CADARET GRANT INVESTOR ALERT - WATCH OUT FOR CHURNING AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS!

Cadaret Grant & Co. Inc. (Cadaret Grant) is an independent broker-dealer headquartered in Syracuse, New York and reportedly has over 1000 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 a Cadaret Grant 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 a Cadaret Grant 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 Cadaret Grant 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 Cadaret Grant 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.

THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, LLC FINED BY FINRA FOR FAILING TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has fined San Francisco, California based Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC based on findings that the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and procedures governing principal transactions. As a result, the firm effected transactions that had the potential to, and in fact did, pose a serious conflict of interest. FINRA concluded that the principal transactions were not subject to effective supervisory review. Thomas Weisel Partners was fined a total of $200,000.

Broker-dealers must establish and implement a reasonable supervisory system to protect customers from conflicts of interest and other forms of broker misconduct. If broker-dealers do not establish and implement a reasonable supervisory system, they may be liable to investors for damages flowing from illegal activity. Therefore, investors who have suffered damages can bring forth claims to recover losses against broker-dealers like Thomas Weisel Partners, which should have overseen its principal transaction activity. Have you suffered losses in your Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC account due to a conflict of interest? 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.

SANTANDER INVESTMENT SECURITIES INC. FINED AND CENSURED FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE FOREIGN FUND OFFERINGS

Santander Investment Securities Inc., a brokerage firm based in New York, New York, submitted a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered findings that a registered firm principal had been tasked with gathering interest within the institutional investor community in the U.S. for funds managed by a non-FINRA-regulated fund manager affiliated with the firm but located outside the U.S. The principal, along with other brokers and several non-registered personnel, contacted investors about the future purchase of the non-U.S. funds. FINRA stated that the firm failed to have a registered person supervise the principal and other registered personnel in connection with contacting U.S. institutional investors about the funds. The firm did not have a system to adequately supervise communications between the principal, other brokers, non-registered firm employees, and the investors concerning the purchase of the non-U.S. funds. The firm was censured and fined total of $350,000 for the violations.
Brokerage firms must establish and implement a reasonable supervisory system to protect customers from abusive sales practices. If brokerage firms do not establish and/or implement a reasonable supervisory system, they may be liable to investors for damages flowing from the unsupervised conduct.
FINRA's findings further stated that the communications occurred at presentations to potential investors where sales literature was distributed. The firm did not designate a firm-registered individual to ensure its policies and procedures were enforced in this area. The firm did not apply its existing policies and procedures related to communications with the public and the review and approval of the fund materials and presentations. None of the materials were reviewed or approved by the firm's compliance department to ensure the materials were fair and balanced. The firm also failed to maintain copies of the distributed material as required. Moreover, FINRA stated that the principal distributed communications to the investing public that contained fund materials, which did not provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts and contained exaggerated claims.
Have you suffered losses in your Santander Investment 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 accepting clients with valid claims against Santander Investment Securities stockbrokers who may have engaged in 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.

LPL FINANCIAL CENSURED AND FINED FOR FAULTY SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS GOVERNING DELIVERIES OF MUTUAL FUND PROSPECTUSES

LPL Financial LLC, a Boston, Massachusetts based brokerage firm, submitted a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent to resolve Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) findings that it failed to establish and maintain an adequate supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (WSPs) reasonably designed to ensure timely delivery of mutual fund prospectuses. FINRA's findings stated that the firm was required to provide each of its customers who purchased a mutual fund with a prospectus for that fund no later than three business days after the transaction. The firm executed approximately 16 million mutual fund purchase or exchange transactions, and several million of these transactions required the firm to deliver a mutual fund prospectus to the purchasing customer. Therefore, the firm was required to establish and maintain a supervisory system and WSPs reasonably designed to monitor and ensure the timely delivery of mutual fund prospectuses. FINRA censured and fined the firm a total of $400,000 for all violations committed.
A prospectus is a document that discloses important information about an investment. It typically provides investors with material information about mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and other investments. Such information generally includes a description of the company's business, financial statements, biographies of officers and directors, detailed information about their compensation, any litigation that is taking place, a list of material properties, and any other material information.
In addition, FINRA's findings stated that the firm relied on its brokers for the delivery of mutual fund prospectuses. Each broker was required to obtain the customer's signature on a prospectus receipt form to have a record of the delivery. However, the firm did not have a supervisory system in place that was reasonably designed to ensure that prospectus receipts had been obtained in connection with mutual fund purchases or that a prospectus had actually been delivered timely. The firm's WSPs did not require an adequate review of its brokers' performance of their prospectus delivery obligations. Instead, the firm's procedures consisted of inadequate measures. FINRA further stated that for some time, the firm was aware that its procedures were failing to ensure that brokers consistently obtained prospectus receipts or other evidence of mutual fund prospectus delivery. On at least two occasions, the firm contemplated proposals to adjust its procedures for tracking prospectus delivery compliance, but the firm did not modify or enhance its procedures and continued to rely upon brokers without adequate safeguards to ensure and monitor mutual fund prospectus delivery.
Have you suffered losses in your LPL Financial 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 LPL Financial stockbrokers who may have engaged in 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.

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

Walnut Street Securities, Inc. is a subsidiary of the MetLife Broker-Dealer Group, which is owned by the Metropolitan Insurance Company. It is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Walnut Street Securities is headquartered in New York City and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States 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 Walnut Street 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 Walnut Street 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 accepting clients with valid claims against Walnut Street 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.

TRIAD ADVISORS INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Triad Advisors, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Ladenburg Thallmann Financial Services, Inc.. It is a mid-size independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Triad Advisors is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States 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 Triad Advisors 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 Triad Advisors 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 Triad Advisors 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.

MERRILL LYNCH SALIVATING OVER POTENTIAL COMMISSIONS FROM NON-TRADED REIT SALES

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has recently decided to offer non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) to its clients, making it the first major wirehouse to offer the alternative investment. Non-traded REITs have traditionally been sold by independent broker-dealers who focus on retail clients, but Merrill Lynch believes the moment is ripe to offer REITs to clients given that "the primary investment objectives are designed to provide attractive current income, preserve and protect invested capital, achieve net asset value appreciation over time and enable stockholders to utilize real estate as a long-term portfolio diversifier," said Merrill Lynch's Keith Glenfield. In fact, the company has already raised $50 million from clients interested in the Jones Lang LaSalle Income Property Trust REIT. However, since the onset of the financial crisis, non-traded REITs have proven themselves to be nothing more than risky and highly illiquid investments that have been the subject of regulatory scrutiny due to misrepresentations about the product. This lends itself to the notion that the only thing that remains certain about the REITs are the high commissions brokers will earn for selling them.
REITs invest in a diversified set of income producing real estate properties and mortgages, and they must distribute 90 percent of net earnings to investors. REITs allow investors to partake in real estate investing without directly owning property, which may lock up large amounts of money for long periods of time. The most popular REITs are publicly traded on a stock exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) - they are relatively transparent in their finances and operations and are covered extensively by investment analysts. Non-traded REITs are not listed or registered with securities regulators and are supposed to be available only to accredited investors - $1 million or more in assets or $200,000.00 in annual income. Non-traded REITs disclose their finances publicly and offer shares to the public, but they do not list their shares on an exchange, which is one of many risk factors associated with them.
There is no doubt that the potential to earn hefty commissions can influence broker-dealers such as Merrill Lynch to ignore duties owed to their clients. Such duties include performing adequate due diligence to better understand a product and evaluating whether the product is suitable for an individual's investment objectives and risk tolerance. As a result, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has issued several "Investor Alerts" regarding investing in non-traded REITs. The Alerts were intended to help investors understand the risks, benefits, features and fees associate with investing in non-traded REITs. The Alerts also warned investors about the use of borrowed funds, limited early redemption schemes and fees associated with the sale of the investments. Unfortunately, these Investor Alerts came too late for some investors who purchased non-traded REIT shares that have lost a significant amount of money.
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 REITs as 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. When any Wells REIT 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 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!
Have you suffered losses resulting from a real estate investment trust sold by Merrill Lynch? 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 stockbrokers who misrepresented and sold real estate investment trusts to investors.
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.

THE WILLOW FUND FRAUD AND MISMANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION

In 2000, UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS) and Bond Street Capital (BSC) formed a closed-end mutual fund to purchase debt and other securities of distressed (near bankrupt) companies restructuring their debt financing. Since 2007, the net asset value of the Fund declined by over 300 million dollars. Some investors have lost over 85% of their initial investment capital as a result of gross misrepresentations and mismanagement of the fund.
It appears that many UBS advisors are misinformed by the company about the nature, mechanics and risks of the Willow Fund and in turn, misinformed their clients. Some of UBS's best clients invested in what they were led to believe to be a "safe" and "secure" investment with a "guaranteed income stream." They were unaware of the extensive leverage through the use of derivatives and credit swap contracts. This was a highly speculative investment and unsuitable for many of those clients with income as their primary investment objective.
The Willow Fund managers ratcheted up the risk by failing to perform the rigorous credit analysis on the company's restructuring of their debt financing. In addition, the managers failed to limit the risk positions and diversify the portfolio as represented. It appears that a gross breach of fiduciary duty and negligence occurred in the management of the fund.
Have you suffered losses resulting from an investment in the Willow Fund? 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 UBS and other stockbrokers who fraudulently offered and sold the fund to investors.
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.

LPL FINANCIAL, LLC FINED FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER PROSPECTUSES TO INVESTORS

LPL Financial, LLC (LPL), for the third time in the last thirty days, has been fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for violation of securities industry rules and regulations relating to the protection of investors. This time LPL failed to implement and maintain adequate supervisory systems and procedures to monitor and ensure the timely delivery of mutual fund prospectuses as required by Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), NASD Conduct Rule 3010 and FINRA Rule 2010. FINRA investigators discovered that LPL failed to provide prospectuses to its customers who purchased mutual funds during the period of its investigation - 2009 through 2011 (the "relevant period"). FINRA estimated that LPL may have failed to deliver at least 3.4 million mutual fund prospectuses to its customers during that two year period. There is a high probability that LPL failed to deliver prospectuses in connection with the sale of other products during the relevant period and did not have procedures in place to ensure delivery of any prospectuses to its customers prior to the relevant period. The FINRA investigators found that at least as early as 2007, LPL was aware that its procedures were failing to ensure that its registered representatives were delivering the prospectuses as required under the federal and state securities laws.
The federal and state securities laws require the delivery of a prospectus to investors because it provides them with important information about the product being purchased. Our federal and state securities laws require disclosure of the details of the enterprise in which an investor's putting money so that he can be fully apprised and intelligently appraise the risks involved in his or her particular investment. Not only has LPL violated Section 5 of the Securities Act, but it has also violated Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Acts of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), which states the time prospectus must be delivered. A prospectus is required to be delivered by a securities broker-dealer before the transaction is complete on the settlement date of the transaction, which in the case of mutual fund transactions, and in most stock transactions, is no later than 3 business days after the order is placed.
The failure to deliver prospectuses in a timely manner is an extremely serious violation. It is not only a violation that can result in sanctions by securities regulator such as FINRA, but it can also give rise to a civil action or arbitration claim by an investor for rescission (to unwind the transaction) under both federal and state securities laws. Alternatively, an investor may recover damages for losses suffered in connection with an investment he or she made through LPL if that investor did not receive a prospectus in a timely manner.
Have you suffered losses resulting from an LPL stockbroker's failure to deliver a prospectus relating to an investment made through that brokerage firm? 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.

WELLS TIMBERLAND REIT BLAMES STILL-DISMAL HOUSING INDUSTRY FOR AXE TO SHARE PRICE

Wells Timberland REIT Inc. has recently issued an estimated per share value of $6.56 in their real estate investment trust (REIT), which invests in working timberland. The shares were offered to the public at $10 when the REIT was launched in 2006. Wells Timberland blamed the 35 percent drop in share price value on the still-dismal housing industry. Wells Timberland REIT is sponsored by Wells Real Estate Funds, one of the largest firms in the arena of non-traded REITs. It has invested more than $11 billion in real estate for more than 300,000 investors. The $6.56 share price valuation was based on information as of September 30, 2012, which in all probability is not a realistic exit price available to investors due to the illiquid nature of the REIT.
REITs invest in a diversified set of income producing real estate properties and mortgages, and they must distribute 90 percent of net earnings to investors. REITs allow investors to partake in real estate investing without directly owning property, which may lock up large amounts of money for longs periods of time. The most popular REITs are publicly traded on a stock exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) - they are relatively transparent in their finances and operations and are covered extensively by investment analysts. Non-traded REITs are not listed or registered with securities regulators and are supposed to be available only to accredited investors - $1 million or more in assets or $200,000.00 in annual income. Non-traded REITs disclose their finances publicly and offer shares to the public, but they do not list their shares on an exchange, which is one of many risk factor associated with them.
Wells Timberland's 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission lists timber assets of $11.70 per share, $0.28 of other assets per share, and debt and preferred equity liabilities of $5.42. Although the board of directors used appraisal information from a forest consulting firm and a certified public accountant, it made the final estimate itself. In October, the trust suspended redemptions of shares until the new estimate of share values was completed. Beginning in January, investors will be able to redeem shares for 95% of the estimated value - or $6.23. However, Wells Timberland pays for redemptions out of its distribution reinvestment plan, and because it has made no cash distributions, it has also not made any ordinary share redemptions.
Have you suffered losses in the Wells Timberland REIT? 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.

MORGAN STANLEY AGREES TO PAY $5 MILLION FOR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION RELATED TO FACEBOOK IPO

Morgan Stanley has agreed to pay a $5 million fine to settle charges by the State of Massachusetts for its role in the Facebook initial public offering (IPO). Massachusetts regulators claimed that a senior investment banker at Morgan Stanley helped Facebook officials update analysts about lower revenue forecasts during private calls on May 9, 2012 - information not given to investors. Massachusetts claims that the investment banker drafted a script used by Facebook's treasurer while the phone calls were made to analysts only minutes after filing an update with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The script said that revenues for the second quarter would be "on the lower end of our 1.1 to 1.2 [billion dollar] range" and "over the next six to nine months could be 3% to 3.5% off the 2012 $5 billion target," stated the consent order. Both of these specific targets were not mentioned in the SEC filing. In addition, the consent order alleged failure to supervise analysts under the 2003 global research analyst settlement.
An IPO is a type of offering where shares of stock in a private company are sold to the general public on a securities exchange for the first time. Initial public offerings are used by companies to raise capital and to become publicly traded enterprises. A company selling shares is never required to repay the capital to its public investors. After the IPO, when shares trade freely in the open market, money passes between public investors. Although an IPO offers many advantages, there are also significant disadvantages such as the costs associated with the requirement to disclose certain information that could prove helpful to competitors, or create difficulties with vendors. Details of the proposed offering are disclosed to potential purchasers in the form of a lengthy document known as a prospectus. Most companies undertaking an IPO do so with the assistance of an investment banking firm acting in the capacity of an underwriter. Underwriters provide a valuable service, which includes help with correctly assessing the value of shares and establishing a public market for shares.
Regardless of the revenue downgrades, the price and quantity of Facebook's IPO were pushed up by bullish investors who were ignorant of the downgrades. The company went public on May 18, 2012 at $45 per share, but shares immediately sold off to settle around $38 per share. Facebook shares fell further, touching the $17 dollar range after the bad news was digested in the marketplace.
Have you suffered losses on your purchase of Facebook IPO shares? 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.

MASSACHUSETTS LAWSUIT AGAINST LPL FINANCIAL FOR REIT SALES PAVES THE WAY FOR SUCCESSFUL INVESTOR CLAIMS

A Massachusetts lawsuit against LPL Financial will surely strengthen investors' arbitration claims for losses resulting from illegal sales practices involving real estate investment trusts (REITs). Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin charged LPL with failure to supervise registered representatives who sold the non-traded REITs in violation of both state limitations and the company's guidelines. The Massachusetts securities division also charged LPL with dishonest and unethical business practices. Massachusetts charges stem from the sale of $28 million of non-traded REITs to almost 600 clients from 2006 to 2009. Of the REITs listed in the complaint, the highest sales were for Inland American Real Estate Trust, the largest non-traded REIT, with $11.2 billion in real estate assets. Robert Pearce, a 30-year securities and commodities attorney in Boca Raton, FL, believes that Massachusetts' action will certainly generate a flood of cases against LPL. Mr. Pearce added that the Massachusetts complaint will serve as a roadmap for investors and their attorneys to follow when asserting their claims.
REITs invest in a diversified set of income producing real estate properties and mortgages, and they must distribute 90 percent of net earnings to investors. REITs allow investors to partake in real estate investing without directly owning property, which may lock up large amounts of money for long periods of time. The most popular REITs are publicly traded on a stock exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) - they are relatively transparent in their finances and operations and are covered extensively by investment analysts. Non-traded REITs are not listed or registered with securities regulators and are supposed to be available only to accredited investors - $1 million or more in assets or $200,000.00 in annual income. Non-traded REITs disclose their finances publicly and offer shares to the public, but they do not list their shares on an exchange, which is one of many risk factors associated with them.
In LPL's case, Massachusetts' investigation showed significant and widespread issues with LPL's adherence to product prospectus and state requirements. As a result, Massachusetts is seeking full restitution to clients who were sold REITs allegedly in violation of state and prospectus requirements. The state is also seeking an unspecified administrative fine against LPL. Although LPL set forth stringent requirements for the sale for non-traded REITs, it failed to properly review sales of non-traded REITs. In addition, the securities division was able to uncover similar issues with many other REITs sold by LPL. To counter the possibility of future violations, the firm has changed its policies and procedures, creating a separate complex-products team to review all alternative investments. Regardless of the measures taken by LPL, investors are urged to conduct their own investigation prior to making an investment decision involving non-traded REITs. That way, investors will have a clearer understanding of non-traded REITs, which just might keep them from buying the product from the get-go.
Have you suffered losses in real estate investment trusts sold by LPL Financial? 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.

INVESTORS NATIONWIDE BEWARE - A PLEDGED-ASSET MORTGAGE CAN PUT YOUR SECURITIES PORTFOLIO AT RISK!

Brokerage firms are offering up to 100 percent loan-to-value ratio mortgages or pledged-asset mortgages to clients who do not have enough cash to make a down payment on a home. Instead of making a down payment, customers are required to pledge their stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other securities. Though brokerage firm websites and brochures often tout the advantages of 100 percent mortgages, such as allowing the investor to avoid private mortgage insurance or liquidating their securities, investors may overlook and consign to the fine print without understanding the risks associated with these mortgages. Investors must realize that pledged-asset mortgages, or 100 percent mortgages, are not suitable for everyone. In order to determine whether 100 percent mortgages are suitable, an investor must start by evaluating their risks.
The classic 100 percent mortgage requires little or no cash down payment. Instead, the investor pledges securities in his or her brokerage account, allowing the investor to finance up to 100 percent of the value of the house. The amount of securities required in the pledge will depend on the type of securities proposed in the pledge and the terms of the mortgage. The amount pledged usually exceeds the amount required, which allows for some fluctuation in the value of the securities. However, if the value of the securities pledged goes down below a minimum amount set by the firm, the firm may issue a collateral call, which is a demand that the investor deposit additional cash or securities. If the investor cannot meet the demand or the value of the securities continue to decline, the firm may sell some or all of the securities, sometimes without notification.
100 percent mortgages also bear certain costs. Since the investor is borrowing more money with a 100 percent mortgage, he or she is probably paying more interest than if a cash payment would have been made. This may be economical if the investor's portfolio is able to make returns on investments that are greater than the mortgage payments. Furthermore, if the investor chooses an adjustable-rate 100 percent mortgage and interest rates rise, the returns in the investor's portfolio may not keep up with the rising mortgage payments, particularly if the investor is holding bonds or other fixed income instruments - fixed income principal values decline when interest rates rise. With an adjustable-rate mortgage, the securities markets decline at the same time that interest rates rise, the investor may be stuck with both larger mortgage payments and thousands in markets losses.
Investors considering a 100 percent mortgage must consider the risks associated with them before making a decision. Investors are encouraged to keep in mind the following:
-Even after obtaining a mortgage loan, an investor may be required to deposit more cash or securities if the value of the securities pledged falls below the minimum required by the firm.
-The firm can force the sale of pledged securities to meet a collateral call. The case will remain in the account until the mortgage is paid or refinanced, the firm is instructed to use the funds to pay down the mortgage, the equity in the home reaches a certain level, or the cash is applied to the outstanding mortgage balance upon default.
-The firm can sell the securities without contacting the investor. Most firms will attempt to contact the investor prior to the sale, but they are not required to do so. Even if the investor is contacted and given a specific date to meet a collateral call, the firm may decide to proceed with selling the securities before the date.
-Investors are not entitled to choose which securities are sold. The firm may decide to sell any of the securities that are held as collateral for the mortgage.
-Investors are not entitled to an extension of time on a collateral call. While an extension may be available to an investor to meet a collateral call under certain conditions, there is no right to an extension.
-If the investor defaults on the mortgage, he or she could lose both the home and the securities pledged. Some states allow firms to sell the securities immediately, while others only allow for liquidation after the home is sold for a loss at a public sale.
Have you suffered losses in your portfolio due to a pledged-asset mortgage? 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.

INVESTORS NATIONWIDE BEWARE - RISKING YOUR HOME TO BUY SECURITIES COULD LEAD TO FORECLOSURE!

Many investors are tempted to risk their homes by taking out second mortgages, re-financing, or obtaining a line of credit for the specific purpose of investing such funds when mortgage rates are low and the stock market is rising. Typically, the goal is to generate additional wealth while continuing to make mortgage payments. In more than most cases, investors who fail to achieve this ambitious objective end up defaulting on their mortgage. This is why investors must consider the risks associated with "betting the ranch" before they move forward with making such a bold investment decision.
Investing in any type of security entails risk to principal. Using home equity to buy securities compounds this risk in a few different ways. First, when an investor buys securities with mortgage money, he or she is investing with borrowed funds. This action increases the investor's exposure to market risk, similar to buying securities on margin. However, the mortgage money will most likely be greater than any amount a broker-dealer would lend in a margin account. Second, when an investor uses mortgage money to purchase securities, he or she risks losing the principal invested along with the underlying collateral - namely the house. Even if the home is not lost, the investor could lose a significant amount of home equity, which might have taken decades to build up. Last, investors usually maker riskier investments, or investments that offer higher than average yields, to surpass their mortgage rate. If the given investment yield is unsatisfactory, investors may feel compelled to place the money in an even riskier product.
The classic example of investors using mortgage money to purchase securities involves a retired couple who wants to earn a higher income by using the equity in their mortgage-free home. The couple will take out a new mortgage at an interest rate of 6% with hopes of paying the loan and earning more income. On the advice of their broker, the couple will invest in a mutual fund with an average return of 12% over the past five to 10 years. However, instead of posting a gain for that year, the fund loses 15 percent of its value. Since the couple was depending on earning a profit from the fund to pay their mortgage debt, and they have no other assets, they are faced with a tough choice - sell the depleted investment to be able to make mortgage payments and hope that the fund will be profitable soon, or they can sell the house and hope that the price is enough to pay off the outstanding mortgage. Either way, the couple risks losing their home.
If a broker recommends that an investor should consider using home equity to invest in securities, the investor can avoid financial calamity by asking herself a couple simple questions: 1) Will I be able to make mortgage payments in the value of my investments decline?; or 2) Do I have a secure salary or other funds to make mortgage payments if the value of my investments decline? If the answer is no, just say no to betting the ranch on securities.
Have you lost or risked losing your home as a result of your broker's recommendation to use home equity to invest in securities? 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.

RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES FINED AND CENSURED FOR CARELESSLY RELEASING CLIENT PERSONAL INFORMATION

Raymond James & Associates has been fined $250,000.00 and censured by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for allowing a firm employee to build and maintain an online document management system (DMS) for client records, which was eventually used to reveal client personal information on the internet. After the employee left Raymond James, the individual was no longer authorized to by the firm to receive personally identifiable information (PII) about firm clients. However, a branch office of the firm provided PII of numerous firm clients to the individual, and a second branch office provided the individual with PII of customers and their beneficiaries. FINRA's findings also stated that subsequently, a client complained that her account information and PII were available on the internet. Raymond James had learned that while building and maintaining the DMS, the individual had carelessly posted customer PII to the internet.
FINRA stated that Raymond James contacted the individual, who contacted the search engine to request that the client information be removed, upon notification of the released information. Raymond James then notified regulators of the incident and notified affected clients and their beneficiaries that their PII had been exposed on the internet. The clients and their beneficiaries were offered free credit monitoring and protection services for the incident.
In addition, a firm-approved third-party vendor sent correspondence to clients relating to a cash management account program. Raymond James provided the firms with a list of clients in order to prepare the mailing. The vendor printed and mailed 87,000 mailing envelopes with labels that disclosed each client's account number along with the client's name and address.
Broker-dealers must establish and implement a reasonable supervisory system to protect clients from fraudulent practices by their brokers. If broker-dealers do not establish and/or implement a reasonable supervisory system, they may be liable to investors for damages. According to FINRA, "the firm failed to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems and procedures to safeguard against the unauthorized disclosure of PII to non-affiliated third parties, and failed to provide customers with opt-out notices prior to disclosing non-public customer information to a non-affiliated third party." Therefore, investors who have suffered damages resulting from such activity can bring forth claims to recover losses against their broker-dealer for failure to take preventative measures.
Have you suffered damages resulting from identity theft while having an account with Raymond James & Associates? 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.

WAS THE COLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether Cole Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. Cole 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 Cole 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.

DON'T TRADE IN YOUR VARIABLE ANNUITY WITHOUT GETTING BACK ALL OF THE EXCESSIVE FEES!

More and more insurers are offering annuity contract buyouts to owners of Variable Annuity ("VA") contracts with a guaranteed-minimum-withdrawal benefit ("GMWB"). It seems that some insurers recognize an opportunity to retain all of the excessive fees they received from legacy VA clients and coax them out of VA contracts with GMWB features and death benefits within offer of a slightly higher account value. You remember the broker's pitch for the purchase of these VA contracts: "if the value goes down, you are guaranteed income for life"; and "every year the amount of the death benefit increases for your beneficiaries."
Why the change of heart? Well it's because many of the insurers recognize: we're in an extended period of low interest rates, and it's difficult for them to invest and make money; their VA contracts are underwater because the mutual fund sub-accounts performed poorly; and many VA contract owners can't or won't do the math! The insurers at Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., Transamerica Life Insurance Co. and Wells Fargo want you to give up your GMWB benefit in exchange for a slightly higher account value with no more guarantees. The only beneficiaries of this exchange will be the brokers who retained all of the excessive upfront commissions and generous trailing commissions and the insurers who will duck out of VA contracts with product features that have now become unprofitable for them.
An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. VAs are typically higher in risk when compared to 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. Most VAs do not have principal protection, so investors can lose money if markets deteriorate. GMWB gives the VA policy owner the ability to protect their retirement investments against downside market risk by allowing the owner to withdraw a maximum percentage of their entire investment each year until the initial investment amount has been recouped.
Neither the broker nor the insurer looked out for your interest when they sold you this overpriced and unsuitable VA product and they certainly are not looking out for your interest today with the exchange offer. Make sure you consider the excessive fees you paid for the benefits they want to take back as well as the likelihood of future account losses that will no longer be protected in making your decision.
Have you suffered losses resulting from trading in your guaranteed-minimum-withdrawal benefit 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.

WAS THE HINES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether Hines Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. Hines 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 Hines 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 AMREIT REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether AmREIT Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. AmREIT 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 AmREIT 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 BEHRINGER HARVARD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT?

Many investors have been calling my office and asking whether Behringer Harvard Real Estate Investment Trust was an unsuitable investment for them. Behringer Harvard 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 Behringer Harvard 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.