EQUITY SERVICES INVESTOR ALERT - WATCH OUT FOR CHURNING AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS!

Equity Services, Inc., a subsidiary of the National Life Group, is an independent broker-dealer headquartered in Montpelier, Vermont and reportedly has over 500 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors from churning and unsuitable investments and unsuitable investment strategies!

Churning is a violation of Federal and state securities statutes, industry rules and regulations and a breach of fiduciary duty to investors under common law. Churning can occur if an Equity Services broker exercises control over the investment decisions in your account and purchases stocks or recommends that you purchase and sell stocks for his benefit, i.e., commissions not yours! These trades rarely, if ever, make the investor any money. In fact, the additional commissions raise the break-even point for the investor to the level where the stock must perform at an extremely high level in order for the investor to make any money.

In every broker-investor relationship, the broker must assess what the investor's goals are as well as his or her risk tolerance. This assessment is based on a number of key factors, including the investor's stated objectives, risk tolerance, financial condition and tax status. It is the broker's responsibility to only pursue investments suitable for that investor based on these factors. A stockbroker is obligated to only recommend suitable investments and investment strategies. If an Equity Services broker recommends unsuitable investments and unsuitable investment strategies, it can leave you vulnerable to unnecessary risk and losses.

Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.

The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers.

There is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to excessive purchases and sales of securities and securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. Generally, no manager is onsite to detect the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. There is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, there may be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.

Have you suffered losses in your Equity Services brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Equity Services stockbrokers who engaged in churning, recommended unsuitable investments and unsuitable investment strategies that caused investors losses.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

SAMMONS SECURITIES INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Sammons Securities Co. LLC is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Sammons Securities is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan and reportedly has over 500 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Sammons Securities registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Sammons Securities brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against Sammons Securities stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors losses.
The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

Was The Wells Timberland Real Estate Investment Trust An Unsuitable Investment?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether Wells Timberland Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. Wells Timberland Real Estate Investment Trust is a non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern but if you are elderly and retired they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then a non-traded REIT is an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then speculative non-traded REITs are unsuitable investments. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in non-traded REIT investments. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in real estate investments, including REIT investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Every brokerage firm has the responsibility of "knowing the customer" and making a customer specific "suitability" determination for every investment recommendation. The "Suitability Rule," Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 2111, requires that a firm or associated person "have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the member or associated person to ascertain the customer's investment profile." This is a new rule but it contains the core features of the previous National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") suitability rules and codifies well-settled interpretations of those rules. Brokerage firms and their associated persons have always had the responsibility to make suitable recommendations in light of individuals in stating investment objectives and financial condition, tax status, and other relevant factors. According to FINRA, some non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust investments ("REITs") aren't suitable for anyone based on the offering terms, misrepresentations and unreasonable projections by the promoters (see FINRA News Release "FINRA Issues Investor Alert on Public Non-Traded REITs").

The primary cause of the increased number of telephone calls to our office over the last five years is many elderly and retired investors have been steered into non-traded REIT investments as the yields on other income producing investments have steadily declined. According to many investors, the REITS were recommended as safe, secure, and steady income producing investments which sounded to be exactly what many seniors wanted and needed. But these products offer little liquidity for investors who at this stage of their life are likely to need to dip into their investment savings to support their lifestyle or for medical and other emergencies. There is no public market, early redemption of shares in REITs is often very limited, and the fees associated with the sales of these products can be high and erode the total return, if they can be sold at all. Further, many of these investments do not truly generate income but make distributions with borrowed money, with newly raised capital, or by a return of principal rather than a return on investment which can stop at any time. Although non-traded REITs may offer some diversification benefits as part of a balanced portfolio, they all have underlying risk characteristics that make them unsuitable for certain investors, particularly the elderly retired investor with limited financial resources.

When any Wells Timberland Real Estate Investment Trust investor calls our office, we will make a customer specific suitability determination after we learn the "essential facts" concerning that investor. We will ask, just as their stockbroker should have asked, about their age, investment experience, time horizon liquidity needs (length of time they could hold the investment without need for the principal), risk tolerance, other holdings, and financial situation in terms of liquid total net worth, tax status and investment objectives. All of these factors are relevant to suitability and determination and most weigh against the ownership of REIT investments by elderly retired investors. If we believe a brokerage firm or its representatives made an unsuitable recommendation that any person invest in a non-traded REIT, we recommend that they file a FINRA arbitration claim and attempt to recover their losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WAS THE WELLS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether Wells Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust is a non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern but if you are elderly and retired they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then a non-traded REIT is an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then speculative non-traded REITs are unsuitable investments. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in non-traded REIT investments. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in real estate investments, including REIT investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Every brokerage firm has the responsibility of "knowing the customer" and making a customer specific "suitability" determination for every investment recommendation. The "Suitability Rule," Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 2111, requires that a firm or associated person "have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the member or associated person to ascertain the customer's investment profile." This is a new rule but it contains the core features of the previous National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") suitability rules and codifies well-settled interpretations of those rules. Brokerage firms and their associated persons have always had the responsibility to make suitable recommendations in light of individuals in stating investment objectives and financial condition, tax status, and other relevant factors. According to FINRA, some non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust investments ("REITs") aren't suitable for anyone based on the offering terms, misrepresentations and unreasonable projections by the promoters (see FINRA News Release "FINRA Issues Investor Alert on Public Non-Traded REITs").

The primary cause of the increased number of telephone calls to our office over the last five years is many elderly and retired investors have been steered into non-traded REIT investments as the yields on other income producing investments have steadily declined. According to many investors, the REITS were recommended as safe, secure, and steady income producing investments which sounded to be exactly what many seniors wanted and needed. But these products offer little liquidity for investors who at this stage of their life are likely to need to dip into their investment savings to support their lifestyle or for medical and other emergencies. There is no public market, early redemption of shares in REITs is often very limited, and the fees associated with the sales of these products can be high and erode the total return, if they can be sold at all. Further, many of these investments do not truly generate income but make distributions with borrowed money, with newly raised capital, or by a return of principal rather than a return on investment which can stop at any time. Although non-traded REITs may offer some diversification benefits as part of a balanced portfolio, they all have underlying risk characteristics that make them unsuitable for certain investors, particularly the elderly retired investor with limited financial resources.

When any Wells Real Estate Investment Trust investor calls our office, we will make a customer specific suitability determination after we learn the "essential facts" concerning that investor. We will ask, just as their stockbroker should have asked, about their age, investment experience, time horizon liquidity needs (length of time they could hold the investment without need for the principal), risk tolerance, other holdings, and financial situation in terms of liquid total net worth, tax status and investment objectives. All of these factors are relevant to suitability and determination and most weigh against the ownership of REIT investments by elderly retired investors. If we believe a brokerage firm or its representatives made an unsuitable recommendation that any person invest in a non-traded REIT, we recommend that they file a FINRA arbitration claim and attempt to recover their losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

ADVISERS ACTING AS PORTFOLIO MANAGERS POSES A MAJOR CONCERN FOR INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

Advisers acting as portfolio managers are causing major concerns about performance seeing as only about 10 percent of advisers are competent in allocating assets. This means that close to 90 percent of advisers are taking on more control and responsibility without fully understanding the investment decision making process. To date, advisers acting as portfolio managers have grown to approximately $150 billion at Morgan Stanley, up from $17 billion in 2003, and the trend is continuing to grow at a rate of $1 to $2 billion a month. This trend translates into a major dilemma for investors since very few advisers have the knowledge and skill to successfully analyze and allocate assets in a portfolio.
Asset allocation is an investment strategy that seeks to balance risk versus reward by adjusting the percentage of each asset in an investment portfolio according to the investors risk tolerance, goals and investment time frame. A fundamental justification for asset allocation is the idea that different asset classes offer returns that are not perfectly correlated, and so diversification reduces the overall risk in terms of the variability of returns. There are many types of assets that may be included in an asset allocation strategy such as: cash, bonds, stocks, commodities, real estate, and derivatives, and there are several types of asset allocation strategies based on investment goals, risk tolerance, time frames and diversification.
Some broker dealers have rolled out new measures to gauge how each individual client's portfolio is performing. For example, Morgan Stanley advisers who manage their own portfolios rate each client as conservative, moderate, or aggressive. Individual returns are then compared with all the other clients' at the wirehouse in the same category, instead of a stock or bond index. Advisers who are trailing their peers' performance are targeted for more help, either through extra training or resources. In some cases, advisers who are trailing their peers are pushed to outsource their investments and focus on other areas of financial planning, such as relationship management, prospecting, and tax planning. These measures are a good start for broker-dealers who support the current trend of advisers taking on the role of portfolio managers, but the number of advisers who truly understand what it takes to successfully manage a portfolio is certainly not where it should be.
Have you suffered investment losses due to inadequate asset allocation? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.
The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY WELLS TIMBERLAND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded Wells Timberland REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Wells Timberland REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in the Wells Timberland REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Wells Timberland REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Wells Timberland REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that Wells Timberland REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that the Wells Timberland REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Wells Timberland and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are a Wells Timberland REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH HIT WITH $1.3 MILLION ARBITRATION ORDER IN FLORIDA FOR FANNIE MAE PREFERRED STOCK SALES

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has been ordered to pay a $1.3 million arbitration award to a couple whose broker, Miles Pure, sold them Fannie Mae preferred stock. Although multiple warnings of its risks were apparent, including a sell rating from Merrill Lynch's own analysts, Mr. Pure sold Robert and Michelle Billings $2.3 million in Fannie Mae preferred shares two months before Fannie Mae collapsed and was placed into conservatorship. Also, just two weeks before the Billingses purchased the shares, Moody's downgraded Fannie Mae preferred stock, and Merrill Lynch removed the shares from its recommended list due to significant concerns about the company. The Billingses ended up losing their entire investment.
A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party. A fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on the fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client. A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client. In the case of the Billingses, FINRA found that Merrill Lynch was liable for breach of fiduciary duty and was ordered to pay compensatory damages.
The Billingses were never given any research on Fannie Mae despite their repeated requests. This prevented them from learning that Merrill Lynch had taken recent action, including recent analysts' reports, which reflected its negative view of Fannie Mae. Contrary to Mr. Pure's representations, it was Fannie Mae agency bonds and not the preferred shares that were back by the US government. The distinction was either not understood by Mr. Pure, or it was completely ignored by him in his sale of Fannie Mae shares to the Billingses.
Have you suffered losses as a result of broker misconduct? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.
The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY WELLS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded Wells REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Wells REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Wells REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Wells REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Wells REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Wells REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that Wells REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Wells REIT and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are a Wells REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FINRA) RULE 2111 EXPANDS STOCKBROKER DUTIES OWED TO CUSTOMERS

The new FINRA rule 2111 clarifies the suitability standard as follows:

1. It codifies the three main suitability obligations requiring brokers to (i) perform due diligence to understand the risks of an investment or investment strategy, and determine whether it is suitable for anyone, (ii) have a reasonable basis for believing the investment or investment strategy is suitable for the particular customer based on that customer's investment profile; and (iii) have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of securities transactions are not excessive (if the broker has control over the account).

2. It expands the factors that brokers must consider when making recommendations to customers to include age, investment experience, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance, as well as other factors.

3. It covers recommendations of investment strategies (not just securities transactions), which it defines broadly to include recommendations to "hold" (or refrain from selling) a security, even one that the broker did not make the original recommendation to purchase.

In Regulatory Notice 12-25 (captioned "Suitability - Additional Guidance on FINRA's New Suitability Rule"), FINRA further explicitly reaffirms that "a broker's recommendation must be consistent with his customer's best interests," and that this "prohibits a broker from placing his or her interests ahead of the customer's interests." The hallmark of a fiduciary is the requirement to always put the client's interests first. Thus, according to FINRA, brokerage firms and their registered representatives are subject to a fiduciary standard of care when they recommend an investment or investment strategy.

Regulatory Notice 12-25 also clarifies that the term "customer" includes a potential customer or anyone with whom the firm has even an informal business relationship, even if that person does not have an account at the firm. An investor takes a huge risk when cashing in pension assets on the advice of a broker, which is often before the investor has opened an account with the firm. Thus FINRA's own written guidance debunks the argument that the firm owed no duty under those circumstances because the investor was "not a customer."

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

INVESTORS NATIONWIDE SHOULD BEWARE OF EQUITY-INDEXED ANNUITIES

Equity-indexed annuities are one of the most abusively sold investments offered by brokers today. This is because their complexity, high fees and commissions, and long lockup periods are oftentimes misrepresented. Brokers are able to sell them to investors because they tout downside protection when markets deteriorate and generous upside potential when markets surge. Unfortunately, investors are never told the truth about equity-indexed annuities, which is also attributable to the brokers themselves not understanding how they work.

An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. An annuity can be either fixed or variable. Fixed annuities are invested in conservative investments, and the return to investors may vary, but a minimum rate of return is established. Variable annuities are higher in risk when compared to fixed annuities and depend on how the stock market is performing. Variable annuity buyers have the option to allocate the cash invested into different asset classes such as mutual funds, indices, fixed income investments or bonds, and money market.

Equity-indexed annuities are complex products that are hybrid of both fixed and variable annuities. Their returns vary more than a fixed annuity, but not as much as a variable annuity. So, equity-indexed annuities are more risky than fixed annuities, but less risky than a variable annuity. Equity-indexed annuities offer a minimum guaranteed interest rate combined with an interest rate linked to a market index. Because of the guaranteed interest rate, equity-indexed annuities have less market risk than variable annuities. Equity-indexed annuities also have the potential to earn returns better than traditional fixed annuities when the stock market is rising.

But equity-indexed annuities come with fees that are higher than any investment, the greatest sales commissions to brokers, and consequently the greatest surrender charges. Commissions to brokers can go as high as 12%, and surrender charges can be as high as 18%. Investors also take "haircuts" without fully understanding why the value of their account is decreasing. One example of a "haircut" is a performance cap, which limits upside potential, and it is often further reduced by a participation rate. Another example is the market value adjustment, which can significantly reduce an account's value if a client chooses to make withdrawals.

Some insurance companies have chosen not to sell equity-indexed variable annuities. Some of those companies included are New York Life, Prudential, TIAA-CRFF, and Met Life. Reason being is probably because very few people understand equity-indexed annuities, including the brokers who are selling them.
Have you suffered a loss of principal in your equity -indexed annuity? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY 1861 CAPITAL (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The 1861 Capital Municipal Enterprise Domestic Fund, LP, 1861 Capital Municipal Enterprise Offshore Fund, Ltd., 1861 Capital Discovery Domestic Fund, LP, and 1861 Capital Discovery Offshore Fund, Ltd. were so-called municipal arbitrage bond funds created by 1861 Capital Management, LLC and sold by UBS to investors nationwide. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like 1861 Capital converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

UBS blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WARNS REVERSE CONVERTIBLE INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently reported that broker-dealers are conducting sales of risky structured products, which ultimately hurt their clients. A sweep of more than 10 broker-dealers revealed that firms are steering clients into complex investments such as reverse convertibles that are not suitable for their portfolios. In many cases, the brokers did not disclose the risks associated with investing in reverse convertibles, misrepresented their values on client statements, and charged excessively high transaction fees. The SEC is recommending that brokers disclose the true nature of reverse convertibles to their clients, establish a supervisory system to avoid potential abuses, and perform adequate training of their sales representatives. Although this report touches upon faulty sales practices of risky products, it does not address what investors should really be concerned about.

Reverse convertibles are alternative investments that are not suitable for all investors. Their complexity is hardly ever understood, and they are oftentimes misrepresented as fixed income products. Reverse convertibles are made of a note and a derivative. The note is a loan by the investor to the issuer that pays an income stream to the investor, while the derivative establishes the payment at maturity. The derivative can either be a put option, which would allow the issuer to sell the underlying derivative or security back to the investor, or it can be a call option, which would allow the issuer the right to buy the underlying security at a predetermined price.

Most investors are not capable of evaluating whether reverse convertibles are suitable investments. What investors should recognize is that reverse convertibles put principal at risk if the price of the underlying security rises above or falls below a predetermined amount. The issuer will either sell or buy the security, which may cause investors to lose a significant amount of principal. However, investors are attracted to reverse convertibles because of their yields; reverse convertibles have averaged 13% in certain years. This comes as no surprise since yields on CDs and other conservative investments are near all-time lows, and fixed income investors need to generate income to pay bills and keep up with increasing costs. Still, investors must realize that reverse convertibles are not the solution. Rather than chase yields and risk losing hard earned savings, investors need to stick to what is suitable for them in order to avoid financial calamity.

Have you suffered a loss in a reverse convertible? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY INLAND WESTERN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Inland American Real Estate Trust (Inland American REIT) to determine if the REIT committed securities law violations related to management fees, the timing and amount of distributions paid to investors, and transactions with affiliates. Now that the SEC is involved, many investors in the non-traded Inland Western REIT (now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc.) have inquired about their ability to recover their losses. There are a number of things investors must understand about the SEC, its investigations are incredibly slow and rarely do investors ever benefit from them. Investors need to take matters in their own hands. Many claims are now being filed by Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Inland Western REITs and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Inland Western REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that Inland Western REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Inland Western REITs and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are an Inland Western REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

INVESTOR ALERT - THE COST OF OWNING A VARIABLE ANNUITY IS HIGH FOR ALL INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

Without a doubt, variable annuities are costly to investors. An agent can collect at least 5% from the moment of sale and 0.5% or more every year for the life of the investment; variable annuities with common riders can take over 3% off annual returns. Surrender charges of as much as 9% may apply if an investor is in need of cash due to an unexpected emergency. On top of all this, insurance companies are offering Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefits (GLWB) without clearly telling investors the costs associated with taking early distributions. GLWBs allow percentage withdrawals based on the total amount without having to annuitize the investment. The problem with GLWBs is the immense cost of withdrawal, which is hidden away from investors in the terms of the agreement.

So do the costs of owning a variable annuity confer a significant benefit to investors? The answer is most certainly not! Insurance companies have the numbers all figured out. They employ a slew of experts to compute prices and draft terms and conditions that make it advantageous to them to own the market risk they are purportedly taking away from investors.

An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. Variable annuities are typically higher in risk when compared other types of annuities and depend on how the stock market is performing. Buyers have the option to allocate the cash invested into different types of assets such as mutual funds, indices, fixed income investments or bonds, and cash. Variable annuities do not guarantee principal protection, so investors can lose money if markets deteriorate.

Investors cannot be urged enough to read the fine print when investing in a variable annuity. Even then, the complexity of the product may confuse an investor who is not experienced or financially savvy. This is why investors are often led into believing that variable annuities are safe and suitable and that the research should be left up to their broker. Unfortunately, those brokers oftentimes misrepresent and mislead investors into purchasing unsuitable variable annuities.

Have you suffered a loss of principal in your variable annuity? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY ARAVALI FUND (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Aravali Fund was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by Aravali Partners, LLC and sold by Alex Brown Deutsche Bank to investors nationwide. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Aravali Partners converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Alex Brown Deutsche Bank blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS--FLOATING-RATE BOND FUNDS ARE A "RISKY YIELD PLAY"

According to Jonnelle Marte of the Wall Street Journal, floating rate funds are a "Risky Yield Play." They have significant risks and investors must be aware of the downside. The increased demand for floating rate bonds has the effect of driving down yields. For example, during the credit crunch triple-C-rated companies paid as much as 47 percent for loans, but today that is down to 14 percent. Thus most of the returns have already been made.

Not so obvious is the fact that higher demand also results in looser restrictions for borrowers. These so-called "covenant-lite" loans, which have more relaxed repayment terms that are good for high-risk borrowers but bad for investors, now comprise 20 percent of the market - near the peak of 25 percent in 2007, according to the article.

Investors should be skeptical of the credit quality of floating rate loans. If the economy worsens, investors could experience significant losses.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

REVERSE CONVERTIBLES POSE A LEGITIMATE RISK FOR INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

Several warnings have been issued over the years by sources such as the Wall Street Journal regarding the risk of investing in reverse convertibles. These risks have now become a reality for many investors who have allocations of the product in their portfolio.

The surge in demand for reverse convertibles began when Wall Street marketed a product with yields between 7 and 25% and very little downside risk. Sales began to soar while demand for fixed income products dropped due to the decline in conventional interest bearing product yields. Small investors purchased $8.5 billion in reverse convertible in 2007 alone. Some of the firms that have offered reverse convertibles include Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Wells Fargo, and ABM AMro Holding NV.

Reverse convertibles are alternative investments that are not suitable for all investors. Their complexity is hardly ever understood, and they are oftentimes misrepresented as fixed income products. Reverse convertibles are made of a note and a derivative. The note is a loan by the investor to the issuer that pays an income stream to the investor, while the derivative establishes the payment at maturity. The derivative can either be a put option, which would allow the issuer to sell the underlying derivative or security back to the investor, or it can be a call option, which would allow the issuer the right to buy the underlying security at a predetermined price. Also, investors may risk capital if they try to sell their reverse convertible prior to its maturity.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sent inquiries to brokerage firms regarding monitoring reverse convertible sales and marketing practices. Still, firms continue to hold out reverse convertibles as safe investments. Some firms even list reverse convertibles under CD alternatives. The NASD has suggested that only investors who are approved to trade options be allowed to purchase reverse convertible, but they pose a risk for even the most sophisticated investors.

Most investor are not capable of evaluating whether reverse convertibles are suitable investments. What investors should recognize though is that reverse convertibles put principal at risk if the price of the underlying security rises above or falls below a predetermined amount. The issuer will either sell or buy the security, which may cause investors to lose a significant amount of principal. However, investors are attracted to reverse convertibles because of their yields; reverse convertibles have average 13% in certain years. This comes as no surprise since yields on CDs and other conservative investments are near all-time lows, and fixed income investors need to generate income to pay bills and keep up with increasing costs. Still, investors must realize that reverse convertibles are not the solution. Rather than chase yields and risk losing hard earned savings, investors need to stick to what is suitable for them in order to avoid financial calamity.

Have you suffered a loss in a reverse convertible? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS--DON'T GET PUSHED INTO ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MUTUAL FUNDS

Investors have been misled into believing that alternative investment mutual funds will deliver short-term positive returns in any type of market conditions. There have been two bear markets since 2000 and the S&P 500 stock index is almost 10 percent lower today than it was in 2000. Investors have not forgotten and are desperately exploring viable investment options. According to John Waggoner (USA Today), investors' fear and loathing of the stock market has resulted in $182 billion in outflows from actively managed stock mutual funds since the bottom in March 2009, and record inflows into various alternative investment mutual funds ("Funds Craft Lures for Skittish Investors"). They include "long-short" funds, which both buy some stocks and sell other stocks short; volatility funds, which bet on how violently the market lurches in one direction or the other; bear funds, which sell short in the belief that markets will fall in the short term; and absolute return funds, which speculate in risky securities like commodities, foreign currencies, and emerging markets.

In the past 12 months, however, the S&P 500 has returned 4.6 percent, but market neutral funds are down 1.4 percent, long-short funds are down 2.7 percent, currency funds are down 5.4 percent, and multi-alternative funds are down 2.6 percent, according to the article, citing Morningstar.

And so, why should investors allow advisors to push them into investments they don't understand, that employ new and untested strategies and the highest fees and expenses? Don't jump into alternative investment mutual funds simply because you're disappointed with your stock and bond mutual funds. If you do, the new alternative investment track record indicates you will only be disappointed!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

FINRA FINES MERRILL LYNCH $2.8 MILLION FOR OVERCHARGING CUSTOMERS

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has fined Merrill Lynch $2.8 million for overcharging nearly 95,000 customers with fees totaling more than $32 million. The overcharges occurred from April 2003 to December 2011. The fine also included failing to provide timely trade confirmations ("Merrill Lynch Fined for Overcharging Customers," Wall Street Journal).

"Investors must be able to trust that the fees charged by their securities firm are, in fact, correct," Brad Bennett, the regulator's chief of enforcement, was quoted as saying, adding: "When this is not the case, investor confidence is threatened."

Merrill Lynch's failure to send customers trade confirmations involved more than 10.6 million trades in over 230,000 customer accounts from July 2006 to November 2010. Merrill Lynch also failed to deliver proxy and voting materials, margin risk disclosure statements and business continuity plans.

Merrill Lynch blamed improper coding of accounts for the problems, according to the article. Merrill Lynch is a division of Bank of America.

In keeping with its much-criticized practice, FINRA allowed Merrill Lynch to buy its peace without admitting to any facts.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS--HEDGE FUND-LIKE MUTUAL FUNDS UNDERPERFORM THE MARKET

Hedge fund-like mutual funds are "today's hottest yet least rewarding strategy," according to Lewis Braham ("Serving Up Disappointment," Bloomberg Markets). They use market-neutral, long-short, managed-futures and other alternative strategies. The long and short of it is that they cost more and may return less than an index fund. Expenses can be as high as 6.7 percent.

Highbridge Statistical Market Neutral mutual fund is a case in point. The fund was created by JP Morgan hedge fund managers, and holds $866 million in equal portions of long and short positions, according to the article. During the seven years from inception through March 2012, its annualized return was 1.2 percent - compared to 4.1 percent for the S&P 500 stock index. That dismal return put it at the head of the class of 255 hedged U.S. mutual funds.

Alternative investments have been pitched as a panacea to investors who have lost faith in traditional stock and bond investments. Observers say the flow of investor funds into alternatives has begun to slow due to poor performance, high fees, valuation issues and illiquidity.

Have you suffered any hedge fund-like mutual fund losses? If so, call the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.