Alternate Investments

FINRA Proposes New Rule to Make Brokerage Fees More Transparent to Customers

June 24, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has recently sponsored a new securities industry rule that makes the information included on customer account statements more transparent. Transparent commissions will likely lower the total up-front commissions a broker can collect on certain popular securities as investors realize the steep fees they are paying.

Nontraded real estate investment trusts (REITs) are among the most popular investment products sold by registered representatives and their broker-dealers. Typically sold for less than $10 per share, the commission to a rep and the firm in this $1.4 billion “alternative investment” sector of the retail investment market is 7%, though the amount that goes toward the total upfront commission is split amongst several different players involved in selling the REIT. A problem for investors is that their account statements do not clearly show the breakdown of those commissions or the estimated per-share valuation of their investment — something that the current rules do not require be revealed to them until 18 months after the REIT sponsors stop raising funds.

Under FINRA’s proposed new rule, the time frame in which broker-dealers will have to show investors a true valuation of such purchases will be drastically sped up. By accelerating that timetable, investors will be provided quicker and much greater transparency in seeing the commissions being charged to them; and industry experts anticipate that broker-dealers are likely to lower the fees they assess to investors on such alternative investments. Both nontraded REITs and illiquid private placements known as “direct participation programs” (DPPs), which would also fall directly under this new rule, have frequently been criticized for high commissions.

Are Private Equity Funds the Next Wave of Lawsuits?

April 9, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has formed a new group to increase oversight of private equity and hedge funds. The SEC has assigned two former industry veterans to oversee the unit. The SEC frequently creates these units when it sees increased activity in a particular type of investment product or is concerned that a particular segment of the securities industry may be violating the federal securities laws. Over the last decade, alternative investments such as private equity and hedge funds have become very popular, and sales of these types of funds have expanded from the institutional level to the retail investor level.

The SEC’s 2014 Compliance Outreach Program focused on alternative investments such as hedge funds. Private funds run by private equity firms, hedge funds, venture capital funds and other alternative investments have been the subject of heightened scrutiny during the last several years, furthered by the creation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in the wake of the financial crisis.

At the 2014 SEC Compliance Outreach Program, the SEC brought attention to a number of concerns it has relating to private equity. Among the SEC’s rising concerns in this area are vague limited partnership agreements and poor disclosure practices to limited partnerships at private equity funds, the shifting of fees and expenses at those funds, and misleading performance and valuation metrics at private equity firms and hedge funds.

Silver Law Group Urges FINRA to Lift the Stay of all Puerto Rico Arbitration Claims

March 28, 2014 | Silver Law Group

In February 2014, Bond Buyer magazine featured a story about Silver Law Group’s representation of many Puerto Rico investors in FINRA arbitration claims against UBS of Puerto Rico for losses in leveraged bond funds. The article concluded by highlighting Silver Law Group Managing Partner Scott Silver’s concerns that FINRA was not equipped to handle the large number of claims which could easily be anticipated against UBS for selling this complex alternative investment which lost more than 60 percent of its value last fall.

Last week, FINRA finally took public action to address the issue by recognizing the problem and temporarily halting all claims against UBS Puerto Rico while FINRA creates a protocol to administer the cases. Silver Law Group urges FINRA to quickly address these issues and avoid unnecessary delay.

FINRA and the securities industry force investors to arbitrate all disputes with a broker-dealer through an arbitration clause in the customer agreement. However, FINRA arbitration is promoted as a fast, inexpensive process for deciding disputes. Many investors are now frustrated by a system which cannot administratively manage their claims. Investors have suggested, amongst other solutions:

FINRA Fines LPL Financial Over Alternative Investments

March 26, 2014 | Silver Law Group

LPL Financial, the self-proclaimed “nation’s largest independent broker-dealer” was recently fined $950,000 by securities regulator FINRA for allegedly failing to supervise its brokers that sold alternative investments. In a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”), signed March 24, 2014, LPL Financial (“LPL”) settled FINRA’s charges that it failed to implement an adequate supervisory system for the sale of alternative investments.

FINRA’s complaint focuses on LPL’s failure to have a suitable system in place to identify and determine whether purchases of alternative investments, such as equipment leasing programs, real estate limited partnerships, hedge funds, and managed futures, caused its customers’ accounts to be unsuitably concentrated in these types of investments. The allegations further state that LPL’s three-tiered supervisory system had deficiencies at each tier that allowed its customers to become overconcentrated in alternative investments from January 1, 2008 through July 1, 2012.

Alternative investments are complex, high-commission, investments frequently sold by investment banks as an alternative to investing in the stock market. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a press release in 2014 to remind financial advisors of the compliance requirements related to the recommendation of alternative investments to investors. Despite this, few retail investors are advised that alternative investments can be illiquid, speculative, and rife with conflicts of interest. Unfortunately for investors, the $950,000 fine will not be paid to the victims. Instead, investors who have been damaged may pursue FINRA arbitration claims to recover damages.

SEC Investor Bulletin Educates Investors About Impact of Fees on Portfolio Values

March 24, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Investor Bulletin on fees and expenses reminds investors about the effect fees on investment accounts can have on a portfolio over the long run. According to the SEC Investor Bulletin, “These fees may seem small, but over time they can have a major impact on your investment portfolio.” The SEC’s Office of Investor Education illustrates the effects through the use of a graph. In the hypothetical example, a $100,000 portfolio is assumed to grow 4% annually with annual fees of 0.25%, 0.50% and 1.00% that are deducted over a 20-year period. The differences between the account values at the end of period show a $30,000 disparity in portfolio values between the portfolios with 1.00% and 0.25% in annual fees deducted from the respective portfolios. This simplistic example should make investors wary about the fees they are paying, whether disclosed or not, these fees can greatly diminish any retirement nest egg.

The SEC Investor Bulletin urges investors to “get informed” by reviewing account statements, confirmations and investment prospectuses to become better informed. The bulletin also provides helpful questions investors should ask their financial advisors before investing:

What are all the fees relating to this account?

Merrill Lynch Hedge Fund Investors Offered Opportunity To Exit The Endowment Fund With Substantial Losses

March 7, 2014 | Silver Law Group

According to recent SEC filings, the Endowment Master Fund LP, has offered investors an exit strategy from the hedge fund offering a new fund through a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) which will be used to liquidate the Fund. The Endowment Master Fund, LP was marketed heavily by Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch. The PPM describes the Offer as a like-kind exchange of investors’ pro-rata interest of the portfolio holdings into a new PMF Fund, LP. According to the SEC filings, dated February 20, 2014, “the PMF Fund, LP and the Endowment Master Fund, LP will be managed differently, with the PMF Fund, LP managed for purposes of orderly liquidation.”

For investors, the Offer provides little certainty because investors must choose whether to liquidate now without knowing the true value of the Fund which will be determined at a later date. `The Offer for the like-kind exchange expires March 19, 2014 which requires more than a leap of faith for investors in a hedge fund that has languished far behind the market returns. Investors must make an investment decision without knowledge of the value exchanged and how much will be realized during the liquidation period. According to the New York Times article, After Weak Returns, the Endowment Fund Limits Withdrawals, the hedge fund, “began to struggle in 2011, suffering losses of about 4.1 percent, after fees, compared with a gain of 2.5 percent by the S&P 500.”

On February 24, 2014, a Thomson Reuters article underscores the effects of the substantial hedge fund costs on the Funds dismal performance, “Even for investors who stay with the fund, there will be high costs. They will not be permitted to ask for any money back this year. They will also be charged a 1 percent management fee and a 1 percent servicing fee. On top of that there will be the fund’s underlying managers’ 1.3 percent management fee and a 16 percent of profits as an incentive fee.” The article points to the hedge fund underperformance in 2013, “with the fund earning only 2.08 percent last year, dramatically trailing the Standard & Poor’s 32 percent gain.” For Merrill Lynch customer’s, “If investors accessed the Endowment Fund through Merrill Lynch they will have paid as much as a 2.5 percent upfront charge.”