and brokerages to notify their clients of complaints come in against them.
California asked me how to do this. Simple. Send clients and SASE. And other suggestions all workable.
Dodd Frank did not work. Documented. JP Morgan opened an account up in a client’s name without the client being known to the alleged Financial Consultant. JPMCC’s Jamie Dimon did confirm no client file existed.
Online is the worst thing ever to do to an investment client. It took one unsuspecting client ten years to finally be given statements of online accounts put their as a recommendation to accommodate getting statements to a client who moved a lot.
The Fiduciary Rule only ever will work when the millions of client complaints/arbitrations are known, the files made public and kept in archives where lawyers and victims can research their Respondents’ names and history. Expunging crimes should be a crime.
ADRESSING THE QUESTIONS:
1- Retail investors have expressed confusion about the type of professional or firm that is providing them with investment advice, and the standards of conduct applicable to different types of relationships.
The confusion is created by the Commission sole approved SRO. The Commission has no oversight of Investment Advisors. A client who hires an Investment Advisor who is also a Broker dealer should only take that IA complaint to court not in to the SEC sole approved SRO private DRS that Congress did not authorize for Investment Client victims.
An Investment Client victim suing the broker, the brokerage and the IA must have their complaint as an individual also appear on the Brokerage’s CRD. Currently the complaints do not appear there.
2- Commission should consider to address any confusion regarding applicable standards?
The Commission has no Congressional authority to engage with Investment clients.
3- Have potential conflicts of interest related to the provision of investment advice to retail investors in various circumstances been appropriately identified and, if so, have they been appropriately addressed?
No. The Commissions sole approved SRO is the business league collecting dues from the victimizers who stole from clients. It is not a neutral forum.
Are there particular areas where conflicts are more prevalent, have greater potential for harm, or both?
Read the afore written.
To what extent are retail investors being, or expected to be, harmed by these conflicts currently and in the future?
The internet is making financial fraud far more easier to do and cover up. IA’s barred by the SEC are continuing to do business because the barr restricts them from doing business with other of the SRO dues paying members. It does not prevent them from stealing more and again.
For example, do certain types of relationships result in systematically lower net returns or greater degrees of risk in retail investors' portfolios relative to other similarly-situated investors in different relationships? Are there steps the Commission should take to identify and address these conflicts? Can they be appropriately addressed through disclosure or other means?
Make it a punishable crime to lie on CRDs, both with the firm and the financial consultant. Require the firm and the consultant to provide their CRDs to clients upon meeting and then annually.
How would any such steps to address potential conflicts of interest benefit retail investors currently and over time?
This is a stupid question. Thieves work to stay ahead of the cops.
What costs or other consequences, if any, would retail investors experience as a result of any such steps? For example, would broker-dealers or investment advisers be expected to withdraw from or limit their offerings or services in certain markets or products?
There would be less crimes if the financial consultant fiduciary was exposed public rather than hidden in the Commission’s sole approved SRO.
4- Market developments and advances in technology continue to transform the ways in which retail investors obtain advice (e.g., robo-advisers, fintech). How do retail investors perceive the duties that apply when investment advice is provided in new ways, or by new market entrants? Is this perception out of step with the actual obligations of these entities and, if so, in what ways? How should these market developments and advances in technology affect the Commission's consideration of potential future actions? What steps should the Commission take, if any, to address potential confusion or lack of information in these emerging areas?
Refer to the above. Technology is manipulated. The man, the men who created the internet had stated for decades there is no security online. Period. I write about this. www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com If there is no security, the SEC should not allow these or any new generation of products to be offered to the public.
5- Is there a trend in the provision of retail investment advice toward a fee-based advisory model and away from a commission-based brokerage model? To what extent has any observed trend been driven by retail investor demand, dependability of fee-based income streams, regulations, or other factors? To what extent is any observed trend expected to continue, and what factors are expected to drive the trend in the future? How has any observed trend impacted the availability, quality, or cost of investment advice, as well as the availability, quality, or cost of other investment products and services, for retail investors? Does any such trend raise new risks for retail investors? If so, how should these risks affect the Commission's consideration of potential future action?
Commission or fee advisor makes no difference if the scam is to tell a client their contract will be sent to them after home office does what it needs to do. This is a scam tactic done on new clients. There should be a simple one sheet, the client takes with them that states on ONE page what the terms are –
Date, parties, court jurisdiction, not eligible for NASD/FINRA DRS since an investment client not a securities broker or brokerages, who the insurer is for the financial consultant and if they hired a broker or Investment advisor, and if payments are fees or commissions.
6- Although the applicability date of the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule has not yet passed, efforts to comply with the rule are reportedly underway. What has been the experience of retail investors and market participants thus far in connection with the implementation of the Fiduciary Rule? How should these experiences inform the Commission's analysis? Are there other ways in which the Commission should take into account the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule in any potential actions relating to the standards of conduct for retail investment advice?
My experience of the Fiduciary Rule is with the FBI and local law enforcement along with in the possession of Congressional and Senatorial investigators, provided a hot mic moment of SRO FINRA/NASD arbitrators acknowledging the Fiduciary Rule was in conversation in Congress. Fiduciary rule sounds good. Reality is criminals ignore it. Lawyers paid to advocate for their clients, ignore it. Judges/clerk with no proper understanding that Investment Clients in their courts post a FINRA/NASD DRS were never to be taken to the FINRA/NASD DRS forum period. Moreso, Fiduciary impacts Judges who do not confirm lawyers arguing before them who are not pro hac viced or licensed in the court do not have standing.
7- As of the applicability date of the Fiduciary Rule, there will be different standards of conduct for accounts subject to the Department of Labor's rule and those that are not, as well as existing differences between standards of conduct applicable to broker-dealers and those applicable to investment advisers when providing investment advice. What are the benefits and costs of having multiple standards of conduct?
Refer above. The Commission has no oversight of Investment Advisors. Crimes are supposed to be reported to Cops. They are not. As a result of my taking my article to VA Governor Terry McCAuliffe’s team after McCauliffe lost in the courts, 156,000 Virginia felons got their voting rights restored without a challenged from Judicial Watch because there was nothing to challenge, rather that is a duty now to investigate the Commission and the sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD for being accessories to crimes before, during and after the fact http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html
8- Are there particular segments of the market (e.g., smaller and regional broker-dealers and investment advisers, or smaller investor accounts) to which the Commission should pay particular attention in considering potential future actions?
The Commission has no Congressional authority with Investment Clients. Congress must provide a gateway for law enforcement on all levels- local, state and federal to swoop in on criminal activity rather than continuing to cover up members crimes.
Congress must take a look at the FOIAs the Commission is releasing to FOIA requestors. The FOIA responses are not compliant with President Obama’s update of the FOIA act. Most responses are boiler plate responses anyhow. Moreso, Congress must create an Obstruction of Justice component for FOIA responses the SEC provides. The case recently with a FOIA requestor was a single page response. The requestor knew what the Commission had in possession in that the documents were submitted by the FOIA requestor. Purpose of the FOIA was to reaffirm the Commission covers up crimes by ‘losing’ documents or denying the request advising the requestor to go to court for the docs or file a NARA (National Archives) mediation. NARA mediations manage to never take place. When there is the hint of a chance the mediation will go forward, the Commission punts the matter back to the Commission’s own staff.
9- If the Commission were to proceed with a disclosure-based approach to potential regulatory action, what should that be? If the Commission were to proceed with a standards-of-conduct-based approach to potential regulatory action, what should that be? Should the standards for investment advisers and broker-dealers be the same or different? Why?
The question states the problem itself, “potential regulatory action.” Potential regulatory action is of no benefit to the Investment Client. Court with reality of jail time unable to be pled for cops and jail for thieves and liars including Judges, lawyers, sole approved SRO staff et al is the workable recommendation. The law does state for Main Street that ignorance of the law is no excuse, that you should have known.
10- How would any such suggested approach (disclosure, conduct standards, etc.) be implemented? Specifically, what initial steps would need to be taken to conform to the new rules, and what ongoing processes (e.g., policies and procedures) would need to be put into place to promote compliance and oversight? Would the Commission need to provide additional regulatory guidance or rules? If so, what should those be and why would it be important for the Commission to provide those? Should the Commission address related disclosures or engage in other regulatory improvements in conjunction with any future action with respect to standards of conduct (e.g., adopt enhanced standards for performance disclosures)?
11- Should the Commission consider acting incrementally, taking into account the effects of its initial action before considering further proposed actions? What are the benefits and costs of such an approach?
The Commission should take no steps until a formal criminal investigation has taken place. That said, the Commission should be required to stop publishing new proposals in the Federal Register until legislators understand the laws as written not as explained to them by the entities perpetrating the crimes on unsuspecting investors under the guise of Investor protection.
Moreso, the Commission sole approved SRO should be barred from engaging with military families under the guise of protection, incentivized by military salaries, death benefits and investment vehicles under the guise of Fiduciary. Money gone is money gone. Any entity that uses the military to profit from should be incarcerated for financial fiduciary terrorism against heroes and their families who serve with them.
Moreso, any Veterans Affairs assigned fiduciary who steals a veterans 401K or other such product, should serve an automatic jail time.
Sometimes one has to stop parsing laws and telling adults the decision is break the law or don’t break the law. And if you decide to break the law, you know what the punishment is. Your decision is made here and now without later saying, ‘I did not know or understand.’
12- If the Commission were to impose new requirements, should private remedies be available for violations of any new requirements? If so, in what venue or venues should such claims be brought? Should the Commission establish uniform rules, or should parties determine available remedies by contract, so long as not inconsistent with the securities laws?
There should be no private remedies for future or existing violations. That the Commission has allowed the Commissions sole approved SRO, the FINRA/NASD a private dues collecting business league to interfere with justice and safety for Investment clients is mind boggling. SIFMA, NASAA, FINRA/NASD, DISB et al must be stopped from testifying to Congress in the name of Investor Protection. They and all SROS are nothing about protecting consumers. They are about protecting themselves and their departments.
Moreso, I would make it a law that no regulatory employee should use state/district funds and time to attend a conference the USG does not offer. Regulators from around the country fly to NASAA events no less than twice a year. NASAA ‘explains’ what Congress meant or said, so NASAA says. Congress has enough staffers paid to answer regulators questions. All these panels the private charities and business leagues hold, take USG employees away from their jobs to provide entertainment and platforms for legislators to push bills. Susan Collins appeared at the NASAA spring fling talking on her elder issue. Go back to the beginning. Go back to the victim list of Madoff and Lady Madoff as she is called. Elders.
Names must be made public not kept private, in order to protect the public. Destroyed records must be rebuilt. A blanket exoneration of all forced FINRA/NASD confidentiality agreements must be issued along victims to come forward to build the database.
All lawyers complicit in the above crimes must be stripped of their licenses. The change must start somewhere.
13- To what extent, if any, can changes in technology enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory action?
Technology has diluted effectiveness and efficiency. Investment clients are told to submit complaints online. Talk to a top cop ie. Pam Bondi, her staff- they do not have enough resources to handle the exponential explosion of financial crimes. The SEC has been complicit in this abomination occurring in that Wall Street has been in the background of internet disruption and global money movement since back in the 1970’s. The CPFB, SEC TCR, IRS online are all black holes. The irony of Preet Bahrara being called Wall Street’s sheriff is that he was a recipient along with his team of the Madoff 1963 docs along with another crime the SEC eventually took seriously but misled authority on material facts.
Papers cannot be manipulated as easily as online. Papers can get a Certified Return Receipt Response from the office. When systems fail, papers are not lost.
Bottom line, those in the regulatory roles can ignored facts.
Sadly, the Investment Client gets ignored and disbelieved. Citizen whistleblowers are even taken revenge on.
14- For purposes of Commission action in this area, if any, who should be considered to be "retail investors"?
You dig a deep hole when you begin to parse and label. Investor. Investment client. People who are non industry.
15- For purposes of Commission action in this area, if any, how should "investment advice" be defined? Should certain activities be expressly excluded from the definition of "investment advice"?
This is a poorly asked question. A person on the radio who states on their website, their cards, their books, talks with authority alleging to have special knowledge
16- What are the expected benefits, costs, or other economic effects, whether direct or indirect, of the potential approaches that the Commission could consider in this area, on retail investors, market participants, and on the market for investment advice more generally? To what extent, if any, would the investment opportunities and choices available to retail investors be affected?
The “costs, or other economic effects, whether direct or indirect” are simplest put Madoff’s earliest crimes are now known to have gone back fifty years. The true number of Madoffs and the other Madoff’s crimes will be known only when the Commission sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD produces records going back to when the first dispute was presented.
17- Where does the U.S. stand in this area relative to other jurisdictions and should the approaches of other jurisdictions inform our analysis? Have any regulatory developments occurred in non-U.S. jurisdictions over the past years that you believe have impacted the market for retail investment advice in those jurisdictions in a manner that would be instructive to our consideration? Are there any related studies or analyses that demonstrate the impact of these reforms on the market for retail investment advice?
Refer above. The Commission’s sole approved SRO the FINRA/NASD has MoUs signed with countries around the world, who, following the US model, set up these faux fake government agencies for complaints against Financial consultants. Or so the victims are led to believe. Canadian OSC regulator said he had no special contacts within FINRA/NASD wanting to take claim against the RBC homed in Canada. He himself was facing the same boondoogle of who does what. The same was experience was learned with Hong Kong and the UK.
The fact is these SROs have existed so long the line between government and IRS approved charity is blurred. The line has to be unblurred. And a couple of people have to own up to screwing up in order for the matter to correct. Victims need to be made whole.
18- As described above, the Commission in 2013 issued a comprehensive solicitation of data and other information, including about the then-current market for personalized investment advice, and about the potential effects of a Commission-mandated single standard of conduct for investment advisers and broker-dealers (e.g., following Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act). In that release, the Commission used a series of assumptions that, while not indicating a chosen direction with respect to key issues, was intended to narrow and focus comment. For example, the Commission's assumptions included that broker-dealers could continue to receive commissions and engage in principal trades with their customers; that any conduct standard would apply at the point of sale and not impose a continuing duty; and that prior guidance and precedent applicable to investment advisers would be tailored to broker-dealers in a manner that reflects the difference in their engagement with customers. The Commission also sought information about private claims against investment advisers and broker-dealers by retail investors. Are there any material changes to the assumptions that the Commission laid out in that request for comment, the requested data and other information, or any other developments that you believe the Commission should consider in its continued review and analysis of these issues?
The line “the Commission also sought information about private claims against investment advisers and broker-dealers by retail investors” is offensive. The Commission has known me since 2010. I readily easily share and put in to the public record documents the SEC was given unbeknownst to the Commission sole approved SRO FINRA/NASD. I have requested a position on the Advisory Board of the SEC. I continue to make public, and remind the SEC and its sole approved SRO the FINRA/NASD there are wrongs to be righted, with me, with others.
The Commission has allowed its sole SRO to destroy records, to operate under rules that are different than the courts, as they state. What audacity to ask for private investors records when the Commission has allowed false courts to be held and claimants silenced.
Brent Fields, Michael Piwowar, Jane Norberg, Jack McCreery, Dave Henshall, Jeffery Ovall, Keith, Sean McKessey, Michael Rinaldi, Robert Colby, Cameron Funkhouser, Terri Reicher, Linda, Ketchum, Hester, Robert Cook, Minogue, Kevin Suh, Judge Ellen Huvelle, Merrick Garland, DC Bar, CoBar, CalBar, PIABA… [ complete list available upon request ]